AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: In China, a Strategy Born of Weakness
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
In China, a Strategy Born of Weakness

This article probably explains why China is reluctant to put pressure on Korea.
(07-14-2017, 08:25 PM)WarBicycle Wrote: [ -> ]In China, a Strategy Born of Weakness

This article probably explains why China is reluctant to put pressure on Korea.

Its a Great Article, and explains why PRC is forced to be the world's greatest juggler.  Trying to keep everything together and satisfying everybody, plus holding the ethnic diversity of the outlying provinces in one system is the ultimate Houdini Act.  It can only go on for just so long, and when the first pin/ball falls, the rest will also come down in quick succession.  

Once technology intrudes into a static system, all bets are off, because the citizenry can see what is happening in the rest of the world.  And they will want their share of the independence/wealth that this allows.   The only thing PRC knows how to do is use force to maintain its iron grip over its vast territory.  

Perhaps we should get "38 Special" to do an extended tour of the country and introduce Southern Rock to the land.  Especially "Hold On Loosely"

Quote:Just hold on loosely
But don't let go
If you cling to tightly
You're gonna lose control

To me, it is going to be entertaining just to see how PRC finally comes unglued.  Will it be the result of the outlying provinces rebelling, or perhaps the inner provinces, unhappy with being held back by force, wanting to chart their own course?   As John Naisbitt stated in Global Paradox, "The more we act globally, the more we think locally/tribally".   People want to preserve their own uniqueness, And also have control of their own destiny.  Large countries/populations by their very nature, don't allow for this.

38 Special - Hold On Loosely




Man, that fellow sure can play a Mean Guitar! S22
Friedman thinks China is in a heap of trouble. China, Russia and he says Germany because they depend on exports disproportionately.

He said the wealth of China is a façade.
(07-16-2017, 03:18 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]Friedman thinks China is in a heap of trouble. China, Russia and he says Germany because they depend on exports disproportionately.

He said the wealth of China is a façade.

That's a good part of their problem.  Japan had the same problem and never recovered from their big economic recession of the 1990s.  'Course the World Bank made things worse by getting them to apply the Keynesian Superstition of "Stimulating the economy by going into debt through spending".  They've been digging out ever since.

The rest of their problem is what is going to doom them.  They are simply Too Large and Too ethnically heterogeneous to remain stable over time. They can only afford just so many "Tiananmen Squares" before it all backfires on them.
He said Japan is a much greater power than China, has a much more powerful navy as well. He also thinks China's navy is a joke, but, he says our security types blow smoke about it to get more dollars for our navy.

Says the US is as strong as any power ever has been, especially controlling every ocean.

I was watching a couple of his videos today. He made a point about Europe. It was funny, he said for 400 years Europeans ruled the world, then WWII happens and suddenly all of Europe is either an American colony or a Russian colony.
(07-16-2017, 07:37 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]He said Japan is a much greater power than China, has a much more powerful navy as well. He also thinks China's navy is a joke, but, he says our security types blow smoke about it to get more dollars for our navy.

That's basic human nature, especially when there is a pie, divided between different competing agencies.  That's why strong willed people with 'tight purse strings' have to control the money, in order to keep everyone reigned in fiscally.

(07-16-2017, 07:37 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]Says the US is as strong as any power ever has been, especially controlling every ocean.

He's right, we are.  But we are not unbeatable, as the North Vietnamese proved in the 60s and early 70s.  Unconventional warfare does not require the biggest and baddest tinker toys available.

(07-16-2017, 07:37 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]I was watching a couple of his videos today. He made a point about Europe. It was funny, he said for 400 years Europeans ruled the world, then WWII happens and suddenly all of Europe is either an American colony or a Russian colony.

If he stated it the way you put it here, he's wrong.  Western Europe was never an American colony.  If he believes that, he's either blowing smoke or trying to spin a political agenda.

The fact is that some Europe entities controlled most of the world, through discovery and trade.  But WWI did all of them in economically.  Almost all of the colonies were on auto-pilot after that, because Europe was economically destitute.  How Hitler was able to revive Germany was a military issue, and not so much an economic one.  And after WWII, all of Europe was pretty much expended again.  The colonies were in neutral, and about ready to clamour for their independence.  

After WWII the US was really the only military capable of keeping the Soviets in check, so this fell to the US because it had no choice.  And Europe had a chance to restore its economies by the early 60s.  But then they went on the "Welfare State" binge via Democratic Socialism, and they never bothered reclaiming their responsibility of self-defense.  After all they had the Huge Titty of the US to suck on.

This "American Colony" manure wasn't something you inserted on your own, was it?  Spiteful
No, he used terminology like that. I agree with him, you just have to be able to use flexibility when thinking about words. He has you tube videos all over the place if you want to see some.

Colony in the sense of the North American colonies is apt here, not like say the USSR did with Romania.

Before our revolt, we and Canadians were appreciative of being British citizens, depended on the British nation for special trade access, special military protection as their colonies including sea access protected by the British Navy, special governing order and as importantly, we nor Canada would have imagined having a foreign decision at basic odds with London back then.

That's appears to me how it is right now with NATO, John. That's how it was in the east with the USSR. Special trade deals, special military protection and if anyone inside either clique began to gravitate to a foreign view intolerable to us, they'd have been severely punished.

We would remove them from the family, as some are suggesting right now with Turkey. That's not an outrageous idea, Turkey may be at the point she is no longer willing to live within these constraints.

We just don't have to use force and that term is not needed to have a colony. Europeans are willing subjects of the USA and so are the Nipponese just like we were here pre 1776( and Canada was). The USSR colonies were not as voluntary, but, that doesn't define a colonial status, IMO. It didn't with us back in the day.
(07-17-2017, 10:15 AM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]No, he used terminology like that. I agree with him, you just have to be able to use flexibility when thinking about words. He has you tube videos all over the place if you want to see some.

Colony in the sense of the North American colonies is apt here, not like say the USSR did with Romania.

Before our revolt, we and Canadians were appreciative of being British citizens, depended on the British nation for special trade access, special military protection as their colonies including sea access protected by the British Navy, special governing order and as importantly, we nor Canada would have imagined having a foreign decision at basic odds with London back then.

That's appears to me how it is right now with NATO, John. That's how it was in the east with the USSR. Special trade deals, special military protection and if anyone inside either clique began to gravitate to a foreign view intolerable to us, they'd have been severely punished.

We would remove them from the family, as some are suggesting right now with Turkey. That's not an outrageous idea, Turkey may be at the point she is no longer willing to live within these constraints.

We just don't have to use force and that term is not needed to have a colony. Europeans are willing subjects of the USA and so are the Nipponese just like we were here pre 1776( and Canada was). The USSR colonies were not as voluntary, but, that doesn't define a colonial status, IMO. It didn't with us back in the day.

If he has all those videos all over the place on Youtube, then why don't you link to one, or more, so others can see it for themselves?

Do you need help doing that? I will be happy to show you how. S5
Things are cyclical. What goes up goes down, and everythi9ng reconfigures. After WWII, for instance, Germany was destitute, and it was the US Army's presence that sustained the population from starvation. The individual soldiers helped the women and children as the men were dragged all over Europe rebuilding infrastructure in work gangs - while not even being given sustenance calories. The people fell in love with the soldiers for being kind while the rest of Europe were busy hating and ruining them. It's no wonder the West became a positive influence and pattern.
That was probably the finest moment in American history, too. The occupations of a very hated, defeated enemy done with humility and whether out of a national character or cold calculation, appeared to be mostly virtue love. We hardly act like that now is why I hate our foreign policy.

We're as hard hearted as hell, less than intelligent in many of our moves and willy nilly have made wars on people no threat to us since 1995.

Below is per John's request.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_q...e+friedman
(07-17-2017, 11:16 AM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]We hardly act like that now is why I hate our foreign policy.

We're as hard hearted as hell, less than intelligent in many of our moves and willy nilly have made wars on people no threat to us since 1995.

Oh, Bullshit! We're still basically the same as before. The only difference is that instead of fighting conventional forces, we have been forced to fight insurgents. We go into a village we have taken from the VC and help the villagers with food, help and what all. Then on the way out, someone shoots us in the back. If you don't think that changes one's perspective about who is and isn't the enemy, then you're living in La-La Land.

Fighting a conventional enemy is completely different from fighting insurgents. If you are going to survive you HAVE to be harder in your outlook, because you don't know who is going to try to kill you, whether it be a man, woman, or even a child. You should have to spend some time on the front lines and have to endure what our troops do. You'd feel different after awhile.

Furthermore, the US was the very first ones to develop munitions that could be guided to the target. We did it for two reasons. One, to hit the target with less munitions, but 2. to keep from killing innocent civilians. We go out of our way to keep from killing innocent people, while you all spend every minute blaming us for being barbarians, running around killing anyone and everyone. Gah
Attacking all the folks we have since 1995 is too much evidence, we've become a bunch of bullies. Not 1 case was protecting us, not 1.

We're making enemies faster than we are killing people.



This isn't a debate about how to handle ISIS or al qaeda, it's about all we've done since 1995 to various states, not terror groups( not to mention ISIS would not exist w/o us attacking one of those states).

We're a big out of control bully who is willing to kill for no moral justification whatsoever and it never has had dick to do with protecting us. That's murder. You're going to face this one of these days, now's the time to do so.

The USA is an international bully at this time. Only a flag waving, subjective, American can't see this reality.

You need to take a hard look at it as if you were a Serbian, Iraqi, Syrian, Libyan.
(07-17-2017, 07:40 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]Attacking all the folks we have since 1995 is too much evidence, we've become a bunch of  bullies. Not 1 case was protecting us, not 1.

We're making enemies faster than we are killing people.

 

This isn't a debate about how to handle ISIS or al qaeda, it's about all we've done since 1995 to various states, not terror groups( not to mention ISIS would not exist w/o us attacking one of those states).

We're a big out of control bully who is willing to kill for no moral justification whatsoever and it never has had dick to do with protecting us. That's murder. You're going to face this one of these days, now's the time to do so.

 The USA is an international bully at this time. Only a flag waving, subjective, American can't see this reality.

You need to take a hard look at it as if you were a Serbian, Iraqi, Syrian, Libyan.

I agree that we should not be getting into all the things we are getting into. Unfortunately, we are stuck in a position as leader of the Western World, because of our economic might. I don't like it, you don't like it. But the alternate reality is even worse in the long run.

And too, you are always thinking "tactics" and not "strategy" because many of the things you don't understand are done with long term goals in mind. You are only thinking just beyond your Johnson on some of these.
Stuck my ass. We'd kill a billion people to maintain our current role.

If we can't do better than this list of trash interventions with our "leadership", we would help most folks by just withdrawing our troops from all the bases we have all over the earth in say a 5 year window and allow how we wouldn't be sending them back.

Everyone do what you have to do.
(07-17-2017, 10:19 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]Stuck my ass. We'd kill a billion people to maintain our current role.

If we can't do better than this list of trash interventions with our "leadership", we would help most folks by just withdrawing our troops from all the bases we have all over the earth in say a 5 year window and allow how we wouldn't be sending them back.

 Everyone do what you have to do.

You are making my point here, in spades. Your sense of reality.......................I'm wrong, you don't have any real sense of reality here. If I was as angry and dissatisfied as you are with with my country, I would have to denounce my citizenship. I'm serious. Banghead
Alright, let's get back on track here. China's strategy really is born out of weakness, as the opening post shows.

And what is interesting is that while Trump has been talking "Protectionism", what he is actually doing is attacking PRC over Illegal activity concerning intellectual property which does not legally belong to them. There is a difference there, and I'm glad he is not pursuing the former, but rather the later.

U.S. formally launches probe of China's intellectual property practices

Quote:The United States on Friday formally launched an investigation into China's alleged theft of U.S. intellectual property, a widely expected move following a call from President Donald Trump earlier this week to determine whether a probe was needed.

The probe is the administration's first direct measure against Chinese trade practices, which the White House and U.S. business groups say are bruising American industry.

"After consulting with stakeholders and other government agencies, I have determined that these critical issues merit a thorough investigation," U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, the nation's top trade negotiator, said in a statement.

Trump repeatedly railed against Chinese trade practices on the campaign trail, but as president he had not taken significant action until this week.

China had rebuffed attempts by previous American presidents to take action against its IP practices. Administration officials have said that China's theft of U.S. intellectual property could amount to as much as $600 million.

The probe will likely further complicate the U.S. relationship with China, the country's largest trading partner. The Trump administration has been pressing Beijing to take steps to encourage North Korea to curb its nuclear and missile programs.