Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    03 Jun '18 06:47
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "I'm curious to see if you can give an example of a country the US "continuously intimidates" which
    is not attempting to develop nuclear weapons or not tooled up with impressive conventional forces."
    --DeepThought (to Shavixmir)

    The USA invaded Grenada and Panama. Does DeepThought claim that Grenada or Panama
    were attempting to develop nuclear wea ...[text shortened]... ving Cubans later complained of harsh or brutal treatment after being taken prisoner by the USA.
    That was some time ago. The statement was "continuously intimidates", in that sense the only place I can think of is Cuba - and that doesn't quite escape my nuclear criterion given the missile crisis.
  2. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    03 Jun '18 06:51
    Originally posted by @wolfe63
    "Intimidates"...not "threatens"...correct?

    Mexico and Canada.

    The bullying of these, our closest neighbors...is shameful.
    In this context I think we mean militarily, not economically. I really don't think Canada feels particularly intimidated in either sense - at least until Trump let the protectionism genie out of the bottle...
  3. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57085
    03 Jun '18 07:00
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    Well, North Korea did invade South Korea and that war is technically not over, their troops are there for a reason. I'm curious to see if you can give an example of a country the US "continuously intimidates" which is not attempting to develop nuclear weapons or not tooled up with impressive conventional forces.
    Vietnam, Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Syria....
  4. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    03 Jun '18 07:08
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    DeepThought seems to be implying that because the USA has a long record of being
    very aggressive and militaristic around the world, then it has the right to keep doing so.
    But China must be wrong to increase its defense budget even in response to threats by
    the USA or rapidly increasing military spending (with US encouragement) by potential
    enemies su ...[text shortened]... in terms of regional security,
    China has much more reason than the USA to prepare for defence.
    But the US has not built her military bases on islands whose sovereignty is disputed and were previously unoccupied, which is the real issue. We're not discussing their acquisition of aircraft carriers and the modernization of their air force, which comes under the heading on normal behaviour for a Security Council permanent member.
  5. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    03 Jun '18 07:38
    Originally posted by @shavixmir
    Vietnam, Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Syria....
    The criteria were military intimidation, on a continuous basis, and the country not having or seeking nuclear weapons. The US, as far as I know hasn't intimidated Vietnam since the war, Iran fails on the nuclear criterion, Syria is in the middle of a civil war which changes the assessment you'd have to go back to before that started, and, unless you can provide a reference, I don't think the US routinely militarily intimidates mainland South American countries. The last time I remember a South American country complaining about stationing of military equipment it was Argentina about Britain deploying a nice shiny new Type 45 destroyer to guard the Falklands.

    Economic bullying doesn't count as Mattis didn't accuse the Chinese of that and the issue under scrutiny is whether it is hypocritical of the US to accuse the Chinese of militarily intimidating her neighbours.
  6. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57085
    03 Jun '18 08:00
    Have you ever heard about what the US has been doing in Central and Southern America simce the 70’s?
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52866
    03 Jun '18 14:262 edits
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "...formerly international waters."
    --Sonhouse

    That's an issue at dispute or for (I hope) future negotiation.

    Of course, the US media acts as if China always must be wrong in every international dispute.
    (And Sonhouse seems to accept whatever the mainstream US media tells him.)

    Japan (led by a hard right-wing government that likes to deny Japa ...[text shortened]...
    The US media did not criticize Japan, and the US government seems to approve of Japan's action.
    Have you heard claims by Vietnam and Philippines to be false? International waters has always started only a few miles off the coast of any nation with ocean borders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters

    For China to be building artificial islands in the middle of clear international territory is also clearly an attempt to increase their power in the area.

    How could anyone interpret that differently?

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-philippines-china/philippines-to-protest-to-china-over-apparent-airbase-on-manmade-island-idUSKBN1EY0H8

    Is this piece fake news? Philippines not worried, everything AOK?

    Let's see, Philippines population 100 million. China 1 BILLION. No reason for those in Manila to be worried, right?
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    03 Jun '18 23:061 edit
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    That was some time ago. The statement was "continuously intimidates", in that sense the only place
    I can think of is Cuba - and that doesn't quite escape my nuclear criterion given the missile crisis.
    It's extremely disingenuous and hypocritical for DeepThought to excuse US military aggression
    against Grenada (1983) and Panama (1989-90) on the grounds that it happened too long ago
    and attempt to justify the USA's 'continuous intimidation' of Cuba upon the grounds of the
    Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), which was much earlier than the US invasions of Grenada and Panama.
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    03 Jun '18 23:201 edit
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    But the US has not built her military bases on islands whose sovereignty is disputed and were previously unoccupied, which is the real issue. We're not discussing their acquisition of aircraft carriers and the modernization of their air force, which comes under the heading on normal behaviour for a Security Council permanent member.
    DeepThought prefers to ignore the broader historical and political context.

    It's disingenuous to pretend that the USA's neutral or objective regarding China's territorial disputes.
    Ever since 1949, the USA has consistently aimed to minimize China's power, influence,
    and security, with the only exceptions being when the USA regarded China as a useful
    enough diversion for the perceived threat of the USSR's power. (Soviet generals used
    to refer to China as the most important ally of NATO, given that 25-30% of the Soviet Army
    was based along the potential front with China.) The USA attempted to cover up Japanese
    war crimes in China and actively supported many of the worst Japanese war criminals
    (as long as their victims were Chinese and not Westerners). The USA's long been happy
    to ally with Japanese war criminals (or their apologists) when opposing China at all costs.

    China has no incentive to submit to US demands because China has no expectation of US fairness.
    And everyone should know that the USA (as well as its most cherished ally Israel) has a
    record of violating international law whenever it regards it as expedient.

    "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
    --Matthew 7:3 (King James)
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    03 Jun '18 23:29
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    The criteria were military intimidation, on a continuous basis, and the country not having or seeking nuclear weapons. The US, as far as I know hasn't intimidated Vietnam since the war, Iran fails on the nuclear criterion, Syria is in the middle of a civil war which changes the assessment you'd have to go back to before that started, and, unless you ca ...[text shortened]... er it is hypocritical of the US to accuse the Chinese of militarily intimidating her neighbours.
    DeepThought ignores the vast disproportion between the USA's and China's power,
    particularly when projected overseas. The USA has by far the world's strongest navy.
    China's Navy (PLAN) is only one of several navies (including other Asian navies such as
    India's and Japan's) that are in contention to be in the distant second tier of naval strength.

    Whereas the USA has a long proven capability of using aircraft carriers (no island air bases needed)
    to launch air strikes and support amphibious invasions by its famous Marine Corps,
    China has nothing approaching that capability. It would be absurd to claim that overseas
    neighbors like Japan, the Philippines, or Taiwan (which nominally is part of China) have
    any realistic fears of being invaded by China today.
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    03 Jun '18 23:411 edit
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Have you heard claims by Vietnam and Philippines to be false? International waters has always started only a few miles off the coast of any nation with ocean borders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters

    For China to be building artificial islands in the middle of clear international territory is also clearly an attempt to increase thei ...[text shortened]... nes population 100 million. China 1 BILLION. No reason for those in Manila to be worried, right?
    Sonhouse has long shown extreme ignorance and misunderstanding of military history and military issues in general.

    In an earlier post, Sonhouse showed his extreme ignorance and stereotypical bias
    when he spewed some nonsense about China's alleged '10 million man army'.
    In fact, the PLA (which includes all branches of China's armed forces) has only about
    two million active personnel (no conscripts). whereas the USA has slightly under 1.3 million
    active personnel in its armed forces. Therefore, China (which has more than four times
    the USA's population) has a much lower proportion of its population in the armed forces.

    "Let's see, Philippines population 100 million. China 1 BILLION. No reason for those in Manila to be worried, right?"
    --Sonhouse

    Right. There's no reason whatsoever for anyone in Manila to be worried about invasion by China.

    How would Sonhouse fantasize that China's supposed 'ten million man army' get to Manila?
    By marching across the ocean? China has hardly any amphibious or airborne warfare capability.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Marine_Corps
    "The People's Liberation Army Navy Marine Corps (PLANMC) ...consists of two 6,000-man brigades,"

    I doubt that the PLAN has even the amphibious lift capability for two brigades.
    In addition, China lacks the logistical capability to support any invasion of the Philippines.

    I would add that Sonhouse makes a category error in acting as though territorial claims
    can be assessed as true or false in the same way that a mathematical proposition can be.
    A claim of 'This land should belong to country A, not country B' may be assessed upon
    historical or international legal grounds, not purely logical grounds.
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52866
    04 Jun '18 00:141 edit
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Sonhouse has long shown extreme ignorance and misunderstanding of military history and military issues in general.

    In an earlier post, Sonhouse showed his extreme ignorance and stereotypical bias
    when he spewed some nonsense about China's alleged '10 million man army'.
    In fact, the PLA (which includes all branches of China's armed forces) has only a ...[text shortened]... B' may be assessed upon
    historical or international legal grounds, not purely logical grounds.
    Don't know why you would bring up the ten million statement when we both know you were right months ago. You really think the Philippines are not going to be worried about a base right in the middle of international waters? They also have an airbase there, one helicopter can do untold damage if it came to that and clearly most probably won't but the capability cannot be ignored by a sovereign country.

    The Chinese are after SOMETHING. If not domination then it would be something to do with natural resources like natural gas or some such. If so, why the subterfuge?

    Please refrain from ancient statements we both know where I mis-spoke.

    It looks to me like you support anyone who works against the US. An enemy of my enemy, no matter what else happens.

    Why don't you just come out and say it, you hate the US with all your heart.

    Don't worry, you aren't the only one, join the large crowd.
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Jun '18 01:051 edit
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Don't know why you would bring up the ten million statement when we both know you were right months ago. You really think the Philippines are not going to be worried about a base right in the middle of international waters? They also have an airbase there, one helicopter can do untold damage if it came to that and clearly most probably won't but the capabi ...[text shortened]... hate the US with all your heart.

    Don't worry, you aren't the only one, join the large crowd.
    "The Chinese are after SOMETHING."
    --Sonhouse

    If so, it's NOT invading the Philippines or occupying Manila, as Sonhouse absurdly implied.
    Sonhouse shows no comprehension of China's realistic capabilities or aims.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute

    These islands (under Japan's de facto control) are claimed by Japan, the People's Republic
    of China, AND the Republic of China (Taiwan). Japan has undertaken unilateral actions
    to reinforce its claims. While the USA does not have an official position on sovereignty,
    in practice it evidently supports Japan's claim and presumably would fight for it.

    Like many Americans here whose ignorance and nonsense gets exposed, Sonhouse
    resorts to waving the US flag and attempting to demonize his critics as 'anti-American'.

    In his apparent zeal to promote Sinophobia, Sonhouse could use more 'Yellow Peril' tropes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril

    The Yellow Peril ...is a racist color-metaphor that is integral to the xenophobic theory of
    colonialism: that the peoples of East Asia are a danger to the Western world.
    As a psycho-cultural perception of menace from the East, fear of the Yellow Peril was
    more racial than national, a fear derived, not from concern with a specific source of danger,
    from any one country or people, but from a vaguely ominous, existential fear of the vast,
    faceless, nameless horde of yellow people opposite the Western world."
  14. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y3ngvdp2
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    04 Jun '18 02:032 edits
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    The criteria were military intimidation, on a continuous basis, and the country not having or seeking nuclear weapons. The US, as far as I know hasn't intimidated Vietnam since the war, Iran fails on the nuclear criterion, Syria is in the middle of a civil war which changes the assessment you'd have to go back to before that started, and, unless you ca ...[text shortened]... er it is hypocritical of the US to accuse the Chinese of militarily intimidating her neighbours.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-venezuela-military-idUSKBN1AR2GR
  15. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52866
    04 Jun '18 02:146 edits
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    "The Chinese are after SOMETHING."
    --Sonhouse

    If so, it's NOT invading the Philippines or occupying Manila, as Sonhouse absurdly implied.
    Sonhouse shows no comprehension of China's realistic capabilities or aims.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute

    These islands (under Japan's de facto control) are claimed by Japan, the Peopl ...[text shortened]... ntial fear of the vast,
    faceless, nameless horde of yellow people opposite the Western world."
    Can you show me exactly where I said China was going to attack the Philippines militarily? I SAID the Philippines expressed worry about the artificial islands nothing more.

    The fact they are building air strips there is intimidation by itself, they don't need to have a thousand missiles pointed at anyone to intimidate.

    They want something there, most likely access to resources of some kind, oil, gas, whatever.
    They probably put air bases there to ensure the US doesn't do a preemptive attack or something else stupid.

    I never said BTW, USA no matter what.

    I consider it an affront you consider me to be anti-asian or yellow whatever. I lived in Thailand for 3 years up north with a Thai family, NOT in a fancy hotel in Bankok, I was 600 Km north of that, very close to the Mekong river and made trips into Laos and would have gone to Cambodia if I had had the chance.

    I loved the Thai family I lived with, they were very kind to me and they and the town of Nakomphenom taught me a lot about those nasty yellow Asians you think I think of them.

    Take your judgementalness elsewhere Dutch.

    Have you lived anywhere in Asia, get to know them on a personal basis or do you just look at the books about them?

    Have you been to Tokyo or Hong Kong or Taipei? I have and I have great respect for all of them.

    I applaud the Chinese space projects, building a space station of their own and planning a rover to go around on the ground on the dark side of the moon and I know full well they will not be secretive about the data they collect.

    I imagine the REAL 'yellow perilisters' would imagine China wanting to build a military base out there but that would be nonsense.

    Just out of curiosity, is there anything about the US you actually like? It is clear you don't like much about the US but don't want to come out and say it which is not like you, you usually say what you think no matter what and I admire that but surely there must be SOMETHING about the US you like.
Back to Top