|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Can't see it happening.
It is quite unpopular here and the opposition party (Who will win the next election) are very vocal in opposition to it.
Basically the PM is hoping the US will change their mind down the track.
Likeliest outcome is it gets put on ice and is quietly shelved after the next election.
|
China has warned the US to “speak and act cautiously” after the White House said it would act to foil Chinese attempts to “take over” the South China Sea, amid growing hints that Donald Trump’s administration intends to challenge Beijing over the strategic waterway.
At a press conference in Beijing on Tuesday, the foreign ministry spokesperson, Hua Chunying, urged Washington to tread carefully “to avoid harming the peace and stability of the South China Sea”.
Hua was responding to comments made by White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, the previous day.
Speaking at a press briefing on Monday, Spicer vowed the US would “make sure that we protect our interests” in the resource-rich trade route, through which $4.5tn (£3.4tn) in trade passes each year.
His comments came less than a fortnight after Rex Tillerson, Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, set the stage for a potentially explosive clash with Beijing by likening its artificial island building campaign in the South China Sea to “Russia’s taking of Crimea”.
Tillerson told his confirmation hearing the White House needed to send China a “clear signal” that such activities had to stop and that its access to such territories was “not going to be allowed”.
“They are taking territory or control or declaring control of territories that are not rightfully China’s,” Tillerson said.
Chinese media responded by warning that any attempt to prevent China accessing its interests in the region risked sparking a “large-scale war”.
At his first question and answer session with the press on Monday, Spicer again hinted Trump’s administration would take a harder line on the South China Sea.
“It’s a question of if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yeah, we’re going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country,” he told reporters.
Spicer declined to explain how such steps might be enforced. “I think, as we develop further, we’ll have more information on it,” he said.
Source
|
On January 24 2017 21:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +China has warned the US to “speak and act cautiously” after the White House said it would act to foil Chinese attempts to “take over” the South China Sea, amid growing hints that Donald Trump’s administration intends to challenge Beijing over the strategic waterway.
At a press conference in Beijing on Tuesday, the foreign ministry spokesperson, Hua Chunying, urged Washington to tread carefully “to avoid harming the peace and stability of the South China Sea”.
Hua was responding to comments made by White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, the previous day.
Speaking at a press briefing on Monday, Spicer vowed the US would “make sure that we protect our interests” in the resource-rich trade route, through which $4.5tn (£3.4tn) in trade passes each year.
His comments came less than a fortnight after Rex Tillerson, Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, set the stage for a potentially explosive clash with Beijing by likening its artificial island building campaign in the South China Sea to “Russia’s taking of Crimea”.
Tillerson told his confirmation hearing the White House needed to send China a “clear signal” that such activities had to stop and that its access to such territories was “not going to be allowed”.
“They are taking territory or control or declaring control of territories that are not rightfully China’s,” Tillerson said.
Chinese media responded by warning that any attempt to prevent China accessing its interests in the region risked sparking a “large-scale war”.
At his first question and answer session with the press on Monday, Spicer again hinted Trump’s administration would take a harder line on the South China Sea.
“It’s a question of if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yeah, we’re going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country,” he told reporters.
Spicer declined to explain how such steps might be enforced. “I think, as we develop further, we’ll have more information on it,” he said. Source
Technically they're not international territory. They are either Chinese or Vietnamese or Malay or Philippino (depending on what exact islands we are talking about now; there's lots, and consequently there's lots of disputes). It's just that the US would rather the Spratly Islands (probably the most contentious atm) don't belong to China, and in general sides against China's 9-dotted line claim (which, truth be told, is a completely ridiculous claim: it even claims fishing rights in undisputed parts of Indonesia and Brunei).
Of course, Trump getting his panties in a bundle over this now seems like a real blunder in the making. He hasn't even gotten settled down yet, and doesn't even have a FP staff properly installed. Making bold claims before even knowing what the hell is going on there seems excessively stupid... and insofar as I know, China hasn't been making new moves there over the last few days, so it can easily wait until he does have some actual idea about the situation. But I guess ignorance hasn't stopped the man from shouting out his opinion before, so why stop now?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I really don't know if Trump has a working strategy for containing China. At this point I think we're looking at a clash of arms - in which we will find out if the Chinese government cares enough about its territorial claims to aggressively defend them.
|
On January 24 2017 23:27 LegalLord wrote:
I really don't know if Trump has a working strategy for containing China. At this point I think we're looking at a clash of arms - in which we will find out if the Chinese government cares enough about its territorial claims to aggressively defend them.
I'm not sure that Trump really intends to contain China so much as he wants to get as much stuff on the table as possible before he starts negotiating trade deals with China. This would be more in line with his stated priorities from the campaign and during the lame duck season.
|
And with regards to Trump and the Press, I think this guy has it right for all of the reasons that I laid out a few days ago:
TRUMP AND THE PRESS: So yesterday I was on the BBC talking about Trump, the press, and what’s going on. Here’s a bit of an expansion.
First, the thing to understand is that, as I’ve said before, one of the changes going on with Trump generally is the renegotiation of various post-World War II institutional arrangements. One of those is the institutional arrangement involving the press and the White House. For decades, the press got special status because it was seen as both powerful, and institutionally responsible. (And, of course, allied with the Democrats who were mostly in charge of setting up those postwar institutional arrangements). Now those things have changed. If the press were powerful, it would have beaten Trump. If it were responsible, it wouldn’t be running away with fake news whenever it sees a chance to run something damaging to Trump. And, of course, there’s no alliance between Trump and the media, as there was with Obama.
So things will change. The press’s “insider” status — which it cherishes — is going to fade. (This is producing waves of status anxiety, as are many other Trump-induced institutional changes). And, having abandoned, quite openly, any pretense of objectivity and neutrality in the election, the press is going to be treated as an enemy by the Trump Administration until further notice.
In fact, Trump’s basically gaslighting them. Knowing how much they hate him, he’s constantly provoking them to go over the top. Sean Spicer’s crowd-size remarks are all about making them seem petty and negative. (And, possibly, teeing up crowd-size comparisons at next week’s March For Life, which the press normally ignores but which Trump will probably force them to cover).
Trump knows that the press isn’t trusted very much, and that the less it’s trusted, the less it can hurt him. So he’s prodding reporters to do things that will make them less trusted, and they’re constantly taking the bait. They’re taking the bait because they think he’s dumb, and impulsive, and lacking self-control — but he’s the one causing them to act in ways that are dumb and impulsive, and demonstrate lack of self-control. As Richard Fernandez writes on Facebook, they think he’s dumb because they think he has lousy taste, but there are a lot of scarily competent guys out there in the world who like white and gold furniture. And, I should note, Trump has more media experience than probably 99% of the people covering him. (As Obama operative Ben Rhodes gloated with regard to selling a dishonest story on the Iran deal, the average reporter the Obama White House dealt with “is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns.” In Rhodes’ words, “they literally know nothing.”)
The counter-move for the press isn’t to double down on anti-Trump messaging. The counter-move is to bolster its own trustworthiness by acting more neutral and sober, and by being more trustworthy. If the news media actually focused on reporting facts accurately and straightforwardly, on leaving opinion to the pundits, and on giving Trump a clearly fair shake, then Trump’s tactics wouldn’t work, and any actual dirt they found on him would do actual damage. He’s betting on the press being insufficiently mature and self-controlled to manage that. So far, his bet is paying off.
That’s too bad. If we had a better press, we’d be much better off as a nation. But we don’t.
Source.
|
If only there was some sort of across-the-specific international goods exchange deal that was designed to help limit the influence of China and increase U.S. trade power in the region.
Then again, Trump thought China was a member of the TPP, so...
On January 24 2017 23:50 xDaunt wrote:And with regards to Trump and the Press, I think this guy has it right for all of the reasons that I laid out a few days ago: Show nested quote +TRUMP AND THE PRESS: So yesterday I was on the BBC talking about Trump, the press, and what’s going on. Here’s a bit of an expansion.
First, the thing to understand is that, as I’ve said before, one of the changes going on with Trump generally is the renegotiation of various post-World War II institutional arrangements. One of those is the institutional arrangement involving the press and the White House. For decades, the press got special status because it was seen as both powerful, and institutionally responsible. (And, of course, allied with the Democrats who were mostly in charge of setting up those postwar institutional arrangements). Now those things have changed. If the press were powerful, it would have beaten Trump. If it were responsible, it wouldn’t be running away with fake news whenever it sees a chance to run something damaging to Trump. And, of course, there’s no alliance between Trump and the media, as there was with Obama.
So things will change. The press’s “insider” status — which it cherishes — is going to fade. (This is producing waves of status anxiety, as are many other Trump-induced institutional changes). And, having abandoned, quite openly, any pretense of objectivity and neutrality in the election, the press is going to be treated as an enemy by the Trump Administration until further notice.
In fact, Trump’s basically gaslighting them. Knowing how much they hate him, he’s constantly provoking them to go over the top. Sean Spicer’s crowd-size remarks are all about making them seem petty and negative. (And, possibly, teeing up crowd-size comparisons at next week’s March For Life, which the press normally ignores but which Trump will probably force them to cover).
Trump knows that the press isn’t trusted very much, and that the less it’s trusted, the less it can hurt him. So he’s prodding reporters to do things that will make them less trusted, and they’re constantly taking the bait. They’re taking the bait because they think he’s dumb, and impulsive, and lacking self-control — but he’s the one causing them to act in ways that are dumb and impulsive, and demonstrate lack of self-control. As Richard Fernandez writes on Facebook, they think he’s dumb because they think he has lousy taste, but there are a lot of scarily competent guys out there in the world who like white and gold furniture. And, I should note, Trump has more media experience than probably 99% of the people covering him. (As Obama operative Ben Rhodes gloated with regard to selling a dishonest story on the Iran deal, the average reporter the Obama White House dealt with “is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns.” In Rhodes’ words, “they literally know nothing.”)
The counter-move for the press isn’t to double down on anti-Trump messaging. The counter-move is to bolster its own trustworthiness by acting more neutral and sober, and by being more trustworthy. If the news media actually focused on reporting facts accurately and straightforwardly, on leaving opinion to the pundits, and on giving Trump a clearly fair shake, then Trump’s tactics wouldn’t work, and any actual dirt they found on him would do actual damage. He’s betting on the press being insufficiently mature and self-controlled to manage that. So far, his bet is paying off.
That’s too bad. If we had a better press, we’d be much better off as a nation. But we don’t. Source.
This sounds awfully like saying the Democrats should sit tight and do whatever Trump wants despite not sitting tight being exactly why he won the election. Basically, it's exactly what Trump wants the press to do. They spent the whole election reporting demonstrably false claims as anything but, and it's part of why he won.
Anyone attributing the crowd size stuff or the "millions of illegal votes" to master strategy and not Trump's bizarre ego is reaching.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 24 2017 23:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 23:27 LegalLord wrote:
I really don't know if Trump has a working strategy for containing China. At this point I think we're looking at a clash of arms - in which we will find out if the Chinese government cares enough about its territorial claims to aggressively defend them. I'm not sure that Trump really intends to contain China so much as he wants to get as much stuff on the table as possible before he starts negotiating trade deals with China. This would be more in line with his stated priorities from the campaign and during the lame duck season.
At this point, with his advocacy of aggressive actions that China calls a declaration of war, Trump is testing whether or not China would be willing to put military force behind its territorial claims - and engage the US military if necessary. And I can say that I simply don't know if China is willing to do that. Their military strength has made leaps and bounds in recent decades, but they are still extremely wary of deploying beyond their borders, challenging any other military that could fight back, or hindering their economy. But if it turns out that China isn't bluffing about how serious it is about protecting its territorial claims, that will either lead to escalation or a pathetic-looking withdrawal. Both would look utterly terrible for the US.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 24 2017 23:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:
If only there was some sort of across-the-specific international goods exchange deal that was designed to help limit the influence of China and increase U.S. trade power in the region.
Then again, Trump thought China was a member of the TPP, so...
I myself don't support the TPP - it's not good for American workers - but it is true that leaving the deal substantially complicates any possible strategy to limit China's influence.
|
On January 24 2017 23:50 xDaunt wrote:And with regards to Trump and the Press, I think this guy has it right for all of the reasons that I laid out a few days ago: Show nested quote +TRUMP AND THE PRESS: So yesterday I was on the BBC talking about Trump, the press, and what’s going on. Here’s a bit of an expansion.
First, the thing to understand is that, as I’ve said before, one of the changes going on with Trump generally is the renegotiation of various post-World War II institutional arrangements. One of those is the institutional arrangement involving the press and the White House. For decades, the press got special status because it was seen as both powerful, and institutionally responsible. (And, of course, allied with the Democrats who were mostly in charge of setting up those postwar institutional arrangements). Now those things have changed. If the press were powerful, it would have beaten Trump. If it were responsible, it wouldn’t be running away with fake news whenever it sees a chance to run something damaging to Trump. And, of course, there’s no alliance between Trump and the media, as there was with Obama.
So things will change. The press’s “insider” status — which it cherishes — is going to fade. (This is producing waves of status anxiety, as are many other Trump-induced institutional changes). And, having abandoned, quite openly, any pretense of objectivity and neutrality in the election, the press is going to be treated as an enemy by the Trump Administration until further notice.
In fact, Trump’s basically gaslighting them. Knowing how much they hate him, he’s constantly provoking them to go over the top. Sean Spicer’s crowd-size remarks are all about making them seem petty and negative. (And, possibly, teeing up crowd-size comparisons at next week’s March For Life, which the press normally ignores but which Trump will probably force them to cover).
Trump knows that the press isn’t trusted very much, and that the less it’s trusted, the less it can hurt him. So he’s prodding reporters to do things that will make them less trusted, and they’re constantly taking the bait. They’re taking the bait because they think he’s dumb, and impulsive, and lacking self-control — but he’s the one causing them to act in ways that are dumb and impulsive, and demonstrate lack of self-control. As Richard Fernandez writes on Facebook, they think he’s dumb because they think he has lousy taste, but there are a lot of scarily competent guys out there in the world who like white and gold furniture. And, I should note, Trump has more media experience than probably 99% of the people covering him. (As Obama operative Ben Rhodes gloated with regard to selling a dishonest story on the Iran deal, the average reporter the Obama White House dealt with “is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns.” In Rhodes’ words, “they literally know nothing.”)
The counter-move for the press isn’t to double down on anti-Trump messaging. The counter-move is to bolster its own trustworthiness by acting more neutral and sober, and by being more trustworthy. If the news media actually focused on reporting facts accurately and straightforwardly, on leaving opinion to the pundits, and on giving Trump a clearly fair shake, then Trump’s tactics wouldn’t work, and any actual dirt they found on him would do actual damage. He’s betting on the press being insufficiently mature and self-controlled to manage that. So far, his bet is paying off.
That’s too bad. If we had a better press, we’d be much better off as a nation. But we don’t. Source.
Why it is so difficult for people to understand it's about the lie, not the subject of the lie?
This article is especially hilarious for its hypocrisy:
Sean Spicer’s crowd-size remarks are all about making them seem petty and negative.
...if the news media actually focused on reporting facts accurately and straightforwardly
|
On January 24 2017 23:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 23:34 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2017 23:27 LegalLord wrote:
I really don't know if Trump has a working strategy for containing China. At this point I think we're looking at a clash of arms - in which we will find out if the Chinese government cares enough about its territorial claims to aggressively defend them. I'm not sure that Trump really intends to contain China so much as he wants to get as much stuff on the table as possible before he starts negotiating trade deals with China. This would be more in line with his stated priorities from the campaign and during the lame duck season. At this point, with his advocacy of aggressive actions that China calls a declaration of war, Trump is testing whether or not China would be willing to put military force behind its territorial claims - and engage the US military if necessary. And I can say that I simply don't know if China is willing to do that. Their military strength has made leaps and bounds in recent decades, but they are still extremely wary of deploying beyond their borders, challenging any other military that could fight back, or hindering their economy. But if it turns out that China isn't bluffing about how serious it is about protecting its territorial claims, that will either lead to escalation or a pathetic-looking withdrawal. Both would look utterly terrible for the US.
China trying to challenge the US at sea would be suicide and Trump knows it. I don't think there is any way that an actual military conflict for the south china sea would go well for China. At the end of the day, we can crank it up significantly more than they can. They have a bright military future, but they aren't close to there yet.
|
On January 24 2017 13:44 Doodsmack wrote:Fortunately most of the outright fabrications are only related to Trump's ego/the media rather than policy. Hopefully, it stays that way.
Maybe I was wrong, and it's just a complete dupe job by Trump against his voters.
|
On January 25 2017 00:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 23:55 LegalLord wrote:On January 24 2017 23:34 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2017 23:27 LegalLord wrote:
I really don't know if Trump has a working strategy for containing China. At this point I think we're looking at a clash of arms - in which we will find out if the Chinese government cares enough about its territorial claims to aggressively defend them. I'm not sure that Trump really intends to contain China so much as he wants to get as much stuff on the table as possible before he starts negotiating trade deals with China. This would be more in line with his stated priorities from the campaign and during the lame duck season. At this point, with his advocacy of aggressive actions that China calls a declaration of war, Trump is testing whether or not China would be willing to put military force behind its territorial claims - and engage the US military if necessary. And I can say that I simply don't know if China is willing to do that. Their military strength has made leaps and bounds in recent decades, but they are still extremely wary of deploying beyond their borders, challenging any other military that could fight back, or hindering their economy. But if it turns out that China isn't bluffing about how serious it is about protecting its territorial claims, that will either lead to escalation or a pathetic-looking withdrawal. Both would look utterly terrible for the US. China trying to challenge the US at sea would be suicide and Trump knows it. I don't think there is any way that an actual military conflict for the south china sea would go well for China. At the end of the day, we can crank it up significantly more than they can. They have a bright military future, but they aren't close to there yet.
Why bother trying to win a direct fight? They bring media on ships along with hundreds of fishing boats and start live telecast when Trump's ships comes into view. Share the news worldwide with the headline "Americans attack fishermen"
|
On January 24 2017 23:50 xDaunt wrote:And with regards to Trump and the Press, I think this guy has it right for all of the reasons that I laid out a few days ago: Show nested quote +TRUMP AND THE PRESS: So yesterday I was on the BBC talking about Trump, the press, and what’s going on. Here’s a bit of an expansion.
First, the thing to understand is that, as I’ve said before, one of the changes going on with Trump generally is the renegotiation of various post-World War II institutional arrangements. One of those is the institutional arrangement involving the press and the White House. For decades, the press got special status because it was seen as both powerful, and institutionally responsible. (And, of course, allied with the Democrats who were mostly in charge of setting up those postwar institutional arrangements). Now those things have changed. If the press were powerful, it would have beaten Trump. If it were responsible, it wouldn’t be running away with fake news whenever it sees a chance to run something damaging to Trump. And, of course, there’s no alliance between Trump and the media, as there was with Obama.
So things will change. The press’s “insider” status — which it cherishes — is going to fade. (This is producing waves of status anxiety, as are many other Trump-induced institutional changes). And, having abandoned, quite openly, any pretense of objectivity and neutrality in the election, the press is going to be treated as an enemy by the Trump Administration until further notice.
In fact, Trump’s basically gaslighting them. Knowing how much they hate him, he’s constantly provoking them to go over the top. Sean Spicer’s crowd-size remarks are all about making them seem petty and negative. (And, possibly, teeing up crowd-size comparisons at next week’s March For Life, which the press normally ignores but which Trump will probably force them to cover).
Trump knows that the press isn’t trusted very much, and that the less it’s trusted, the less it can hurt him. So he’s prodding reporters to do things that will make them less trusted, and they’re constantly taking the bait. They’re taking the bait because they think he’s dumb, and impulsive, and lacking self-control — but he’s the one causing them to act in ways that are dumb and impulsive, and demonstrate lack of self-control. As Richard Fernandez writes on Facebook, they think he’s dumb because they think he has lousy taste, but there are a lot of scarily competent guys out there in the world who like white and gold furniture. And, I should note, Trump has more media experience than probably 99% of the people covering him. (As Obama operative Ben Rhodes gloated with regard to selling a dishonest story on the Iran deal, the average reporter the Obama White House dealt with “is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns.” In Rhodes’ words, “they literally know nothing.”)
The counter-move for the press isn’t to double down on anti-Trump messaging. The counter-move is to bolster its own trustworthiness by acting more neutral and sober, and by being more trustworthy. If the news media actually focused on reporting facts accurately and straightforwardly, on leaving opinion to the pundits, and on giving Trump a clearly fair shake, then Trump’s tactics wouldn’t work, and any actual dirt they found on him would do actual damage. He’s betting on the press being insufficiently mature and self-controlled to manage that. So far, his bet is paying off.
That’s too bad. If we had a better press, we’d be much better off as a nation. But we don’t. Source.
"Knowing how much they hate him, he’s constantly provoking them to go over the top. Sean Spicer’s crowd-size remarks are all about making them seem petty and negative"
The theory is woefully inadequate for not taking into account Trump's dumb pettiness with the press, which dates back to the 1980s. It's the 7D chess theory.
|
The security of Israel is at risk.
Moving the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would be a declaration of war on Islam, influential Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said Tuesday.
"Transferring the US embassy to Jerusalem would be a public and more-explicit-than-ever declaration of war against Islam," he said in a statement.
In a break with previous administrations, new US President Donald Trump has pledged to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital and relocate the US embassy there from Tel Aviv.
Sadr, a firebrand Shiite cleric whose militia once fought US occupation forces in Iraq, called for the "formation of a special division to liberate Jerusalem were the decision to be implemented."
Yahoo
|
On January 25 2017 00:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 00:29 Mohdoo wrote:On January 24 2017 23:55 LegalLord wrote:On January 24 2017 23:34 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2017 23:27 LegalLord wrote:
I really don't know if Trump has a working strategy for containing China. At this point I think we're looking at a clash of arms - in which we will find out if the Chinese government cares enough about its territorial claims to aggressively defend them. I'm not sure that Trump really intends to contain China so much as he wants to get as much stuff on the table as possible before he starts negotiating trade deals with China. This would be more in line with his stated priorities from the campaign and during the lame duck season. At this point, with his advocacy of aggressive actions that China calls a declaration of war, Trump is testing whether or not China would be willing to put military force behind its territorial claims - and engage the US military if necessary. And I can say that I simply don't know if China is willing to do that. Their military strength has made leaps and bounds in recent decades, but they are still extremely wary of deploying beyond their borders, challenging any other military that could fight back, or hindering their economy. But if it turns out that China isn't bluffing about how serious it is about protecting its territorial claims, that will either lead to escalation or a pathetic-looking withdrawal. Both would look utterly terrible for the US. China trying to challenge the US at sea would be suicide and Trump knows it. I don't think there is any way that an actual military conflict for the south china sea would go well for China. At the end of the day, we can crank it up significantly more than they can. They have a bright military future, but they aren't close to there yet. Why bother trying to win a direct fight? They bring media on ships along with hundreds of fishing boats and start live telecast when Trump's ships comes into view. Share the news worldwide with the headline "Americans attack fishermen"
I would not give a flying fuck, as a generally anti-war American. Chinese dominance, no matter how you look at it, needs to be prevented from an American global power perspective. If Trump makes a fight out of the area, and goes way overboard such that China knows it would be madness to make a big deal out of, suddenly the US is big dog of the area.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 25 2017 00:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 23:55 LegalLord wrote:On January 24 2017 23:34 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2017 23:27 LegalLord wrote:
I really don't know if Trump has a working strategy for containing China. At this point I think we're looking at a clash of arms - in which we will find out if the Chinese government cares enough about its territorial claims to aggressively defend them. I'm not sure that Trump really intends to contain China so much as he wants to get as much stuff on the table as possible before he starts negotiating trade deals with China. This would be more in line with his stated priorities from the campaign and during the lame duck season. At this point, with his advocacy of aggressive actions that China calls a declaration of war, Trump is testing whether or not China would be willing to put military force behind its territorial claims - and engage the US military if necessary. And I can say that I simply don't know if China is willing to do that. Their military strength has made leaps and bounds in recent decades, but they are still extremely wary of deploying beyond their borders, challenging any other military that could fight back, or hindering their economy. But if it turns out that China isn't bluffing about how serious it is about protecting its territorial claims, that will either lead to escalation or a pathetic-looking withdrawal. Both would look utterly terrible for the US. China trying to challenge the US at sea would be suicide and Trump knows it. I don't think there is any way that an actual military conflict for the south china sea would go well for China. At the end of the day, we can crank it up significantly more than they can. They have a bright military future, but they aren't close to there yet.
China couldn't win outright - but they might be willing enough to crank it up to the point that the US decides it isn't worth losing multiple carriers, their crew and cargo, and a vast quantity of miscellaneous military hardware to fight over a few (important, but not that important) islands.
The real issue is that I don't really know if they are - and I don't think the US leadership knows either. China is quite assertive about its South China Sea ventures but I simply don't know how willing they are to put their money where their mouths are.
|
On January 25 2017 00:34 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 13:44 Doodsmack wrote:Fortunately most of the outright fabrications are only related to Trump's ego/the media rather than policy. Hopefully, it stays that way. Maybe I was wrong, and it's just a complete dupe job by Trump against his voters. https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/823603910145413120
Pretty unrelated, but it confused me, and now I am pretty proud that figured this out:
There is something weird going on in that graph. Every 10 years, on the spot, there is a short, sharp peak in federal employment.
+ Show Spoiler +
I think the reason is the US Census, which probably involves a bunch of people doing a bunch of word for a few weeks or months. My first thought was elections, but those happen more often and not always on the 10th year.
|
On January 25 2017 00:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 00:29 Mohdoo wrote:On January 24 2017 23:55 LegalLord wrote:On January 24 2017 23:34 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2017 23:27 LegalLord wrote:
I really don't know if Trump has a working strategy for containing China. At this point I think we're looking at a clash of arms - in which we will find out if the Chinese government cares enough about its territorial claims to aggressively defend them. I'm not sure that Trump really intends to contain China so much as he wants to get as much stuff on the table as possible before he starts negotiating trade deals with China. This would be more in line with his stated priorities from the campaign and during the lame duck season. At this point, with his advocacy of aggressive actions that China calls a declaration of war, Trump is testing whether or not China would be willing to put military force behind its territorial claims - and engage the US military if necessary. And I can say that I simply don't know if China is willing to do that. Their military strength has made leaps and bounds in recent decades, but they are still extremely wary of deploying beyond their borders, challenging any other military that could fight back, or hindering their economy. But if it turns out that China isn't bluffing about how serious it is about protecting its territorial claims, that will either lead to escalation or a pathetic-looking withdrawal. Both would look utterly terrible for the US. China trying to challenge the US at sea would be suicide and Trump knows it. I don't think there is any way that an actual military conflict for the south china sea would go well for China. At the end of the day, we can crank it up significantly more than they can. They have a bright military future, but they aren't close to there yet. China couldn't win outright - but they might be willing enough to crank it up to the point that the US decides it isn't worth losing multiple carriers, their crew and cargo, and a vast quantity of miscellaneous military hardware to fight over a few (important, but not that important) islands. The real issue is that I don't really know if they are - and I don't think the US leadership knows either. China is quite assertive about its South China Sea ventures but I simply don't know how willing they are to put their money where their mouths are.
China is doing well at doing exactly what they are doing, but they are clearly walking a very tight rope in many respects. While I do not claim to be a military expert, my understanding of China's military leads me to believe that is is mostly hollow at this point when it comes to actual conflict. I definitely think China would blink first.
|
On January 25 2017 01:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2017 00:59 LegalLord wrote:On January 25 2017 00:29 Mohdoo wrote:On January 24 2017 23:55 LegalLord wrote:On January 24 2017 23:34 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2017 23:27 LegalLord wrote:
I really don't know if Trump has a working strategy for containing China. At this point I think we're looking at a clash of arms - in which we will find out if the Chinese government cares enough about its territorial claims to aggressively defend them. I'm not sure that Trump really intends to contain China so much as he wants to get as much stuff on the table as possible before he starts negotiating trade deals with China. This would be more in line with his stated priorities from the campaign and during the lame duck season. At this point, with his advocacy of aggressive actions that China calls a declaration of war, Trump is testing whether or not China would be willing to put military force behind its territorial claims - and engage the US military if necessary. And I can say that I simply don't know if China is willing to do that. Their military strength has made leaps and bounds in recent decades, but they are still extremely wary of deploying beyond their borders, challenging any other military that could fight back, or hindering their economy. But if it turns out that China isn't bluffing about how serious it is about protecting its territorial claims, that will either lead to escalation or a pathetic-looking withdrawal. Both would look utterly terrible for the US. China trying to challenge the US at sea would be suicide and Trump knows it. I don't think there is any way that an actual military conflict for the south china sea would go well for China. At the end of the day, we can crank it up significantly more than they can. They have a bright military future, but they aren't close to there yet. China couldn't win outright - but they might be willing enough to crank it up to the point that the US decides it isn't worth losing multiple carriers, their crew and cargo, and a vast quantity of miscellaneous military hardware to fight over a few (important, but not that important) islands. The real issue is that I don't really know if they are - and I don't think the US leadership knows either. China is quite assertive about its South China Sea ventures but I simply don't know how willing they are to put their money where their mouths are. China is doing well at doing exactly what they are doing, but they are clearly walking a very tight rope in many respects. While I do not claim to be a military expert, my understanding of China's military leads me to believe that is is mostly hollow at this point when it comes to actual conflict. I definitely think China would blink first.
Okay stop it, America needs less wars, not more.
America needs to spend more money on inner city infrastructures, building the roads, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
