 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
|
|
|
 |
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Neville Chamberlain, is that you?
Perhaps we could ask the Chinese for a piece of paper, saying that we are all friends. Then we can just ignore their continued preparations for war.
To think that this is just a recent thing is insane. They have been preparing and the world has done nothing. For our government to ignore that would be a gross breach of their duty to us. |
|
|
|
|
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: |
Having said all that, any talk of war with China is insane, criminally so, and as far as I’m concerned anyone agitating for that can volunteer to ride the first missile. |
No one sane is agitating for it, just preparing for it.
What happens when China decides to take Taiwan? There's be all the sabre rattling and diplomacy etc but if China decides to call the US bluff (and we'll be expected to support the USA) do we just go, "Damn, you caught us bluffing, Ok, have them" or do we push back and hope they're bluffing? |
Firstly, I'd like to think we can all start from the premise that World War 3 – presumably the inevitable result of any serious military confrontation between the US and China – should be avoided at all costs. To put it bluntly, that is, objectively, an exponentially worse outcome than Taiwan falling to China, because many, many more people will die, and the destruction will be much more far-reaching. And I say that as someone who has a sister currently living in Tainan City.
That being so, and recognising invasion of Taiwan as a potential trigger point, we need to make sure we're as far from that situation as we possibly can be; and part of that involves reining in unnecessary acts of aggression (including acts of intimidation like military exercises and sabre-rattling rhetoric) on our side. That means that if the US starts heading down that path again (say, under the next Republican administration), we need to make it clear to them not only that they can't count on us to back them up, but that we will actively be trying to simmer things down and play peacemaker, as would befit our position in the region.
World War 2 has a lot to answer for in the discourse around this stuff, unfortunately. The lesson many have taken from it seems to be that you sometimes need a war to stop bad guys. That is absolutely not the case: when you look at the immense loss of life (an estimated 75 million deaths in total), injury and destruction that occurred over those six years, there is actually very little that could possibly justify such a war – you really do need the specific context of Hitler and Hirohito's conquest ambitions, as well as the Holocaust and the vast slaughters in Manchuria, South-East Asia and Eastern Europe, to be able to defend it. Everyone loves to talk about Chamberlain and appeasement, but the fact is that nearly every time he has been invoked since, it has been in service of wars that categorically should not have happened, and where the "Chamberlain" approach would not only have been justified but a considerably smarter and braver path to go down.
On that note, one can be perfectly aware of the harsh realities of Chinese hegemony without needing to overstate things. You don't need to have any love for the regime to note that they don't seem to have genocidal impulses (in the literal "kill everyone of a certain ethnicity" sense), and that they're not necessarily interested in territorial expansion in the way Germany and Japan were; we don't see much rhetoric about a Greater China needing to encompass other sovereign states (ironically, mostly because they already hold jurisdiction over such areas, like Tibet). As for Taiwan, China at present has little motivation to invade, and Taiwanese authorities will of course be particularly keen to do their part to maintain the current dynamic; as unsatisfactory as the current dynamic is in many ways, it has been preserved for fifty years more or less without incident, and there's no reason it can't be preserved for another half-century.
So we need to put the work in to make sure we don't let things escalate to a stage of irreversible conflict. And that doesn't mean cowering and sacrificing principles and values to keep China at bay; I want to see us being a lot more robust in our diplomacy, and make sure that our economic relationships are diverse enough that we don't need to be reliant on CCP whims. But we should also make it clear that we are not spoiling for a literal fight, because the last thing we want is to find ourselves in a game of chicken we can't get out of.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
No-one wants war. I have 20 and 18 year old sons. That's the last thing I want.
I don't particularly care about Taiwan either. I don't see that we can turn our back on ANZUS though. We need it now more than ever.
When has an Australian politician or military officer said that we are going to attack China? As far as I am aware, they haven't. What has been said is commonsense, that China is preparing for war and that as a result we have to prepare too.
The Chinese have already tested their cyber warfare by hacking into and closing down Australian government departments, including Transport in NSW.
Why bring the Republicans into it? That sounds like an example of WPT's look over there comments. We have just seen a Republican government that did something different from the Obama government - it did not commit troops to a new war, and decided to bring them back home - which, BTW, the Democrats said could not happen, and now they are doing.
I really don't understand your comment about China being preserved for 50 years without incident. Twenty years ago they were an undeveloped nation of rural peasants, primarily riding bicycles for transport. Now, they are an industrial behemoth which is starting to flex its newly acquired muscle and is keen to assert what it believes is its no.1 place in the world.
You say they don't have territorial aspirations - I say that you are just guessing about that and that they may have. China is facing mass migration from much of its food producing areas over coming years due to the "wet bulb" humidity problem. They are colonising the South China Sea and have claimed it.
We have absolutely no idea what China's goal is. Only time will tell us that. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
On the reference to Republicans, I have concerns about the current Democratic Party administration and am wary of their approach to China and Russia alike. I also happen to agree that Trump was relatively doveish for a Republican, although his foreign policy was more of a continuation of Obama's than any turn for the better, I would argue. But, as far as we can tell at this early stage, I think Biden's general bent is in favour of diplomacy over war, and my worry is more about where his post-Trump Republican successors – people who lack Trump's isolationist impulses and might well be itching for a military confrontation – might take any unresolved tensions that persist or develop over the next four years.
Otherwise, yes, of course it's true that much has changed in China over the past fifty years, and will continue to. But their relationship with Taiwan seemingly hasn't, fundamentally. Can we guarantee that won't change? No, but we also don't need to invent fantasies. Needless to say, people are monitoring this stuff very closely, and I expect we'll hear pretty quickly if internal messaging changes on that front.
On that note, on what basis are you asserting that China is preparing for war? What exactly is it they're doing – in terms of military build-up, exercises or propaganda – that we and the US aren't? I'm sure you're well aware that cyber-warfare is hardly a one-sided phenomenon at present.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Preparing for war by:
1. Building military bases in the South China Sea;
2. Xi openly stating that China will take Taiwan by force if necessary and their tests of Taiwan's air defence identification zone and response times have become more aggressive;
3. Xi has openly instructed his military to prepare for war;
4. Massively increased investment in the air force and navy;
5. Increase in aggressive rhetoric and threats to the West from the CCP via its state controlled media.
Just to name a few.
Of course that doesn't mean that there will be war, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. Even forgetting about 1939, we were caught with our pants down in 1941. It cannot happen again. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
With the exception of point 2, most of those are common to the US (and Australia) and could be spun exactly the same way in China (i.e. that we are preparing for war). So the first task is to avoid painting this as one-sided aggression on China's part: both China and the US are responsible for current tensions and military build-ups, and both have a duty to de-escalate.
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/china-biden-war/
| Quote: | For Washington in the Biden era, assertive military maneuvers in the East and South China Seas are a way of saying: No matter how far such waters may be from the United States, Washington and the Pentagon are still not prepared to cede control of them to China. This has been especially evident in the South China Sea, where the US Navy and Air Force regularly conduct provocative exercises and show-of-force operations intended to demonstrate America’s continuing ability to dominate the region—as in February, when dual carrier task forces were dispatched to the region. For several days, the USS Nimitz and the USS Theodore Roosevelt, along with their accompanying flotillas of cruisers and destroyers, conducted mock combat operations in the vicinity of islands claimed by China. “Through operations like this, we ensure that we are tactically proficient to meet the challenge of maintaining peace and we are able to continue to show our partners and allies in the region that we are committed to promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific,” was the way Radm. Doug Verissimo, commander of the Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, explained those distinctly belligerent actions.
The Navy has also stepped up its patrols of destroyers in the Taiwan Strait as a way of suggesting that any future Chinese move to invade Taiwan would be met with a powerful military response. Already, since President Biden’s inauguration, the Navy has conducted three such patrols: by the USS John S. McCain on February 4, the USS Curtis Wilbur on February 24, and the USS John Finn on March 10. On each occasion, the Navy insisted that such missions were meant to demonstrate how the US military would “continue to fly, sail, and operate anywhere international law allows.”
Typically, when the US Navy conducts provocative maneuvers of this sort, the Chinese military—the People’s Liberation Army, or PLA—responds by sending out its own ships and planes to challenge the American vessels. This occurs regularly in the South China Sea, whenever the Navy conducts what it calls “freedom of navigation operations,” or FONOPs, in waters near Chinese-claimed (and sometimes Chinese-built) islands, some of which have been converted into small military installations by the PLA. In response, the Chinese often dispatch a ship or ships of their own to escort—to put the matter as politely as possible—the American vessel out of the area. These encounters have sometimes proven exceedingly dangerous, especially when the ships got close enough to pose a risk of collision. |
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 5 from the wing on debut wrote: |
Neville Chamberlain, is that you?
Perhaps we could ask the Chinese for a piece of paper, saying that we are all friends. Then we can just ignore their continued preparations for war.
To think that this is just a recent thing is insane. They have been preparing and the world has done nothing. For our government to ignore that would be a gross breach of their duty to us. |
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Joseph McCarthy is that you? I believe I saw some commie bastards under my bed.
No one has said to ignore Chinese buildups
No one has said to ignore Chinese human rights abuses: FFS we couldn’t get enough of China moments ago)
No one has said to ignore Chinese bullying
However refraining from megaphone diplomacy as Scotty from Hillsong didn’t (most especially and foolishly leading the world in shaming China over COVID doesn’t mean appeasement. It is limited thinking in the extreme to see this in such nonsensical binary (either or) terms.
Again, this is not difficult.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Last edited by watt price tully on Wed May 05, 2021 3:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| It must be difficult for you, because your solution to the problem is to blame Morrison's diplomacy. |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | With the exception of point 2, most of those are common to the US (and Australia) and could be spun exactly the same way in China (i.e. that we are preparing for war). So the first task is to avoid painting this as one-sided aggression on China's part: both China and the US are responsible for current tensions and military build-ups, and both have a duty to de-escalate.
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/china-biden-war/
| Quote: | For Washington in the Biden era, assertive military maneuvers in the East and South China Seas are a way of saying: No matter how far such waters may be from the United States, Washington and the Pentagon are still not prepared to cede control of them to China. This has been especially evident in the South China Sea, where the US Navy and Air Force regularly conduct provocative exercises and show-of-force operations intended to demonstrate America’s continuing ability to dominate the region—as in February, when dual carrier task forces were dispatched to the region. For several days, the USS Nimitz and the USS Theodore Roosevelt, along with their accompanying flotillas of cruisers and destroyers, conducted mock combat operations in the vicinity of islands claimed by China. “Through operations like this, we ensure that we are tactically proficient to meet the challenge of maintaining peace and we are able to continue to show our partners and allies in the region that we are committed to promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific,” was the way Radm. Doug Verissimo, commander of the Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, explained those distinctly belligerent actions.
The Navy has also stepped up its patrols of destroyers in the Taiwan Strait as a way of suggesting that any future Chinese move to invade Taiwan would be met with a powerful military response. Already, since President Biden’s inauguration, the Navy has conducted three such patrols: by the USS John S. McCain on February 4, the USS Curtis Wilbur on February 24, and the USS John Finn on March 10. On each occasion, the Navy insisted that such missions were meant to demonstrate how the US military would “continue to fly, sail, and operate anywhere international law allows.”
Typically, when the US Navy conducts provocative maneuvers of this sort, the Chinese military—the People’s Liberation Army, or PLA—responds by sending out its own ships and planes to challenge the American vessels. This occurs regularly in the South China Sea, whenever the Navy conducts what it calls “freedom of navigation operations,” or FONOPs, in waters near Chinese-claimed (and sometimes Chinese-built) islands, some of which have been converted into small military installations by the PLA. In response, the Chinese often dispatch a ship or ships of their own to escort—to put the matter as politely as possible—the American vessel out of the area. These encounters have sometimes proven exceedingly dangerous, especially when the ships got close enough to pose a risk of collision. |
|
That's a very strange spin on it.
Can you tell me precisely where the USA has built military bases in the middle of the ocean, and then claimed the surrounding sea around it, including international shipping lanes, as their own? Can you tell me where the USA has pushed countries fishing fleets out of their own territorial waters, and said that it is now ours?
As for military buidups, we are talking chalk and cheese.
https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/-1/-1/1/2020-DOD-CHINA-MILITARY-POWER-REPORT-FINAL.PDF |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I should also point out that the increased US presence around Taiwan was in response to Xi's statement that China would take it by force. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
US military bases are everywhere around the world, and well outside their geographical region (Pine Gap, for starters), and include claims over other nations' territory – see Guantanamo Bay in Cuba as the most obvious example.
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/explained-the-us-military-s-global-footprint-45029
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay
| Quote: | | The United States exercises jurisdiction and control over this territory, while recognizing that Cuba retains ultimate sovereignty. The government of Cuba regards the U.S. presence in Guantánamo Bay as an illegal occupation on the basis that the Cuban–American Treaty "was obtained by threat of force and is in violation of international law." |
See also the Strait of Hormuz and other places where the US navy are present and often engaged in military disputes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_U.S.%E2%80%93Iranian_naval_dispute
The sooner we recognise and act on the basis that there are no good guys (certainly, not when it comes to superpowers) in international relations, the better.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | | It must be difficult for you, because your solution to the problem is to blame Morrison's diplomacy. |
This is a basic clear thinking.
An explanation is not a solution (go figure). Scotty from Hillsong stuffed up diplomatically. He contributed to China's economic punishment of Australia
Again this is not difficult.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Last edited by watt price tully on Wed May 05, 2021 3:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | With the exception of point 2, most of those are common to the US (and Australia) and could be spun exactly the same way in China (i.e. that we are preparing for war). So the first task is to avoid painting this as one-sided aggression on China's part: both China and the US are responsible for current tensions and military build-ups, and both have a duty to de-escalate.
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/china-biden-war/
| Quote: | For Washington in the Biden era, assertive military maneuvers in the East and South China Seas are a way of saying: No matter how far such waters may be from the United States, Washington and the Pentagon are still not prepared to cede control of them to China. This has been especially evident in the South China Sea, where the US Navy and Air Force regularly conduct provocative exercises and show-of-force operations intended to demonstrate America’s continuing ability to dominate the region—as in February, when dual carrier task forces were dispatched to the region. For several days, the USS Nimitz and the USS Theodore Roosevelt, along with their accompanying flotillas of cruisers and destroyers, conducted mock combat operations in the vicinity of islands claimed by China. “Through operations like this, we ensure that we are tactically proficient to meet the challenge of maintaining peace and we are able to continue to show our partners and allies in the region that we are committed to promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific,” was the way Radm. Doug Verissimo, commander of the Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, explained those distinctly belligerent actions.
The Navy has also stepped up its patrols of destroyers in the Taiwan Strait as a way of suggesting that any future Chinese move to invade Taiwan would be met with a powerful military response. Already, since President Biden’s inauguration, the Navy has conducted three such patrols: by the USS John S. McCain on February 4, the USS Curtis Wilbur on February 24, and the USS John Finn on March 10. On each occasion, the Navy insisted that such missions were meant to demonstrate how the US military would “continue to fly, sail, and operate anywhere international law allows.”
Typically, when the US Navy conducts provocative maneuvers of this sort, the Chinese military—the People’s Liberation Army, or PLA—responds by sending out its own ships and planes to challenge the American vessels. This occurs regularly in the South China Sea, whenever the Navy conducts what it calls “freedom of navigation operations,” or FONOPs, in waters near Chinese-claimed (and sometimes Chinese-built) islands, some of which have been converted into small military installations by the PLA. In response, the Chinese often dispatch a ship or ships of their own to escort—to put the matter as politely as possible—the American vessel out of the area. These encounters have sometimes proven exceedingly dangerous, especially when the ships got close enough to pose a risk of collision. |
|
Yes and no.
Good article but your conclusion in part seems to omit Chinese occupation of disputed territories, military build up and sea lanes.
I think we should defer to the quiet Asian style of diplomacy as praciticed by the Phiilpine Foreign Secretary in the last day ot two:
"China, my friend, how politely can I put it? Let me see.... O.... GET THE F*** OUT,"
(From the ABC and multiple media outlets)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-04/phillipine-foreign-minister-china-south-china-sea-teddy-locsin/100113638
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | | It must be difficult for you, because your solution to the problem is to blame Morrison's diplomacy. |
This is a basic clear thinking.
An explanation is not a solution (go figure). Scotty from Hillsong stuffed up diplomatically. He contributed to China's economic punishment of Australia
Again this is not difficult. |
Great, you agree that your explanation is not a solution.
I knew that you would come around in the end.
It wasn't that difficult, was it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
