Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

LunaHound wrote:
I dunno sebster if they are *hiding their military.

But i do know they are having ALOT of fun playing with media now. Example the recent Tibet incident during the olympics. They sure swept that under the rug really well ( throws up in disgust ) .

They didn't push that under the rug at all. It was everywhere.

It waseverywhere yes , yet nothing happend.

They went on happily with olympics.

and everyone stopped talking about it just like its been
swept under the rug.

halonachos wrote:Yeah, but the "commie pinko" boogeyman never blew up two large skyscrapers and the pentagon.

Correct, neither did "islamofacistjhad" and both have existed for decades. Labeling social conflicts like the war on terror or communism doesn't actually serve to clarify political and military policy. Nor does it actually provide an accurate image of the enemies we're fighting. You can't group all terrorist groups and anticapitalism movements into little baskets because they don't fit together.

Which is why they are "boogeymen". They don't exist. The constituent parts that make up the groups exist, but the "movements" are simply rhetoric meant to instill fear and obfuscate understanding in order to push popular policy.

LunaHound wrote:It waseverywhere yes , yet nothing happend.

They went on happily with olympics.

and everyone stopped talking about it just like its been
swept under the rug.

Yeah, and there are several concurrent genocidal conflicts happening in this world. It keeps on spinning. The western world doesn't care about strife outside its borders, even if you do. Hell, most people don't even care about the civilian deathtoll in Iraq any more, and depending on where you read your numbers it's at upper estimates of a million dead.

Welcome to life, no one cares enough to do anything but complain, and when someone actually does do something people complain about it because it's inevitably mishandled in typical partisan political fashion.

Its called mutually assured destruction. America used this along with Russia to end to cold war.

O P E, its easy as one two three O P E!

halonachos wrote:Its called mutually assured destruction. America used this along with Russia to end to cold war.

No, I'm pretty sure the collapse of the soviet union brought about by communist economic policies stamped onto a low production and income region ended the cold war.

Frazzled wrote:
Having said that I'm all for pulling troops out of all international locations except for 2-3 strategic bases. We've been involved in far too many wars to protect the world.

That's a whole lot of pulling out. There are something on the order of 800 American military bases on foreign soil.

Orlanth wrote:
Sorry, you are not listening. I am not giving MY OPINIONS caps for iteration, I am reciting the Chinese mindset. What I think about how power politics should be presented is not relevanto

You are reciting your opinion about the Chinese mindset. You can substantiate that opinion with the presentation of factual information, but you cannot simply say its true and expect that to be accepted. You're taking a single book (The Art of War) and using it as a manual for understanding the minds of Chinese leaders. There is some merit to this. The Art of War does emphasize the value of deception, but so does the Bible. Just because a culture appreciates a useful lie it does not follow that they are always lying.

Orlanth wrote:
So you follow the 'we are all exactly the same' dogma. You beleive that. I never stated we are better or they are worse, just we think different, which also happens to be true.

A word of advice, dont cry racism just because you dont understand another mans philosophy, you are assuming hatred on my part and you have no right or evidence to back up that claim.

You're philosophy is interesting, I'll give you that much. It's like an unholy fusion of the worst parts of Orientalism, and Edward Said's argument against it.

Orlanth wrote:
This is not what I said at all, but it is interesting that you drew that conclusion, and funnily enough proves one of my points. To you concealment of strength automatically means "ohnoz they are stronger than us!!!" this in itself a strong indication thast strength concealment is necessary for the given aim of avoiding panic amongst the poluace of other nations. The last thing China wants as a 'Yellow peril' scare, to avoid that they need to be friendly as far as they can and not appear threatening either by appearing weak or being weak. China doesnt want to be weak, so the appearance is vital.

Yes this is a completely different mindset to that of the US and European powers who showed strength whwen they have/had it.

That isn't really true at all. Geopolitics is now, and has always been about controlling appearances. The West has tended to err on the side of strength, but that strength has frequently been little more than an appearance. The British Empire, for example, became what it was due to its willingness to gamble with its institutional history in the course of expanding into the world. Its easy to look back and say that the Western world accurately appreciated its strength, but the truth is far less romantic. Our forbears were gamblers. They saw something they wanted, and potential means of obtaining those things. They didn't know they had the means until they possessed the things.

Orlanth wrote:
I can see the benefit on this but the US wants desperately to keep a unified face on nuclear proliferation. It is plain as day that the US all but gave Israel nuclear armaments, the last think they want is a situation where two mutually antagonital parties each have the backing of a major power who is aiding proliferation. That would be the true powderkeg.

You mean France. The nuclear weapons Israel possesses are most likely of French origin.

Orlanth wrote:
The US could score points by forcing a Chinese veto, but the cost would be too high. Bush tried a puish for hegemony in the middle east relatively quietly. the comments that theb US reserves the right to attack nartions contructing WMD wouthout warning didnt get a lot of press space, it was there but downplayed small column stuff. This is how you want to play in politics if you want to say sometyhing important on open record but dont want to emphasise it to the populace, only to the power players. China responded quietly. Neither side wants to make a big issue on this because of the dire consequences, especially if Israel starts screaming for nuclear assurances. Thus there has been a big backdown and no conflict in the UN. If the US made a proposal against Iran, China might not have to act, the situation is dangerous Russia might join in or mutually abstain with France. Uk will back the US because the poodles are still in office but the other 10 members of the security council will likely get cold feet, no majority. This could so easily backfire, the best the US gets is a China veto, but they might get a Russian veto on Chinas behalf or a defeated resolution with mass abstaintions.

I think you're overestimating the value that the US, and China, each place on the UN.

That's a whole lot of pulling out. There are something on the order of 800 American military bases on foreign soil.

Yep. Best get started now if we're going to finish up by 2011 then.

ShumaGorath wrote:

halonachos wrote:Its called mutually assured destruction. America used this along with Russia to end to cold war.

No, I'm pretty sure the collapse of the soviet union brought about by communist economic policies stamped onto a low production and income region ended the cold war.

You talk about low production when they were equals to most other nations in terms of military strength. Just look at the russian BMP-1. It was a feared infantry transport and was mass produced easily, it was also innovative as it had an enclosed troop hold. It had NATO nations worrying.

No, the Cold War ended due to everyone getting bored to hell with nothing happening.

IMO What brought communism down was the broadcasting of american and other capitalistic shows like "Dallas". Also, when McDonald's went to Russia, all the ruskies were lining up. I declare McDonalds the vanquisher of Communist Russia. ALL HAIL MCDONALDS, ALL HAIL RONALD MCDONALD THE VANQUISHER OF COMMUNISM!!

You talk about low production when they were equals to most other nations in terms of military strength. Just look at the russian BMP-1. It was a feared infantry transport and was mass produced easily, it was also innovative as it had an enclosed troop hold. It had NATO nations worrying.

Military strength is not economic strength, they had the might of arms, but couldn't afford to feed their people or pay their soldiers. The soviet union broke down economically and collapsed militarily because of it. A military doesn't give you an economy and you can't pay soldiers and make tanks without one for very long.

IMO What brought communism down was the broadcasting of american and other capitalistic shows like "Dallas". Also, when McDonald's went to Russia, all the ruskies were lining up. I declare McDonalds the vanquisher of Communist Russia. ALL HAIL MCDONALDS, ALL HAIL RONALD MCDONALD THE VANQUISHER OF COMMUNISM!!

... Wut?

LunaHound wrote:I dunno sebster if they are *hiding their military.

But i do know they are having ALOT of fun playing with media now. Example the recent Tibet incident during the olympics. They sure swept that under the rug really well ( throws up in disgust ) .

I have no problem with the argument that China does bad things and then tries to cover them up or make them appear as something else. If you want to talk about bad things the Chinese did up to and during the Olympics then you can look at the migrant workers and street vendors who were forcably evicted from Beijing for the duration of the games - they were folk living on the poverty line but in order to have a nice clean city for the games they were forced out with no means of supporting themselves. That China does bad things is not being debated.

What is being debated is Orlanth's idea of a secret army, and his inability to explain any reason why China would build this army in secret beyond 'they're Chinese and think differently and therefore they do that'.

halonachos wrote:Its called mutually assured destruction. America used this along with Russia to end to cold war.

That wasn't the end of the Cold War, the presence of hostile states capable of mutually assured destruction was the Cold War.

halonachos wrote:You talk about low production when they were equals to most other nations in terms of military strength. Just look at the russian BMP-1. It was a feared infantry transport and was mass produced easily, it was also innovative as it had an enclosed troop hold. It had NATO nations worrying.

Yeah, the Russians maintained a powerful army. In 1945 they probably could have rolled over Europe and the US forces posted there. By the 60s they could have still rolled over Europe, as long as the US didn’t engage. Some time after that it gets a lot less clear, until the late 80s when its safe to say that with the underlying economic system falling apart, the Russian was only really all that impressive on paper.

No, the Cold War ended due to everyone getting bored to hell with nothing happening.

Except for the Greek civil war, where the Western backed government was almost overthrown by Soviet backed communists. Or the Korean War. Or Vietnam. Or Afghanistan. Or the Soviet backed Egyptians against the US backed Israelis.

IMO What brought communism down was the broadcasting of american and other capitalistic shows like "Dallas". Also, when McDonald's went to Russia, all the ruskies were lining up. I declare McDonalds the vanquisher of Communist Russia. ALL HAIL MCDONALDS, ALL HAIL RONALD MCDONALD THE VANQUISHER OF COMMUNISM!!

The Maccas got opened in January 1990. In February 1990 the Communist Party agreed to give up its monopoly on power. Not only did McDonalds defeat communism, it did it in one month.

Or possibly it was Günter Schabowski, the East German minister who announced the East Germans were free to leave East Berlin even though the party had no intention of removing the wall. To this day it isn’t clear if he was acting outside his scope or if he just got confused over the new border policy.

I'm pretty sure it was McDonald's, Ronald is one tough guy.

I guess I'm trying to say that communism affected everyone who was poor and lacking money. The rich were living it up like capitalists while everyone else was using communism's frame of economy. When the average joeski saw this, they were upset. Then Boris Yeltsen came in and ruined the whole communist thing, effectively causing them to quit communism cold turkey.

What are you talking about with korea and stuff, the cold war was fought between the North Pole and South Pole. However, neither side could manufacture reliable landing craft so it ended. The penguins did capture the galapagos though and this is still a contested area. Recently, the Chilean government attacked the galapagos but were pushed back by heavy resistance.

halonachos wrote:I'm pretty sure it was McDonald's, Ronald is one tough guy.

I guess I'm trying to say that communism affected everyone who was poor and lacking money. The rich were living it up like capitalists while everyone else was using communism's frame of economy. When the average joeski saw this, they were upset. Then Boris Yeltsen came in and ruined the whole communist thing, effectively causing them to quit communism cold turkey.

When in doubt, always back Ronald.

The fall of communism is an interesting topic. There’s no doubting that the stagnant growth and poor living conditions played a part, but plenty of countries have existed for a long time with conditions that were just as bad or even worse. Right now North Korea is doing that very thing. There’s a theory floating around about the stability of a nation, and how that stability is linked to access to the international community. Basically, it says that a country with open borders will be very prosperous and therefore very stable, look at the US or any Western democracy. On the other hand, you can also achieve stability, or at least enough stability, by shutting down outside access entirely – without an awareness of the outside world you lack the context to know how bad you’ve got it. So the least stable position is to have some access, so that outside ideas can flow in, so that people can see how much greener the grass is over there.

So yeah, it really was all about McDonalds. And guys like Schubowski, and of course Gorbachev.

What are you talking about with korea and stuff, the cold war was fought between the North Pole and South Pole. However, neither side could manufacture reliable landing craft so it ended. The penguins did capture the galapagos though and this is still a contested area. Recently, the Chilean government attacked the galapagos but were pushed back by heavy resistance.

Bah, every knows the Penguin Revolutionary Front are just proxies of the CIA.

North Korea is not a good example of anything except pure and utter evil. They have a concentration camp larger than the state of Maine (I am not joking). Prisoners are punished for three generations - parents to their children to their children.

They must have good golf courses though as KIm has ..what?... 7 holes in one now !

Meanwhile fromm the BBC site this morn'

Beijing has reacted angrily to a Pentagon report on China's military power, which claimed it was altering the military balance in Asia.

Foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang called it a "gross distortion of the facts", the AFP news agency reports.

In its annual report to Congress, the Pentagon said China was developing "disruptive" technologies for nuclear, space and cyber warfare.

It could be used to enforce claims over disputed territories, the report said.

The development of longer-range capabilities also has implications for beyond the region, it added.

"This report issued by the US side continues to play up the fallacy of China's military threat," Mr Qin told journalists.

He said China "resolutely" opposes the report, and urged the US to stop issuing it to "avoid further damage to the two sides' military relations".

Aside from China there's anotehr serious military power in the region ? Really ?

A buttload of US carriers.

The Japanese could become a major military power but have chosen not to. Smart guys.

Well, japan had a commercial to promote their navy. It translated from like a kiddy song to:
"Seamanship, seamanship, seamanship for peace!
Seamanship, seamanship, seamanship for love!"
and so on for about 30 seconds, compare that to the US NAVY recruitment commercial with the heavy metal blaring in the background.

Also, japan relies on the US for protection now, like Puerto Rico.

The PRF is not a front for the CIA, in fact they were working for the SAS until the Russian KGB bought them out.

PRF?

Penguin Revolutionary Front, the enemies of the PBFR( Polar Bear Front for Revolution).

But who's allied with the zombie Fruitbats against the werewolves. We're through the looking glass here people.

Zombies? Are you kidding me!

Everyone knows that the lord savior Max Brooks solved that problem when he published "The Zombie Survival Guild."


Or so the brainless fanboys scream...........

Personally I support the HAMS (Humans Against Metahuman Species). They fight; vampires, werewolves, vampire-werewolves, Werewolf-vampires, ninjas, zombies, nazi-zombies, obama-zombies(joke), zombie-nazis, nazi-vampire-werewolf-zombies, etc.