Originally posted by Elliott03 The reason some people in the UK and the rest of Europe criticize the US is because ofhow cocky the US is. Most of Europe think that European matters are EUROPEAN matters. Are you French? Actually, many Americans feel the same way. That's why we drag our feet when dragged into things like Bosnia. That said I love that for know The US and UK are hand in hand. Likewise...the UK is a great partner.
It has to do with pride. Remember that know-it-all, stuck up kid in school who thought he was better than everybody else? Didn't you want to just reach out and strangle him sometimes? Well, that little kid is America. He got the best grades, did well in all the sports, and was really good at martial arts, so no one could kick his butt. He constantly bragged over and over about how good it was to be him. In his mind, he was by far the best person who ever lived, and he let everybody know about it all the time. After a while, the other kids got annoyed and started rolling their eyes behind his back, and sometimes even to his face. The perception is that Americans think they're better than everyone else. That is why people don't like you.
HayesStreet, We agree on many things, but you seem to skirt a central issue here. I don't really know how to restate it again....none of our financial success means that we should impose our will or all of our concepts and ideas on others. Acting like we have all of the answers appears more arrogant than confident. People born in other countries are quite capable also. BTW, Luxembourg has a higher GDP per capita than the US...should they tell us what to do since they apparently have surpassed us in your measure?
Just that you read some books(by someone from RAND maybe? ) about China doesn't mean a lick you understand other countries policy let along speaking for them. You haven't answer my question about FIVE NORMS yet, and that's the most basic stuff. You can probablly pull it off internet. BTW, a lot more of your claims are not accurate. But I wouldn't attempt to argue point by point, as it's quite evident you hear only yourself.
Good post Fadeaway. ...but you politlely stopped short of: 'and he used his formidable allowance to sway other kid's opinions'. Americans overall are very good at heart and this country does wonderful things for others; it's a shame that we often appear arrogant.
Sure they are capable. I've said before that we don't necessarily have the all the answers. However, it doesn't make sense to me that we would NOT ACT because others disagree if we find their arguments/points unconvincing. Having financial success may not be a reason to 'impose our concepts on others' but IMO having the best system is a reason to cajole, negotiate, bargain, threaten, intimidate, buy, beg, borrow, or steal our concepts to the rest of the world. If we have to drag the dictators of the world like Saddam kicking and screaming into it, then so be it. If we have to ignore the historically wishy washy Euro's to do it then so be it. I believe that Western democracy is the ultimate system devised so far, and that we should use our power to expand it, despite the fact that it conflicts with other ideologies, be they religious (Islam) or political (China). Pure finances as a measure of greatness was your criteria, Cohen. I don't remember saying it was mine, although its certainly part of it. If there is a country that maintains the same level of committments we do, and is more successful at what they do, then certainly we should listen to what they have to say. Recognizing ANY despot's right to say 'buzz off we'll handle our own internal affairs' is unacceptable IMO. BTW: did you have to go look that up or are you some kinda Luxembourg fanatic? This is an example of what I'm saying. From today's Independent in the UK: p. 11 - "The Constitution of the United States, adopted in Philadelphia in 1787, is often held up as the model for a European document that would define the powers and limitations of the EU." -Stephen Castle in Brussels michecon, I guess you're referring to the 5 Principles of Peaceful Coexistence although that may just come out as 5 Norms in the translation. And I did have to look it up on the internet. I realized why when I located them...China ignores them regularly so they're not really relevant to our discussion. "From the 1950s until now, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence have stood severe tests and shown strong vitality. China has always striven to develop friendly relations with other countries on the basis of these principles." (http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/5702.html) Of course these are super general but if you want to talk about these specifically, that's ok. 1. Mutual respect for each other's sovereignty. 2. Mutual non-aggression. 3. No interference in each other's internal affairs. 4. Equality and mutual benefit. 5. Peaceful coexistence. Like when they invaded Tibet. Or when they invaded Vietnam. And strange that India and China fought several wars AFTER the pronouncement of the 5 Principles in '54. Or when they sponsered Pol Pot in Cambodia? I've read quite a lot from a variety of sources. And I haven't seen you deny my 'assertions,' only ask questions. Back to the books, son: You can probably find it on the internet.
What in particular from my post are you referring to? Bosnia? Its a fact that the Europeans bungled around for almost a decade before the US took the lead in stopping Serb aggression. The fact we have to lead in a European matter like Bosnia or Eastern European stablility is indicative of the resolution of the Western Europeans. It is a fact that the Europeans talked and passed resolutions and shuffled papers to put together a Euro Defense Force and yet have failed to meet their own deadlines because none of the individual countries will cough up the cash. Those aren't opinions.
Bosnia is a situation where us taking the lead might be a good thing, especially when we let Europeans provide the majority of the troops. That's the kind of cooperation with other countries that I feel is a good thing. Yes I think it's ok to take the lead in multi-lateral cooperative situations like that. I just wanted to point out that no matter who lead or got the project rolling, the project is manned by Europeans. So it's not like the U.S. is doing everything.
Yeh, you did have to look it up internet which doesn't indicate anything as China see herself as savior of the world, yet you claim ALL other power nations CERTAINLY see themselves as savior of the world before you even did look it up. Do I need to analyse anything more of your "assertions"? FYI, Tibet was subject to the rule of Chinese National Government before this current government. China retaliated Vietnamese for the constent border harassment and quickly pulled out after they reached deeply into Vietnam and made enough of a statement. And you use an odd translation of some old Chinese classicals (should be Shu JIng BTW) that I can cite by heart as a way to taunt people? Just who is KeLinDun? (It's clinton in chinese translation BTW) Books? And your faul language? You are starting to make yourself a fool.
michecon, i hardly see how a general publicity release like the 5 principles are relevant to China's attitude when they DO NOT FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLES. That was my point. Otherwise I could refute US bashers by pointing out there is not a statement from the US government that says 'We want to dominate the world,' and that would be sufficient. When did the PRC invade and occupy Tibet? I believe it was AFTER they issued the 5 principles, yes? So you expect us to believe that Vietnam was attacking China? And I see you didn't say anything about sponsering rebels (which would violate Principles 1-5) in Cambodia? Did I use foul language? If so, or if the translation came across that way I apologize in advance. It would not be the first time.
HS: Frankly a deep discussion of Chinese policy is not the subject of this thread, I don't have time for it and other may not be interested. But if it helps you to have some disfferent perspective, I'll answer of your last questions. Tibet was under rule of the former central government of China, so there isn't an issue of "invade" and "occupy", although Tibet was largely under self governing at the time. Yes, believe it or not, Vienam was harrassing China on the boarder. Of course the background was they thought they had the support of Soviets. China did have aids to DK government which at time held UN seat if that's what you mean by the pol pot reference. (although not to forget US supported him at the time as well, Carter’s National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski stated that in 1979 "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot...Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him but China could."). China's aid to Cambodia is from a national security angle rather than savior of the world mentality. China has by and large held well as "not be an aggressor unless being aggressed. China don't have the Savior of the world mentality throughtout the long history except maybe some years during extreme leftism. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying China is a role model in foreign policy. I brought it up just to make a point that its presumptuous to claim one know-it-all for other countries matter or savior of the world mentality in this case. As I said before, I don't believe US is hated internationally. US did plenty of good things, meddled with some. But oversimplifying things as "they hated us just because we are better" won't helpou understand the question at hand. And just because you have the perfect mariage in your family doesn't necessary mean you need to intruding in others' marriage, tell them what to do with taunt every time they have a quibble. Of course it's a different matter when there's domestic violence. Lastly, I'm not totally sure if calling a stranger "son" is classfied as foul language in America or not, but I'm sure Americans don't appreciate that. No need for translation, I can understand English perfectly fine, but thank you.
No need for us to go round and round as you don't seem to be hearing me anymore than you think I'm hearing you. I do think its pretty convenient that you think China is never the aggressor (not in Cambodia, not with India, not with Tibet, not in the Spratly's etc etc etc). I think that's fairly unrealistic. As Arsene Wenger says 'Everyone thinks they have the prettiest wife at home.' I guess i've unintentionally done it twice. I wasn't insulting your language skills since you 'certainly' speak more languages than I do, and your English is fine. I just meant that I didn't think I used 'foul' language but that I may have inadvertantly said something that you took that way. Now I see it was the 'son' comment. So again I apologize for that. Sorry for the confusion.
But the defense we spend on them has an indirect impact of boosting their economies and promoting trade with us. Our economy benefits when we have more markets that can afford our goods. Taiwan's semiconductor sector profoundly affects our computer industry and defending the second largest economy in the world is also to our interests. Plus all the foreign investment in our stocks and bonds has created a surge of revenue for the past 20 years. So the defence of certain key regions shouldn't be credited as entirely humanitarian since the long stated goal has always been to promote our self interests.
That may be true but at the time we made the committments to Taiwan they had no semiconductor industry. Nor did they have such a prodigious bank roll. The Sino-US reproachment that came in the 70s changed our relationship with Taiwan, but did not change our stance that we would protect Taiwan from Chinese aggression. Nor has it changed now. Point well taken. No doubt we see our interests and those of others merge in many of these instances. However, it is faulty to assume that we get a dollar for dollar tradeoff on defense spending re: Europe et al. For instance, the money saved by those countries that is spent on healthcare subsidies, or agricultural subsidies, or Airbus subsidies, does not benefit the US economy nor does it return money to the US.
The China's military relationships with India and Vietnam are really irrelevant in this discussion, as no Chinese is claiming that China is the "savior of the world" here. I pretty much second what michecon said about the China-Vietnam wars in the early 1980's. For those who don't believe that two communistic countries can go head to head, consider this fact that there's even secret wars between USSR and China in the 1960's, for the same reason China had a war with Vietnam - the USSR was prying land piece by piece from China. The Russians had a long history of expansionism. The Qing dynasty of China ceded over 100 million sq. kilometers of land to Russia after a military defeat. The USSR was no difference either. First it tries to take away land from China directly, then it supports Vietnam to do the same thing, at the oppurtunity of a weakened China that's just off the disastrous Cultural revolution. As the result China launched counterattacks to the Vietnam, drove them back and occupied the Hanoi city in just several weeks. There's heavy casualties on both sides but not lopsided to China. Now let's back to the topic, I know that many Americans are proud of the military prowess of the USA. That's fine with me, but don't go overboard and claim that the USA is capable of being the "Savior of the world". I mean, no one can be the "Savior of the world" when one fails to dominate a weak country like Vietnam. Although Vietnam was under the support of China and the USSR, Vietnamese were still weaklings in terms of military capabilities. The Vietnamese has suffient supplies from the above countries but their outdated weaponry put them at severe disadvantage. The Vietnmese had next to none heavy artillery, jet fighters, helicopters, armed vehicles and marine ships, of which the USA had plenty. The USA had absolute advantage in air and ground fire support, with much better infantry weapons than the Vietnamese. Financially the Vietnamese were no match as well. The USA army used everything including napalm and chemical weapons in Vietnam and still coulnd't defeat the Vietcongs with only some AK47s, portable mortars and SAM defense missles. The USA had everything that they needed to win the war but one thing, the will to fight. The defeat was a result of military failures first, political failures second - ten years of military ineptitude and over 50000 casualties are enough to call for political retreatism. No matter the USA defeated herself or got defeated by some Viet congs, the USA failed to dominate a country one hundredth of its size with almost no modern equipments. I'm not interested in theories that explains the failure but the fact of such defeat under lopsided advantage - it happened and can happen again. If lessons are not learnt from this failure, the chance to be stuck in another Vietnamlike situation will be increased, especially with the "Savior of the world" mentality. Prove it while facts say otherwise.
China the aggressor to India and Tibet? LMAO, you seem to be stuffed with anti-China propoganda. Are you really going to believe everthing China haters told you about or are you a China hater?
Talk about buying propaganda. You can't seriously be suggesting Vietnam INVADED China. That is ridiculous. China didn't want Vietnam to displace Pol Pot and didn't like them being more cozy with the Soviets than with China. So they decided to teach Vietnam a lesson. They thought the Vietnamese would have to pull troops out of Cambodia and redirect them towards the Chinese threat. Your assertions are as laughable as Germany saying the Polish invaded first. And I don't think China occupied Hanoi so you should recheck your facts. PINGXIANG: Border War, 1979 A Nervous China Invades Vietnam By TERRY McCARTHY Early in the morning of Feb. 17, 1979, Chinese artillery batteries and multiple rocket launchers opened fire all along the Vietnamese border with protracted barrages that shook the earth for miles around. Then 85,000 troops surged across the frontier in human-wave attacks like those China had used in Korea nearly three decades before. They were decimated: the well-dug-in Vietnamese cut down the Chinese troops with machine guns, while mines and booby traps did the rest. Quest for Dignity The success of the Communist revolution climaxed a century-long drive by the Chinese to reclaim their historical greatness Horrified by their losses, the Chinese quickly replaced the general in charge of the invasion that was meant, in Beijing's words, "to teach Vietnam a lesson," and concentrated their attack on neighboring provincial capitals. Using tanks and artillery, they quickly overran most of the desired towns: by March 5, after fierce house-to-house fighting, they captured the last one, Lang Son, across the border from Pingxiang. Then they began their withdrawal, proclaiming victory over the "Cubans of the Orient," as Chinese propaganda had dubbed them. By China's own estimate, some 20,000 soldiers and civilians from both sides died in the 17-day war. Who learned the bigger lesson? The invasion demonstrated a contradiction that has forever bedeviled China's military and political leaders: good strategy, bad tactics. The decision to send what amounted to nearly 250,000 troops into Vietnam had been taken seven months before and was well-telegraphed to those who cared to listen. When Deng Xiaoping went to Washington in January 1979 to cement the normalization of China's relations with the United States, he told President Jimmy Carter in a private meeting what China was about to do--and why. Not only did Beijing feel Vietnam was acting ungratefully after all the assistance it had received during its war against the U.S., but in 1978 Hanoi had begun expelling Vietnamese of Chinese descent. Worst of all--it was cozying up to Moscow. In November 1978 Vietnam signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation with the Soviet Union. A month later the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia, a Chinese ally. Although Hanoi said it was forced to do so to stop Pol Pot's genocide and to put an end to his cross-border attacks against Vietnam, Deng saw it as a calculated move by Moscow to use its allies to encircle China from the south. Soviet "adventurism" in Southeast Asia had to be stopped, Deng said, and he was calculating (correctly, it turned out) that Moscow would not intervene in a limited border war between China and Vietnam. Carter's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said Deng's explanation to Carter of his invasion plans, with its calculated defiance of the Soviets, was the "single most impressive demonstration of raw power politics" that he had ever seen. At the time Deng was consolidating his position as unchallenged leader of China. Having successfully negotiated normalization of relations with Washington, he wanted to send a strong signal to Moscow against further advances in Asia. He also thought the Carter Administration was being too soft on the Soviets, although he did not say as much to his American hosts. Hanoi, for its part, was unfazed by Deng's demonstration of "raw power." The Vietnamese fought the Chinese with local militia, not bothering to send in any of the regular army divisions that were then taken up with the occupation of Cambodia. Indeed, Hanoi showed no sign of withdrawing those troops, despite Chinese demands that they do so: the subsequent guerrilla war in Cambodia would bog down Vietnam's soldiers and bedevil its foreign relations for more than a decade. The towns captured by the Chinese were all just across the border; it is not clear whether China could have pushed much farther south. Having lost so many soldiers in taking the towns, the Chinese methodically blew up every building they could before withdrawing. Journalist Nayan Chanda, who visited the area shortly after the war, saw schools, hospitals, government buildings and houses all reduced to rubble. The war also showed China just how outdated its battlefield tactics and weaponry were, prompting a major internal review of the capabilities of the People's Liberation Army. The thrust for military modernization continues to this day, even as the focus of China's generals has shifted from Vietnam back to Taiwan--a pesky little irritant that could cause Beijing even bigger problems if it decides to administer another "lesson." The fact is that the US military is the lynchpin of global stability. If we withdrew our forward deployed forces there would immediately be outbreaks of conflict as other lesser powers moved to fill the vacuum. In East Asia, Taiwan would have to restart their nuclear program to ensure China did not try to forcefully take back the island. China would have more incentive than ever to move quickly to retake the island before they acquired nukes. Japan would certainly rearm and that would include nukes (which its estimated would take them about a week) to protect itself from an expansionist China and a rogue N. Korea. N. Korea might find S Korea a lot more tempting without the US conventional and nuclear deterrent. In the South China Sea, China would inevitably try and grab the Spratly's, which are claimed by about 10 countries, as the US Navy would no longer be there to stop them. This area has already seen conflict between China and Vietnam and could escalate into a land war fairly quickly (we've seen China does not hesitate to attack neighbors). On the subcontinent US influence with India and Pakistan would wane, increasing the probability of a nuclear conflict between the two old enemies. In the Middle East, Iraq and Iran would undoubtably move to fill the role of dominant player in the region. With no US presence or interest the Iraqis could rearm (if they haven't already) and would have NO military force opposing them vis-a-vis Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Iran and Iraq would engage in an arms race for nukes, both seeking the advantage and further destabilizing the region. In Europe, the EU, with no common defense force to replace a defunct NATO would be unable to cope with stability issues as in the former Yugoslavia, and the EU itself could fall to the wayside as a resurgent and united Germany grapples with the French and English for European supremacy. We won't even talk about the economic implications of such a catastrophic event. Uh, no. I wouldn't call that a military failure. Considering we stopped the communist from taking over the country for more than a decade, while fighting half way around the world, with extreme military limitations (such as not being able to invade N Vietnam), I think we did a pretty good job militarily. As I've said before, the US came out on top in EVERY engagement over platoon size in over a DECADE of conflict. That is not a MILITARY failure. I think you are correct that there are lessons to be learned. When you enter a conflict you should crush the enemy, not play cat and mouse.
Oh, I guess the Dali Lama came down off the mountain and invaded China? Actually Americans have historically been extremely interested and intrigued by China. Please spare me your claims of 'propaganda.' When you get something called a 'free press' that is not run by the Party come and talk to me about it.
