By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Anti-Japan protests in China spread.

Kasz216 on 17 September 2012
SickleSigh said:
Mai has it correct. This is political staging in the South China sea. America has been upping their military presence in the area and staging practice invasions. China and Russia are both worried about America's ambitions and they have every right to be. If America invades Iran they will be right next to Russia and be able to surround China. No country is really pursuing imperialistic ambitions anymore except America. China in Africa is not political hegemony imo.


Yeah.... no.

The United States isn't planning to conquer Russia and China.  That's just silly.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 17 September 2012
green_sky said:
mai said:


They think there could be oil on these islands.

Nothing! Diaoyu Islands are as much important as Falkland Islands, which the best imprtance I could  think of is they're probably inhabited by penguins.

 

And here again people are discussing anything but what actually matters here. It's nothing like it very complicated.

There're certain ROC interests in the South China Sea which they see as fair simply because they are major force in the region. There's anti-Chinese bloc on the other side, surronding it including Vietnam, Taiwan, Philippines and Japan. It goes without saying whose bitches these countries are, the US bitches :D (well, outside Vietnam maybe, but it strongly graviated to anti-Chinese block recently). All these protests about god forsaken Diaoyou island for thousands time are merely acts of the play "Who's the toughests kid on the block?".

With that being said, I always laugh when yet another weapons industry lobbyist in Congress or MSM is braging about Chinese threat (hence recent Billy Hertz article in The Washington Times about DF-41, bla-bla-blah Obama is disarming America, making us vulnerable to China, sold his soul to communists and other BS). Yeah, threat :D They're baerly able to compete with US bitches bullying them not far from their coastline. Poor Chinese.

Thanks for your insights. The last part is quite interesting as no matter what happens anywhere in the world. The US mainstream media starts to talk about immenent threats and expanding the defense budget. Which is bigger than next 10 nations combined. I am sure there is good that comes from it but people with big money and stake (defense contracts) who benefit from conflict forget the presence of their own mortality. No prince or wizard has been able to take the billions with them after they died or atleast it seems thus so far. 

That's just because USA GDP is so high.  Our military budget is fairly equal with GDP...

 

 

 

Actual spending as a percentage of GDP is actually less then you would expect for a "Super Power".

Plus weapons make a great export.  One of few things the US government makes money on.  Plus, having the used outdated weapons of the USA is a pretty strong incentive not to oppose the USA military wise.

Could do a lot without the global policing and slim down the amount of equipment a bit, but constant developing of new tech/selling the best old weapons is worth it.



SickleSigh on 17 September 2012

Read my post again. No one is talking about conquest. Political hegemony involves many things besides imperialism, such as treaties, economic aid, free trade benefiting one more than the other, arming rebel groups, etc etc.

Please provide a broader argument if you wish to say something, A direct counter argument would be America has already conquered Russia in the Cold War, considering it was....a Cold War fought over ideologies. The Great Race in the 18th century between Empire of Britain and Empire of Russia over East/West civilizations.

To say America has no ambitions of slowing China's growth or Russia's defiance of NATO and Western policies is false and proven.



Jon-Erich on 17 September 2012
mai said:
Stefl1504 said:
Jon-Erich said:
What is so important about these islands that caused these protests in the first place?


They think there could be oil on these islands.

Nothing! Diaoyu Islands are as much important as Falkland Islands, the best importance of which I could  think of is they're probably inhabited by penguins.

 

And here again people are discussing anything but what actually matters here. It's nothing like it very complicated.

There're certain ROC interests in the South China Sea which they see as fair simply because they are major force in the region. There's anti-Chinese bloc on the other side, surronding it including Vietnam, Taiwan, Philippines and Japan. It goes without saying whose bitches these countries are, the US bitches :D (well, outside Vietnam maybe, but it strongly graviated to anti-Chinese bloc recently). All these protests about god forsaken Diaoyou Islands for thousands time are merely acts of the play "Who's the toughests kid on the block?".

With that being said, I always laugh when yet another weapons industry lobbyist in Congress or MSM is braging about Chinese threat (hence recent Billy Hertz article in The Washington Times about DF-41, bla-bla-blah Obama is disarming America, making us vulnerable to China, sold his soul to communists and other BS). Yeah, threat :D They're barely able to compete with US bitches bullying them not far from their coastline. Poor Chinese.

But didn't China sell these islands to the Japanese?



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

SickleSigh on 17 September 2012

Also the data for GDP % spending on the DOD is very unreliable. The Department of Defense does not give all data freely on their spending and is immune to audits. Most contracts are heavily subsidized and tax exempt making them impossible to see the proper data.

It doesn't involve foreign aid spending not publicly listed such as rebel arms groups and covert operations which affect national security. We spend closer to 5-8% of GDP which is pretty high for a "civilized" industrial nation.



Around the Network
SickleSigh on 17 September 2012
Jon-Erich said:
mai said:
Stefl1504 said:
Jon-Erich said:
What is so important about these islands that caused these protests in the first place?


They think there could be oil on these islands.

Nothing! Diaoyu Islands are as much important as Falkland Islands, the best importance of which I could  think of is they're probably inhabited by penguins.

 

And here again people are discussing anything but what actually matters here. It's nothing like it very complicated.

There're certain ROC interests in the South China Sea which they see as fair simply because they are major force in the region. There's anti-Chinese bloc on the other side, surronding it including Vietnam, Taiwan, Philippines and Japan. It goes without saying whose bitches these countries are, the US bitches :D (well, outside Vietnam maybe, but it strongly graviated to anti-Chinese bloc recently). All these protests about god forsaken Diaoyou Islands for thousands time are merely acts of the play "Who's the toughests kid on the block?".

With that being said, I always laugh when yet another weapons industry lobbyist in Congress or MSM is braging about Chinese threat (hence recent Billy Hertz article in The Washington Times about DF-41, bla-bla-blah Obama is disarming America, making us vulnerable to China, sold his soul to communists and other BS). Yeah, threat :D They're barely able to compete with US bitches bullying them not far from their coastline. Poor Chinese.

But didn't China sell these islands to the Japanese?

No, Japan invaded them until WWII when U.S. controled them and gave them back to Japan.



melbye on 17 September 2012

Is it bad that my first thought was how this will affect the production of WiiU



Kasz216 on 17 September 2012
SickleSigh said:
Read my post again. No one is talking about conquest. Political hegemony involves many things besides imperialism, such as treaties, economic aid, free trade benefiting one more than the other, arming rebel groups, etc etc.

Please provide a broader argument if you wish to say something, A direct counter argument would be America has already conquered Russia in the Cold War, considering it was....a Cold War fought over ideologies. The Great Race in the 18th century between Empire of Britain and Empire of Russia over East/West civilizations.

To say America has no ambitions of slowing China's growth or Russia's defiance of NATO and Western policies is false and proven.


Except that's exactly what your post suggested when talking about military positioning to russia and invasion exercises.

It's hard to provide a broad arguement to something so silly.

 

As for political hegemony.  Pay closer attention to the inroads China has made in Africa and South America.  They're forming their own economic counter axis.



mai on 17 September 2012

Kasz216 said:

Yeah.... no.

The United States isn't planning to conquer Russia and China.  That's just silly.

Speaking about the stupidiest way of twisting this :D Are you denying the fact that military presence in certain regions does matter?

If so, you just in denial.

 

Kasz216 said:

That's just because USA GDP is so high.  Our military budget is fairly equal with GDP...

Actual spending as a percentage of GDP is actually less then you would expect for a "Super Power".

Plus weapons make a great export.  One of few things the US government makes money on.  Plus, having the used outdated weapons of the USA is a pretty strong incentive not to oppose the USA military wise.

Could do a lot without the global policing and slim down the amount of equipment a bit, but constant developing of new tech/selling the best old weapons is worth it.

How exactly % of GDP is a good equivalent of military spending? This's like saying my head is bigger, therefore I'm smarter than you're :D

US weapons export yearly is in range of a few to 10 billions yearly, 20 if counting future deliveries. This's comparable to other major exporters. US military budget is like in order of magnitude bigger, this is where all real money are. But as you'd probably understand no one is allowed there except for domestic manufacturers outside of few minor things.

Main contributors to US military spendings are:

1) The burden of being engaged in two wars silmutaneously plus supporting roles in other conflicts, imagine logistics for all these.
2) The burden of supporting 11 (or is this 10 now?) "90,000 tons of diplomacy" CBGs sailing in the seas (well, there're other maintance costs, but I'd imagine in terms importance and costs it's the biggest contributor).
3) R&Ds and actual product that cost an arm and a leg.
4) Lobbying spendings (in other countries it called corruption), the biggest lobby in the US only behind the finance & banking and oil & energy industries.



Kasz216 on 17 September 2012
SickleSigh said:
Also the data for GDP % spending on the DOD is very unreliable. The Department of Defense does not give all data freely on their spending and is immune to audits. Most contracts are heavily subsidized and tax exempt making them impossible to see the proper data.

It doesn't involve foreign aid spending not publicly listed such as rebel arms groups and covert operations which affect national security. We spend closer to 5-8% of GDP which is pretty high for a "civilized" industrial nation.

That is a fallacy in, such things aren't going to be reported by any countries.

Also, we know that money is spent.  Just not where.. and we know it's on defense.