• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. warns China not to attempt Crimea-style action in Asia

24107 said:
Your right, China also has a very powerful military. They and Russia received a lot of U.S. military secrets they obtained from the spy Jonathon Pollard, who stole enough secrets to fill a walk in closet.
Click to expand...

I suspect you meant Edward Snowden, not Jonathan Pollard. Pollard gave classified information to Israel. Snowden very likely provided the information he took from the NSA to China and Russia.
 
American said:
Don't blame US companies.
Click to expand...

Presidents from Nixon to Clinton thought that by opening up China to the global market, American goods would flood into China and our economy would prosper. What was exported was jobs and operations due to low worker wages and no environmental protections. Now China is so polluted people cannot even walk the streets and breath the air safely, and our economy has been weak ever since the jobs fled.

On top of that, all these companies had to provide technical transfers in order to gain access to producing goods in China. So now China has been provided with how to produce GE Jet engines, so yes companies rightly deserve some blame.
 
American said:
Who would buy them?
Click to expand...

They would be consumed until the market was saturated, driving the value down and interests rates up. But you have a point in that China has trillions.
 
tlmorg02 said:
While I agree China and Russia are both dangerous, let us not forget that their economies are both rather feeble behind the curtain. If all else failed, denying Russia the ability to sell its oil and gas would strangle it. China is not really interested in global domination, it is concerned more about shoring up it's surroundings to insulate itself from outsiders.

Globalization has brought with it cheap goods and economic interdependence and these things make us all vulnerable. It has proven to be the achilles heel of the US in foreign policy. US companies sought to maximize profits through cheap labor and production costs by going to China, and in the end succeeded in making the US economy weak enough that we now cannot effectively act as the world's lone superpower.
Click to expand...

Although China is not interested in world domination, if they felt that the US was pressing it, backed by the threat of military power, to give up it's current disputed territorial claims, they could be come to the conclusion that it would be a good move to cooperate more closely with Russia in terms of developing military technology and closer military operations. Although China has advanced military capabilities, they are still behind in some crucial areas. It is my understanding that because they have had problems conquering some of the technical difficulties with the jet engines for their most advanced fighters, they have to get the engines from the Russians. If both countries felt they needed to form a stronger counterweight to US global hegemony, China could start to use their enormous hoard of cash to do things like purchase a substantial increase in the amount of engines from Russia, giving Russia that cash it needs. They might also start to work on joint advanced weapons systems together.

You have a good point on the effects that globalization has had on US power on the global stage.
 
The main problem here is that China actually has legitimate territorial claims in all of these disputes. In fact, from what I have read, China's claims to the South China Sea islands are stronger than any other claims. The Philippines, in particular, seems to be opportunistic and only jumped in with a claim after oil was discovered. China had been laying claim well before oil even became a major resource. Vietnam is the only country with a well-supported claim as I understand it. Obviously, China's claim to Taiwan has widespread international recognition. East China Sea is more shaky, but the claims from China are not baseless. It is not really the same situation that you had with Crimea, where Russia clearly and unequivocally recognized Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea along with the rest of the international community.
 
I love these U.S. "warnings" to Russia, and now CHINA! Let me make this clear. China could bomb Pearl Harbor and Obama would go to the U.N. and other "international bodies" to resolve the issue. I think you can give a rest with all the warnings. It's just making Obama(and by extension us) look foolish at this point.
 
JoeTrumps said:
I love these U.S. "warnings" to Russia, and now CHINA! Let me make this clear. China could bomb Pearl Harbor and Obama would go to the U.N. and other "international bodies" to resolve the issue. I think you can give a rest with all the warnings. It's just making Obama(and by extension us) look foolish at this point.
Click to expand...

China wouldn't need to bomb anything!

They have the capability to attack using technologically advanced cyber weapons.

Just imagine what would happen if they hacked into your nuclear defense systems?

You could end up blowing yourselves up!
 
MildSteel said:
Here's another reason why it was a bad idea to have been over aggressive in the UKraine with regards to Yanukovych rejecting the EU deal. That's something we should have left for the Europeans to do. It appears that we have opened a can of worms. Do we really want to go to war with China too over some small islands that the Japanese claim? It's time for a serious rethink of our foreign policy.

U.S. warns China not to attempt Crimea-style action in Asia
Click to expand...

The United States is too valuable to China so that would never happen - not to mention China and Russia aren't exactly "buddies" either.

If Russia was to attack the US China would beat Russia into snot bubbles..

Russia is **** to China and China understands that Russia is being an aggressor at this point in time.

Obama is an epic idiot - If I was in his shoes I would tell China to deal with their little lap dog.

And if worst came to worst I would tell Putin that I would destroy his resources if he did not stop the aggression. Who in the hell would back Putin anyways? North Korea?
 
JoeTrumps said:
I love these U.S. "warnings" to Russia, and now CHINA! Let me make this clear. China could bomb Pearl Harbor and Obama would go to the U.N. and other "international bodies" to resolve the issue. I think you can give a rest with all the warnings. It's just making Obama(and by extension us) look foolish at this point.
Click to expand...

Obama is so ****ing dumb - he doesn't even realize that China is on our side.

China would be North Korea if it wasn't for the United States so I have no idea why Obama being the mental reject he is is talking **** to China.

Did it ever dawn on the idiot Obama that Chinas economy relies on the US economy?

Probably not because Obama is too busy dealing with social issues rather than geopolitical issues.

Obama is an idiot community organizer - that's all he will ever be. He doesn't know a damn thing about geopolitics.
 
MildSteel said:
Here's another reason why it was a bad idea to have been over aggressive in the UKraine with regards to Yanukovych rejecting the EU deal. That's something we should have left for the Europeans to do. It appears that we have opened a can of worms. Do we really want to go to war with China too over some small islands that the Japanese claim? It's time for a serious rethink of our foreign policy.

U.S. warns China not to attempt Crimea-style action in Asia
Click to expand...

Actually the US did leave the Crimea issue to the EU and more or less only supported its allies. It only issued warnings to back up the Europeans in spite of the flawed and stumbling approach they had taken.
Mumbled threats are something the world has come to expect from The Man That Can and is paying increasingly less attention to. That is one of the problems we are seeing. Obama is not taken all together seriously, so US backing did not suffice to neutralize the European blunder.

In Asia this could easily cause disaster.
 
joG said:
Actually the US did leave the Crimea issue to the EU and more or less only supported its allies. It only issued warnings to back up the Europeans in spite of the flawed and stumbling approach they had taken.
Mumbled threats are something the world has come to expect from The Man That Can and is paying increasingly less attention to. That is one of the problems we are seeing. Obama is not taken all together seriously, so US backing did not suffice to neutralize the European blunder.

In Asia this could easily cause disaster.
Click to expand...

The EU is useless and are only respected by cocky nations who have absolutely zero reasons for conflict..

The EU is all talk and no push...... The EU is a joke.
 
Mr.Nick said:
The EU is useless and are only respected by cocky nations who have absolutely zero reasons for conflict..

The EU is all talk and no push...... The EU is a joke.
Click to expand...

The EU might be a joke on the Ukrainians.
But they aren't laughing.
 
joG said:
Actually the US did leave the Crimea issue to the EU and more or less only supported its allies. It only issued warnings to back up the Europeans in spite of the flawed and stumbling approach they had taken.
Mumbled threats are something the world has come to expect from The Man That Can and is paying increasingly less attention to. That is one of the problems we are seeing. Obama is not taken all together seriously, so US backing did not suffice to neutralize the European blunder.

In Asia this could easily cause disaster.
Click to expand...

My point is that Ukraine is only a part of marginal US interests. It is more of a direct interest of the EU Therefore we should have let the Europeans figure out how they wanted to respond to Yanukovych's rejection of the EU association agreement. Instead we got involved in the protests, and directly threatened Yanukovych and other financial and political interests in Ukraine that set the stage for the collapse of the government. It was an extremely bad strategic move because for the sake of a minor, marginal interest, we increased the instability of the Ukraine and set back relations with Russia, a major world power, with whom our relations are a strong interest. The Russian annexation of Crimea should have been an anticipated response to the collapse of the Ukrainian government, and therefore was simply not worth the risk.
 
Mr.Nick said:
The United States is too valuable to China so that would never happen - not to mention China and Russia aren't exactly "buddies" either.
Click to expand...

If the "that" you are referring to is a military conflict between the US and China, it could happen if a country like Japan, who we are bound by treaty to defend, got into a military conflict with China over disputed territory.

Mr.Nick said:
If Russia was to attack the US China would beat Russia into snot bubbles..
Click to expand...

Russia is not going to attack the US over disputed Chinese territory. So you is not, gonna see no snot! :lamo

Mr.Nick said:
Russia is **** to China and China understands that Russia is being an aggressor at this point in time.
Click to expand...

Not so! China gets the jet engines for it's most advanced jet fighters from Russia.

Mr.Nick said:
Obama is an epic idiot - If I was in his shoes I would tell China to deal with their little lap dog.
Click to expand...

Well it's a good thing you are not in his shoes because that would far exceed all the idiocy of Obama and every other stupid thing that has ever been done.

Mr.Nick said:
And if worst came to worst I would tell Putin that I would destroy his resources if he did not stop the aggression.
Click to expand...

And if I were Putin and I heard those words coming from the President of the United States, I would know that I was talking to a smoke blowing buffoon.
 
MildSteel said:
My point is that Ukraine is only a part of marginal US interests. It is more of a direct interest of the EU Therefore we should have let the Europeans figure out how they wanted to respond to Yanukovych's rejection of the EU association agreement. Instead we got involved in the protests, and directly threatened Yanukovych and other financial and political interests in Ukraine that set the stage for the collapse of the government. It was an extremely bad strategic move because for the sake of a minor, marginal interest, we increased the instability of the Ukraine and set back relations with Russia, a major world power, with whom our relations are a strong interest. The Russian annexation of Crimea should have been an anticipated response to the collapse of the Ukrainian government, and therefore was simply not worth the risk.
Click to expand...

My understanding was that the US did let the EU act as they wanted, did not pressure them and only followed their lead, when the damage they were causing American interests were not excessive.
 
The minute China invokes Crimea to annex some islands is the minute we should begin invoking Crimea and call for Tibetans to hold a referendum on independence.

edit: By "we" I mean our surrogates. Who we have plenty of.

tlmorg02 said:
The US should work with Europe to restart the Missile Defense Shield in Poland....
Click to expand...

As long as the US is working with European money.
 
joG said:
My understanding was that the US did let the EU act as they wanted, did not pressure them and only followed their lead, when the damage they were causing American interests were not excessive.
Click to expand...

What happened is that the government of Ukraine, under Yanukovych, was offered an association agreement with the EU. Actually it's a long story and had been years in the making. Back in November of last year, they were right at the point where the agreement was to be signed with the EU. But, Yanukovych backed out at the last minute, essentially scuttling years of work. At that point, the Secretary of the United States, Victoria Nuland started to exert very strong pressure on Yanukovych, She went to Ukraine to meet with Yanukovych. Right before the meeting she went out and passed out food to the people who were protesting against Yanukovych. Then she went to the meeting and directly threatened Yanukovych. Next she went to a very powerful oligarch in the Ukraine by the name of Akmetov, and threatened to expose his business dealings if he didn't exert pressure on Yanukovych. All of these things help to cause the collapse of the government of Yanukovych and he had to flee the Ukraine. My point is that as Ukraine is only a marginal US interest, there was no need to for us to exert such strong pressure and cause the government to collapse which resulted in the annexation of Crimea by Russia.
 
MildSteel said:
What happened is that the government of Ukraine, under Yanukovych, was offered an association agreement with the EU. Actually it's a long story and had been years in the making. Back in November of last year, they were right at the point where the agreement was to be signed with the EU. But, Yanukovych backed out at the last minute, essentially scuttling years of work. At that point, the Secretary of the United States, Victoria Nuland started to exert very strong pressure on Yanukovych, She went to Ukraine to meet with Yanukovych. Right before the meeting she went out and passed out food to the people who were protesting against Yanukovych. Then she went to the meeting and directly threatened Yanukovych. Next she went to a very powerful oligarch in the Ukraine by the name of Akmetov, and threatened to expose his business dealings if he didn't exert pressure on Yanukovych. All of these things help to cause the collapse of the government of Yanukovych and he had to flee the Ukraine. My point is that as Ukraine is only a marginal US interest, there was no need to for us to exert such strong pressure and cause the government to collapse which resulted in the annexation of Crimea by Russia.
Click to expand...

I followed all that back to the debate abour joining Nato and later the beginnings of the negotiations for an association agreement. What you left out is the fact that it was obvious that the Russians would react to the pressure on Ukraine to enter the treaty. They would not have done so with the threat of today, had the EU acted quickly after unification. But now the provocation was obviously a very risky affair and that the EU was playing a game way outside its depths. The Federation call the bluff the EU admitted it didn't see.

Why should the USA accept their responsibility for the mess?
 
MildSteel said:
Here's another reason why it was a bad idea to have been over aggressive in the UKraine with regards to Yanukovych rejecting the EU deal. That's something we should have left for the Europeans to do. It appears that we have opened a can of worms. Do we really want to go to war with China too over some small islands that the Japanese claim? It's time for a serious rethink of our foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Does the US have a foreign policy? If so, what is it?
 
joG said:
I followed all that back to the debate abour joining Nato and later the beginnings of the negotiations for an association agreement. What you left out is the fact that it was obvious that the Russians would react to the pressure on Ukraine to enter the treaty. They would not have done so with the threat of today, had the EU acted quickly after unification. But now the provocation was obviously a very risky affair and that the EU was playing a game way outside its depths. The Federation call the bluff the EU admitted it didn't see.

Why should the USA accept their responsibility for the mess?
Click to expand...

I followed most of what you had to say and I would like to respond. But before I do, could you please clarify what you mean by

They would not have done so with the threat of today, had the EU acted quickly after unification.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
Does the US have a foreign policy? If so, what is it?
Click to expand...

That's a good question. Perhaps you could ask your good friend the president!!!! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom