|
Brennanite posted:Throwing in my two-cents on the Taiwan-China issue is that Taiwan can go only more or less as it is. China, however, is obsessed with reunification. This is partially cultural, as the belief that all areas of Chinese culture should be unified under one government, and partially political, as the government is deeply concerned about a break-up a la the USSR and they don't want Taiwan to be an example of autonomy. My impression from chatting to people is that China really favours the status quo. There's no particular appetite for reunification, but there's the simultaneous notion that if Taiwan declares independence or whatever China would be obligated to act. I don't think anyone in the leadership is deluded as to what the de facto status is, but neither do they want to set a precedent by visibly letting go of Taiwan.
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
Fiendish_Ghoul posted:So, Bo Guagua has surfaced and might get political asylum in the US? It's probably worth some US political points to oppose the CCP though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2012 11:39
|
|
|
Ronald Spiers posted:I don't see how giving asylum to a Communist princeling will give anyone points. The Chinese want him back, and that's enough. That it's opposing the Chinese would be the important thing. The individual can easily be painted as a heroic dissident or a political victim as needed - if not by the admin, then by his opponents looking for ammunition for claiming Obama is 'soft on China'. Who would be expected to look into the details?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2012 10:36
|
|
|
Ronald Spiers posted:Wow, what an amazingly short-sighted thing to do. There is no way to paint him as a heroic dissident or political victim. Everyone knows he is a playboy who relied on his parents black and soiled money. If anything, he would be a potential threat to the US if he is of anything like his vindictive parents, especially if he is like his Maoist father. None of his classmates mention he had pro-reform and pro-democracy dispositions, in fact his classmates describe him at best a Chinese patriot, at worst a nationalist. It is a known fact before the whole scandal broke-out, he wanted to eventually go back to China and follow in his father's footsteps or make a billion dollars and be an influential player in Chinese governance. Dude, we're talking about a mass media that painted the Lord's Resistance Army as a heroic movement for religious tolerance, because Obama was opposed to them. The vast majority of americans haven't heard of Bo Xilai, let alone the bit players. Guagua just needs to make a couple of speeches about a sudden and newfound love of freedom and democracy, and it'll look - or can be made - very politically inconvenient to send him back in an election year where opposition to China is a vote winning issue.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2012 12:51
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:He's reportedly not seeking asylum, but just wants a position to negotiate with the Chinese government for humane treatment of him and his family. Of course, fat chance of that. This is just another embarrassment for the government already dealing with the Bo incident, and there's no way they'd let him live a 'normal' life like he's demanding. I wouldn't be so sure. The Chinese government doesn't want a martyr at a sensitive time like this, and so far the guy has done everything right in terms of blaming the local authority and appealing to Wen Jiabao to take control. And thus far official statements have been very quiet. I imagine there's some careful discussions right now as to how to handle this. A Wukan style deal may well come. I don't read the Bo incident as an embarrassment. Rather it has been a managed set of events that have enabled Beijing to remove a potential threat while retaining - even gaining public and international backing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
My parents are watching an old documentary on Guoguo. He's telling a weepy tale about how he could never get enough to eat while at Harrow.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
Like with Wukan, there's what the situation actually was. Then there is what the CCP prefers the situation to look like. And finally, there's what the situation might become. These are three different things. Beijing might well have known and allowed CGC's situation for a variety of reasons, but allowing Beijing to reframe the narrative as 'oh we didn't know' is this guy's best chance.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
I cannot believe the CCP would so openly ask a foreign government to relay such a flagrantly illegal and atrocious threat. My guess is that there has been a failure of communication - someone's speculation got misinterpreted as a message, perhaps.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
50 cent etc do exist, true, but there's an irritating tendency to just dismiss anyone saying anything sufficiently opposed to whatever a particular person believes as paid propaganda. It's rarely helpful, or really even makes much difference. After all, let's be honest, there is no shortage of unpaid stupidity online.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:Asylum seekers are a special case. If we were to go out to Shandong with some kind of task force and pluck Chen from his village because we feared for his human rights, that would be beyond inexcusable and constitute something even worse than mere meddling in Chinese domestic politics. But he came to the embassy seeking asylum, and it is a long standing US policy to grant it in the case of likely human rights abuses. He specifically did not ask to seek asylum, though. Depending on who you believe, he wanted to remain within the embassy as a sort of sanctuary for years. Which seems to push the limits of what the embassy can legitimately provide. IANAL, but it seems like there's a distinction here between what the embassy offers to an asylum applicant, and to someone who is a citizen of a different country who, in his words, just happens to wish to make use of medical facilities and habitation there. From a legalistic point of view, it seems to me somewhat arguable that by claiming *not to be an asylum seeker* while at the embassy, Chen put himself in the position where his threat of persecution was not examined and recognised by the usual channels, and so in terms legal status he was just any random person the US was assisting without any particular duty to. Fangz fucked around with this message at 21:08 on May 3, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
dj_clawson posted:Or he could man up for a change. One of my major disappointments for Obama is his China policy of putting economics before human rights. Other presidents and their secretaries of state have raised issues in the past, and a result, people have gotten out of jail or the CCP has at least made a public show out of looking less like what they are while diplomats are in town. 'Territorial integrity' and 'domestic sovereignty' is China's core value in international affairs. China will *NEVER EVER* act in such a way that it appears that they backed down under US pressure. If they do it for Chen, then they lose all international credibility on the whole range of other issues, ranging from Taiwan, to Tibet, or the Uighurs, and so on. That the US demanded something publically of them is a strong reason to not do something, and any member of the CCP who appeared to respond to such a demand will be humiliated and destroyed. The only way to apply diplomatic pressure at this point is privately through backchannels. To make any concrete measures take place, the Chinese must be allowed to develop a narrative that they *chose* this. The stronger the public pressure foreign powers put on them, the more the Chinese will shift to the defensive position of 'gently caress off, none of your business', and CGC will never get a positive resolution.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
GuestBob posted:Fixed that for you. The Chinese government cares a drat sight less about international opinion than it does about the Party's domestic image. The jingoistic nationalism which is pumped out through the media and fostered in schools and Universities is a double edged sword. China's economic strength and international standing are pretty much the only two issues that people have been taught to judge the government on. I think you underestimate the international factor. American influence these days is to most of the world a giant shitstain that corrupts everything it touches. It's vital to the Chinese strategic interest that it presents itself as not-America. If however China shows itself to be vulnerable to economic strings being pulled even in its own house, it'll lose its distinctiveness and be labelled just another American stooge, undoing two decades of work done to build critical relationships in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 13:43
|
|
|
The modern German state can charitably be dated to the aftermath of WWI, but strictly speaking is a product of the Marshall plan period following WWII. If you are considering the PRC as young (and so disregarding the CCP claim to be the direct inheritors of the original republican China vision), then you certainly cannot credibly argue China is much younger than Germany. And Japan is arguably changed even more radically than China in the war, so I don't know how one can argue it's a 19th century state. Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:12 on May 9, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
It seems to me that the real estate bubble in China is going to be qualitatively different from the one in the west. The big deal in the west was that real estate purchases were financed by heavy amounts of borrowing, so that when prices fell, this led to many cases of negative equity. Hence, when people defaulted, the impact was passed along to the lenders, and the whole domino effect swept through the system. In China, in comparison, the average debt level is just so much lower. So if the bubble bursts, some individuals will lose money, sure, but I can't see a mechanism for it to bring any wider collapse to the system.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 12:18
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:The problem with your thinking is that the proportion of the Chinese economy tied up in this real estate bubble is absolutely massive. Commercial and residential construction + infrastructure projects make up a truly ridiculous proportion of their GDP, hence Chovanec's research indicating even a small decrease in real estate could reduce GDP by as much as 40% as all the secondary and tertiary spillovers grind the economy to a halt. It's not "just a property bubble", because it's driving the majority of commerce in the world's second-largest economy. It will have ramifications akin to the U.S. housing bubble, which coincidentally is what first tripped off this European adventure. WAIT STOP. That's not what the quote says. The quote says a very rough estimate says a small decrease in real estate investment would reduce GDP growth by 40%. It would not reduce GDP by 40% because that's an unthinkable cataclysm. By Chovanec's article which uses various contentious assumptions that gives estimates higher than everyone else's, real estate investment is 13% of GDP. Not 'the majority of commerce'. Moreover, from an economic perspective, such an idealised estimate is stupid. Money that has been pulled out from investment into real estate does not merely cease to exist. It is put into other things. Hence, you will likely see an offsetting increase in output in other sectors. It's just a sectoral slowdown. Nothing in here even slightly compares to the vast systematic problems the credit crunch caused in the US, let alone the financial armageddons that hit Ireland. There's just no identified analogy for the subprime mortages which were such a potent multiplier in that crisis. Worst case scenario? China's growth drops temporarily to 3.5%. Big loving deal. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:56 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Flailing I'm sorry, but if you intend to handwave away sticking words in Chovanec's mouth to call 13% the majority of commerce and equate temporary GDP growth with actual GDP, then plainly you have no interest in any accuracy in your posts whatsoever. My problem is not with Chovanec, though no doubt you can probably find plenty of experts who dispute his analysis. My problem is with your interpretation and wild, inaccurately phrased speculations of doom and destruction that bear little relation to what Chovanec says. You also need to look into the causes of the Irish economic crisis. The Irish collapse came not because of investors pulling out of real estate, but because of massive financial failures in terms of bad loans (in particular, loans to people who weren't merely unable to repay, but could never be able to repay even if all their assets were liquidated) and exposure to the wider economic crisis producing banks in debt to the tune of 309% of GDP! Continuously shouting Spain and Ireland doesn't make China into Spain and Ireland. Because China isn't Spain and Ireland. If the real estate sector were instantaneously turned into oblivion, Chinese banks would not be in that much debt. Right now, it seems pretty obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. Fangz fucked around with this message at 20:18 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
So CGC is out of China now. Like I said, backdoor negotiations work, while public showboating really doesn't.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2012 14:16
|
|
|
It's a flawed comparison, but it's possibly useful to compare things with the situation in India. http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/...ion+growth+rate Obviously, this hides the issue of the rural-urban divide. Most likely the rural indian population are having a lot more children than this indicates. Being extremely speculative for a moment, in terms of the demographic time bomb, my feelings are that China, perhaps, is actually rather uniquely placed to be able to implement certain drastic and probably unethical measures to deal with it, if it becomes necessary. Would euthanising the elderly Logan's Run style, for instance, be really unthinkable for the CCP in such a circumstance? Fangz fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Jun 3, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2012 13:48
|
|
|
You can say the same for traditional attitudes on large families with lots of children, before the One Child Policy drive. And while the motivation for control of birth rates is fairly abstract at the ground level, the financial pressure of having to look after an increasing number of elderly people is something that people are going to directly feel. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I don't think it's altogether impossible to sell as an idea if the politburo decides this must be done. (Presumeably, it'd start off with various incentives to 'sacrifice yourself for the good of your family and country', and move on to successively stronger pressures.) Fangz fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Jun 3, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
Enh. Any discussion regard the role of women in the Chinese revolution needs to include the figure of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Qing. This is probably more true: quote:All the I really don't think it's altogether fair to be exceptionalist here. Historically, there's a pretty clear model about how economic patriarchy is broken, and in the West it's basically entirely a matter of the Second World War. It's inevitably the case that the first moves by the government towards gender equality are driven by the realist need for greater manpower. Real reform in attitudes come later, and in many places still have not come. To their credit, communist countries tend to include the equality motif in their propaganda more readily, and I think that myths do slowly become reality in the political sphere. It does seem like progress has stalled, but then again major economic change in China is still recent. On the global gender gap ranking http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2011.pdf China is in the middle of the pack. Worse than France and Israel, better than Italy and Japan. Russia ranks better than France. All are a ways below the UK and the US. China's score is mostly dragged down by the 'health and survival' section, which involves life expectancy ratio, and sex ratio at birth (which China obviously does terrible in). In terms of Economic Participation and Opportunity, China is at roughly an European standard. Fangz fucked around with this message at 13:38 on Jun 4, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2012 13:14
|
|
|
The Chinese-US-Russian relation was long and complex, and I don't think any forum post is going to cover it. It's basically a matter of a variety of different aspects. 1. The ideological aspect. The Chinese, initially, stressed a form of communism focused on the rural areas, whereas the Russians focused on urban socialism. So, while the Russians let the rural areas starve as grain was appropriated for the cities, the Chinese sent out urban elites into the countryside for 're-education'. Both wanted ownership of the global communism 'brand'. The Chinese, for their part, persistently criticised the Russians for being too cautious and defensive in promoting global revolution, while the Russians derided the Chinese as unstable fanatics. It's not clear whether each side actually believed this, or whether it provided just an easy target for rhetoric. 2. The realpolitik aspect. The Russians were totally paranoid about having a potentially hostile neighbour, while the Chinese had both a staunch belief in their national mythos of greatness being repressed by foreign powers, and rememberance of past Russian hostility that went perhaps to the brink of nuclear war. The Chinese saw Soviet influence in Vietnam and elsewhere as an attempt to create facts on the ground whereby the Chinese would to surrounded and East Asia turned into what had happened with Eastern Europe. America in turn encouraged the Sino-Soviet split, since it weakened the enemy in the cold war. 3. The economy. Well, not much needs to be said about that. Even these days, though Russia and China have broadly speaking an alliance as part of a sort of informal Unamerican axis, most adults in China had grown up through decades that were dominated by Chinese-US cooperation against the Russians, and are well aware that continued good economic relations with the US is very important to Chinese welfare. While the Chinese and the Russians have come into agreement on some issues, they are in no way as interdependent at the Sino-American relationship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China Compared to the trade done with the US and the EU, Chinese trade with Russia is just tiny.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2012 18:08
|
|
|
Suicide rates are a notoriously unreliable proxy for some idea of public wellbeing. In the UK, for example, merely changing the gas supply reduced suicide rates by a third.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
Note that the full report also says China has better gender income equality than the US....
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2012 16:18
|
|
|
There's a distinct wording for male person (nan ren) and a corresponding wording for female person (niu ren). Contrast the man/woman construction in English, with woman etymologically deriving from 'wife' - laughably sexist. If a reader presumes ren alone to be male, then that speaks to the cultural bias of the reader, not something that is present in the language. Fangz fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Jun 21, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2012 09:54
|
|
|
Read a bit more of this article, and it seems still to be bullshit. Moser makes a lot of grand pronouncements about how Chinese people perceive certain sentences, but it seems like he's done no real survey to back this up, and in particular to back up his distinction between cultural sexism of an individual (e.g. presuming someone who is rich to be by default a man) with linguistic sexism. His argument about dyads seem cherry picked, also. What about black-white (hei-bai)? Light-heavy (qing-zhong. Also, note the contradiction with the big-small ordering...)? I'd suggest that Moser's mistake is to seek logical explanations in the words' translation, when what is actually important is the pronunciation. Compare the disparity between the prevalance of lan-lu (blue-green) and lu-lan, which sound similar to male-female.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2012 14:07
|
|
|
Jiang Qing was the pseudonym of Mao Zedong's wife and one of the main instigators of the Cultural Revolution. Also, she died in 1991.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 11:54
|
|
|
Or it's just some random posting on the government website that they aren't going to do anything about, because they have barely enough personnel to maintain their control as it is, let alone this sort of dumb thing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
az jan jananam posted:If repressing Muslim nationalism a pressing need, I don't know what the limits of idiotic policy the CCP can come up with. They could be issuing directives in the mere hope that the issuance has a chilling effect on Muslims. Or they could actually try to enforce it (it is possible). The ban on mosque visitation is certainly trivial. Police states like North Korea are able to compel ridiculous things out of their populace despite their incompetence and fragility, I don't see anything special about China in this regard. China is not a police state like North Korea - it's a state that in actuality has far fewer police per capita than even the US. This rule doesn't even apply to ordinary citizens. It's all about government officials saying they've done something to 'set an example', and won't have the slightest effect on Uighur nationalism except in inflaming tensions. If these guidelines actually enter into enforcement, there will be almost inevitably conflict as a result, someone will get sent down from Beijing to find out what the gently caress happened, and so various locals are going to wind up with undesired attention. Fangz fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Aug 3, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
Nevermind16 posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19166788 Explain what you mean by this.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
Nevermind16 posted:China's so called fishing fleet, which as far as I can tell is basically any group ships that's origin and crew are from China have been involved in quite a few issues over the last few years. None of this relates to this case. quote:"The fault is not with the [Chinese] crew. The case is against the [Sri Lankan] owner now," navy spokesman Kosala Warnakulasuriya told the Reuters news agency. In this case, a *Sri Lankan* fishing ship, that happens to be employing Chinese crew, happened to be breaking Sri Lankan law. And the Sri Lankan authorities decided to go prosecute the owners of the ship instead. No, China is being 'willfully ignorant' in that it does not monitor the actions of Chinese citizens abroad in the employ of foreign companies, but do you seriously expect them to? None of this incident advantages the CCP, because Sri Lanka is a foreign policy ally, and the Sri Lankan restricted zone is in no way disputed territory like Senkaku or whatever, and so the Chinese have no purpose, symbolic or otherwise, to mount some kind of weird conspiracy involving Sri Lankan intermediares, to antagonise a friend. The only relation to Chinese foreign policy here, if there is one, is that it illustrates the benefit to China of friendly relations, that the Sri Lankans decided not to hold the Chinese crew and extract political advantage out of that. And no, in this case, I can't see how 'fishing interests' is driving Chinese foreign policy. 37 dudes in a foreign boat does not match up to many millions of dollars of investment and loans and so on. Fangz fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Aug 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2012 11:04
|
|
|
There's certainly a case to be made about the various disputes with Japan. But like I said, this specific case with Sri Lanka? Not the same at all. I'm not that clear on it, but my impression is that from the view of international law, China has no responsibility to police the waters of other nations. Japan et al might sign agreements with China to cooperate in clamping down on illegal fishing, but the responsibility is in the hands of the Japanese to deal with violations as they see fit. Of course, this is further complicated by the disputed territory issue.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
LP97S posted:I don't know why you're shocked, anti-Japan sentiment is something that's drat near universal for many reasons, many terrible. Examples are abound like the constant stuff in Korea and the Japan Bashing of the 70's, 80's, and 90's in the US. ... Comparing East Asian anti-Japanese sentiment to US racism is almost insultingly simplistic. You are ignoring the vast elephant in the room of massive genocide Japanese perpetrated against Chinese and Koreans, for which in the opinion of most they never properly atoned for, in part due to the realpolitik motivated leniency exhibited by the US. Part of the whole business with the Pinnacle islands issue is that, in the view of the Chinese and Taiwanese, they were conceded by Japan following their surrender (Potsdam convention stipulated that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine", 'we' including the Chinese), but that the US unilaterally decided to give the islands to the Japanese. EDIT: A lot of people think this is about oil and gas. From my understanding, it's not. The current known gas reserves in the area (if my sums are correct), are worth only 5-20 billion dollars, depending on the gas price. Which is tiny compared to China-Japan trade. Barring a *large* discovery in the future, this dispute is all about pride, not economics. Fangz fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Aug 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2012 23:18
|
|
|
LP97S posted:I understand those current issues, I also understand that the US flat out massacred hundreds of thousands of Japanese and even got ready for their genocide later in the war but still bitched about them getting off too easily. You're also ignoring the realpolitik of the Cold War where suddenly there was communist China, it wasn't the US "being lenient" it was the US "wanting to gently caress the Soviets". Like wise, the Japanese lost Formosa, the Korean Peninsula, and the Kurils from a time where the rest of the world was stealing poo poo left and right as well. The Japanese killed millions of Chinese. Is it not understandable there's massive anger about this? In the view of most East Asians, the appropriate punishment for Japan would be something similar to that meted out to the Germans - full scale deconstruction of the state, an analogue of cultural denazification, prosecution and execution of war criminals, and participation by they, the victims, in deciding Japan's fate. Relative to the standards of Germany, Japan indisputably got off lightly, and everyone in the region is understandably pissed off about it whenever Japan does anything related to its WWII actions. I'm not ignoring the realpolitik of the time. US's actions were pragmatic and sensible in the sense of its regional geopolitical goals. The point is however that the US had relative to the others little stake in the consequences, and in many ways set up this conflict by ignoring the grievances of people who have lost massively, and granting a mercy that was not its to grant.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
Ruckby posted:This isn't a "China is poor they must be terrible people" thing, it is a "China has large-scale quality of life issues absent from other developing nations, indicating systematic administrative failings" thing. Absent from which other developing nations? As far as I can tell, there's no such comparison within the article. EDIT: AFAICT, the article is really kinda off - it glides quickly (in the space of a single sentence, more or less) over all the aspects genuinely relevant to locals living there, to focus on a whole lot of snootiness about stuff relevant only to foreign tourists. Who cares if minor cities sport inferior facsimilies of Beijing? What does China's cultural unoriginality actually matter? The foreign traveller can think of the originals in Paris or elsewhere, can moan about there having been no Leonardo Da Vinci of China. But what do the locals care? Fangz fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
This is incorrect. Japan *has* apologised several times for its crimes to the Chinese and Koreans, among others. The problem is that usually this is followed by some kind of event or action that suggests to the Chinese or the Koreans that the Japanese are insincere in their remorse. For example, the textbook controversies, offhand statements made by senior politicians, or visits to shrines containing war criminals.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2012 11:22
|
|
|
Ruckby posted:"That article" is the subject of the sentence. Do I really need to go over things like basic grammar and non-explicit arguments, or are you just throwing out anything you can to avoid accepting certain facts that may hurt your nationalistic feelings? I have no idea what you are talking about. The point is that you are claiming the article saying something, when it presents very few facts, and addresses very little what the hell you are on about.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
Arakan posted:Something obviously happened. If he hurt his back swimming, which is the official government position at this point afaik, they wouldn't be censoring social media websites. Don't they censor social media websites as a first knee-jerk reaction to literally everything? Apropos: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19409187
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 11:53
|
|
|
There's also the case of Georgia's recent war with Russia.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:If there is a war between Japan and China, and America is not involved and on the side of Japan, then it's literally light's out for America. We might as well get the hell out of Korea, withdraw from NATO and every other treaty we have, because it will be obvious to the world that our word means absolutely nothing. Japan is the de facto ally in Asia that we would defend at all cost. It's the basis of all of America's post WWII presence in Asia. If PLA's landing boats are washing up on Okinawa, then for sure, but join in direct conflict for a piece of rock like Senkaku? (As opposed to advisors/logistical support/economic sanctions/issuing resolutions at the UN...) That's a tougher question. I suspect it'd depend on the particular administration, and the context of the conflict. If it's something Japan foolishly precipitated, then I expect a Georgia like situation where the US will make noises but be unwilling to escalate. If there's a more brazen act of aggression from the Chinese, then who knows.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:Japan's new ambassador to China is dead, he 'fainted' outside on his way to work. 1000 Chinese 'fishing boats' on their way to the islands, I would make a reasonable guess that there are a great number of PLA personnel on these ships, special forces, who are prepared to seize the islands. The ambassador died in Tokyo and Japanese police have ruled out foul play. I don't know what to make of this fishing boat armada claim, since there seems to be scant reporting apart from the second hand reporting of Chinese radio. I suspect there's been some large exaggerations at play. Suugestions of a special forces plan to seize the islands seems like breathless conspiracy theories to me. Well, we'll see later in the day.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2012 13:53
|
|
