South China/West Philippine Sea

[Bugatti Veyron]

I've always maintained that a capitalist China is more dangerous than a communist one. Capitalism brought great prosperity to China. China is now using the great wealth it has amassed to develop a modern military. Air force, navy, and army are all being upgraded with modern equipmement, training and military strategy. A US military analyst I heard on television said that as of today, the US can still decimate China's armed forces. He noted, howerver, that this scenario may be totally different 10 years from now. Meaning, US military spending will have to be accelerated to keep ahead of the Chinese.

 

So far, nobody has even talked about nuclear capability. If north Korea already has nuclear capability (it recently conducted nuclear tests) but lacks the appropriate delivery system, what more China, given its advanced technological capabilities and its economic might?

 

I don't know what the future holds. What may be legitimate reasons for China to hold back and restrain itself today may cease to exist in the next couple of years especially if it feels it can take on the United States militarily. It may even write-off the huge debt that America owes China if the Chinese believe that controlling Asia is worth more than getting re-paid by the US.

 

This build-up and modernizing of China's military is really disturbing. Why is it spending so much on modernizing and strenghtening its military? For defense purposes? Or does it have a more sinister agenda?I suppose people living in the 1930's had the same feeling of uneasiness as they saw Japan slowly modernizing its armed forces. Are we seeing history being repeated? If it's a repeat of the cold war, then it's just a balancing act with the US and China, as the two military superpowers, counterbalancing each other's power. If what we see today is a portent of another Japanese style invasion of Asia, then God help us all.

 

I certainly hope and pray I am wrong.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Bugatti Veyron

[oscartamaguchiblackface]

I've always maintained that a capitalist China is more dangerous than a communist one. Capitalism brought great prosperity to China. China is now using the great wealth it has amassed to develop a modern military. Air force, navy, and army are all being upgraded with modern equipmement, training and military strategy. A US military analyst I heard on television said that as of today, the US can still decimate China's armed forces. He noted, howerver, that this scenario may be totally different 10 years from now. Meaning, US military spending will have to be accelerated to keep ahead of the Chinese.

 

So far, nobody has even talked about nuclear capability. If north Korea already has nuclear capability (it recently conducted nuclear tests) but lacks the appropriate delivery system, what more China, given its advanced technological capabilities and its economic might?

 

I don't know what the future holds. What may be legitimate reasons for China to hold back and restrain itself today may cease to exist in the next couple of years especially if it feels it can take on the United States militarily. It may even write-off the huge debt that America owes China if the Chinese believe that controlling Asia is worth more than getting re-paid by the US.

 

This build-up and modernizing of China's military is really disturbing. Why is it spending so much on modernizing and strenghtening its military? For defense purposes? Or does it have a more sinister agenda?I suppose people living in the 1930's had the same feeling of uneasiness as they saw Japan slowly modernizing its armed forces. Are we seeing history being repeated? If it's a repeat of the cold war, then it's just a balancing act with the US and China, as the two military superpowers, counterbalancing each other's power. If what we see today is a portent of another Japanese style invasion of Asia, then God help us all.

 

I certainly hope and pray I am wrong.

This is a really scary scenario you're painting. Indeed why is China pouring in huge amounts in modernizing its military? It cannot be merely for self-defense purposes. Is it possible that the issue of the Spratlys is being used to justify the modernizing of its military? I know China badly needs raw materials (just as Japan did in the 1930's) to fuel its ever growing economy. And at this time, it is only too happy to buy these raw materials from countries who can't say no to very high offers. But what if the time comes when countries will stop selling their raw materials to China? What will China do? America has already stated that depriving the US of much needed oil from the Middle East is tantamount to war. Well China can claim the same thing and invade Asia starting with South East Asia. In exchange for non-interference from the US, China may condone the huge debt of the US. Meaning the US may not want to lift a finger to help Asian countries as part of the deal it has with China.

 

Who knows what the future brings? I also hope these things are just figments of our overactive imagination.

[jacuzzi]

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.

 

 

 

 

Bonds are not really borrowings but investments. China invested on US securities.If the US economy suffers from a sharp decline then US bonds can be junked or lose value upon maturity.China bought securities in order to prevent the USA from going into recession and alter the lucrative trade of Chinese products to the USA.

 

 

[jacuzzi]

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.

 

Many experts in the USA believe that China is on a spending spree that it cannot afford.Unlike the strict accounting system that Americans enjoy, the Chinese under socialist controls reject transparency and it has been accused of grossly manipulating the trade of its currency. This was in fact an issue of concern during the last US Presidential elections.

 

 

 

 

 

The Cold War ended due to the bankruptcy of arms buildup from both sides.Watching China modernize is not necessarily an advantage since such modern technology easily become obsolete.Anything that got technology suffer from that problem - look at your cell phone, television, automobile... technology go a habit of making them lose value in a zap.

 

 

[Dodgy Fellow]

I've always maintained that a capitalist China is more dangerous than a communist one. Capitalism brought great prosperity to China. China is now using the great wealth it has amassed to develop a modern military. Air force, navy, and army are all being upgraded with modern equipmement, training and military strategy. A US military analyst I heard on television said that as of today, the US can still decimate China's armed forces. He noted, howerver, that this scenario may be totally different 10 years from now. Meaning, US military spending will have to be accelerated to keep ahead of the Chinese.

 

I disagree. China under the communism practiced by Mao was a disaster. Millions died from starvation because Mao did not know how to manage the economy. It was turning into a bigger version of North Korea.

 

It didn't turn out that way, because Mao upset enough people in the Communist Party (see: Cultural Revolution), that they decided to no longer let one man hold so much power. Yes, it's still a one-party government, but they actually have term limits for all officials. This month their next President officially starts his job.

 

It also helped that the West and China were serious in improving their relations during the Cold War. True, China and the USSR were allies, but they had their own problems with each other. The US trying to build a relationship with China was to try and trip up the Chinese-Soviet partnership.

 

So far, nobody has even talked about nuclear capability. If north Korea already has nuclear capability (it recently conducted nuclear tests) but lacks the appropriate delivery system, what more China, given its advanced technological capabilities and its economic might?

 

China has had nuclear weapons for a long time. That's why they have a permanent spot in the UN Security Council, just like the US, Britain, France and Russia.

[Bugatti Veyron]

I disagree. China under the communism practiced by Mao was a disaster. Millions died from starvation because Mao did not know how to manage the economy. It was turning into a bigger version of North Korea.

 

It didn't turn out that way, because Mao upset enough people in the Communist Party (see: Cultural Revolution), that they decided to no longer let one man hold so much power. Yes, it's still a one-party government, but they actually have term limits for all officials. This month their next President officially starts his job.

 

It also helped that the West and China were serious in improving their relations during the Cold War. True, China and the USSR were allies, but they had their own problems with each other. The US trying to build a relationship with China was to try and trip up the Chinese-Soviet partnership.

 

 

 

China has had nuclear weapons for a long time. That's why they have a permanent spot in the UN Security Council, just like the US, Britain, France and Russia.

Actually what I meant was that a capitalist, economically rich, militarily powerful China is more of a threat to the West and to us than a communist, economically poor, militarily weak China.

[Dodgy Fellow]

I don't know what the future holds. What may be legitimate reasons for China to hold back and restrain itself today may cease to exist in the next couple of years especially if it feels it can take on the United States militarily. It may even write-off the huge debt that America owes China if the Chinese believe that controlling Asia is worth more than getting re-paid by the US.

 

This build-up and modernizing of China's military is really disturbing. Why is it spending so much on modernizing and strenghtening its military? For defense purposes? Or does it have a more sinister agenda?I suppose people living in the 1930's had the same feeling of uneasiness as they saw Japan slowly modernizing its armed forces. Are we seeing history being repeated? If it's a repeat of the cold war, then it's just a balancing act with the US and China, as the two military superpowers, counterbalancing each other's power. If what we see today is a portent of another Japanese style invasion of Asia, then God help us all.

 

I certainly hope and pray I am wrong.

 

 

This is a really scary scenario you're painting. Indeed why is China pouring in huge amounts in modernizing its military? It cannot be merely for self-defense purposes. Is it possible that the issue of the Spratlys is being used to justify the modernizing of its military? I know China badly needs raw materials (just as Japan did in the 1930's) to fuel its ever growing economy. And at this time, it is only too happy to buy these raw materials from countries who can't say no to very high offers. But what if the time comes when countries will stop selling their raw materials to China? What will China do? America has already stated that depriving the US of much needed oil from the Middle East is tantamount to war. Well China can claim the same thing and invade Asia starting with South East Asia. In exchange for non-interference from the US, China may condone the huge debt of the US. Meaning the US may not want to lift a finger to help Asian countries as part of the deal it has with China.

 

Who knows what the future brings? I also hope these things are just figments of our overactive imagination.

 

 

Just to add some historical context: China since the 1800s has been invaded by other countries. That's why Hong Kong became a colony of the Brits, Macau became the property of Portugal, etc.

 

Then the Japs invaded and did some really, really bad things. When the commies took over, they prioritized defense to make sure the KMT didn't try to retake China.

 

The commies helped save North Korea from the Americans by sending millions of troops as reinforcements, but all that pride in helping a fellow socialist country got flushed down the toilet when China warred against Vietnam, and lost.

 

The government over there doesn't want China to look like a loser in a fight again, especially after more than a century of losing. Thus, they're spending their money on the military. And honestly, what country would not do that if they can? They are the world's largest country, with the world's largest population, and a civilization that can be counted back to how many thousand years BC.

 

If they do go to war, I doubt the Philippines would be first. Other than the Spratlys and those HK tourists getting shot dead at Luneta, what grievances does Beijing have with the Filipinos?

Edited March 4, 2013 by Dodgy Fellow

[dungeonbaby]

so Malaysia is now bombing Sabah. it'll be interesting to see the US weigh in on this, because technically (on paper) Sabah belongs to the Philippines, and the US is required to defend us.

 

if Malaysia says Sabah is theirs because they've had it for 25 years, and the world agrees with this, can other parts of the world now belong to the people who occupy it...such as...islands in the Spratlys?

[hit05]

Why wouldn't China lend to the biggest economy in the world? I mean if a country has a credit rating of AA++(excellent), you would still lend to it, knowing that that country can pay you back. The credit rating of the US government used to be AAA(outstanding), which is the highest credit rating Standard and Poors can give, but has since been downgraded to AA++, which is still a couple of notches higher than the lowest investment grade rating of BBB-. Investment grade means a bond rating that is low risk in terms of default as per Investopedia. Actually, I know this but I'm just giving you a reference.

 

 

[/size]

What year did China lend to the US when it was still a third world country?

 

 

The world system is shaky and you know what? Bankers worldwide have made an outstanding blunder. The collapse of the market started from the bankruptcy of grade AAA financial houses. Thus the credit rating system that they use and depend on is likely unreliable.

 

We have to be extra careful since we just got a ratings upgrade. In Ireland, the locals lost control of borrowings and the quality of leverage suffered in the name of socialism. Suddenly, workers are allowed to accumulate goods and services on credit. However, they are able to trace the bad economics from ostentatious projects made by foreign developers which failed to sell. These were dumped into the market which enjoyed artificial prosperity. In the long run. the moment the industries became less competitive and sources of income dried up, the model collapsed and it became the responsibility of government to COLLECT payment for the losses from its citizens.

 

No wonder, the ability to demand and collect TAXES from citizens is the main factor before we got the ratings upgrade. But let us look at real issue which is the way government is spending tax money and using the extra credit that would accumulate debt for each and every Filipino.

[hit05]

so Malaysia is now bombing Sabah. it'll be interesting to see the US weigh in on this, because technically (on paper) Sabah belongs to the Philippines, and the US is required to defend us.

 

if Malaysia says Sabah is theirs because they've had it for 25 years, and the world agrees with this, can other parts of the world now belong to the people who occupy it...such as...islands in the Spratlys?

Knowing what is happening in Mindanao. this struggle may last for generations. Good luck to Malaysia.

 

Malaysia is practicing a power play that is more dirty and more violent than the Marcos years. Apparently, the dissent of Sultan of Sulu's was not violent as it was noisy. The Malaysians made a huge mistake of attacking the group inside private property. The commandos were military trained but they killed civilians. Among the first casualties were the wife of the owner of the property who was hosting some members of the Royal family.

 

Aquino is attempting to prevent involvement despite the fact that his Mindanao initiative were witnessed by British and Malaysian authorities. He is demonstrating to the world that he cannot defend Filipinos and would remain loyal to his perceived sponsors despite poor and inhuman treatment. The Aquinos would not be in power now if they did not condemn the military rule of Marcos. Yet what is happening in Sabah now is many times worse than what Marcos ever did.

[Bugatti Veyron]

Really? What makes you think that Standard and Poor's is unreliable?

 

Am wondering how Standard and Poor's rated Fannie May, Freddie Mac, etc. before the sh^t hit the fan......

[Bugatti Veyron]

No wonder, the ability to demand and collect TAXES from citizens is the main factor before we got the ratings upgrade. But let us look at real issue which is the way government is spending tax money and using the extra credit that would accumulate debt for each and every Filipino.

That's what's sickening. The aggressiveness with which the BIR is now collecting taxes from its citizens is unprecedented and yet I don't see any substantial benefits accruing to Filipino citizens. The only ones who seem to be benefitting are those damned politicians.

[Bugatti Veyron]

Apparently, the Malaysian police has declared victory so don't delude yourself into thinking that this may last generations.

 

So what exactly is the power play of Malaysia that is, to use your own words, more violent than the Marcos years?

 

 

It was an invasion which was not authorized by the President of the Republic of the Philippines. Why would Aquino defend rogue Filipino militants who invaded an ASEAN ally's territory?

Malacanang pleaded with the Sultanate to return to the Philippines and offered to bring up the issue with the United Nations through diplomatic means. The Sultanate and its followers refused Malacanang's offer and chose to defend their stand through force.

 

That said, the Sultanate must now accept responsibility for whatever happens next. When they refused to accept the offer of Malacanang, they essentially decided to go it alone.

[Bugatti Veyron]

It is not the concern of the credit raters like Standard and Poor's how the RP government spends its money. Standard & Poor's rates the Philippines according to its default probability.

 

True. Credit raters like Standard and Poors, Moodys, etc. rate sovereigns as well as individual companies according to the probabilitiy of default. What hit05 was saying about how the government spends taxpayers' money had nothing to do with how or why the Philippines got a rating upgrade. His statement was simply trying to highlight how we, as taxpayers, are getting a raw deal from this government. And it's true. The government is so inefficient, wasteful and outright corrupt. The way it wastes money on projects such as those bridges in Leyte that lead to nowhere. That was featured on ABS-CBN news a few months back. The way Enrile showers cash on his loyal supporters in the senate while withholding the same to those whom he does not like. Who knows how much of our hard earned taxes are being used to fund useless projects (where corrupt DPWH officials, local governement officials, etc. get a certain percentage from the project.) How much of our hard earned taxes are being used to fund the political campaigns of certain government officials? It's so sickening.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Bugatti Veyron

[sonnyt111]

Am wondering how Standard and Poor's rated Fannie May, Freddie Mac, etc. before the sh^t hit the fan......

Yeah and what about Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch (which would have gone under had it not merged with/purchased by Bank of America). How were these companies rated by Standard and Poors and the other rating agencies just before these companies filed for Chapter 11?

[dungeonbaby]

off-topic naman kayo e. contrabida ka talaga nick.

 

[maxiev]

off-topic naman kayo e. contrabida ka talaga nick.

 

Yeah we're supposed to be discussing issues relating to the South China/West Philippine Sea Topic. Napupunta na ang usapan sa mga credit ratings.

[maxiev]

so Malaysia is now bombing Sabah. it'll be interesting to see the US weigh in on this, because technically (on paper) Sabah belongs to the Philippines, and the US is required to defend us.

 

if Malaysia says Sabah is theirs because they've had it for 25 years, and the world agrees with this, can other parts of the world now belong to the people who occupy it...such as...islands in the Spratlys?

Well one thing is sure. This issue will get more attention from the United Nations. Hopefully, this age-long issue will be resolved once and for all. This has always been a thorn in relations between the Philippines and Malaysia.

[Dodgy Fellow]

So while all this time we've been discussing how China will screw over the Philippines, it's another Pinoy who gets the country in a shooting snafu with another country.

 

Effing A!

[Dodgy Fellow]

Are you saying that China has a permanent spot in the UN Security Council because it has had nuclear weapons for a long time?

 

Yes. The UN Security Council is a 15-member group. 10 of those seats rotate among the different UN members.

 

The other 5 belong to countries which have nukes: the USA, Britain, France, China and Russia.

 

India and Pakistan have been lobbying to get permanent member status on the Security Council. Nothing happening on that so far, which is stupid, since the current permanent members got their spots because of their nuclear weapons.

[Dodgy Fellow]

I stand corrected.

 

But, those five countries also have nuclear weapons. It's probably not a coincidence.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Dodgy Fellow

[hit05]

Apparently, Blah blah blah.

 

 

Aquino ignored the claim of Sultan of Sulu when he initiated the peace initiative in Mindanao sponsored and witnessed by high officials of both Malaysia and Britain. Never in the history of this Republic have we been closest to the British than under Noynoy. If there is anyone to be blamed for this conflict which originated from the wish of the Sultanate to open discussions of their claim because they had been completely IGNORED, then it is this administration.

[Dodgy Fellow]

If having nuclear weapons is your basis for permanent membership in the UN Security Council, you might as well include North Korea, India, Israel and Pakistan as permanent members of the UN Security Council.

 

I did say "I stand corrected." If you are not satisfied with that response, then that's something you have to get over with

[tk421]

I think the permanent Security Council seats were awarded to the winners of the second World War. That's why you don't see Germany there...

[maxiev]

I agree. Too bad the Senate voted against the staying of the US bases. I wouldn't mind seeing a super carrier docked in Subic and guarding our shores or F-22 Raptors in Clark.

Bro, the way it was explained to me, if the Americans really wanted to stay, I don't think the Senate vote would have made any difference. They would have stayed. The Americans left Subic and Clark because of the havoc caused by Mt. Pinatubo.

 

I agree having super carriers docked at Subic and US jets patrolling Philippine skies would have made a great deterrent to Chinese aggression in the Spratleys. But that's all water under the bridge now.