• 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!

Exclusive: China warns U.S. surveillance plane

You have to play a different ball game when you are dealing with China and Russia. Hawkish behaviour won't work. They will resist all the more. Compromise with them or go to war.

The US had been playing compromise the whole time. That was what they decided to do, when Nixon sent ping pong players instead of destroying Peking and Shanghai. That was done well knowing that the day would come, that China would be powerful and maybe aggressive. Maybe that was a mistake. But it is too late now to revise it. But it is certainly wrong to say that compromise works with China. You allow a compromise and suddenly they have a gun on your doorstep. It will be called compromise though. They always call it that.
And itt might look that way, but this incident is hard-ball in its purist form. And it would behoove the US to realize this.
 
It is same report. Anything wrong with that?
586.gif
 
Last edited:
You have to play a different ball game when you are dealing with China and Russia. Hawkish behaviour won't work. They will resist all the more. Compromise with them or go to war.

Lol that isnt how it works.
 
The US had been playing compromise the whole time. That was what they decided to do, when Nixon sent ping pong players instead of destroying Peking and Shanghai. That was done well knowing that the day would come, that China would be powerful and maybe aggressive. Maybe that was a mistake. But it is too late now to revise it. But it is certainly wrong to say that compromise works with China. You allow a compromise and suddenly they have a gun on your doorstep. It will be called compromise though. They always call it that.
And itt might look that way, but this incident is hard-ball in its purist form. And it would behoove the US to realize this.

They been watching you guys invading. A territorial dispute in the South China Sea is nothing compared to invading. They are making a claim and this has nothing to do with US. Let them sort it out without US interference.
 
You have to play a different ball game when you are dealing with China and Russia. Hawkish behaviour won't work. They will resist all the more. Compromise with them or go to war.


Our relationship with those two countries is entirely different. Most importantly, because our economic partnership with China is far more significant and more important. China is our second largest trading partner after Canada. We have more trade with them than we do with the entire EU combined. That close economic relationship means we don't really have an antagonistic relationship with China the way we do with Russia. We aren't hostile with Russia, but we clearly don't see eye to eye. So the way we should deal with China is by simply negotiating with them in good faith and in a spirit of friendship. The way we have to deal with Russia is far more complicated.
 
Our relationship with those two countries is entirely different. Most importantly, because our economic partnership with China is far more significant and more important. China is our second largest trading partner after Canada. We have as much trade with them as the entire EU combined. That close economic relationship means we don't really have an antagonistic relationship with China the way we do with Russia. We aren't hostile with Russia, but we clearly don't see eye to eye. So the way we should deal with China is by simply negotiating with them in good faith and in a spirit of friendship. The way we have to deal with Russia is far more complicated.
You took the wrong course with China and Russia. It was hostile attitude and the administration realised it. That's the reason why Obama sent John Kerry to these two countries lately.
 
They been watching you guys invading. A territorial dispute in the South China Sea is nothing compared to invading. They are making a claim and this has nothing to do with US. Let them sort it out without US interference.

Oh, I know that, but I do not think that is the best way of analyzing this. For on thing, this is an "invasion" into the maritime influence area of another country. And it absolutely is untrue that it has "nothing to do with the US", as everyone in the area knows.

I do not think that will work very well. We have mutual alliance agreements and all that kind of thing, in the first place. In the second place the US has considerable assets in the area that rely on trade routs that are massively affected by the Chinese activities and their implications. These are threatening and of existential national interest. This must be understood. We are not talking soft armchair stuff here.
But the real clincher is that the shift in power is leading to a multipolar situation. that type of constellation can be interpreted and analysed quite reliably by using Game Theory. What turns out is that there is no optimal strategy that leads to a stable position. In international security politics this means you always end up with a war. e have been testing this theory for thousands of years and the empirical data is very persuasive.
So, what you are probably watching happen, is the second stage of the game plan that analysis in the early 1990's said was probably most probable. I have to run now, but let me remind you that this is so exciting, because with almost certainty this path ends in all out war in the second half of the century. There are ways out, but the last time we progressed in that direction was when Bush got the UN to introduce r2p as a Charter Norm. Since then it has been down hill for us all including China, Russia or Europe.
 
Oh, I know that, but I do not think that is the best way of analyzing this. For on thing, this is an "invasion" into the maritime influence area of another country. And it absolutely is untrue that it has "nothing to do with the US", as everyone in the area knows.

I do not think that will work very well. We have mutual alliance agreements and all that kind of thing, in the first place. In the second place the US has considerable assets in the area that rely on trade routs that are massively affected by the Chinese activities and their implications. These are threatening and of existential national interest. This must be understood. We are not talking soft armchair stuff here.
But the real clincher is that the shift in power is leading to a multipolar situation. that type of constellation can be interpreted and analysed quite reliably by using Game Theory. What turns out is that there is no optimal strategy that leads to a stable position. In international security politics this means you always end up with a war. e have been testing this theory for thousands of years and the empirical data is very persuasive.
So, what you are probably watching happen, is the second stage of the game plan that analysis in the early 1990's said was probably most probable. I have to run now, but let me remind you that this is so exciting, because with almost certainty this path ends in all out war in the second half of the century. There are ways out, but the last time we progressed in that direction was when Bush got the UN to introduce r2p as a Charter Norm. Since then it has been down hill for us all including China, Russia or Europe.
War is inevitable not because of China but Russian aggression and in fact right nuclear ballistic missiles are all on high alert.
 
I am curious. Who put China in the position to have so much power? What can we do to change that? Is it even possible?
Before we moan about what the Chinese Gov does and get all huffy about the U S response, or lack thereof, look deeper.
Why are we in the position of groveling?
 
War is inevitable not because of China but Russian aggression and in fact right nuclear ballistic missiles are all on high alert.

You might be right, though, the game structure does not need an "aggressor" in the conventional sense. If each player plays his game it is enough to cause wars to happen. An aggressor makes it happen faster and more predictable in that you can see him and understand where the thread is drifting. But even there, you will find that some players act as though they did not see it. Take the EU and especially Germany in the case of the gas pipelines, Yugoslavia, Transnistria, Georgia or Ukraine.
 
I am curious. Who put China in the position to have so much power? What can we do to change that? Is it even possible?
Before we moan about what the Chinese Gov does and get all huffy about the U S response, or lack thereof, look deeper.
Why are we in the position of groveling?

That is all very obvious to all and has been for over 35 years and was spelled out in the early 90's.
 
You have to play a different ball game when you are dealing with China and Russia. Hawkish behaviour won't work. They will resist all the more. Compromise with them or go to war.

I don't think China is going to go to war over a spy plane :lamo

I do applaud your... thoughtful insight on this though.
 
War is inevitable not because of China but Russian aggression and in fact right nuclear ballistic missiles are all on high alert.

If I were you I would hope war isn't inevitable. Nuking China and Russia fifty times would mean Singapore would drown in all of that nuclear fallout :lamo

The world would have a nuclear winter that could pretty much while out nearly, if not all of humanity.
 
I am curious. Who put China in the position to have so much power? What can we do to change that? Is it even possible?
Before we moan about what the Chinese Gov does and get all huffy about the U S response, or lack thereof, look deeper.
Why are we in the position of groveling?

Because we're so hooked on deporting all of our potential super low wage workers who can compete with China in the low skilled market.
 
Exclusive: China warns U.S. surveillance plane

cool, let's have a dick measuring contest with China now. the one with Russia is so 2014.

meanwhile, the roads and bridges are falling apart. but **** that. bar fight!!*













































































*China still makes all of our stuff, so that might pose a small problem with bar fight.
 
You have to play a different ball game when you are dealing with China and Russia. Hawkish behaviour won't work. They will resist all the more. Compromise with them or go to war.

Don't encourage warmongers RDS' ;)
 
Oh, I know that, but I do not think that is the best way of analyzing this. For on thing, this is an "invasion" into the maritime influence area of another country. And it absolutely is untrue that it has "nothing to do with the US", as everyone in the area knows.

I do not think that will work very well. We have mutual alliance agreements and all that kind of thing, in the first place. In the second place the US has considerable assets in the area that rely on trade routs that are massively affected by the Chinese activities and their implications. These are threatening and of existential national interest. This must be understood. We are not talking soft armchair stuff here.
But the real clincher is that the shift in power is leading to a multipolar situation. that type of constellation can be interpreted and analysed quite reliably by using Game Theory. What turns out is that there is no optimal strategy that leads to a stable position. In international security politics this means you always end up with a war. e have been testing this theory for thousands of years and the empirical data is very persuasive.
So, what you are probably watching happen, is the second stage of the game plan that analysis in the early 1990's said was probably most probable. I have to run now, but let me remind you that this is so exciting, because with almost certainty this path ends in all out war in the second half of the century. There are ways out, but the last time we progressed in that direction was when Bush got the UN to introduce r2p as a Charter Norm. Since then it has been down hill for us all including China, Russia or Europe.

No, it is NOT an "invasion". China has a long history in the Paracel's and Spratly's. And they are the only country with anything resembling a title to them!
 
No, it is NOT an "invasion". China has a long history in the Paracel's and Spratly's. And they are the only country with anything resembling a title to them!

That is, what they say. Others say different things. But it is not out of character for you to side against the American allies. In any event, this is the stuff that leads to wars.
 
Creating new country 600 miles from your mainland seems pretty ballsy. Plopping down airstrips, radar, battleships, and nuclear warheads takes it to a new level.
 
Back
Top Bottom