New Cold War?!?!

[Stealth bomber]

Are you sure Stealth

No dimpled chads in Wisconsin

 

[Stealth bomber]

I suppose I'm a little biased so naturally I'm sticking up for my boys.

One thing to make clear though...we were not over Chinese territory, it was international airspace, therefore we had a perfectly legitimate right to be there.

I like to think if the incident was reversed, we'd handle it a bit differently than this. But with idiot boy in the White House, maybe not.

I reckon that China is obviously still upset about the embassy thing and holding a grudge.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by jod23:
Shinners i figured it out by using my brain but i know that your a North fan and Roos supporters usually have very small brains so ill make it easy for you to understand.

America - Free country
China - Communist country

Nice to know that you can see things in black and white, but if you read beyond the sports pages, I think you'll find that it's mostly shades of grey.

I'm not saying that everything China does is right and everything that the US does is wrong (plainly it isn't), but to blindly follow one side over the other without stepping away from the issue and trying to analyse it objectively....well.....maybe you really should stick to the sports pages and leave the politics to the big boys.

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Stealth bomber:
One thing to make clear though...we were not over Chinese territory, it was international airspace, therefore we had a perfectly legitimate right to be there.

I like to think if the incident was reversed, we'd handle it a bit differently than this. But with idiot boy in the White House, maybe not.

I reckon that China is obviously still upset about the embassy thing and holding a grudge.

Of course China is still upset over the embassy thing. Take a look at Cuba....don't you still have a trade embargo on them? Or Iran...how long before you started to normalise relations after the Embassy hostages were released. Take Iraq, still got a trade embargo on them which hurts thier citizens more than their leadership. Or Libya...the Europeans want to trade with them but the US won't let them. And you're wondering how the Chinese could still be bitter over their embassy getting bombed? Take a look at US foreign policy and thier penchant for vindictiveness. Also, take a look at how frothy mouthed the Americans got over the Oaklahoma bombing....the first suspects were the Middle East terrorist groups and the US media were starting to call for revenge attacks. Of course, when you realised that it was an American that did that bombing....so maybe you guys aren't as rational as you like to think you are.

I don't think the Americans would have handled this any differently from the Chinese. In fact, I reckon if an American pilot died, you'd be sending the Chinese to trial. But of course, Americans killing foreigners (that Japanese boat that got sunk the other month, the skiers that got killed when US fighter aircraft flew into the ski-lifts in Italy a few years ago, not to mention the rapes of citizens at the military base on one of Japan's islands by American servicemen)....well....they can always run and hide back under American law, hey?

This is not to say that China is all peace and justice (clearly they're not), but in allocating who is right and who is wrong in the world, you're going to have to spend a lot of time fiddling around in the grey areas.



[This message has been edited by Shinboners (edited 08 April 2001).]

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

Originally posted by jod23:
We always have the advantage. If it got serious then the Uk and us aussies would step in a help out.

HAHAHAHHA, australia's defense force has become a joke, first they bought the F-111's the americans de-commissioned then they bought the dodgy subs that couldn't sink a fishing boat.

Please don't take offense to this though.

But in reality when you consider war, australia is a very weak country. Lucky the americans are here to help us, though they wouldn't help unless they got something out of it themselves.



------------------
"I'm not going to waste my life trying to prolong it"

 

[jod23]

Shinners - C'mon man .... they were in international skies, the plane goes down. The chinese force the passengers off at gunpoint and dont let them fly back to the states, then they keep the plane to get secrets off there enemy. I didnt think it was that hard to understand.

 

[Shinboners]

Jod23

Now, I know you're a kid and probably couldn't recognise political machinations if Graeme Richardson showed you where he buried all his skeletons, but as simple as your scenario sounds, you a few greater issues at stake.

Firstly, in China. The technocrat politicians have, over the years, slowly been eroding the political power of the military. This is the chance for the military to regain the influence that they lost. So, the politicians have to find some way of returning the crew and plane that keeps the military happy, doesn't give them too much influence, keeps their domestic audience happy (keep in mind, there is plenty of anti-American feeling in China), and allows China to, as they say in Asia, save face. The other issue is that there is a new president and the Chinese politicians will be using this to see how much they can push him to get what they want. The Chinese did it to Clinton, Bush Snr., and Reagan. If you've ever followed US-China relations, you'll know that Clinton rolled over on a regular basis.

Meanwhile, over in the US, Bush has to find a way out that maintains his prestige...he doesn't want to roll over and die. If he gives away too much to the Chinese, then his authority will diminish. He has a congress to deal with that has a large anti-Chinese lobby, but equally, Bush is also bankrolled by a large business community that is largely pro-Chinese (due to their investment there and that potential consumer market of 1 billion people). Ironically, Bush has essentially the same problem in dealing with this as the Chinese do.

So, while your solution seems all nice and easy, add a bit of reality to it and the waters aren't so clear. If they find the right solution, then we can probably expect smooth China-US relations for the term of the Bush presidency. But if we get a win-loss solution, expect Australia to be the meat in the sandwich.

 

[Arch]

Originally posted by Same Old's:
I think you "a bit" off there, Arch. China has an army of around 5 million soldiers.

oops.
I got my info wrong (er....slightly)- Id read a story which said China was "capable" of drafting an army of that size if need be, considering its population of over 1 billion.

I stand corrected.

Just on the topic though here is what some of the worlds biggest powers expenditure on the military is in billions:
USA $259.9
Japan $51.2
UK $31.8
Russia $22.4
China $17

Kind of interesting figures I thought.

 

[jod23]

Originally posted by Shinboners:
Jod23

Now, I know you're a kid and probably couldn't recognise political machinations if Graeme Richardson showed you where he buried all his skeletons, but as simple as your scenario sounds, you a few greater issues at stake.

Firstly, in China. The technocrat politicians have, over the years, slowly been eroding the political power of the military. This is the chance for the military to regain the influence that they lost. So, the politicians have to find some way of returning the crew and plane that keeps the military happy, doesn't give them too much influence, keeps their domestic audience happy (keep in mind, there is plenty of anti-American feeling in China), and allows China to, as they say in Asia, save face. The other issue is that there is a new president and the Chinese politicians will be using this to see how much they can push him to get what they want. The Chinese did it to Clinton, Bush Snr., and Reagan. If you've ever followed US-China relations, you'll know that Clinton rolled over on a regular basis.

Meanwhile, over in the US, Bush has to find a way out that maintains his prestige...he doesn't want to roll over and die. If he gives away too much to the Chinese, then his authority will diminish. He has a congress to deal with that has a large anti-Chinese lobby, but equally, Bush is also bankrolled by a large business community that is largely pro-Chinese (due to their investment there and that potential consumer market of 1 billion people). Ironically, Bush has essentially the same problem in dealing with this as the Chinese do.

So, while your solution seems all nice and easy, add a bit of reality to it and the waters aren't so clear. If they find the right solution, then we can probably expect smooth China-US relations for the term of the Bush presidency. But if we get a win-loss solution, expect Australia to be the meat in the sandwich.

A kid ... now thats insulting in a way and also quite a coment. Im 20 but im glad to be young for without youth i would be lost. Shinners i wont disagree with you because i will be the first to admit that i am very anti-politics. I just cant stand politics, it doesnt interest me in the slightest, i was just typing what i heard on the news.

But i am interested in your last comment about Australia becoming the meat in the sandwich?? What do we have to do with all this.

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by Arch:
oops.
I got my info wrong (er....slightly)- Id read a story which said China was "capable" of drafting an army of that size if need be, considering its population of over 1 billion.

I stand corrected. .

I understand. I was just stating the the regular army figure.

China could draft a lot more soldiers if needed, from what you said.

Originally posted by Arch:
Just on the topic though here is what some of the worlds biggest powers expenditure on the military is in billions:
USA $259.9
Japan $51.2
UK $31.8
Russia $22.4
China $17

Kind of interesting figures I thought.

What's interesting is Japan's figures. Isn't it enshrined in their constitution that they can only use their military if they were being attacted or invaded. So their military spending is quite large considering their military doctrine.

I wonder what percentage of GDP military spending is, for the countries you stated?

 

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by jod23:
A kid ... now thats insulting in a way and also quite a coment. Im 20 but im glad to be young for without youth i would be lost.

But i am interested in your last comment about Australia becoming the meat in the sandwich?? What do we have to do with all this.

The kid comment was just my little payback for your "North fan therefore you're thick" comment. If you're going to dish it out......

Anyway, why does Australia become the meat in the sandwich? In the simplest terms, it comes down to this. China is one of Australia's export markets while the U.S. is our political and military ally (although they're not an economic ally considering how they've screwed Australia over trade links). So, if there was to be a prolonged "cold war" between China and the U.S., both countries will put pressue on Australia to take sides on any issues that crop up between the U.S. and China. Australia becomes a kind of powerless de facto jury on deciding who's right or wrong on their disagreements.

 

[jod23]

Well i see how that would create a problem. Although i dont think the whole Cold War thing will go ahead, bit of a long shot.