 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
yah, well we have a military that wasnt built for that kind of thing - whole approach in the '90s was winning wars from 50,000 feet and letting others worry about clean up on the ground. And the Bushies continued that approach till 9/11 and even after - despite their tendency to blame strategic overstretch on the Dems, fact is they werent doing anything to increase the number of groundpounders. See we simply arent set up for empire building, cause thats NOT our policy. I presume a China that wanted to go in big for expansion could manage to build the necessary military. also they might be less constrained by various niceties in dealing with insurgents than we are. |
The last part is utter supposition, and the first part is incorrect- the US has carried out nation building and peace keeping activities- the cost issue does not change- the US would have had to have many more boots on the ground from day one, meaning that, to do Iraq right would have cost much more- so yes, the Us does not have enough men, but that has nothing to do with the fact that even if we had enough men, we are talking about the operation costing more than the 150 billion plus we have spent there, even if perhaps the human loses would have been lower.
So war remains a bit too expansive to make it worth it-even if it were about oil, which it was not, it would have taken decades to get back the amount of money put in- so you have NOT dealt with the cost issue.
quote:
They could do more by consolidating their military industries across national lines. If they are really commited to the post nation state approach they might do that. |
And how would that solve the basic lack of markets? Europe is not spending much on weapons, so even if their industries merged (and most have for a great parts already, such as with aircraft manufacturing), they still need markets able to spend on big ticket items- China is a huge market, possibly the biggest available.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
I thought the reason was cause its WRONG to isolate China. |
Then please read my posts, because that was never said. The problem is that this thinking in 1850 terms is wrong. That is the problem. You speak of dangers I do not believe are even reasonable to think exist, since we live in a new world. So what is the point of wasting resources, diplomatic time, all for the notion of trying to extand outdated 1850 ideals that lkead nowhere and cost too much?
quote:
Whats the point of isolating Zimbabwe? Cause Mugabe harasses the opposition party and imprisons its leaders? Hell, at least Zimbabwe HAS an opposition party. China don't. |
Zimbabwe has oppresed christian white people, China does not. China is a great power and the world's third biggest economy, Zimbabwe is not. Hence, European publics care about Zimbabwe (not China) and Zimbabwe is weak enough to actually influence. Hence, you pick on the weak, jsut like we picked on Iraq as opposed to picking on people with real power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
quote:
The last part is utter supposition, and the first part is incorrect- the US has carried out nation building and peace keeping activities- the cost issue does not change- the US would have had to have many more boots on the ground from day one, meaning that, to do Iraq right would have cost much more- so yes, the Us does not have enough men, but that has nothing to do with the fact that even if we had enough men, we are talking about the operation costing more than the 150 billion plus we have spent there, even if perhaps the human loses would have been lower.
So war remains a bit too expansive to make it worth it-even if it were about oil, which it was not, it would have taken decades to get back the amount of money put in- so you have NOT dealt with the cost issue. |
Presumably the chinese wont pay PLA conscripts what US volunteers get paid, wont equip them or supply them the same way. Estimating the cost of Chinas occupation of country X based on the US experience in Iraq is just silly. We have no idea what it would cost, or what the potential perceived benefits might be. ASSUMING China presents no threat, - zero, de nada - which you do assumes a crystal ball into the future that i just dont have.
Im NOT talking about something crazy, like a preemptive war, or keeping China out of the WTO or anything like that. All im talking about is limiting weapons sales untill China either improves its human rights record or commits to a peaceful solution of the Taiwan problem. Given the limited costs of that, and the risks if nothing is done, that hardly seems like rampaging 1850s jingoism.
But feel to cut down strawmen, if you must.
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Presumably the chinese wont pay PLA conscripts what US volunteers get paid, wont equip them or supply them the same way. Estimating the cost of Chinas occupation of country X based on the US experience in Iraq is just silly. We have no idea what it would cost, or what the potential perceived benefits might be. ASSUMING China presents no threat, - zero, de nada - which you do assumes a crystal ball into the future that i just dont have.
|
Paying the troops, and yes, conscripts get paid, its not the biggest expense in any conflict- supplying them and keeping their equipment running, that is what costs a lot- the point remains, it would be extremely costly.
Can you name any successful motions by one nation state to invade, conquer, and pacify another state since 1945?
The only one I can think of is China and Tibet, and that is because of the immense power difference, the fact that China made Tibet part of itself, and the fact every other state in the world accepted it and sees Tibet as sovereign Chinese territory.
All other attempts have been extremely costly and mostly unsuccessful. Even rich states have to deovte huge energies to doing so.
quote:
Im NOT talking about something crazy, like a preemptive war, or keeping China out of the WTO or anything like that. All im talking about is limiting weapons sales untill China either improves its human rights record or commits to a peaceful solution of the Taiwan problem. Given the limited costs of that, and the risks if nothing is done, that hardly seems like rampaging 1850s jingoism.
|
At one point maybe you were, but for from the person that tried to bring in nepal into the issue, screams of strawmen seem fake.
For all talk of Human rights, human rights are ususally the biggest deal, AFTER everything else. China is becoming richer, seeks modern weapons, the US won't sell, mainly for jingoistic 1850 reasons and our tortured Taiwan policy (go to the CIA world factbook- note how Taiwan is depicted as part of China, and how it is stated Taiwan has no formal diplomatic ties with the US, since the US does not recognize its existance as a state, but accept the fact it is part of China- a rathered tortured reality, for sure), so Europe, with a struggling weapons industry, sees a perfect opportunity for market growth.
Is this a wonderful move towards democracy and freedom? NO.
Oh, and do note that the OP article is chock full of 1850's jingoism, so my comments are not strawmen , as far as this thread is concerned.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joseph
|
 |
Ca. USA
Feb 2000
time: 21:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
quote:
In 1933, Germany could not invade Poland, in 1939 they did. |
So the Chinese communist party is the equivalent of Hitler? Howay man!
The Chinese do not have a history of manic aggression. They want Taiwan back, because its part of China (which even the Taiwanese admit, but they think they should be in charge of China) and they invaded Tibet because it was a weak state between them and India, a country with which they have hostile relations.
That doesn't put them in the same league as Hitler who announced that he wanted to conquer his way to the Urals and engage in a policy of racial extermination.
quote:
That leaves Japan with a choice: expand their military to try to reacquire balance with China or trust to the good graces of a country that has been indoctrinating its population for decades to hate Japan with a passion. |
I imagine that, among other things, this has to do with petty Chinese grievances over events like the Rape of Nanking. There are plenty of people in other countries who hate Japan too, for related reasons.
None of it means that they want to invade Japan. |
I was answering the person that said China would not be able to attack Taiwan any time soon.
As you now heard, France and Germany want to sell new weapons to China. This is what it would do for China. It would leapfrog them at lease 10 year into the future, whereas if France and Germany did not sell their weapons, it might take 10 year for the Chinese to catch up to were France and Co are today.
China is buying every weapon it can get its hand on today.
Two or three weeks ago, China had one of its newest Sub sail a few miles off of the Guam Naval Base to see if we could track him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
quote:
The **** was hitting the fan well before Tiananmen, Aggy.
Atre you going to say now that glasnost caused people power in the Phillipines? |
You are attributing too much to me. I never said that. If I implied it, then that's my fault.
There were a series of people power revolutions (successful and failures) in Asia in the 80s. The Tiananmen protesters were well aware of them and modelled their own protests on them. What made these effective was mass media.
Glasnost had created an opportunity, it was not the sole cause. IIRC Hungary was already misbehaving before Tiananmen. But there was no reason to think that there might not be a crackdown or an elitist coup in East Germany.
The East Germans who saw what happened in Tiananmen by way of West German TV signals saw that it had almost worked, and they correctly gambled that their own security forces would not have the heart for a massive crackdown. Indeed I read the testimony of a Berlin Wall guard who explicitly said that after seeing Tiananmen, there was no way he would participate in anything like that.
Without the example of Tiananmen, the fall of "communism" in Europe may well have taken longer or turned out to be much less democratic. It's impossible to tell, but we do know that it was a catalyst. |
You can argue along those lines, but I think you're mistaken.
The people of Eastern Europe, including parts of the USSR, were well and truely tired of the police states they lived in. The pressure for change predated Tiananmen by a fair margin.
Tiananmen did not cause the flow of people to resume to the West once Hungarian and Czech authorities decided not to hamper them. People were travelling from East Germany to Czechoslovakia and Hungary and then to the West. The Wall had sprung a leak in the supposedly like minded states of the Warsaw Pact.
The system was rotten to the core. The house of cards was in the process of collapse when Tiananmen happened. I don't doubt that you could find some East Germans who were sickened by the spectacle and whose decisions to fire or not on civilians would have been effected. No matter though, since the system was already crumbling. It was going down and Tiananmen had little or nothing to do with it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
Interesting article on the issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/i.../24weapons.html
quote:
Europe Wants China Sales but Not Just of Weapons
By MARK LANDLER
Published: February 24, 2005
FRANKFURT, Feb. 23 - To some critics, Europe's plan to lift its arms embargo on China is simply a way to make sure its weapons makers claim a slice of one of the world's largest military budgets. But much more is at stake in Europe's decision than whether it sells French fighter jets or German submarines to Beijing - namely broader commercial ties and some genuine diplomacy.
That, political and military analysts here say, is why European leaders appear ready to defy the United States, which opposes lifting the embargo. The conflict has bubbled up during President Bush's visit here this week, injecting a discordant note into his otherwise harmonious tour.
"Europe wants to sell cars and perfume in China," said Willem van der Geest, the director of the European Institute for Asian Studies, a research group in Brussels. "Its nonmilitary economic objectives weigh far more in this decision than any gains it would get from selling arms."
Beyond improving Europe's commercial prospects in China, Mr. van der Geest said, lifting the embargo has become a symbol of the European Union's efforts to deepen its relationship with China, which it views as a strategic partner rather than merely an ally.
"Going back on this would be a major setback to E.U.-China relations," he said. "The Chinese would take it very badly."
European leaders seem determined to act soon, perhaps as early as June, though they promise to scrutinize the sales to keep particularly advanced technology out of Chinese hands.
"Europe intends to remove the last obstacles to its relations with this important country," President Jacques Chirac of France said Tuesday, after Mr. Bush expressed "deep concern" about such a move.
Few analysts question that China will be an eager consumer of weapons in coming decades. The Pentagon estimates China's military-related spending at $50 billion to $70 billion. (By contrast, the United States, which has the world's largest military budget, will spend about $500 billion on the military and activities in Iraq and Afghanistan this year.)
For years, China's trade has been dominated by Russia. Israel is China's second-largest supplier, and its role has particularly troubled American experts because it specializes in technologically advanced equipment, like drone aircraft.
Such equipment, the United States worries, could tilt the security balance between China and Taiwan. Washington has supplied Taiwan with enough armaments to discourage Chinese attack.
Neither Russia nor Israel observes the embargo, which was imposed after China's leadership massacred pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989. France and Germany do observe it, but even so are believed by some experts to be the next largest suppliers to China, though with much smaller sales..
Like many embargos, this one is porous; some governments have allowed military suppliers to sell to China. Military experts say China has been able to buy engines for fighter planes from Rolls-Royce, the British company, and Allison, an American manufacturer.
"The sanctions regime, both on the part of the Europeans and the Americans, is applied somewhat selectively," said Robert Karniol, Asia-Pacific editor of Jane's Defense Weekly in Bangkok.
Executives from French military companies have begun traveling to China, overcoming years of being blacklisted by Beijing for selling Mirage fighter planes to Taiwan more than a decade ago.
If China were allowed to trade freely with Europe, Mr. Karniol said, it would probably seek to buy advanced weapons systems rather than tanks, fighter jets or submarines. After decades of investment, China is able to build much of its war-fighting equipment domestically.
That would still leave plenty of room for European suppliers that specialize in defense electronics.
In keeping with its strategy in nonmilitary industries, China would probably seek to form joint development projects with the Europeans. That would give it faster access to their technology, which is precisely the development most feared by strategic planners at the Pentagon.
The question is whether the Europeans would risk antagonizing the United States to make such deals. BAE Systems, Britain's largest military contractor, sells more than $5 billion a year to the American military, making it the Pentagon's 12th-largest supplier. It has 30,000 employees in the United States.
"America is where we're looking for our growth," said Charlotte Lambkin, a company spokeswoman. "If that becomes mutually exclusive with doing business in China, then we will go with the U.S."
Ms. Lambkin said her company viewed the arms embargo as a "government-to-government issue," but was sympathetic to the Bush administration's concerns about the transfer of technology to China. "We've encouraged the U.K. to replace the arms embargo with a stricter system of export restrictions," she said, referring to the United Kingdom.
Officials at another defense company, EADS, or the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, voiced similar views, though they said their company could not be as public because it is French- and German-owned. France and Germany have been the most vocal in their support for lifting the embargo.
"Most of the European defense firms that do business with the Pentagon stand to lose more than they gain from selling to the Chinese," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute.
Still, there are powerful incentives for cooperating with China. EADS and BAE Systems jointly own Airbus, the aircraft maker that is in a fierce global battle with Boeing. China Southern Airlines recently ordered five Airbus A380's, the company's new superjumbo jet.
Chinese orders are crucial to the success of the A380, and decisions on new planes are notoriously political. Mr. Chirac has traveled to China twice in recent years to promote Airbus and other French companies.
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany has also made pilgrimages to China, riding on a futuristic train in Shanghai that was built by a German company and helping to open a Mercedes car factory there. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Can you name any successful motions by one nation state to invade, conquer, and pacify another state since 1945?. |
I can think of attempts that failed because the the locals resisting the invading power were assisted by a power that was as strong as or stronger than the invading power, sometimes by a BALANCING coalition. In particular attempts by the USSR or its allies to advance their sphere. In afghanistan the USSR was opposed by insurgents receiving financial and arms help from the US, with the support of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and China. Pakistan provided the sanctuary, and the US and China deterred any Soviet threat against Pakistan. The US alone had more resources than the USSR, and China added to the strategic force of that coalition.
Viet Nam attempted to take over Cambodia, with the strategic support of the USSR. This was resisted by a mixed bag of insurgents support by China and the US, with Thailand as the sanctuary. This succeeded despite US reluctance to support Chinas favorites among the resistance, largely because of the power of China and the US, and the limited support the USSR could spare for VN. Thailand was protected from Viet Nam by its own power and by US support.
If an aggressive China were to occupy a neighbor the US would again have to A. Finance and arm an insurgency B. Provide conventional protection to a neighboring sanctuary country. Depending on the balance of forces, that might not be as easy as the above cases. China could also attempt a counter insurgency (as the Soviets did, unsuccessfuly supporting Baluchi revolt in Pakistan).
and of course Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait NOT by local insurgents, whom Iraq could easily have crushed, but by a coalition, led by the US, UK, France, and Saudi Arabia. The coalition was able to dislodge Iraq only by conventional war, which went relatively easily because of the coalitions composition of powers much larger and more powerful than Iraq.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
I can think of attempts that failed because the the locals resisting the invading power were assisted by a power that was as strong as or stronger than the invading power, sometimes by a BALANCING coalition. In particular attempts by the USSR or its allies to advance their sphere. In afghanistan the USSR was opposed by insurgents receiving financial and arms help from the US, with the support of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and China. Pakistan provided the sanctuary, and the US and China deterred any Soviet threat against Pakistan. The US alone had more resources than the USSR, and China added to the strategic force of that coalition. |
None of this was part of formal alliences, and the Pakistanis and Saudis were already US clients, so the US did not bring anything new into the mix, nor did it have to form any sort of brand new allience. Pakistan and China both had direct aims of their own to go against the Soviets on this.
A gathering of already friendly parties coming to work together in a common cause is NOT a "balancing coolition". The US's actual, direct allies were not pumping in money into the afghanistan hole.
quote:
Viet Nam attempted to take over Cambodia, with the strategic support of the USSR. This was resisted by a mixed bag of insurgents support by China and the US, with Thailand as the sanctuary. This succeeded despite US reluctance to support Chinas favorites among the resistance, largely because of the power of China and the US, and the limited support the USSR could spare for VN. Thailand was protected from Viet Nam by its own power and by US support. |
Actually, Vietnam succeeded, as was pointed out, in removing the regime and installing the new regime. BUt the problem here is your idea that Vietnam wanted to take over Cambodia,which is false- Vietnam wanted to get rid of the pro-China, anti-Vietnam genocidal Khmer Rouge regime, which was aggrevating it accross the border. While it is unfortunate that anyone would give the Khmer Rouge anything after their ouster of power, the Vietnamese achieved their aim of regime change, and pulled out relatively quickly.
Unless you see the US invasion of Iraq itself as a attampt by the US to "take over" Iraq.
quote:
If an aggressive China were to occupy a neighbor the US would again have to A. Finance and arm an insurgency B. Provide conventional protection to a neighboring sanctuary country. Depending on the balance of forces, that might not be as easy as the above cases. China could also attempt a counter insurgency (as the Soviets did, unsuccessfuly supporting Baluchi revolt in Pakistan).
and of course Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait NOT by local insurgents, whom Iraq could easily have crushed, but by a coalition, led by the US, UK, France, and Saudi Arabia. The coalition was able to dislodge Iraq only by conventional war, which went relatively easily because of the coalitions composition of powers much larger and more powerful than Iraq. |
Funding an insurgency can only work because the technology of warfare is such that a relative small expenditure can assure the creation of a militaryt force capable of harrasing the invader- not defeateing them, but making the costs of the whole business simply unacceptable. Back in 1930 you could not really "finance an insurgency" in the same way that you could in 1980. So technology has made it easier for the weak to frustrate the strong.
As for the Kuwait example, it shows another major difference in the world, thanks to the UN- the notion of simply swalloing a state is no longer acceptable, so if any one nation-state decided to utterly conquer another one, all nation states would react negatively, since this is someone messing with the whole system.
In fact, the two examples you gave, Afghanistan and Cambodia, neither were attempts to conquer the country, but to imposse on the country a local friendly regime- if the Soviets had been able to set up a friendly regime, and that regime been able to keep the peace by itself, the great bulk of Soviet forces would have left, period.
The Israeli invasion of Lebanon is another exaple (unsuccessful) of going into a neighboring state and trying to set up a friendly regime. It also shows for relatively how little an insurgency against could be set up by the opposition, without ever needing to get directly involved.
So, yet again, the simple cost, both in money, and in diplomatic standing, of trying to conquer another nation states has become prohibitive.
Wars now are, at the most, attempts tp impose a friendly local regime, and most of these fail if any significant portion of the local populace is against you.
The only other possible type of war, which I have already stted is a monumentally stupid form of war, is dying for pieces of rock in order to impose your deed title on it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:22
|
|
Syria occupies Lebenon, Israel Palestine, China occupied all of North Korea for a time, South Africa occupied Nambia for 50 years, Indonesia occupied East Timor for 45 years, India annexed Goa from Portugal, Hungary got invaded and occupied by the Soviets in the 1960's, Panama got knocked over by the US in 1989, Haiti is still occupied, as is Bosnia, as is Kosovo, Chechnya is occupied, and Sadam pretty much had Kuwait pacified. I'm see a number of successful invsions and occupations including some virtual annexations.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-02-2005 01:52
|