U.S.-China Military Tensions Grow

Discussion in 'China' started by jakojako777, Jan 20, 2010.

  1. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40
    January 19, 2010

    U.S.-China Military Tensions Grow
    Rick Rozoff

    ———-
    Even though the U.S. military budget is almost ten times that of China’s (with a population more than four times as large) and Washington plans a record $708 billion defense budget for next year compared to Russia spending less than $40 billion last year for the same, China and Russia are portrayed as threats to the U.S. and its allies. China has no troops outside its borders; Russia has a small handful in its former territories in Abkhazia, Armenia, South Ossetia and Transdniester. The U.S. has hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in six continents.

    While Gates was in charge of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and responsible for almost half of international military spending he was offended that the world’s most populous nation might desire to “deny others countries the ability to threaten it.”
    ———-

    On December 23 of last year Raytheon Company announced that it had received a $1.1 billion contact with Taiwan for the purchase of 200 Patriot anti-ballistic missiles. In early January the U.S. Defense Department cleared the transaction “despite opposition from rival China, where a military official proposed sanctioning U.S. firms that sell arms to the island.” [1]

    The sale completes a $6.5 billion weapons package approved by the previous George W. Bush administration at the end of 2008. In the words of the Asia bureau chief of Defense News, “This is the last piece that Taiwan has been waiting on.” [2]

    Defense News first reported on the agreement and reminded its readers that “Raytheon already won smaller contracts for Taiwan in January 2009 and in 2008 for upgrades to the Patriot systems the country already had. Those contracts were to upgrade the systems to Configuration 3, the same upgrade the company is completing for the U.S. Army.”

    The source also described what the enhanced Patriot capacity consisted of: “Configuration 3 is Raytheon’s most advanced Patriot system and allows the use of Lockheed Martin’s Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles [and] Raytheon’s Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical [Patriot-2 upgrade] missiles….” [3]

    The PAC-3 is the latest, most advanced Patriot missile design and the first capable of shooting down tactical ballistic missiles. It is the initial tier of a layered missile shield system which also includes Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Ground Based Interceptor (GBI), Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD), Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), ship-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense equipped with Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors, Forward Based X-Band Radar (FBXB) and Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) components. An integrated network that ranges from the battlefield to the heavens.

    The system is modular and highly mobile and its batteries are thus more easily able to evade detection and attack. It also extends the range of previous Patriot versions several fold.

    “[T]he PAC-3 interceptors, enhanced by [an] advanced radar and command center, are capable of protecting an area approximately seven times greater than the original Patriot system.” [4]

    If like the rest of the world Chinese authorities anticipated a reduction if not halt in the pace of American global military expansion with the advent of a new administration in Washington a year ago, like everyone they else have been rudely disabused of the notion.

    Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei urged the United States to reconsider the Taiwan arms package in the sixth official Chinese warning in a week earlier this month, telling his nation’s Xinhua News Agency that “China had strongly protested the U.S. government’s recent decision to allow Raytheon Company and Lockheed Martin Corp. to sell weapons to Taiwan” and “The U.S. arms sales to Taiwan undermine China’s national security.” [5]

    Later information added to the inventory and to China’s ire when it was revealed that “the Obama Administration would soon announce the sale to Taiwan of a package worth billions of U.S. dollars including Black Hawk helicopters, anti-missile systems and plans for diesel-powered submarines in a move likely to anger China.” [6]

    In addition, the China Times reported that Taiwan was to obtain eight second-hand Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates from the U.S. in addition to the 200 Patriot missiles. The warships were designed in the 1970s as comparatively inexpensive alternatives to World War II-era destroyers. The new deal will double the amount of U.S. Perry-class frigates that Taiwan already possesses to 16.

    They will also factor into missile defense and at a higher level, as “The island hopes to arm them with a version of the advanced Aegis Combat System (see above), which uses computers and radar to take out multiple targets, as well as sophisticated missile launch technology….” [7]

    While both Washington and Taipei will present the weapons transactions as strictly defensive in nature, it is worth recalling that last autumn Taiwan conducted its “largest-ever missile test…launched from a secretive and tightly guarded base in southern Taiwan” with missiles “capable of reaching major Chinese cities.” [8]

    President Ma Ying-jeou observed the missile launches which “included the test-firing of a top secret, newly developed medium-range surface-to-surface missile with a range of 3,000 kilometres, capable of striking major cities in central, northern and southern China.” [9]

    The Patriot Advanced Capability and SM-3 interceptor missiles the U.S. is providing Taiwan could well be employed to counter a mainland Chinese counterattack or at the least protect the launch sites of Taiwanese medium range missiles which, as noted above, are capable of hitting most of China’s major cities.

    Beijing responded on January 11 by conducting a ground-based midcourse interceptor missile test over its territory.

    Professor Tan Kaijia of the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) National Defense University told Xinhua “If the ballistic missile is regarded as a spear, now we have succeeded in building a shield for self-defense.” [10]

    Time Magazine characterized the significance of the test in writing: “There’s no chance China’s gambit will deter the U.S. from backing Taiwan….But the test does signal a ratcheting up of tensions between Beijing and Washington….” [11]

    Both China and the U.S., the first in 2007 and the second the following year, with a Standard Missile-3 fired from an Aegis-class frigate in the Pacific Ocean in the American case, destroyed satellites in orbit. The dawn of space war had begun.

    A January 15 feature on a Russian website titled “Possible space wars in the near future” provided background information. “It is hard to overestimate the role played by military satellite systems. Since the 1970s, an increasingly greater number of troop-control, telecommunications, target-acquisition, navigation and other processes depend on spacecraft which are therefore becoming more important…The space echelon’s role is directly proportional to the development level of any given nation and its armed forces.” [12]

    China and Russia for years have been advocating a ban on the use of space for military purposes, annually raising the issue in the United Nations. The U.S. has just as persistently opposed the initiatives.

    To comprehend the context in which recent developments have occurred, Washington has for three years increasingly and tenaciously included China and Russia with Iran and North Korea as belligerents in prospective future conflicts.

    The campaign began in earnest in February of 2007 when then and still Pentagon chief Robert Gates testified before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee on the Defense Department Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request and said among other matters:

    “In addition to fighting the global war on terror, we also face the danger posed by Iran and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions and the threat they pose not only to their neighbors, but globally because of their record of proliferation; the uncertain paths of China and Russia, which are both pursuing sophisticated military modernization programs; and a range of other flashpoints and challenges….We need both the ability for regular force-on-force conflicts because we don’t know what’s going to develop in places like Russia and China, in North Korea, in Iran and elsewhere.” [13]

    If it be objected that Gates was only alluding to general contingency plans, ones that could apply to any major nation, neither his comments nor any by U.S. defense officials since have mentioned fellow nuclear powers Britain, France, India and Israel in a similar vein, but have reiterated concerns about Russia and China with an alarming consistency. In fact China and Russia have been substituted for Iraq in the former axis of evil category.

    Even though the U.S. military budget is almost ten times that of China’s (with a population more than four times as large) and Washington plans a record $708 billion defense budget for next year compared to Russia spending less than $40 billion last year for the same, China and Russia are portrayed as threats to the U.S. and its allies. China has no troops outside its borders; Russia has a small handful in its former territories in Abkhazia, Armenia, South Ossetia and Transdniester. The U.S. has hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in six continents.

    Russia and China both reacted harshly to Gates’ statements in February of 2007 and only three days afterward, with Gates in the audience, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at the annual Munich Security Conference in which he warned:

    “[W]hat is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

    “It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.”

    “Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished….And no less people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

    “Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.”

    “One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations….” [14]

    The warning was not heeded in Washington.

    Three months later the Pentagon chief resumed his earlier accusations. In May of 2007 the Defense Department issued its annual report on China’s military capability, citing “continuing efforts to project Chinese power beyond its immediate region and to develop high-technology systems that can challenge the best in the world.”

    “U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says some of China’s efforts cause him concern.”

    The report said “China is pursuing long-term, comprehensive transformation of its military forces” to “enable it to project power and deny other countries the ability to threaten it.” [15] While Gates was in charge of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and responsible for almost half of international military spending he was offended that the world’s most populous nation might desire to “deny others countries the ability to threaten it.”

    A year after Gates linked China and Russia with surviving “axis of evil” suspects Iran and North Korea, National Director of Intelligence Michael McConnell singled out China, Russia and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) as the main threats to the United States, even more than al-Qaeda.

    The Voice of Russia responded to McDonnell’s accusations in a commentary that included these excerpts:

    “Russia has demanded an explanation from America over a report by the Director of American national intelligence in which Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea and al-Qaida are described as sources of strategic threats to the U.S….Quite possibly, the report by the U.S intelligence community amounts to accounting for the staggering sums of money that is allocated yearly for its upkeep. There could be other reasons to explain why Russia has been included among states posing a threat to America.” [16]

    Gates has remained as defense secretary for the new American administration and so has the anti-Chinese and anti-Russian rhetoric.

    On May 1 of last year Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that “The Obama administration is working to improve deteriorating U.S. relations with a number of Latin American nations to counter growing Iranian, Chinese and Russian influence in the Western Hemisphere….” [17] The month after she spoke those words a military coup was staged in Honduras and two weeks after that the U.S. secured the use of seven military bases in Colombia.

    In September Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair issued the U.S.’s quadrennial National Intelligence Strategy report which said “Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea pose the greatest challenges to the United States’ national interests. [18]

    Agence France-Presse said that “The United States on [September 15] put emerging superpower China and former Cold War foe Russia alongside Iran and North Korea on a list of the four main nations challenging American interests” and quoted from Blair’s report:

    China was fingered for its “increasing natural resource-focused diplomacy and military modernization.”

    “Russia is a US partner in important initiatives such as securing fissile material and combating nuclear terrorism, but it may continue to seek avenues for reasserting power and influence in ways that complicate US interests.” [19]

    China is not allowed to deny other nations the ability to threaten it and Russia is not permitted to complicate U.S. interests.

    The trend, ominous in its relentlessness, continues into this year.

    The vice president of Lockheed Martin’s Missile Defense Systems, John Holly, touted his company’s role in the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System – components of which are being delivered to Taiwan – as “the shining star” of Lockheed’s interceptor missile portfolio, and according to a newspaper in the city which hosts the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency “Pointing to missile programs in North Korea, Iran, Russia and China, Holly said, ‘the world is not a very safe world … and it is incumbent upon us in industry to provide [the Pentagon] with the best capabilities.’” [20]

    Three days afterward the Pentagon’s Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs Wallace Gregson “voiced doubts about China’s insistence that its use of space is for peaceful means” and stated “The Chinese have stated that they oppose the militarization of space. Their actions seem to indicate the contrary intention.” [21]

    The next day Admiral Robert Willard, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, stated in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee that China’s “powerful economic engine is also funding a military modernization program that has raised concerns in the region — a concern also shared by the U.S. Pacific Command.” [22]

    The U.S. Navy has six fleets and eleven aircraft carrier strike groups in or available for deployment to all parts of the world, but China with only a “brown water” navy off its own coast is a cause for concern to the U.S.

    As Alan Mackinnon, the chairman of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, wrote last September:

    “The world of war is today dominated by a single superpower. In military terms the United States sits astride the world like a giant Colossus. As a country with only five per cent of the world’s population it accounts for almost 50 per cent of global arms spending.

    “Its 11 naval carrier fleets patrol every ocean and its 909 military bases are scattered strategically across every continent. No other country has reciprocal bases on US territory – it would be unthinkable and unconstitutional. It is 20 years since the end of the Cold War and the United States and its allies face no significant military threat today. Why then have we not had the hoped-for peace dividend? Why does the world’s most powerful nation continue to increase its military budget, now over $1.2 trillion a year in real terms? What threat is all this supposed to counter?

    “The US response has been largely military – the expansion of NATO and the
    encirclement of Russia and China in a ring of hostile bases and alliances. And continuing pressure to isolate and weaken Iran.” [23]

    Observations to be kept in the forefront of people’s minds as China is increasingly presented as a security challenge – and a strategic threat – to the world’s sole military superpower.


    U.S.-China Military Tensions Grow Stop NATO
     
  2.  
  3. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    1,544
    This world is safer and more balanced with multiple powers. Days when bi-polar or unipolar were dominant were long gone.

    Russia is one ,China, India and more, perhaps then S.Africa, Brazil emerging as 'polars'.

    ---------“Russia .......may continue to seek avenues for reasserting power and influence in ways that complicate US interests.” [19]

    China is not allowed to deny other nations the ability to threaten it and Russia is not permitted to complicate U.S. interests.---------------------------

    Just look at quotations above - how openly the US advocates its own INTERESTS, in every corner of the earth. Then why shan't other nations promote its own interests too such as " “increasing natural resource-focused diplomacy and military modernization”??

    The giant Colossus will certainly continue to use Taiwan as a leverage against China. But China becomes more and more confident and sophisticated in handling this.
     
  4. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40


    The only "safe" world was bi-polar USA-Soviet world based on balance of fear of guaranteed destruction.
    I agree that today's unipolar world is nothing but USA cashing in dividends for being only Master and basically do whatever they're pleased to do.

    I don't think that multipolar world will be safer but it is arriving all the same weather like it or not

    S.Africa belongs to continent with no future - Africa therefore they'll never challenge top position. Similar with Brazil but less than Africa S.America will not make competition to Asia.

    Statistics show that only 2 countries are candidates for position of Super Power in future China and later on in the future India
    Russia will stay great world power and as energy Super Power one of the most important countries in the world.

    What everybody forgets is Europe - that have already started integration process with Lisbon treaty - can take over position of Super Power to China and India if unites.
    In that case we would see further dwindling of USA influence squeezed out by Europe and probable some sort of (East) Asian confederation stimulated by European unification
    With China and Japan coming closer and Taiwan going back to China
    Probably reunification of Korea and Russia turning to Asia completely instead of Europe.

    All this of course depends of other circumstances - like wars and world economic crises.

    Just look at quotations above - how openly the US advocates its own INTERESTS, in every corner of the earth. Then why shan't other nations promote its own interests too such as " “increasing natural resource-focused diplomacy and military modernization”??


    Stop talking like child about injustice.... USA is Super Power in full decline, weakened bu still very dangerous. Their only option to preserve their world domination is to have wars!
    They actually need World War to write off their debt to China,Japan, Russia and others who hold their bonds & securities.
    They can't pay them anyway :D

    We are living in very dangerous world where soon with USA decline, created vacume will start power struggle....
    And will be engaged by everybody who wants BIGGER peace of World Power cake!


    The giant Colossus will certainly continue to use Taiwan as a leverage against China. But China becomes more and more confident and sophisticated in handling this.



    Well, not big secret - China has much more options than it had before, that's where this "sophistication" comes from..

    Conclusion
    ASIA has future role of domination, unless taken over by united Europe(in that case there is big probability of invasion of energy resources in Arab countries by Europe) Possible war between Europe and Islam.

    China and India have Central Asia and Russia to cover their needs in gas & oil.
    (If Russian president I would build new capital of Russia in Far East and turn country completely to Asia.)
     
  5. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    1,544
    Agree with most of your views. I simply took EU fro granted among the multi pollars.

    U painted a rather dark piture about S.America and Africa - which I have a great reservation about.

    Besides Japan and Korea - I'm less optimistic than u about them, given their shallow potential in the long run.

    There have been many words in the air about RU-IN-CN axis. However the nationalism and protectionism have prevented this axis to come alive. REading lots of posts on this forum, I sensed a strong anti-CN sentiments among Indians - many are applauding for any mishaps in China while ignoring China's upside.


    What a pity in such a mood, for the well being of ordinary in the 3!
     
  6. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40

    Agree with most of your views. I simply took EU fro granted among the multi pollars.

    And you were right to do so...cause Europe still has long way to go till confederation (unless some new leader comes into the power of leading European country like Germany and speeds process (2009 resembled 1929 should we wait for new Hitler?)


    U painted a rather dark piture about S.America and Africa

    Africa is out of race comparing to Europe and Asia (it'll stay raw material resource for EU, China, USA and whoever can impose himself.....)

    USA is empire in decline (hope you agree with that)
    We differ on how fast that decline will happen. My lucky guess is ...fast.
    Why?
    Well I think that with Russian growing strength and NATO campaign that will end up with defeat and falling apart of NATO altogether Europe will be forced
    to create European defense - army, to contra balance Russia ...which will only speed up process of European unification stimulated already by European greed for influence in the world and need for energy resources also........

    If Europe unites USA and their allay UK(Australia?) will be pushed aside (with all means necessary.... even military)
    (What people tend to forget is how extraordinary war machine Germany was,
    with new strong leader enlarged through other European countries can become again extraordinary power very quickly)
    That will open the possibility of European invasion of Arabian oil.
    I presume by then Central Asian gas & oil will be well under control of China, Russia and SCO so Europe will have no other choice but to go for Arab oil...
    With growing Iranian influence and later developments that can amount only on new World War between Islam and Europe.

    As for USA strong economic crisis starting this year will start endless intern problems in the country even conflicts (I wouldn't go till civil war but...) and USA power and influence in the world if successfully resisted by Europe will be in full decline after that.

    As for nuclear war the only question is who will start 1st to use it....Russia if attacked (again) by Georgia or somebody else but it will be used...
     
  7. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40



    There have been many words in the air about RU-IN-CN axis. However the nationalism and protectionism have prevented this axis to come alive. REading lots of posts on this forum, I sensed a strong anti-CN sentiments among Indians - many are applauding for any mishaps in China while ignoring China's upside.


    I've forgot to comment that:)
    RU-IN-CN axis is not axis at all despite all efforts of Russia to make it function
    Those "axis" were necessary to prevent spreading USA(NATO) into Central Asia through Afghanistan (Who controls Asia controls the world !)

    USA have always played well India against China and vice-versa so that "axis" never could became "axis".
    For the moment SCO is the only answer to USA & NATO infiltration in Central Asia.
    Also of crucial importance is Chinese investments in oil&gas in Central Asia.
    In huge pipeline project from Turkmenistan to China and also all other related investments (cause Russia doesn't have enough money)that are literally destroying USA & European plans like Nabucco pipeline (gas from region to Europe through Turkey)
    BTW Nabucco pipeline was one of the reasons of the bombing of ex- Yugoslavia so that they can build huge military base close to the pipeline...
     
  8. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    1,544
    Anti-CN mood resulting in fancy illusions
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore going through DFI I got a strong feel of anti-CN sentiments only at a few glimpses of titles, an Uighur was stabbed to death, Cyber freedom was restricted, Tibetans love HH Dalai Lama, no human rights in CN, CN's economic developement at the cost of... CN intrusion into IN territory...

    It's certainly mind-boggling to any savvy minds when the negative gets so overwhelming over a few POSITIVE titles for CN's domestic situation, and for Sino-Ind rapport.

    Our IN friends seem to be more obsessed with the negative side of CN, some observation of which MIGHT be true, some not (imaginations or victims of propaganda?). And many IN know CN's ugliness more than I do as a native right here. However like most NORMAL countries in this world CN is no exception with piles of problems. Many IN cyber citizens seem not to have a holistic and balanced overview, deliberately, ill-informed or misleadingly. Consequently they may draw wrong conclusions ...

    Seeing is believing.

    Many are singing the tune like the Western medias forgeting they're Indians who have a totally different interest (brain laundry by xxx?). Besides the IN gvmt may be pleased to be PLAYED for now against CN. But who knows someday it may grow itself into a player itself with confidence, taking the fact the IN will overtake CN as the largest population soon?
     
  9. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40

    I basically agree that "West"=USA plays India against China and opposite to "contain" and delay arrival to the top position of world leader of both of fast growing countries........ Both countries that are probable future competitors on the position of world "Super Power".

    I think that USA playing China against India and opposite is widely known fact not rejected by any reasonable person....For the rest of your comments, I would not go into complicated Indo-Chinese relations and can only regret that they are presently so low.:)>
    This bad relations are in the best interest of USA and Europeans only....


    Personally I am convinced that Taiwan will become again part of the China only question is when...

    As for my argument about Europe often ignored as possible future "Super Power" I post this video to show that I'm not the only one in Europe who see that possibility as quite concrete....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t8qqqbD9cw
     
  10. mattster

    mattster Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    518
    Location:
    California

    You are a blithering ***** - there is no such thing as "Sino-India rapport" you ####.

    The reason that there is no such thing as a Sino-Indian rapport is because China has been playing the Pakistan card and effectively waging a proxy war thru their dumb-ass Pakistani's brother nation.

    The stupid Pakistani general population have finally started to realize that it may not be worth using terror as a primary instrument of foreign policy. It took them only a mere 50 freaking years to learn that lesson !!

    If China had not supported Pakistan in their proxy war with India over the last 50 years and further encouraged by helping Pakistan become a nuclear power - then relations between India and China would probably have been very different.

    There is a reason why Indians hate China - its not because of you economic success, there are many countries in Asia that are more economically successful than India and yet Indians have no problem with these countries.

    Its your policies towards India for the last 50 years, and the invasion of Tibet and your never ending games on the Border.

    PS: As for Chinese human rights - most Indians dont give a shit what you do to your own people with the exception of Tibet.
     
  11. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    1,544
    u may continue to hold that's totally blithering of 'rapport'. but any savvy mind will agree that 2 nations of the largest populations in the world sooner or later should handle their disputes in a sensible way. In the long history (2-3 thousand years?) the hostility btwn the 2 just stands for a few decades (A independent Indian Repulic only took shape 60years ago).

    I truthfully believe that day of rapport is advent... In my middle school textbooks it's clear stated the way of making sugar (?) was from Hindu (chinese pronunciation as Yindu) in Tang Dynasty (7th-9th Century)... and needless to mention Buddhism the no.1 religion here. Perhaps in DFI many are too overoccupied with the DOWN side of this relationship, like a Chinese saying 'Catch sight of a single tree but ignore the whole forest' (just at a glimpse of most negative comments in DFI).

    As for Pakistan, u regard the conflict as a 'proxy war'. But frankly Pakistan is NO proxy of anybody. Pakistan is an independent 'MIND' with SELF INTEREST!!! So long as a country is not WITH India, Pakistan will certainly pursue friendship with it for support, not only China but many others in geopolitics. China happens to be the ONE as a neighbor of both. This game will go on and on as long as the hostility exists btwn C and I!! Most of times enemies (or allies) are CREATED!!


    Helping P to become a nuclear power? use your logic here - C has so many nuke neighbors enough is enough - and IN was earlier than P to explode its nuke!

    Tibet - again - I won't waste time on it arguing where we have a totally different reading of the history -- self explanary -- History of Tibet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Slavery in Tibet? - Yahoo! Answers -- do more readings before parroting

    A relationship is always mutual - don't blame only ONE side of two!
     
  12. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,539
    Likes Received:
    6,539
    From your long post one can conclude China supports Pakistan because it has an Anti-indian stance. what authority do you have to speak for Pakistanis??
     

Share This Page