Successful Chinese Ballistic Missile Test

[phongn]

The United States is not going to use their missiles unless somebody else gives them an incredibly good reason to. So, China has nothing to fear from American missiles--unless China's planning on doing something that would give them a good reason to use them.

Nations must plan according to capabilities, not intent.

Well of course they're going to want to do it if they can. That doesn't make it right, however, and of course the Americans are going to want to destroy it or get rid of it however they can before it becomes operational. They'll have every right to as far as I'm concerned.

The PLA, not so much.

Why?

[K. A. Pital]

What is the difference between PLA and US Army, Ryan? Why one has the right to place it's weapons wherever it wants while the other has no right?

The United States is not going to use their missiles unless somebody else gives them an incredibly good reason to.

Neither would the Chinese or any other nation for that matter. I mean, ABM missiles in general are used only for very good reason - cruise missile attack, ballistic missile attack or the like.

I'm kinda at loss what you're trying to say, Ryan? "The US has special rights allowing it to place ABM in foreign nations, whereas other nations have no such right"? That's bullshit, and you know it. So what is your beef? Me giving you a shiver with a good joke?

Yeah, because you totally want the guys who put lead in childrens' toys looking out for you instead of NATO.

How is poor quality of products, which follows from a young and inadequate industrial base, relevant to the subject at hand? Ryan, you really want to make yourself look like a fool? You just did.

Unless you see the Americans and the Chinese government on the same level, of course, in which case I'm not even going to bother...

Of them, which nation has ran at least two major foreign wars in the last 20 years? You can sure bet the Chinese look "reliable" enough to me, in that at least they don't go around the world attacking other nations at their whim and desire - though I'm not saying they would not if they had the same military power as the USA. After all, such is the nature of all large powers.

[mr friendly guy]

*buries face in hands*

Yeah, because you totally want the guys who put lead in childrens' toys looking out for you instead of NATO.

Whose argument are we going to trust more? The regular guy or the one with VILLAGE IDIOT in his title?

No doubt any one with half a brain would be able to see the logical fallacy I just used for illustrative purposes. I guess that rules you out because you used the same one just then.

Wait. You are going to say that it was a joke, or it was just hyperbole, and that we should just chill out before whining about people being nasty to you because you are too cowardly to properly defend your own statements. AM I RITE?

[Shroom Man 777]

*buries face in hands*

Yeah, because you totally want the guys who put lead in childrens' toys looking out for you instead of NATO.

Would you want the guys who ignore the United Nations and invade a country and turn it from a shithole to an even shittier shithole looking out for you? Would you want the guys who supported a brutal dictator (Ferdinand Marcos) in your country whose regime of martial law lasted for decades looking out for you? Would you want the guys whose leaders kiss and hold hands with dictatorial inhumane shitpieces or whose defense secretaries shake hands with Saddam Hussein support you? Even when they'll install tie-chewing Georgians to bomb South Abkhazia? Even when they run secret torture prisons?

I don't view America as evil. If you want to have awesome military technology and want to position your ABMs in strategically convenient and advantageous places, then that's fine. But what's wrong when it's other people who are not you who are doing it?

The United States is not going to use their missiles unless somebody else gives them an incredibly good reason to.

No, but you can use your aircraft carriers, your B-52s, B-2s, F-15s, F-16s, M1 Abrams tanks when somebody gives you an incredibly false reason to, like WMDs in Iraq or the price of tea in China.

So, China has nothing to fear from American missiles--unless China's planning on doing something that would give them a good reason to use them.

What if America is planning on doing something that will destabilize other nations, like going into an unprovoked war in some Third World region?

It would be a good thing if there was another formidable great power to discourage America from doing these evil actions, no?

But that puts the Americans in a situation where using the missiles before the site is in place becomes attractive because obviously the Chinese want to prevent the Americans from responding properly to something they're going to do that would deserve that response, or else they wouldn't have put the site there.

So... if the Chinese put defense systems in place, it obviously means that the Chinese are going to ATTACK because... they are trying to enhance their self-defense capabilities?

Ah. I get it. So you've admitted that the Americans wanted to place anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland BECAUSE America was planning on doing something that would give the Russians good a good reason to use its ballistic missiles? China is not going to use their missiles (ballistic or anti-ballistic) unless somebody else gives them an incredibly good reason to. So, America would have nothing to fear from Russian/Iranian/North Korean/Chinese missiles (or anti-ballistic missiles, for that matter!) UNLESS America is planning on doing something that would give Uganda/Fiji/Outer Mongolia a good reason to use them.

Your logic, mate.

Well, China will most assuredly do so, which is something the American government should bear in mind in its decision-making process, something which incidentally you fail to do right now. [...]

Well of course they're going to want to do it if they can. That doesn't make it right, however, and of course the Americans are going to want to destroy it or get rid of it however they can before it becomes operational. They'll have every right to as far as I'm concerned.

The PLA, not so much.

What makes it wrong?

What if I say instead of Chinese ABM, we're talking about American ABM in Poland. American ABMs in Poland aren't right and of course the Russians are going to want to destroy it or get rid of it however they can before it becomes optional. They'll have every right as far as I'm concerned.

The USA, not so much.

Demonstrate what gives the USA the right to anything while it "doesn't make it right" for China/Russia/Lithuania/Turkmenistan/Swaziland/Lower Volta/Timbuktu/Yourmomistan to do it.

[stormthebeaches]

The idea of China planting ABM's in Mexico is absurd. Mexico is a strong ally of the United States and they would never allow it. The US wouldn't have to lift a finger.

Also, the US has scrapped its Polish ABM plans so I fail to see why that is an issue.

[Shroom Man 777]

Yes, Chinese ABMs in Mexico is absurd and the whole tangent came because of Stas Bush's quip, followed by Ryan's reply, and the subsequent responses scrutinizing Ryan's seemingly western-centric and hypocritical world view. But the main point isn't about Chinese ABMs in Mexico, or US ABMs in Poland, but the "right"ness or wrongness of ABMs and other such technologies, and the possession of thereof in the hands of America (defined by Ryan as "right") and in the hands of nations that aren't America (defined by Ryan as not "right").

[K. A. Pital]

No, he actually said as "having every right to", as in "right to X" or something.

Which makes me wonder just how he determines which nations have a "right" to something and which do not.

Perhaps it's just a case of MMR (Might Makes Right), a common illness which for some reason turns some people's little brains into Maxwellian demon machines that interpret everything done by a mighty power they inhabit as some sort of inalienable right, whereas other states are automatically deprived of rights to a certain thing.

[Kane Starkiller]

Yes, Chinese ABMs in Mexico is absurd and the whole tangent came because of Stas Bush's quip, followed by Ryan's reply, and the subsequent responses scrutinizing Ryan's seemingly western-centric and hypocritical world view. But the main point isn't about Chinese ABMs in Mexico, or US ABMs in Poland, but the "right"ness or wrongness of ABMs and other such technologies, and the possession of thereof in the hands of America (defined by Ryan as "right") and in the hands of nations that aren't America (defined by Ryan as not "right").

It's not about the difference between US and China it's about the difference between Latin America and Eurasia. Colombia is not building centrifuges and testing ballistic missiles the way Iran is. That means that Russian and Chinese hypothetical intention to put ABM in Venezuela would have no real excuse other than messing with US.
US explanation that it wants to protect it's allies in Europe from future nuclear Iran is actually quite believable and reasonable. There is also no Pakistan in Latin America which is constantly teetering on the brink of collapse and a future nuclear Pakistan led by Islamic radicals could also be a threat to US allies.
Also Brazil, for example, is not in the business of testing it's ballistic missiles by launching them over Venezuelan territory the way North Korea does with Japan so again while US has perfectly good reasons to put ABM in various hotspots within Eurasia China simply doesn't have any reasons to put them in Latin America.

[Shroom Man 777]

It's not about the difference between US and China it's about the difference between Latin America and Eurasia. Colombia is not building centrifuges and testing ballistic missiles the way Iran is. That means that Russian and Chinese hypothetical intention to put ABM in Venezuela would have no real excuse other than messing with US.

And what is wrong with messing with the US? It doesn't make it wrong. At least, if we apply Ryan-logic against the USA.

US explanation that it wants to protect it's allies in Europe from future nuclear Iran is actually quite believable and reasonable. There is also no Pakistan in Latin America which is constantly teetering on the brink of collapse and a future nuclear Pakistan led by Islamic radicals could also be a threat to US allies.

The Not-American explanation would be that an ABM in the proximity of North America would serve as a deterrent and a counterbalance to the United States of America, to dissuade it from partaking in further acts of "American foreign interests abroad" that have proven to be detrimental to the people actually living in those places.

It would teach America to play in its own backyard and not in the backyards of other people. It would teach America manners.

Also Brazil, for example, is not in the business of testing it's ballistic missiles by launching them over Venezuelan territory the way North Korea does with Japan so again while US has perfectly good reasons to put ABM in various hotspots within Eurasia China simply doesn't have any reasons to put them in Latin America.

Yes, that is true. But certain recent American actions allows them to be perceived in a similar fashion to the Iranians and North Koreans, in the eyes of a lot of Not-Americans. American actions in the Middle East are destabilizing and, in fact, only inspires more acts of violence and loss of life, as does American meddling in places like Georgia.

I'd wager that American actions are even more dangerous than testing ballistic missiles. If an American Lie can spurn not only America, but deceive several countries as well to go in a warpath and launch an unprovoked war of aggression and invasion, then these rogue evil-axis actions can be interpreted as very threatening indeed and something must be done in the name of global stability and freedom. Operation North American Shield. North American Storm. And North American Freedom.

If a hypothetical future China or Russia could use this ABM to bully America like how America bullies smaller nations, this would neither be right or wrong contrary to what the Ryans say.

Of course, this is not remotely possible anywhere in the near future. But hey, it's an amusing thought. It's a wonderful thought!

[stormthebeaches]

And what is wrong with messing with the US?

The same reason its wrong to mess with China, Russia or any great power. And no, I don't have Ryan logic so don't talk to me as if I am Ryan.

The Not-American explanation would be that an ABM in the proximity of North America would serve as a deterrent and a counterbalance to the United States of America, to dissuade it from partaking in further acts of "American foreign interests abroad" that have proven to be detrimental to the people actually living in those places.

No it wouldn't. An ABM in proximity of North America would lead to an arms race between America and whoever placed the ABM and a rapid increase in hostilities between the two nations (or more if the ABM was a coalition effort). Either that or a tragic "accident" would occur to the ABM system.

It would teach America to play in its own backyard and not in the backyards of other people. It would teach America manners.

Are you stupid? An ABM in proximity of North America would be used as a rallying point for the American right wing. It would have the exact opposite effects that you are hoping for.

Yes, that is true. But certain recent American actions allows them to be perceived in a similar fashion to the Iranians and North Koreans, in the eyes of a lot of Not-Americans. American actions in the Middle East are destabilizing and, in fact, only inspires more acts of violence and loss of life, as does American meddling in places like Georgia.

American meddling in Georgia? Please show me some evidence that the Russia/Georgia war was spurred on by America. I presume that is what you are talking about.

Also, placing an ABM to protect Latin America against the warmongering ways of the USA is like installing surface to air missiles in your house to protect against robbery. The USA meddled in Latin America through covert actions and military coups, not nuclear blackmail.

I'd wager that American actions are even more dangerous than testing ballistic missiles. If an American Lie can spurn not only America, but deceive several countries as well to go in a warpath and launch an unprovoked war of aggression and invasion, then these rogue evil-axis actions can be interpreted as very threatening indeed and something must be done in the name of global stability and freedom. Operation North American Shield. North American Storm. And North American Freedom.

If a hypothetical future China or Russia could use this ABM to bully America like how America bullies smaller nations, this would neither be right or wrong contrary to what the Ryans say.

Yes it would be wrong. Using this hypothetical ABM to bully America would lead to increased tensions between the nations, a new cold war and maybe a third world war.

Of course, this is not remotely possible anywhere in the near future. But hey, it's an amusing thought. It's a wonderful thought!

Sure, a new cold war is a wonderful thought.

[Ryan Thunder]

No, he actually said as "having every right to", as in "right to X" or something.

Which makes me wonder just how he determines which nations have a "right" to something and which do not.

Perhaps it's just a case of MMR (Might Makes Right), a common illness which for some reason turns some people's little brains into Maxwellian demon machines that interpret everything done by a mighty power they inhabit as some sort of inalienable right, whereas other states are automatically deprived of rights to a certain thing.

Or, maybe, just maybe I just don't trust the goddamn Chinese government, which is so corrupt/negligent that entire cities experience ash rains on a regular basis from industry in the name of expediency.

Oh, and they engage in organ harvesting from criminals. They hand out executions like candy. Their civil servants form mobs and beat people for trying to film them doing shit they shouldn't be doing. They evicted people from and demolished entire complexes to pretty up Beijing for the Olympics. Among other things that I don't recall off the top of my head.

[Simon_Jester]

The idea of China planting ABM's in Mexico is absurd. Mexico is a strong ally of the United States and they would never allow it. The US wouldn't have to lift a finger.

Also, the US has scrapped its Polish ABM plans so I fail to see why that is an issue.

As a practical matter, yes. This is about theory, not practice. If the Chinese thought it was a good idea to put ABMs in Mexico (say, if they had lots of allies in South America much as the US has lots of allies in Europe), and if Mexico was willing to let them, would they have a right to do so? If not, would the US have a right to put ABMs in Poland, and if not, why not?

The Not-American explanation would be that an ABM in the proximity of North America would serve as a deterrent and a counterbalance to the United States of America, to dissuade it from partaking in further acts of "American foreign interests abroad" that have proven to be detrimental to the people actually living in those places.

No it wouldn't. An ABM in proximity of North America would lead to an arms race between America and whoever placed the ABM and a rapid increase in hostilities between the two nations (or more if the ABM was a coalition effort). Either that or a tragic "accident" would occur to the ABM system.

As long as you apply this rule consistently, to American ABM sites in Poland as well as Russian/Chinese/Whoeverian ABM sites in the Caribbean, fine. If not, not so fine. There's a very significant consistency issue at stake here.

Are you stupid? An ABM in proximity of North America would be used as a rallying point for the American right wing. It would have the exact opposite effects that you are hoping for.

...and an ABM in proximity of Russia could not be used as a rallying point for Russian nationalist-types?
(if anyone has a better name for the Putin side of the Russian political spectrum, please share it)
________

The United States is not going to use their missiles unless somebody else gives them an incredibly good reason to. So, China has nothing to fear from American missiles--unless China's planning on doing something that would give them a good reason to use them...

Which, officially, is equally true in reverse, or if we slot "Russia" into the sentence.

Remind me; which country's government imploded in the last 30 years? They still have obviously rigged elections on a regular basis.

And yet it is still officially true; that's the point. Regardless of the actual probability that a country will launch nuclear missiles, every government that has them maintains that officially the probability is zero unless they are provoked. Other countries have as much right and reason to take the US nuclear threat seriously as the US does to take their seriously, especially since we were the first to explicitly roll out Mutually Assured Destruction as a doctrine.

[joking]
And since we just had eight years of being ruled by a president who was wildly unpopular throughout much of the world, was tied to religious figures who believed that divinely mandated apocalyptic "end times" might come at any moment, invaded two medium-sized countries and was making angry noises at a third, and who some (with or without reason) suspect of having benefited from low-level election fraud in his own right.
[/joking]

So while we can protest our own shiny-clean intentions, that doesn't mean other nations should be obligated to take us at our word any more than we take them at theirs. Trust, but verify, and have a backup plan.

Only if the Russians decided to attack NATO for some bizarre reason. Putting an NATO ABM site in Poland and putting a PLA ABM site in Mexico are not the same. Sure the action might be similar but the actors and their probable motivations aren't the same by any stretch of the imagination.

The actors and their probable motivations are not the same. However, they may look more similar to outside parties than they do to you. You may be convinced that your nation's intentions are honorable and defensive in a situation where most of the rest of the world thinks that they are not.

Unless you see the Americans and the Chinese government on the same level, of course, in which case I'm not even going to bother...

I don't, but one of the cornerstones of the idea of national sovereignty is that your right to act doesn't depend on whether I approve of the way you run your government. Even if two countries are not the same, that does not mean one of them has the right to decide to do X while another nation does not. Acts that would be wrong for the Bad Guy' are equally wrong for the Good Guy. They have to be, because the only way you can tell the difference between the two is by looking at how often they do it.

Well of course they're going to want to do it if they can. That doesn't make it right, however, and of course the Americans are going to want to destroy it or get rid of it however they can before it becomes operational. They'll have every right to as far as I'm concerned.
The PLA, not so much.

How dare they not want to be defenseless before our righteous forces!? Right.

Seriously, if Designated Good Guys have a right to security, so do Designated Bad Guys. Especially when the Bad Guys can't rely on the Good Guys' honorable intentions much more than the Good Guys can rely on the Bad. The Chinese government, for all their questionable acts, are not cartoon villains and will not plot to destroy the world purely for the sake of being evil. The only things they'd be at all likely to launch nukes over are the same sort of things we'd launch nukes over... except that their view of those things may differ from ours. For instance, strategically they have every reason to view Taiwan much as we viewed Cuba during the Cold War, and I would not at all be surprised if they started rattling missiles at us if we decided to base missiles of our own in Taiwan. I wouldn't blame them; they shouldn't be expected to sit there and tolerate than any more than we should have been.

[AniThyng]

No, he actually said as "having every right to", as in "right to X" or something.

Which makes me wonder just how he determines which nations have a "right" to something and which do not.

Perhaps it's just a case of MMR (Might Makes Right), a common illness which for some reason turns some people's little brains into Maxwellian demon machines that interpret everything done by a mighty power they inhabit as some sort of inalienable right, whereas other states are automatically deprived of rights to a certain thing.

Or, maybe, just maybe I just don't trust the goddamn Chinese government, which is so corrupt/negligent that entire cities experience ash rains on a regular basis from industry in the name of expediency.

Oh, and they engage in organ harvesting from criminals. They hand out executions like candy. Their civil servants form mobs and beat people for trying to film them doing shit they shouldn't be doing. They evicted people from and demolished entire complexes to pretty up Beijing for the Olympics. Among other things that I don't recall off the top of my head.

If you don't see the difference between how China conducts its internal affairs and how it conducts its external affairs, we can't help you. The United States has proven it is willing to LIE at the United Nations in order to concoct a pretext to launch a war against a sovereign nation. China has done no such thing. Neither does China indulge in manipulating the internal affairs of others through the CIA, nor does it go about propping up dictators that serve its interests (it invests in african countries no questions asked, yes, but that is not the same as America and say, Marcos. ) You can say that China bullies nations over Taiwan, that much is true - but the United States would and has done the same over Iran or Cuba, and in the former case at minimum the arguement can be made that Taiwan *is* a renegade province. Not even the tiniest veneer of such exists in America's case.

So, who should we trust?

Nevermind of course that in many cases it is Western MNCs who are willing to take full advantage of negligent industrial law enforcement. And as long as we are trading blame on environmental devastation from industry, does the word "Bhophal" mean anything to you?

[Siege]

Or, maybe, just maybe I just don't trust the goddamn Chinese government, which is so corrupt/negligent that entire cities experience ash rains on a regular basis from industry in the name of expediency.

Oh, and they engage in organ harvesting from criminals. They hand out executions like candy. Their civil servants form mobs and beat people for trying to film them doing shit they shouldn't be doing. They evicted people from and demolished entire complexes to pretty up Beijing for the Olympics. Among other things that I don't recall off the top of my head.

What do any of these domestic issues have to do with strategic defence? I don't see why organ harvesting from criminals should have an impact on whether or not it's "right" for the Chinese to be able to stave off nuclear Armageddon. This isn't about whether or not the Chinese government is made out of puppies and sunshine (and let's face it, it might not be, but the American administrations of the past decade haven't exactly been all hugs and rainbows either), it's about if the Chinese have a right to defend themselves from the possibility of a nuclear attack. And they do, just like any other people.

[Shroom Man 777]

The same reason its wrong to mess with China, Russia or any great power. And no, I don't have Ryan logic so don't talk to me as if I am Ryan.

Okay, I'll level with you. I'm using bullshit American rhetoric and "logic" used to justify "American foreign interests", except in this case I'm having the Non-Americans use it on the Americans.

I don't really believe in any of the shit I've just spouted, but I posted what I posted so that guys like Ryan can get a "taste of their own medicine". For years and years America has talked and acted like this towards the rest of the world without giving a fuck about how the rest of the world feels about it.

So, this is an interesting reversal. What would America feel like if the rest of the world acted like America towards America?

No it wouldn't. An ABM in proximity of North America would lead to an arms race between America and whoever placed the ABM and a rapid increase in hostilities between the two nations (or more if the ABM was a coalition effort). Either that or a tragic "accident" would occur to the ABM system.

Just like American meddling in Eastern Europe and the attempts to install ABM in Poland and tie-chewers in Georgia, just like the American meddling in the Middle East, just like the American funding of South American deathsquads.

The Ryans are okay if America does this to other countries. But if the other countries try to do this to America, it's suddenly "not right!". Why? What's right for America is right for the rest of the world. Unless if it's actually wrong. Unless if it's also NOT right for America or for anyone else for that matter.

Are you stupid? An ABM in proximity of North America would be used as a rallying point for the American right wing. It would have the exact opposite effects that you are hoping for.

So you're saying that foreign adventurism and bullying of nations actually fuels extremism, anger, hatred and potential violence against the offending party that sticks its business in the name of its American foreign interests?

Yes, that's exactly what happens. The Ryans are afraid and angry if other nations do to them what America does to everyone else. Hypocrisy.

American meddling in Georgia? Please show me some evidence that the Russia/Georgia war was spurred on by America. I presume that is what you are talking about.

They supported the tie-chewer that went into South Ossetia. They wanted to put him in friggin NATO! I'll defer to Stas for more on the matter.

Also, placing an ABM to protect Latin America against the warmongering ways of the USA is like installing surface to air missiles in your house to protect against robbery. The USA meddled in Latin America through covert actions and military coups, not nuclear blackmail.

It's like how placing an ABM in frickin' Poland will protect against nukes from Iran or North Korea. Which is diddlysquat, I know.

Besides, replace ABM with any other strong action or military-geopolitical maneuver and the USA's Ryans will still be up in arms.

You're either with us or against us.

Yes it would be wrong. Using this hypothetical ABM to bully America would lead to increased tensions between the nations, a new cold war and maybe a third world war.

It is as wrong as America using its clout to bully any other nation. Yet this is seen as acceptable behavior by the Ryans.

Sure, a new cold war is a wonderful thought.

No, not Cold War. The wonderful thought is that of an emasculated America that ends up becoming irrelevant and being left behind and muscled over by other nations. I mean, just imagine America ending up like China today or Russia in the 90s while the other countries get their turn to bully the weakened nation. Imagine America laid low and becoming no different from any other nation on Earth, and being subjected to the same treatment it gave to other nations when it was once strong.

Or, maybe, just maybe I just don't trust the goddamn Chinese government, which is so corrupt/negligent that entire cities experience ash rains on a regular basis from industry in the name of expediency.

Oh, and they engage in organ harvesting from criminals. They hand out executions like candy. Their civil servants form mobs and beat people for trying to film them doing shit they shouldn't be doing. They evicted people from and demolished entire complexes to pretty up Beijing for the Olympics. Among other things that I don't recall off the top of my head.

Or, maybe, just maybe I just don't trust the goddamn American government, which is so corrupt/negligent that entire cities experience drowning because some shmuck whose previous administrative experience was administering camel races in Saudi Arabia was put in charge of FEMA in the name of cronyism.

Oh, and they engage in torturing of illegally detained prisoners. They hand out executions like candy. Their mercenaries and deathsquads kill innocent civilians abroad and they can't even be tried. They invaded a country and led other western nations to a phony war founded on lies and deceit and defiance of the UN. Among other things that I don't recall off the top of my head.


Your own words, your own logic.

[K. A. Pital]

Or, maybe, just maybe I just don't trust the goddamn Chinese government, which is so corrupt/negligent that entire cities experience ash rains on a regular basis from industry in the name of expediency.

Oh, and they engage in organ harvesting from criminals. They hand out executions like candy. Their civil servants form mobs and beat people for trying to film them doing shit they shouldn't be doing. They evicted people from and demolished entire complexes to pretty up Beijing for the Olympics. Among other things that I don't recall off the top of my head.

Or maybe, just maybe, I just don't trust the goddamn US government, which is so corrupt/neglient that entire cities are washed away by hurricanes with extreme death tolls, corporate assholes poisoning entire regions are not punshied and entire nations are invaded and crushed at the whim of this government.

Um... what else? Oh yes - your distrust doesn't give any nation a right, or withdraw a right from any nation. Sorry.

Can't add much to what Siege said - internal issue are relevant to national defences, including ABM, how? Any other arguments which are not a joke, Ryan?

Please show me some evidence that the Russia/Georgia war was spurred on by America

It wasn't "spurred" by America, but the US gave Georgia, an impoverished and fractured frozen civil war state, money to remilitarize, direct supply of weapons, as well as sent there PMCs to consult Georgian military and help plan the operation of invasion into South Ossetia. The US might have even tried to hold the war on the last second, but it shouldn't have massively re-armed Georgia and given the tie-muncher a sense of support if it really wanted to avoid the war.

Now, you can say PMCs are crap proof of involvement, and they are private companies and all that, but it's a long-standing trend to use paramilitaries for dirty tasks in local and proxy wars. They can be convenient because their presence does not provoke a scandal; yet their function and political purpose is no different from ordinary military advisors.

[Shroom Man 777]

Jesus, Stas, were we synchronized for that one moment in response to Ryan's post?

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, must have been some Culture wanktech or the like *scratches head*.

[AniThyng]

Jesus, Stas, were we synchronized for that one moment in response to Ryan's post?

Quite frankly it's just as well China doesn't behave more like the US, or they'd probably have already invaded Malaysia under the pretext of "safeguarding our ethnic brethren" like in US Right-Wing wet dreams about the Chinese Hegemon they can direct their military budget at.

[Shroom Man 777]

Yeah, must have been some Culture wanktech or the like *scratches head*. Removed that. Yours is better

No. It must be the will of Eywa and the Tree of Souls communing our minds! You didn't have to take it down, since it shows that Ryan's points are so trivially easy to answer and defeat that some guy from Siberia and a nut in the Philippine jungle can type nearly identical replies to simultaneously reflexively refute him.

Quite frankly it's just as well China doesn't behave more like the US, or they'd probably have already invaded Malaysia under the pretext of "safeguarding our ethnic brethren" like in US Right-Wing wet dreams about the Chinese Hegemon they can direct their military budget at.

It is true. It is a good thing that other nations don't act like the US, because the US doesn't have the right to do any of that stuff either.

[Lusankya]

I find it actually quite telling that the two of you made pretty much the exact same post almost word for word in some bits. Maybe someone who refuses to see the bad side of America wouldn't appreciate it, but it actually does highlight that that's how the outside world sees America - especially if you're not in one of the lucky nations that has had the good fortune to be on the same side as the US for the last 50 years. The US is a lot less peachy looking when you don't view them as an ally.

Ultimately, the reason certain people feel less threatened by America performing certain actions than by China performing certain actions is because America is on "their" team, and has something similar to "their" culture, which makes them seem much more familiar. China, on the other hand, is on "the other" team, and their culture is different, which combine to make them seem much more threatening, because they represent the unknown.

In a lot of ways, it's just people thinking "better the devil you know than the devil you don't". Sure, America might be a crap superpower, but because everyone is accustomed to them, they can more or less guess which way they'll run around acting crazy, so they feel secure with that knowledge (unless they're Iran or one of the other countries who is likely to gain the ire of the US, but they don't count because they're not Canada). And since they can more or less predict the uncertainty, they feel that having a crap superpower is better something they don't know about, even if there is no real reason to think they'd be any worse.

[Shroom Man 777]

They feel better about siding with America because they don't care about the thoughts, feelings and opinions of other people who are different from them (or America) - especially if they're poor, but it's alright if they're colored differently, or if they speak a different language, or if they're from a different culture or anything. They're not "us" so it makes hurting people easier.

[AniThyng]

The last time an Asian nation decided it would act more like a western nation, complete with military build up, exploitation of local resources to feed a hungry industry and manipulation if not outright co-option of local government, it didn't end well. [for a given value of "end", since if you just showed a picture of Tokyo 2010 to someone in 1941, you probably could convince them Japan won].

[Lusankya]

I don't really see China being anywhere near as expansionist as Taisho era Japan, though. Assuming greater Chinese dominance, the only country that really has to worry is Taiwan. Other countries are either strong enough to look after themselves, or really no more likely to be randomly invaded than they are right now with the US dominant. It's not as though China has much of a history of invading places that aren't parts of China already.

[AniThyng]

I don't really see China being anywhere near as expansionist as Taisho era Japan, though. Assuming greater Chinese dominance, the only country that really has to worry is Taiwan. Other countries are either strong enough to look after themselves, or really no more likely to be randomly invaded than they are right now with the US dominant. It's not as though China has much of a history of invading places that aren't parts of China already.

That was really a bit of commentary on how Taisho era Japan was really trying to avoid being colonized by the Western powers by becoming the very same thing. Just with 200% more atrocities. Asia has never really forgiven Japan for that. It also ties in to what I said earlier about China not behaving like the US in general with regards to how it defines "self-defense".