South China/West Philippine Sea

[dos8dos]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP-57pvPK9c

 

the chinks are training hard all the way to the PACIFIC

Edited February 16, 2013 by dos8dos

[tk421]

I think racial slurring is uncalled for. We're all human beings, after all... And civilized beings at that.

[Dodgy Fellow]

Taiwanese are very ambivalent about whether they want Beijing to lord it over them. Yes, Taiwan relies on the mainland for a big chunk of trade and tourism, but they have the added burden of being considered as unwanted by much of the world. Taiwan has operated independently from mainland China since 1949. It has its own economy, legal system, political system. It's basically a separate country, linked to China because both sides are Chinese. But most of the UN do not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state, because Beijing has more to offer.

[Bugatti Veyron]

Taiwanese are very ambivalent about whether they want Beijing to lord it over them. Yes, Taiwan relies on the mainland for a big chunk of trade and tourism, but they have the added burden of being considered as unwanted by much of the world. Taiwan has operated independently from mainland China since 1949. It has its own economy, legal system, political system. It's basically a separate country, linked to China because both sides are Chinese. But most of the UN do not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state, because Beijing has more to offer.

 

Given the fact that Taiwan has its own economy, legal and political systems, do you thing it's possible for the a re-unification? When I was in HK recently there were banners all around advising people to reject the Falun Gong which, according to the banners was based in Taiwan. I don't know much about this group or why Beijing is openly hostile to it.

[Bugatti Veyron]

I think racial slurring is uncalled for. We're all human beings, after all... And civilized beings at that.

 

Yes let's choose our words properly. Avoid racial slurs at all cost.

[Dodgy Fellow]

Pro vs Anti reunification support in Taiwan is about 50/50. That's why the KMT - the political party which used to rule all of China before Mao took over - is very careful not to push that idea.

 

Red China wants Taiwan to adopt the same "one country, two systems" policy implemented in HK. HK has a 50-year deal with Beijing, where they keep their political and economic systems largely independent of the mainland.

 

The catch is that a 50-year deal gives Beijing a lot of time to slowly influence the people of HK, so when the end of these 50-year agreements approaches, Beijing can - gradually and eventually - replace HK's legal system with their own.

 

Beijing's legal institutions are so much less transparent than HK, with a lot of official government actions that constitute harassment of its own citizens. Beijing is implementing plans to slowly get future generations of Hongkies used to the idea that it's okay to exchange more of their civil and political rights, in exchange for continued economic security.

[maxiev]

Pro vs Anti reunification support in Taiwan is about 50/50. That's why the KMT - the political party which used to rule all of China before Mao took over - is very careful not to push that idea.

 

Red China wants Taiwan to adopt the same "one country, two systems" policy implemented in HK. HK has a 50-year deal with Beijing, where they keep their political and economic systems largely independent of the mainland.

 

The catch is that a 50-year deal gives Beijing a lot of time to slowly influence the people of HK, so when the end of these 50-year agreements approaches, Beijing can - gradually and eventually - replace HK's legal system with their own.

 

Beijing's legal institutions are so much less transparent than HK, with a lot of official government actions that constitute harassment of its own citizens. Beijing is implementing plans to slowly get future generations of Hongkies used to the idea that it's okay to exchange more of their civil and political rights, in exchange for continued economic security.

I tend to agree with this assessment. Many of those old enough to remember what it was like under British rule will be dead in 30 years. The new generation of Hong Kong residents will only know what Beijing propaganda wants them to know. 50 years after the hand over, Beijing won't have any problems getting Hong Kong residents to comply without questioning its policies. The past colonial history of Hong Kong will only be a distant memory which can be re-written to serve Beijing's interests.

 

Then again, who knows what China will be like 50 years after the handover? It's conceivable that new Chinese leaders will have democratic ideals and reject communist rule outright. It's really all speculation at this time.

[Dodgy Fellow]

I tend to agree with this assessment. Many of those old enough to remember what it was like under British rule will be dead in 30 years. The new generation of Hong Kong residents will only know what Beijing propaganda wants them to know. 50 years after the hand over, Beijing won't have any problems getting Hong Kong residents to comply without questioning its policies. The past colonial history of Hong Kong will only be a distant memory which can be re-written to serve Beijing's interests.

 

Then again, who knows what China will be like 50 years after the handover? It's conceivable that new Chinese leaders will have democratic ideals and reject communist rule outright. It's really all speculation at this time.

 

While the commies want to persuade the Hongkies that life under Beijing's way of running things isn't so bad, it's not pumping out its propaganda in the middle of a vacuum. HK's news media still report on the bad stuff happening in China, and mainlanders going to HK tend to talk about the conditions across the border. Or do things they don't normally do because it's either illegal or unsafe in China. Example, mainland Chinese going to HK buy a LOT of baby formula, because they don't trust the quality of baby milk produced in mainland China.

 

It's entirely possible China becomes more democratic in 50 years. But how "democratic"? The commies may decide to allow more civil liberties for the people, but reforms that include actual political parties other than the Communist Party would be a non-starter.

[sonnyt111]

While the commies want to persuade the Hongkies that life under Beijing's way of running things isn't so bad, it's not pumping out its propaganda in the middle of a vacuum. HK's news media still report on the bad stuff happening in China, and mainlanders going to HK tend to talk about the conditions across the border. Or do things they don't normally do because it's either illegal or unsafe in China. Example, mainland Chinese going to HK buy a LOT of baby formula, because they don't trust the quality of baby milk produced in mainland China.

 

It's entirely possible China becomes more democratic in 50 years. But how "democratic"? The commies may decide to allow more civil liberties for the people, but reforms that include actual political parties other than the Communist Party would be a non-starter.

I doubt we'll even be around by that time. I just hope the time never comes when Filipinos will be required by HK authorities to secure a travel visa before being allowed in.

[tk421]

What's ironic for me is that Taiwan (even though it is officially not recognized as a country) has visa-free access to Japan, EU and the US. While Filipinos require visas to visit said countries.

 

Seems Taiwan has more diplomatic clout than us...

[Dodgy Fellow]

It's mainly due to Taiwan being the counterweight to red China. Taiwan's always been anticommie ever since Mao took over China. Yes, Taiwan's anticommies were dictators, but anticommies all the same. They still get a lot of business from the rest of the world, because they had expertise the mainland lacked. Because the mainlanders with the entrepreneurial skills were all sent to prison camps.

 

The rest of the world was persuaded to recognize red China as "the real China" because they were trying to play off China and the USSR against each other. China and the Soviet Union were the two big commie players, but that didn't mean they always agreed with each other. Taiwan was the casualty in the politics of it all. The EU and US have been making it up to the Taiwanese with lots of investment to Taiwan's military and economy, along with visa-free travel to their countries.

[Dodgy Fellow]

For what it's worth, people with red China passports have even stricter visa requirements than Pinoys. They can't even go to Hong Kong or Macau - both officially under China - unless they have the proper visas.

 

And if you're a mainlander, you can only apply for a visa in your hometown - i.e., where you were born. So if you're living in a big city, but come from some small village in who knows where? You got to go back there to apply for a travel visa.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

FYI: What scares the Chinese.

 

February 28, 2013: In the last twelve years 6,640 U.S. troops died and 50,450 were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. These two wars were, together, much less costly than the three year Korean War (36,516 dead) and the eight year Vietnam War (58,289). Moreover the war in Afghanistan has been notable for how low the casualty rate has been, especially for troops killed in combat compared. This can be seen by comparing the losses per division in all these wars. A standard measure of combat losses is the number of troops in a combat division (12-20,000 troops) who are killed each day the division is in combat. Between late 2001 and 2008, there were .12 American combat deaths per division day in Afghanistan. In 2009-11 this nearly doubled then fell again, because of a surge in NATO combat operations.

 

In Iraq, the losses were .44 deaths per division per day (through 2008, after which it dropped to less than .1). During the Vietnam war, the average division lost 3.2 troops a day, which was similar to the losses suffered in Korea (1950-53). By comparison, during World War II the daily losses per American averaged (over 400-500 combat days) about twenty soldiers per day per division. That's more than 50 times what divisions in Iraq and Afghanistan lost. On the Russian front during World War II, German and Russian divisions lost much more than their American counterparts did in Europe or the Pacific, and often over a hundred dead a day for weeks on end.

 

For short campaigns, which Iraq and Afghanistan are not, the losses were similar. That's why the concept of "days in combat" is used to measure casualties over long duration. During World War II, and before and since, divisions would often be out of the combat zone for days, or weeks, before going back into action. Thus the spectacular six week German conquest of France in 1940 saw their combat divisions taking 30 dead (on average) per day. But during another spectacular military victory, the 1967 Six Day War, Israeli dead were 22 per division per day, and that actually went down to 18 a day during the less spectacular 1973 war. By contrast, the three week invasion of Iraq in 2003 saw U.S. troops suffering 1.6 dead per day per division. During the 2006 Israeli war in Lebanon, Israel lost 8 soldiers per division per day. Even the Israelis were impressed at how the Americans were able to win quickly with record low casualties.

 

With the dramatic drop in casualties, came another big shift. In World War II, one in three casualties was killed. In Iraq and Afghanistan, only 12 percent of the casualties were fatal. This does not change the dramatic difference between combat losses then and now. In World War II, U.S. divisions suffered about 60 dead and wounded per combat day, while in Afghanistan there has been 1-2 (depending on the year) per combat day, and in Iraq, 3.5 (through 2008, much less after that). So by any measure, U.S. troops have learned how to avoid getting hit. U.S. commanders see the reasons as better equipment, tactics, weapons, leadership and training than in the past. With an all-volunteer force, the troops are smarter, and more physically fit and eager as well. Many of the life-saving innovations U.S. troops have come up with in the past seven years have not gotten much publicity. Good news doesn't sell, but in this case, it has definitely saved lives.

 

Then there's force protection. After 1945 the 300,000 World War II combat dead reinforced Americans traditional aversion to warfare. This, despite the fact that Europeans had suffered even more in the World Wars (Russia had lost 10 million troops in World War II combat, and another 20 million soldiers and civilians to non-combat losses, while this only caused an additional 100,000 U.S. deaths.) When Korea came along, the trend to take extraordinary measures to limit U.S. losses began in earnest. Some pundits point out that this force protection mania limits the effectiveness of American troops. Some soldiers and marines agree, but most are quite content to see their chances of surviving combat increased.

 

Keeping fatal casualties down to less than one per division per day is unique, but it should not be seen as a permanent fixture. Facing a more powerful and resourceful enemy will send the rate right back up. The media doesn't like to report it, but the troops will tell you that their Iraqi and Afghan foes are often incredibly stupid, and do dumb things that U.S. troops usually avoid. By comparison, fighting North Korea would be much more difficult. The terrain of Korea (lots of steep hills and narrow valleys) makes it hard to use mobile warfare. The North Koreans have spent half a century digging fortifications into the sides of those hills. But morale in the North Korean army is fragile, as is the command and control systems used to run the army. North Korea can be beaten, but not while having only one or two soldiers killed per division per day. It might be something closer to ten times that, depending on a lot of things you can't quite put your hands on. Like surprise, unexpected tactics and good information about what shape the North Koreans are in. But that won't be the loss rate during a long (several hundred days) war. Without external support from Russia or China, North Korea has to fight a short war.

 

The important thing to remember is that while lower casualties for the better prepared force is a historical fact, experiencing historically low losses every time is not. For that reason, professional military planners in many nations are carefully studying the U.S. experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. But so are U.S. planners, who fear that American troops, now so well prepared to fight irregulars, might find themselves unprepared to fight a more conventional war, and take higher casualties as a result. That is true, to a certain extent. But the major advantage American troops have gained is combat experience. They know how to operate effectively under fire. If U.S. troops are given several months to practice the specific tactics required for fighting a conventional war, they will be a formidable, combat experienced, force.

 

This is a very well written article on war casualty statistics and the factors that influence the casualty rate. Perhaps the use of unmanned drones is a major contributing factor for the very low casualty rate in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I imagine most American casualties occur when insurgents use IED's. It's essentially like walking into an ambush.

[Dodgy Fellow]

I think it's unlikely China gets into a shooting war, especially over something like the Spratlys.

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

Well that's my opinion too. China has gained so much in terms of economic prosperity, international esteem and respect in the past 20 years. Is it going to throw all that away in exchange for domination of the Spratlys? If you were the head of China's government would you risk losing all that for the Spratlys?

[Bugatti Veyron]

I think it's unlikely China gets into a shooting war, especially over something like the Spratlys.

 

I think so too....

[hit05]

Well that's my opinion too. China has gained so much in terms of economic prosperity, international esteem and respect in the past 20 years. Is it going to throw all that away in exchange for domination of the Spratlys? If you were the head of China's government would you risk losing all that for the Spratlys?

It is more likely to undergo a structural shake up like what happened to the purging of its hardcore leaders when the Gang of Four was executed. Totalitarian regimes are suppressed societies and if we are feeling pressure and threat, the Chinese citizens feel these even more. The failing regime of Mao led to the death of many Chinese. This is true also in communist Cambodia.

 

The pattern of deceit and mass executions are evident in totalitarian regimes. During World War 2, Stalin executed those closest to him, even his wife, in order to consolidate power. The USSR had more casualties than what the combined Allied forces suffered plus the victims of the holocaust.

 

Hitler was no different. The defeat of the Germans in USSR was a tightly held military secret which was fiercely concealed by propaganda. In the end, the German military generals connived to rid of Hitler and his blunders but the Gestapo acted to eliminate the threat to Hitler and purged the best and the brightest German military officers.

[hit05]

Well that's my opinion too. China has gained so much in terms of economic prosperity, international esteem and respect in the past 20 years. Is it going to throw all that away in exchange for domination of the Spratlys? If you were the head of China's government would you risk losing all that for the Spratlys?

It is more likely to undergo a structural shake up like what happened to the purging of its hardcore leaders when the Gang of Four was executed. Totalitarian regimes are suppressed societies and if we are feeling pressure and threat, the Chinese citizens feel these even more. The failing regime of Mao led to the death of many Chinese. This is true also in communist Cambodia.

 

The pattern of deceit and mass executions are evident in totalitarian regimes. During World War 2, Stalin executed those closest to him, even his wife, in order to consolidate power. The USSR had more casualties than what the combined Allied forces suffered plus the victims of the holocaust.

 

Hitler was no different. The defeat of the Germans in USSR was a tightly held military secret which was fiercely concealed by propaganda. In the end, the German military generals connived to rid of Hitler and his blunders but the Gestapo acted to eliminate the threat to Hitler and purged the best and the brightest German military officers.

[Bugatti Veyron]

It is more likely to undergo a structural shake up like what happened to the purging of its hardcore leaders when the Gang of Four was executed. Totalitarian regimes are suppressed societies and if we are feeling pressure and threat, the Chinese citizens feel these even more. The failing regime of Mao led to the death of many Chinese. This is true also in communist Cambodia.

 

The pattern of deceit and mass executions are evident in totalitarian regimes. During World War 2, Stalin executed those closest to him, even his wife, in order to consolidate power. The USSR had more casualties than what the combined Allied forces suffered plus the victims of the holocaust.

 

Hitler was no different. The defeat of the Germans in USSR was a tightly held military secret which was fiercely concealed by propaganda. In the end, the German military generals connived to rid of Hitler and his blunders but the Gestapo acted to eliminate the threat to Hitler and purged the best and the brightest German military officers.

 

Wasn't Madame Mao a member of the GAng of Four? As far as I can recall, she wasn't executed but imprisoned for life. Speaking of totalitarian regimes, did you see the news article showing a sign at a restaurant in Beijing which says: "This shop does not receive The Japanese The Philippines, The Vietnamese And dog." Is it possible that the owner of this restaurant wrote and posted ths sign on his own volition or was this the idea of the Chinese government. When I was in HK in January, I noticed lots of signs condemning the Falun Gong as an evil organization. The posters were written in such poor English I had to conclude that someone from the Chinese government was responsible. Hong Kong Chinese are well educated and wouldn't write this poorly.

 

Anyway, it was clearly propaganda against the Falun Gong whom the Chinese leaders are afraid of because of their huge numbers.

[Dodgy Fellow]

HK is the closest place to mainland China where those Falun Gong people can safely protest without risking their lives. You can see them near the Star Ferry, Tsimshatsui.

 

Politically, the Chinese government wants to stay in charge. Why should they give up control when they've benefited so much from it?

 

But, they need to make some improvements, so the citizens' complaints don't turn into a rebellion.

 

The kind of government they want to run would be similar to what Singapore has: one party to rule them all, but with some more civil liberties than what the Chinese have now. No opposition party, though.

[Dodgy Fellow]

That restaurant banning Pinoys, Japs and Viets is just another example of Chinese being proud of how far their country has progressed in such a short time. The Spratlys is one issue, but the s@%t that went down with those Hongkie tourists at Quirino Grandstand is another item that the Chinese still remember.

 

If it's any consolation, they're angry at the Egyptians now too, after what happened with that balloon crash.

[hit05]

Wasn't Madame Mao a member of the GAng of Four? As far as I can recall, she wasn't executed but imprisoned for life. Speaking of totalitarian regimes, did you see the news article showing a sign at a restaurant in Beijing which says: "This shop does not receive The Japanese The Philippines, The Vietnamese And dog." Is it possible that the owner of this restaurant wrote and posted ths sign on his own volition or was this the idea of the Chinese government. When I was in HK in January, I noticed lots of signs condemning the Falun Gong as an evil organization. The posters were written in such poor English I had to conclude that someone from the Chinese government was responsible. Hong Kong Chinese are well educated and wouldn't write this poorly.

 

Anyway, it was clearly propaganda against the Falun Gong whom the Chinese leaders are afraid of because of their huge numbers.

Communism happens due to extreme poverty, deprivation and want. Had society been more human, I do not feel there will be a need for communism at all. Putting down people into the level of animals is exactly what communism has become.

 

Moreover, China got a cultural revolution which they tout as Re-Education. Thus, education is not the issue here but knowledge of the truth. A person living in FREEDOM understands he got the right to refuse poor information. In the meantime, oppressive societies normally impose ideas and punish those who refuse to chew and swallow false ideas. China was never successful with propaganda and Cultural Revolution. The prosperity and the technology it today claims to have cannot be possible without the ton of foreign investments lured by penny cheap wages that undermine, if not undercut the world-wide labor union movement. Once China turns against the collective foreign investment that feeds its economic success, it would only be a matter of time before we see destruction and weakness of its frail and very limited capability.

[Dodgy Fellow]

Communism happens due to extreme poverty, deprivation and want. Had society been more human, I do not feel there will be a need for communism at all. Putting down people into the level of animals is exactly what communism has become.

 

Moreover, China got a cultural revolution which they tout as Re-Education. Thus, education is not the issue here but knowledge of the truth. A person living in FREEDOM understands he got the right to refuse poor information. In the meantime, oppressive societies normally impose ideas and punish those who refuse to chew and swallow false ideas. China was never successful with propaganda and Cultural Revolution. The prosperity and the technology it today claims to have cannot be possible without the ton of foreign investments lured by penny cheap wages that undermine, if not undercut the world-wide labor union movement. Once China turns against the collective foreign investment that feeds its economic success, it would only be a matter of time before we see destruction and weakness of its frail and very limited capability.

 

It would be more likely that foreign companies are ordered by their governments not to do business with red China - and even then, how many countries can afford to damage business with Beijing, when it can mean many of their own people lose their jobs?

 

Beijing is not going to turn away foreign investment, largely for the same economic reasons. The US bombed their embassy in Yugoslavia when that country was in the fires of civil war, "mistaking it for a Yugoslav military facility". China didn't throw American companies out of the country for that.

 

Another hitch to other countries cutting ties with China is that, well, they may also owe Beijing money, if red China has invested their T-bills and related government bonds.

 

Basically, governments sell their debt through T-bills. You buy the T-bills, you give the government your money, so they can pay their debts. You hold onto them for X years. Once the T-bills mature, you get your money back from the government, plus interest.

 

China holds over USD 1 trillion worth of US government debt. This arrangement helps keep China's currency lower than the USD, but at the same time, the money they lend the US allows the US to pay its bills, and import more stuff from China.

 

Either side breaks this arrangement, and hilarity ensues.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Dodgy Fellow

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

It would be more likely that foreign companies are ordered by their governments not to do business with red China - and even then, how many countries can afford to damage business with Beijing, when it can mean many of their own people lose their jobs?

 

Beijing is not going to turn away foreign investment, largely for the same economic reasons. The US bombed their embassy in Yugoslavia when that country was in the fires of civil war, "mistaking it for a Yugoslav military facility". China didn't throw American companies out of the country for that.

 

Another hitch to other countries cutting ties with China is that, well, they may also owe Beijing money, if red China has invested their T-bills and related government bonds.

 

Basically, governments sell their debt through T-bills. You buy the T-bills, you give the government your money, so they can pay their debts. You hold onto them for X years. Once the T-bills mature, you get your money back from the government, plus interest.

 

China holds over USD 1 trillion worth of US government debt. This arrangement helps keep China's currency lower than the USD, but at the same time, the money they lend the US allows the US to pay its bills, and import more stuff from China.

 

Either side breaks this arrangement, and hilarity ensues.

I believe another reason why China cannot afford to anagonize the US is that the US is holding over USD 1 trillion of China's money. Economic blackmail is not unheard of when it comes to US foreign policy. China won't ever jeopardize its chances of getting its money back. Why China ever lent such a huge amount to the US is beyond me.

 

Another amazing thought is that way back when China was a backward nation, who would have imagined that the richest country at that time (the USA) would be borrowing from one of the poorest countries at that time?

 

Times have really changed after China overhauled its economic system from an archaic communist system to one that embraces the capitalistic model. Something past Chinese leaders have rejected as evil for so many years.

[Dodgy Fellow]

The money they made from foreign trade had to go somewhere. Building those new planes and ships means jobs created.

 

And they're not upgrading their military just because of the Americans. Russia is next door.