|
On June 26 2011 12:41 trucejl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 11:36 white_horse wrote:
Believing that China is a peaceful, non-aggressive, non-expansionist state is probably the biggest fantasy that someone could have about current world politics. Expansionist? What territory has China annexed since the establishment of PROC? Tibet cannot be considered a aggressive or expansionist movement since its basically a internal issue that USA wants to poke its nose in. The south china sea issue has been disputed for a long time now, its hardly anything new. Last I check they haven't fire a shot at any of the southern asia countries, just a bunch of old asian man bitching at each other. Compared to the USA track record recently, what china is doing is laughable. Current world politics is basically either pro-USA or pro-China. The neutral countries are either in a pile of shit themselves or completely irrelevant on the world scene. Too many people here in the USA needs to find out information from both sides instead of reading news propaganda from only one side. Didn't the Japanese premier/president get a lot of heat recently for failing to hold up his promise regarding moving the Okinawa base? Seems like a clear example of a portion of the Japanese people wanting the base removed or relocated at least. In the end, until the Japanese people or Korean people come together as a whole and demand the USA to leave, those base will always be there. The cost will not matter based on the current track records of US spending. Even in a huge debt crisis, the government continues to pursue multiple military operation around the world. No matter the believe from either side, money is being spend and it will continue to be spend.
China has conducted offensives towards India and Vietnam in the CW
|
You guys are all thinking that expansionism is a strict definition of taking territories by using armies. But it's not.
|
On June 26 2011 12:51 thoradycus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 12:41 trucejl wrote:On June 26 2011 11:36 white_horse wrote:
Believing that China is a peaceful, non-aggressive, non-expansionist state is probably the biggest fantasy that someone could have about current world politics. Expansionist? What territory has China annexed since the establishment of PROC? Tibet cannot be considered a aggressive or expansionist movement since its basically a internal issue that USA wants to poke its nose in. The south china sea issue has been disputed for a long time now, its hardly anything new. Last I check they haven't fire a shot at any of the southern asia countries, just a bunch of old asian man bitching at each other. Compared to the USA track record recently, what china is doing is laughable. Current world politics is basically either pro-USA or pro-China. The neutral countries are either in a pile of shit themselves or completely irrelevant on the world scene. Too many people here in the USA needs to find out information from both sides instead of reading news propaganda from only one side. Didn't the Japanese premier/president get a lot of heat recently for failing to hold up his promise regarding moving the Okinawa base? Seems like a clear example of a portion of the Japanese people wanting the base removed or relocated at least. In the end, until the Japanese people or Korean people come together as a whole and demand the USA to leave, those base will always be there. The cost will not matter based on the current track records of US spending. Even in a huge debt crisis, the government continues to pursue multiple military operation around the world. No matter the believe from either side, money is being spend and it will continue to be spend. China has conducted offensives towards India and Vietnam in the CW
Indian was a result of disputed territories that existed even today. Did you know that after China dismantled India's force, it pulled back and didn't take any of the indian territories it could have occupied?
vietnam was a result of the vietnam war in which it helped the communist side since the world at that time was communist vs non communist. Hardly expansionist since the goal was not to gain those territory but to help its communist ally gain control of the country.
Neither conflict were geared toward gaining any sort of territory. Vietnam was a case of alliance help and India was a case of defend China's own territorial integrity.
Expansionism at its core means gaining more territory. Another definition may be something like economical influence or other types of Sphere of influence. IMO the argument against china mainly is preventing it from annexing some parts of asia.
|
SK military might be leagues ahead of NK but there isn't a single country in the world which can make it stop raining metal. I doubt even the most advanced defensive systems can stop tonnes of metal falling from the sky.
|
So in one of my history classes way back when we were talking about the Cold War and nuclear deterrence. Essentially we learned the US has enough nuclear warheads to level the ENTIRE WORLD 3 times over, I would assume in the 7 years since that class that number has gone up.
While I think a normal gun war would always preempt a nuke fight, lets just be honest that if any governmental power (not terrorist organization) attacked the US or its allies, they would be putting themselves in a lot of danger. One reason that I am a big fan of Ron Paul is because he would (or at least I beleive he would) pull out all troops out of all regions. We got crap here to worry about rather than spending billions on other countries.
QUOTE]On June 26 2011 01:56 Klipsys wrote:
On June 26 2011 01:45 DeepElemBlues wrote:
If the US ever left SK and Japan, both SK and Japan would start enlarging their navies and there would be a naval arms race between them and China. That would be the biggest political change from the US leaving, Japan returning to its status as a premier naval power in the Pacific.
What the....
You know that japan hasn't had a standing army since WW2, and it's a violation of UN resolutions if they re-militarize[/QUOTE]
Yea, after WW1 whatever the equivolent of the UN (I forget the name, history not my strong point) really stopped Germany from re-militarizing. If Japan did anything in terms of building an army and not being agressive about it, the UN would write a strongly worded letter and then "sanction" Japan which would essentially mean they tell japan they disapprove. Nothing would happen to Japan...
|
On June 26 2011 01:40 Crisco wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 01:37 Skee wrote:
What do you mean fall under China's influence? Neither South Korea, Japan or China rely on eachother or any other asian country economically speaking and no, China is not going to go to war with them.... So I am having a problem understanding what you mean.
Like the above poster said, the most important reason for troops in South Korea is for the imminent fall of North Korea in the next 50 years. And even then, military-wise South Korea is pretty well off compared to North Korea. Actually NK's army is vastly larger than SK's
Larger =/= Better
It's be like saying that 10 babies are able to beat up a full grown man because there are more of them.
Also, the babies are stuck with technology from the 70's.
|
Can you clarify how much SK and Japan are paying (you say billions of dollars) for the U.S. to stay there? I took 2 classes, one that specifically focused on U.S. troops in Japan and SK, and both said basically that it's a major cost to the U.S., while it's saving SK and Japan millions/billions themselves (as if the U.S. wasn't there, they'd have to spend money on their own military which instead could be used for the economy, etc.)
|
On June 26 2011 13:08 trucejl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 12:51 thoradycus wrote:On June 26 2011 12:41 trucejl wrote:On June 26 2011 11:36 white_horse wrote:
Believing that China is a peaceful, non-aggressive, non-expansionist state is probably the biggest fantasy that someone could have about current world politics. Expansionist? What territory has China annexed since the establishment of PROC? Tibet cannot be considered a aggressive or expansionist movement since its basically a internal issue that USA wants to poke its nose in. The south china sea issue has been disputed for a long time now, its hardly anything new. Last I check they haven't fire a shot at any of the southern asia countries, just a bunch of old asian man bitching at each other. Compared to the USA track record recently, what china is doing is laughable. Current world politics is basically either pro-USA or pro-China. The neutral countries are either in a pile of shit themselves or completely irrelevant on the world scene. Too many people here in the USA needs to find out information from both sides instead of reading news propaganda from only one side. Didn't the Japanese premier/president get a lot of heat recently for failing to hold up his promise regarding moving the Okinawa base? Seems like a clear example of a portion of the Japanese people wanting the base removed or relocated at least. In the end, until the Japanese people or Korean people come together as a whole and demand the USA to leave, those base will always be there. The cost will not matter based on the current track records of US spending. Even in a huge debt crisis, the government continues to pursue multiple military operation around the world. No matter the believe from either side, money is being spend and it will continue to be spend. China has conducted offensives towards India and Vietnam in the CW Indian was a result of disputed territories that existed even today. Did you know that after China dismantled India's force, it pulled back and didn't take any of the indian territories it could have occupied? vietnam was a result of the vietnam war in which it helped the communist side since the world at that time was communist vs non communist. Hardly expansionist since the goal was not to gain those territory but to help its communist ally gain control of the country. Neither conflict were geared toward gaining any sort of territory. Vietnam was a case of alliance help and India was a case of defend China's own territorial integrity. Expansionism at its core means gaining more territory. Another definition may be something like economical influence or other types of Sphere of influence. IMO the argument against china mainly is preventing it from annexing some parts of asia.
You make it sound like India was the aggressor, the reason for the war was china demanding territores that are a part of the Indian union when chinese map makers suddenly printed certain parts of India as china. It still continues to demand them, and continues random aggression (even in kashmir). The reason why china gave them up was due to intense international pressure, not the good of heart by china. Relation up to that point were very cordial and the aggression by china was seen to be an act of betraying friendship.
|
On June 26 2011 01:34 Voltaire wrote:
I think the US should definitely pull out of both South Korea and Japan, along with Germany and other places where there are unnecessary bases. There are things far more important than imperialism for the US to be spending its money on right now.
It would cost more money to move all of our stuff home. There is no reason our troops shouldn't be stationed where they are. Most of those bases were established decades ago (after WWII). Most importantly they give our army "mobility". We are more mobile than other countries simply because we have more troops stationed in more places, ready to defend. It has nothing to do with Imperialism. I'm pretty sure that Germany, Japan, and SK governments couldn't give a shit about us, but that doesn't mean they are offended to have our troops stationed in their country (helping their economy).
|
On June 26 2011 13:20 neo_sporin wrote:So in one of my history classes way back when we were talking about the Cold War and nuclear deterrence. Essentially we learned the US has enough nuclear warheads to level the ENTIRE WORLD 3 times over, I would assume in the 7 years since that class that number has gone up. While I think a normal gun war would always preempt a nuke fight, lets just be honest that if any governmental power (not terrorist organization) attacked the US or its allies, they would be putting themselves in a lot of danger. One reason that I am a big fan of Ron Paul is because he would (or at least I beleive he would) pull out all troops out of all regions. We got crap here to worry about rather than spending billions on other countries. Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 01:56 Klipsys wrote:On June 26 2011 01:45 DeepElemBlues wrote:
If the US ever left SK and Japan, both SK and Japan would start enlarging their navies and there would be a naval arms race between them and China. That would be the biggest political change from the US leaving, Japan returning to its status as a premier naval power in the Pacific. What the.... You know that japan hasn't had a standing army since WW2, and it's a violation of UN resolutions if they re-militarize Yea, after WW1 whatever the equivolent of the UN (I forget the name, history not my strong point) really stopped Germany from re-militarizing. If Japan did anything in terms of building an army and not being agressive about it, the UN would write a strongly worded letter and then "sanction" Japan which would essentially mean they tell japan they disapprove. Nothing would happen to Japan...
Actually the nuclear weapon stockpiles of both the US and Russia have been reduced massively since the end of the cold war and they're still making new treaties to reduce it further.
And Japan's defence force is quite powerful, they've been steadily enlarging it for decades. America was the only country that was actually monitoring it in the first place and they've let it happen because they want another strong ally in the region.
|
On June 26 2011 02:09 decemberTV wrote:This is why the US will pull out of Germany / Japan and South Korea. ![[image loading]](http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/5203600166_d002334af8_z.jpg) atm the US is 14.000 billion in debt; 1.400 to china alone. They have already begun to cut funds from NASA etc but very soon they will begin to cut funds from the army. There's no other option since the US citizens already have bad healthcare and other social services. There is nowhere to cut funds from anymore.
Looking at this just makes me sad. It begins to curb and level out again in the clinton era, but then... "gotcha!" and it starts spiking up again.
On topic, if the US pulled out then tension would definitely rise in the region. But if the US continued to back SK verbally, I don't think NK would take any kind of untoward action they wouldn't have taken anyway.
|
On June 26 2011 11:53 MotorDouglas wrote:
US don't want to nuke China because then they would have to deal with NK, Iran and Russia
Oh, right, that must be why. We're just itchin to nuke em otherwise. Lmao where does this shit come from?
|
On June 26 2011 14:13 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 11:53 MotorDouglas wrote:
US don't want to nuke China because then they would have to deal with NK, Iran and Russia Oh, right, that must be why. We're just itchin to nuke em otherwise. Lmao where does this shit come from?
Not to mention we're now pushing to dismantle all nuclear weaponry by 2030.
(Source: Economist 06/18/11)
|
On June 26 2011 13:44 dartoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 13:08 trucejl wrote:On June 26 2011 12:51 thoradycus wrote:On June 26 2011 12:41 trucejl wrote:On June 26 2011 11:36 white_horse wrote:
Believing that China is a peaceful, non-aggressive, non-expansionist state is probably the biggest fantasy that someone could have about current world politics. Expansionist? What territory has China annexed since the establishment of PROC? Tibet cannot be considered a aggressive or expansionist movement since its basically a internal issue that USA wants to poke its nose in. The south china sea issue has been disputed for a long time now, its hardly anything new. Last I check they haven't fire a shot at any of the southern asia countries, just a bunch of old asian man bitching at each other. Compared to the USA track record recently, what china is doing is laughable. Current world politics is basically either pro-USA or pro-China. The neutral countries are either in a pile of shit themselves or completely irrelevant on the world scene. Too many people here in the USA needs to find out information from both sides instead of reading news propaganda from only one side. Didn't the Japanese premier/president get a lot of heat recently for failing to hold up his promise regarding moving the Okinawa base? Seems like a clear example of a portion of the Japanese people wanting the base removed or relocated at least. In the end, until the Japanese people or Korean people come together as a whole and demand the USA to leave, those base will always be there. The cost will not matter based on the current track records of US spending. Even in a huge debt crisis, the government continues to pursue multiple military operation around the world. No matter the believe from either side, money is being spend and it will continue to be spend. China has conducted offensives towards India and Vietnam in the CW Indian was a result of disputed territories that existed even today. Did you know that after China dismantled India's force, it pulled back and didn't take any of the indian territories it could have occupied? vietnam was a result of the vietnam war in which it helped the communist side since the world at that time was communist vs non communist. Hardly expansionist since the goal was not to gain those territory but to help its communist ally gain control of the country. Neither conflict were geared toward gaining any sort of territory. Vietnam was a case of alliance help and India was a case of defend China's own territorial integrity. Expansionism at its core means gaining more territory. Another definition may be something like economical influence or other types of Sphere of influence. IMO the argument against china mainly is preventing it from annexing some parts of asia. You make it sound like India was the aggressor, the reason for the war was china demanding territores that are a part of the Indian union when chinese map makers suddenly printed certain parts of India as china. It still continues to demand them, and continues random aggression (even in kashmir). The reason why china gave them up was due to intense international pressure, not the good of heart by china. Relation up to that point were very cordial and the aggression by china was seen to be an act of betraying friendship.
And the fact that the PLA's strategic position was untenable, they've beaten the Indian army but it would be disastrous for them to cross into India proper. They were thousands miles far from Sichuan and when the winter sets it they would be cut off.
Implying that China is non-aggressive or non-expansionist based on some pseudo history is naive at best.
Have a look at the map of Imperial China from Song to present days and read up on Qian Long's 10 Great military deeds and tell me what is so special about the Chinese empire to say they are non-expansionist?
China will flex their muscle when they see fit and rightly so due to its strength and position in the global affairs.
|
The idea that the majority of South Koreans want the U.S. military out of their country is pretty absurd. The U.S. enjoys the highest approval rating of any developed country in the world from South Korea (source: http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=1&mode=map). They absolutely would never pass a vote to have the U.S. leave if one was put forward.
Also I've actually spoken to a lot of Japanese online (mostly in FFXIV or other games) about the U.S. presence there, and opinion is pretty divided. A lot say stuff like "Sometimes we get mad at them, but we don't want them to go away completely" and such. I would of course be in favor of having them vote whether they want the U.S. there or not, but to say that they all want the U.S. gone is just plain false.
Again, I think countries should just put it to a vote with their people, and the U.S. should abide by that decision. That would be ideal to me.
|
i think it might be milton freidman who argues this but i support it anyway that chinas growth is unsustainable as the country becomes increasinly developed and without their rapid growth the chinese goverment can and will quickly melt away and spilt into many different regions/goverments
|
MrHoon
10183 Posts
lol@ people saying North Korea will take over Japan AND South Korea
Yeah guys those 200 1960s Russian MIGS with 15 hours of flight time will totally rape two countries
Totally.
|
On June 26 2011 13:49 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2011 01:34 Voltaire wrote:
I think the US should definitely pull out of both South Korea and Japan, along with Germany and other places where there are unnecessary bases. There are things far more important than imperialism for the US to be spending its money on right now. It would cost more money to move all of our stuff home. There is no reason our troops shouldn't be stationed where they are. Most of those bases were established decades ago (after WWII). Most importantly they give our army "mobility". We are more mobile than other countries simply because we have more troops stationed in more places, ready to defend. It has nothing to do with Imperialism. I'm pretty sure that Germany, Japan, and SK governments couldn't give a shit about us, but that doesn't mean they are offended to have our troops stationed in their country (helping their economy).
Do you learn this at your schools in the US? It has nothing to do with imperialism? Ok how about that, lets place troops from europe in the USA, to increase mobility if they need to defend your country. Lets say 50k-100k soldiers will be ok for the start.
We build bases all around the USA, there is no reason to not do this.
They will gain all the benefits you explained in your post, thats a good deal , huh?
"Your" eco needs alot of help, so our troups are welcome, soon you dont have money for this hudge military, we support "you" , of course.
It has nothing to do with imperialism, we jsut want to help your poor country, with a mobile, eco-helping force, sounds like a good deal for both sides, what do you think?
|
I love how liker 90% of topics on Team Liquid turn into page after page of unrelated shit storms.
On topic, I think North Korea would feel a little more liberated to be aggressive towards Japan and might even invade (but that seems pretty far out). I don't see much of a difference for China.
|
North Korea is a buffer state for China, to prevent non-Chinese (read: US and proxies) influence furthering upon the area. And while we're on topic, SK has no intention of re-unification other than from idealogical standpoints. If NK ever fell, the burden of reconstruction and development would be placed on SK, Japan, China and the US. China would be 1. saddled with North Korean refugees heading north of the Korean border, and 2. lose North Korea to a US ally, destabilising the area from the Chinese point of view and 3. cough up aid money for ex-North Korea. The only player in this game who doesn't have anything to lose from changes to the region, is North Korea.
From this, we can establish if the US ever pulled out of South Korea and Japan (unlikely as it is the last two places on Earth the US would pull out of [name another place the US would like to keep troops in, in terms of money spent and need]), China would do everything to keep the status quo going, funnily enough as it seems, either by preventing NK aggression or by forcing NK to slowly open up, either northwards or southwards. Now to the question... if NK decided to make a move southwards or eastwards to SK or Japan, a couple million of either South Koreans or Japanese will die within the space of a couple of hours. Then NK would get owned in the next week (by China or the US), with some form of government put back in place. A couple million of South Koreans and Japanese dead, but that's OK, cos the bomb would be defused. Then everything keeps running as usual with NK having either some sort of Chinese proxy government, or having some clown from the NK elite continue to lead it, on a short international leash, less sanctions, more aid, a little bit more opened up, no more nuclear weapons, and no-one blinks an eye (apart from some South Korean and Japnese people).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
