5 ms·

> they are a peaceful country (read: no wars) Hah. Their aggression in/with South China Sea, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, India is just fake news right?

by zeusk 10y ago

xnull2guest 10y ago
I would call it state propaganda, not fake news.
swuecho 10y ago
Try to understand the role US play in that.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t... may be of interest?
  - xnull2guest 10y ago
    I can't tell if you are bringing this up because you are criticizing the Americans for refusing to join and be bound by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea or if you are accusing the Chinese of violating their treaty commitments. If it's the former, I don't think the US will be joining it any time soon. US military grand strategy depends on its ability to deploy marines with its navy anywhere swiftly in the world. That's why the Panama Canal was built: to allow the US Navy to swiftly move between Oceans to reallocate force posture. This is why the United States rejected the UNCLOS court juristiction over its boobytrapping the coastal regions around Nicaragua - the US refuses to be bound by this international law (the other major one, I would suggest, is the International Criminal Court/Rome Statues). If you mean the second, the Chinese have argued that this is a territory dispute, in which case UNCLOS itself (article 299, IIRC) agrees it has no authority. Certainly UNCLOS is a major aspect to understanding the South China Sea situation, and should be linked.
smallnamespace 10y ago
When has China actually been aggressive with Japan, Korean, and India, other then minor border conflicts and skirmishes? The South China sea stuff is indeed China throwing its weight around, sure, but need I remind you that China's foreign interventions has been far more restrained than, say, the US (Iraq 1 and Iraq 2, Afghanistan, Libya, Panama) or Russia's (Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria) even in the last three decades. Going back slightly further, Japan invaded and occupied half of China and killed millions of Chinese people over the course of a decade, while it was the US that invaded, nuked, and then occupied Japan, even though the US never suffered civilian casualties from Japanese attack. Yet you don't see the Chinese government crying out for bloody revenge, do you? One the one hand, we have China asserting claims to sea resources and sea lanes there are right in its back yard, where it has a legitimate strategic and national interest. On the other, we have the outright invasion, occupation, and overthrow of sovereign governments. Which country is objectively more peaceful?
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  In a history class, I heard or read that traditionally China never sought to become an empire in the Roman or the post-Columbus Western European sense due to their culture. I'm paraphrasing, but the Forbidden City was thought to have been the place where Heaven met Earth. Accordingly, it didn't make sense to spread so far from this Nexus, for the farther flung the empire was, the farther away it was from Heaven. Instead, it preferred to make all roads lead to heaven. In essence, by being the economic, cultural, and military center of the world, everyone would have to come to them.
  - paradite 10y ago
    As a Chinese, I can see where you are coming from. It is true that Chinese people have this kind of "sentiments" as you described, as part of our culture. We don't go very far and establish colonies, we prefer stay close to our root. If you read more history of China, you will also notice that the Han ethnicity prefers letting others adopt Hans customs and cultures instead of actively adopting or adapting to foreign cultures. That's another striking characteristics in my opinion.
- 10y ago
mtgx 10y ago
Compare China's "aggression" in those regions to U.S. currently bombing 8 (yes, eight) countries.
- owenversteeg 10y ago
  [sidenote, most people agree that the figure is 3-7 countries - depending on your definition of "currently" - not 8.] I think the US bombing various places is a bit more nuanced than it seems at first sight. For example, our military action in Libya - which is entirely contained to one coastal town - is with the support of the Libyan government, the vast majority of the Libyan people, and the United Nations. It's an air campaign against an ISIS stronghold, and it's pretty black and white in that most people agree that it should be done. I personally don't support our airstrikes in Pakistan, but they have definitely been effective (although at a devastating price to civilian lives that I find unacceptable.) In some cases, the US government is an unimaginable force for evil; we've dropped chemical weapons on a civilian population as recently as 2004, in the 2nd Battle of Fallujah - one of the worse battles of modern times. In others, it's an unimaginable case for good. For example, during the Indian Ocean tsunami, governments around the world donated billions of dollars. America promised unimaginable quantities of food, fresh water, and support. Within days, American aid began arriving - in the form of two aircraft carriers, basically floating cities. During the crisis period, American forces delivered the daily food requirements for 100,000 people every 24 hours. In the end of March 2005 - remember, the tsunami was in December 2004 - the Indonesian and Sri Lankan governments reported that they had received precisely none of the money promised by foreign governments. They did report receiving some food; the Thai government in particular received many donations of rice from the governments of Israel and China. To demonstrate how pants-on-head stupid that was, Thailand is the world's largest exporter of rice, and that year they had their largest crop of rice in all history. So yes, America can be horrible. But America can also be the world's largest source of good, especially when other governments can't step up to the plate.
  - xnull2guest 10y ago
    > with the support of the Libyan government Libya is a failed state. There is no recognized, coherent government of Libya. > It's an air campaign against an ISIS stronghold, and it's pretty black and white in that most people agree that it should be done. I don't think this is the case. But if it were, it would be an argument ad populum - a logical fallacy. > So yes, America can be horrible. But America can also be the world's largest source of good, especially when other governments can't step up to the plate. I think this is exactly right. It depends on how America chooses to use its power. Today, it looks a lot like containment, of aggravating and funding extremist elements, of playing proxy war, of pursuing its interests behind a cloak of public relations. The American incentive at this point of world history is to prevent, at all costs, other countries from becoming influential enough to challenge American decision making. That's not just on the battlefield. America has been trying to block countries from lending money, from industrializing, and even from building independent news media industries. It has refused to join international institutions of law, such as the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the International Criminal Court, it has an overt first strike nuclear policy - the only of its kind in the world. The United States faces a choice: A.) allow other nations to grow, in a completely peaceful and benign manner, wealthy and strong enough risking that it will no longer a hegemon capable of making unilateral global decision making. OR B.) disrupt the growth of regions of the world, delaying the growth of competitor states, guaranteeing America maintains its 'critical leadership role' in the world. Judging by actions rather than words, America chooses, and will continue to choose B. America is the country with the incentive to start wars. The world should be multi-polar, and where it there is need for violence to rectify or prevent violence, it should be under international leadership with international decision making.

> they are a peaceful country (read: no wars) Hah. Their aggression in/with South China Sea, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, India is just fake news right?

by zeusk 10y ago

> they are a peaceful country (read: no wars) Hah. Their aggression in/with South China Sea, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, India is just fake news right?

xnull2guest 10y ago

I would call it state propaganda, not fake news.

swuecho 10y ago

Try to understand the role US play in that.

digi_owl 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t... may be of interest?
- xnull2guest 10y ago
  I can't tell if you are bringing this up because you are criticizing the Americans for refusing to join and be bound by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea or if you are accusing the Chinese of violating their treaty commitments. If it's the former, I don't think the US will be joining it any time soon. US military grand strategy depends on its ability to deploy marines with its navy anywhere swiftly in the world. That's why the Panama Canal was built: to allow the US Navy to swiftly move between Oceans to reallocate force posture. This is why the United States rejected the UNCLOS court juristiction over its boobytrapping the coastal regions around Nicaragua - the US refuses to be bound by this international law (the other major one, I would suggest, is the International Criminal Court/Rome Statues). If you mean the second, the Chinese have argued that this is a territory dispute, in which case UNCLOS itself (article 299, IIRC) agrees it has no authority. Certainly UNCLOS is a major aspect to understanding the South China Sea situation, and should be linked.

smallnamespace 10y ago

When has China actually been aggressive with Japan, Korean, and India, other then minor border conflicts and skirmishes? The South China sea stuff is indeed China throwing its weight around, sure, but need I remind you that China's foreign interventions has been far more restrained than, say, the US (Iraq 1 and Iraq 2, Afghanistan, Libya, Panama) or Russia's (Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria) even in the last three decades. Going back slightly further, Japan invaded and occupied half of China and killed millions of Chinese people over the course of a decade, while it was the US that invaded, nuked, and then occupied Japan, even though the US never suffered civilian casualties from Japanese attack. Yet you don't see the Chinese government crying out for bloody revenge, do you? One the one hand, we have China asserting claims to sea resources and sea lanes there are right in its back yard, where it has a legitimate strategic and national interest. On the other, we have the outright invasion, occupation, and overthrow of sovereign governments. Which country is objectively more peaceful?

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
In a history class, I heard or read that traditionally China never sought to become an empire in the Roman or the post-Columbus Western European sense due to their culture. I'm paraphrasing, but the Forbidden City was thought to have been the place where Heaven met Earth. Accordingly, it didn't make sense to spread so far from this Nexus, for the farther flung the empire was, the farther away it was from Heaven. Instead, it preferred to make all roads lead to heaven. In essence, by being the economic, cultural, and military center of the world, everyone would have to come to them.
- paradite 10y ago
  As a Chinese, I can see where you are coming from. It is true that Chinese people have this kind of "sentiments" as you described, as part of our culture. We don't go very far and establish colonies, we prefer stay close to our root. If you read more history of China, you will also notice that the Han ethnicity prefers letting others adopt Hans customs and cultures instead of actively adopting or adapting to foreign cultures. That's another striking characteristics in my opinion.
10y ago

mtgx 10y ago

Compare China's "aggression" in those regions to U.S. currently bombing 8 (yes, eight) countries.

owenversteeg 10y ago
[sidenote, most people agree that the figure is 3-7 countries - depending on your definition of "currently" - not 8.] I think the US bombing various places is a bit more nuanced than it seems at first sight. For example, our military action in Libya - which is entirely contained to one coastal town - is with the support of the Libyan government, the vast majority of the Libyan people, and the United Nations. It's an air campaign against an ISIS stronghold, and it's pretty black and white in that most people agree that it should be done. I personally don't support our airstrikes in Pakistan, but they have definitely been effective (although at a devastating price to civilian lives that I find unacceptable.) In some cases, the US government is an unimaginable force for evil; we've dropped chemical weapons on a civilian population as recently as 2004, in the 2nd Battle of Fallujah - one of the worse battles of modern times. In others, it's an unimaginable case for good. For example, during the Indian Ocean tsunami, governments around the world donated billions of dollars. America promised unimaginable quantities of food, fresh water, and support. Within days, American aid began arriving - in the form of two aircraft carriers, basically floating cities. During the crisis period, American forces delivered the daily food requirements for 100,000 people every 24 hours. In the end of March 2005 - remember, the tsunami was in December 2004 - the Indonesian and Sri Lankan governments reported that they had received precisely none of the money promised by foreign governments. They did report receiving some food; the Thai government in particular received many donations of rice from the governments of Israel and China. To demonstrate how pants-on-head stupid that was, Thailand is the world's largest exporter of rice, and that year they had their largest crop of rice in all history. So yes, America can be horrible. But America can also be the world's largest source of good, especially when other governments can't step up to the plate.
- xnull2guest 10y ago
  > with the support of the Libyan government Libya is a failed state. There is no recognized, coherent government of Libya. > It's an air campaign against an ISIS stronghold, and it's pretty black and white in that most people agree that it should be done. I don't think this is the case. But if it were, it would be an argument ad populum - a logical fallacy. > So yes, America can be horrible. But America can also be the world's largest source of good, especially when other governments can't step up to the plate. I think this is exactly right. It depends on how America chooses to use its power. Today, it looks a lot like containment, of aggravating and funding extremist elements, of playing proxy war, of pursuing its interests behind a cloak of public relations. The American incentive at this point of world history is to prevent, at all costs, other countries from becoming influential enough to challenge American decision making. That's not just on the battlefield. America has been trying to block countries from lending money, from industrializing, and even from building independent news media industries. It has refused to join international institutions of law, such as the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the International Criminal Court, it has an overt first strike nuclear policy - the only of its kind in the world. The United States faces a choice: A.) allow other nations to grow, in a completely peaceful and benign manner, wealthy and strong enough risking that it will no longer a hegemon capable of making unilateral global decision making. OR B.) disrupt the growth of regions of the world, delaying the growth of competitor states, guaranteeing America maintains its 'critical leadership role' in the world. Judging by actions rather than words, America chooses, and will continue to choose B. America is the country with the incentive to start wars. The world should be multi-polar, and where it there is need for violence to rectify or prevent violence, it should be under international leadership with international decision making.