• 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!

G.E. to Share Jet Technology With China in New Joint Venture

How familiar are you with the doctrine and tactics of the People's Liberation Army?

How familiar are you with the FA of China?

China pursues a national defense policy which is purely defensive in nature. China places the protection of national sovereignty, security, territorial integrity, safeguarding of the interests of national development, and the interests of the Chinese people above all else. China endeavors to build a fortified national defense and strong military forces compatible with national security and development interests, and enrich the country and strengthen the military while building a moderately prosperous society in all aspects.

China’s national defense policy for the new stage in the new century basically includes: upholding national security and unity, and ensuring the interests of national development; achieving the all-round, coordinated and sustainable development of China’s national defense and armed forces; enhancing the performance of the armed forces with informationization as the major measuring criterion; implementing the military strategy of active defense; pursuing a self-defensive nuclear strategy; and fostering a security environment conducive to China’s peaceful development.

Source
 
I don't think Western businesses overall, in their rush to cash in on Chinese markets, fully considered the political risk to their investments. They really need to study Chinese history and take account of the ebb and flow of the nation's attitudes toward foreigners and foreign interests on Chinese soil.

Wars have been fought for less, like desolate, rocky islands noted more for their sheep population than anything else.


You bring up many good points here, well done. As to your mention of China moving away from US currency, such steps would be taken by any economic concious nation. However, I think once the dollar gains strength and the economy recovers we will see China move back closer to the dollar. China wishes to link their currency with whichever is the strongest so that they may keep their currency low in comparison and thus maintain trade deficits that benefit them greatly.

In regards to Taiwan, China has become very interwined economically with them and only dispute Taiwanese declaration of independence. If Taiwan were to negotiate backinto good relations with China, I feel that China would treat Taiwan much as it does Hong Kong and the government would be very restrained in exerting influence to insure economic stability.

The South Seas, you are correct, may very well give rise to the next war for the simple reason of energy. Many speculate that there may be a wealth of natural gas and possibly even oil to be harvested from the South China Sea and if the region were to go to war, energy would indeed be something to fight over.


The Chinese are diversifying away from U.S. debt and will gradually move to lessen the link between their currency and the dollar. This is because they're losing faith in our ability to maintain the value of the currency and they don't want their inflationary fortunes tied to ours.

China has codified into its laws a direct statement that if Taiwan moves directly toward independence its military is authorized to use force. Also, China has moved more aggressively to assert its claims in the South China Sea:
 
What is the FA of China?

The foreign policy of China (IMO) is to, in simplest terms, become an Asian powerhouse economically and militarily, but stay in Asia. They are talking with countries like Iran and others in Africa as so they can secure their own energy and raw material needs. Chinese foreign policy is not about usurping America, but working within the established American order.

China is not a military threat to the US

China is heavily investing in clean energy, not its military

[url="http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/china_superpower_or_basket_case]China does have some problems which it will need to deal with[/url]
 
The foreign policy of China (IMO) is to, in simplest terms, become an Asian powerhouse economically and militarily, but stay in Asia. They are talking with countries like Iran and others in Africa as so they can secure their own energy and raw material needs. Chinese foreign policy is not about usurping America, but working within the established American order.

China is not a military threat to the US

China is heavily investing in clean energy, not its military

[url="http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/china_superpower_or_basket_case]China does have some problems which it will need to deal with[/url]

Bob Gates was in Beijing last week meeting with Chinese generals. He asked them to establish a military to military relationship with America. They refused. Why do you think the Chinese refused the offer of a relationship with the American military?
 
After awhile, it gets hard to respect American Big Business.

there is no such thing as American big business
too many people wrongly believe that a corporation with active centers in the USA is also acting in the USA's interest
the obligation of the principals of a corporation is to drive corporate success, even if the strategy to do so is not in the USA's best interests
now recognize that i did not say that gives the corporation with a USA presence the right to undermine the USA's interests ... but the line between those two results can be sliced quite thin
 
Bob Gates was in Beijing last week meeting with Chinese generals. He asked them to establish a military to military relationship with America. They refused. Why do you think the Chinese refused the offer of a relationship with the American military?

because it is in their self interest
same as the reason they will not modify the value of the yuan, despite our exhortations
 
because it is in their self interest
same as the reason they will not modify the value of the yuan, despite our exhortations

Close but no cigar. The answer is that the PLA is following the injunctions of Sun Tzu. Know your enemy and you need not fear defeat in a hundred battles. The Chinese don't want America to understand them. If America doesn't know Chinese capabilities, America will be surprised in the event of a conflict.
 
Close but no cigar. The answer is that the PLA is following the injunctions of Sun Tzu. Know your enemy and you need not fear defeat in a hundred battles. The Chinese don't want America to understand them. If America doesn't know Chinese capabilities, America will be surprised in the event of a conflict.

where do you come up with this lame ass ****?
as if there are no Americans with sino ancestry and/or knowledge of chinese history and culture, causing us to be ignorant of the world's other major power
 
Don't you think it's a bad idea to sell military technology to a country that we might have to face on the battlefield one day?

Not a matter of "might", it's a matter of when!


Bad idea.. This is political cronnism at it most worst! Obama is an idiot, and there's no denying it anymore!


Tim-
 
Bob Gates was in Beijing last week meeting with Chinese generals. He asked them to establish a military to military relationship with America. They refused. Why do you think the Chinese refused the offer of a relationship with the American military?

Maybe because the US is threatening them (here, here) and blaming them for our economic circumstances(here, here and here

Also, so just because China is refusing a military relationship with the US means they are planning to attack America (in the future)?
 
Last edited:
Maybe because the US is threatening them (here, here) and blaming them for our economic circumstances(here, here and here

Also, so just because China is refusing a military relationship with the US means they are planning to attack America (in the future)?


I think you're a nice kid. Let me give you a pointer in debate.

You are a leftist. I am a conservative. In our discussion you have used the Canadian website Globalresearch. GR is a notorious leftist site.

In debate if you want to establish a point you must use a source that your opponent accepts as valid, authoritative, and unbiased. If you don't do that your opponent will dismiss your source as irrelevant or biased.

This leads to a rule of thumb. As a conservative I only use centrist and/or leftist sources when debating leftists. If I cited a conservative source the opponent would be justified in rejecting the source. Conversely, leftists must use conservative and/or centrist sources before I will accept the source as admissible.

Since GR is a leftist Canadian source I hereby reject it as both biased and unauthoritive. That's the way the game is played.

China seeks military advantage by refusing to be transparent. Arms control is based on transparency. America has allowed the PLA General Staff access to Cheyenne Mountain, Norfolk NB, missile bases, etc. The Chinese have refused to reciprocate.

Without transparency it is necessary to assume the worst about the PLA.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are lots of swell guys in the PLA. I know a couple of them. Gentlemen and scholars. But being nice doesn't mean ****. We need to know what the **** they are up to. Get with the program.
 
I think you're a nice kid. Let me give you a pointer in debate.

You are a leftist. I am a conservative. In our discussion you have used the Canadian website Globalresearch. GR is a notorious leftist site.

In debate if you want to establish a point you must use a source that your opponent accepts as valid, authoritative, and unbiased. If you don't do that your opponent will dismiss your source as irrelevant or biased.

This leads to a rule of thumb. As a conservative I only use centrist and/or leftist sources when debating leftists. If I cited a conservative source the opponent would be justified in rejecting the source. Conversely, leftists must use conservative and/or centrist sources before I will accept the source as admissible.

Since GR is a leftist Canadian source I hereby reject it as both biased and unauthoritive. That's the way the game is played.

China seeks military advantage by refusing to be transparent. Arms control is based on transparency. America has allowed the PLA General Staff access to Cheyenne Mountain, Norfolk NB, missile bases, etc. The Chinese have refused to reciprocate.

Without transparency it is necessary to assume the worst about the PLA.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are lots of swell guys in the PLA. I know a couple of them. Gentlemen and scholars. But being nice doesn't mean ****. We need to know what the **** they are up to. Get with the program.

Please prove that Global Research is biased. Also please prove that China is planning to attack the US, since it seems that is what you think.
 
Last edited:
China seeks military advantage by refusing to be transparent. Arms control is based on transparency. America has allowed the PLA General Staff access to Cheyenne Mountain, Norfolk NB, missile bases, etc. The Chinese have refused to reciprocate.

Without transparency it is necessary to assume the worst about the PLA.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are lots of swell guys in the PLA. I know a couple of them. Gentlemen and scholars. But being nice doesn't mean ****. We need to know what the **** they are up to. Get with the program.

This is the point I have been making since our leaders decided it would be a good thing to trade with China and allow our industry to be shipped there wholesale. Not to mention that everytime a US company wants to enter the market they have to give a technology transfer to the Chinese. Good ol free trade, gotta love it!
 
Please prove that Global Research is biased. Also please prove that China is planning to attack the US, since it seems that is what you think.

Shakes head. Son, I've rejected your source as biased and inadmissible. Game over. This ain't a court of law. It's a message board.

China isn't going to attack America. It won't be necessary to use weapons to defeat the US. The Chinese have simply out thought Americans.
 
This is the point I have been making since our leaders decided it would be a good thing to trade with China and allow our industry to be shipped there wholesale. Not to mention that everytime a US company wants to enter the market they have to give a technology transfer to the Chinese. Good ol free trade, gotta love it!

Lots of conservatives supported free trade and globalization without realizing they were cutting America's jugular vein in doing so. Many of us are hearbroken at our catastrophic foolishness. Americans have been completely and totally betrayed. Now American workers are exposed to direct competition from Chinese workers who are lean and hungry.
 
Lots of conservatives supported free trade and globalization without realizing they were cutting America's jugular vein in doing so. Many of us are hearbroken at our catastrophic foolishness. Americans have been completely and totally betrayed. Now American workers are exposed to direct competition from Chinese workers who are lean and hungry.

Not only Chinese workers, but workers all around the world
 
Here's more "free enterprise" from our best buds in China:

BRUSSELS (AP) - Chinese officials recently unveiled a new, high-tech stealth fighter that could pose a significant threat to American air superiority - and some of its technology, it turns out, may well have come from the U.S. itself.

Balkan military officials and other experts have told The Associated Press that in all probability the Chinese gleaned some of their technological know-how from an American F-117 Nighthawk that was shot down over Serbia in 1999.

Nighthawks were the world's first stealth fighters, planes that were very hard for radar to detect. But on March 27, 1999, during NATO's aerial bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo war, a Serbian anti-aircraft missile shot one of the Nighthawks down. The pilot ejected and was rescued.

It was the first time one of the much-touted "invisible" fighters had ever been hit. The Pentagon believed a combination of clever tactics and sheer luck had allowed a Soviet-built SA-3 missile to bring down the jet.

The wreckage was strewn over a wide area of flat farmlands, and civilians collected the parts - some the size of small cars - as souvenirs.

"At the time, our intelligence reports told of Chinese agents crisscrossing the region where the F-117 disintegrated, buying up parts of the plane from local farmers," says Adm. Davor Domazet-Loso, Croatia's military chief of staff during the Kosovo war.

"We believe the Chinese used those materials to gain an insight into secret stealth technologies ... and to reverse-engineer them," Domazet-Loso said in a telephone interview.

A senior Serbian military official confirmed that pieces of the wreckage were removed by souvenir collectors, and that some ended up "in the hands of foreign military attaches."

Efforts to get comment from China's defense ministry and the Pentagon were unsuccessful.

China's multi-role stealth fighter - known as the Chengdu J-20 - made its inaugural flight Jan. 11, revealing dramatic progress in the country's efforts to develop cutting-edge military technologies.

China's New Stealth Fighter May Use US Technology - CBS News
 
Here's more "free enterprise" from our best buds in China:

....and the head of GE, immelt, is even now working with his close friend, mr obama, in suggesting ways to create jobs. Ironic when you think about it.
 
....and the head of GE, immelt, is even now working with his close friend, mr obama, in suggesting ways to create jobs. Ironic when you think about it.

I used to get so upset about how the Chinese played Americans for fools. Finally, for my own mental health I detached myself psychologically from the fate of America.
 
How familiar are you with the FA of China?



Source

Which explains why they claim the entire South China Sea and most of the East China Sea as its internal waters; sends "fishing" boats into the EEZs and territorial waters of numerous neighboring states and then puts diplomatic pressure on them when they get taken into custody or use force to prevent their being taken into custody. In the last few months, this has happened with Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia (among others).
 
I used to get so upset about how the Chinese played Americans for fools. Finally, for my own mental health I detached myself psychologically from the fate of America.

I view America as not just a country, but as man's best hope to achieve his highest aspirations of freedom and prosperity. I was looking for a quote I could use in reply to your post, so I googled "American ideal." Google then asked me if I meant "American Idol." :doh
 
I view America as not just a country, but as man's best hope to achieve his highest aspirations of freedom and prosperity. I was looking for a quote I could use in reply to your post, so I googled "American ideal." Google then asked me if I meant "American Idol." :doh

There is only so much disappointment any one can take without experiencing alienation and detachment. I feel like Rommel in 1943 when he realized the war was lost.
 
Back
Top Bottom