Simple and Sustainable Forums: China’s hawks demand cold war on the US - Simple and Sustainable Forums

Jump to content

Discussion of off-topic things not related to sustainability in any way. Please direct comments about the forum or help requests to the "help and feedback" forum.

Personal attacks are not tolerated in this forum. It is the "off topic" forum not the "anything goes" forum.
  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

China’s hawks demand cold war on the US Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Silver Surfer 

  • Ed Karan
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced members
  • Posts: 596
  • Joined: 16-November 09

Posted 07 February 2010 - 10:22 AM

Quote

China’s hawks demand cold war on the US

MORE than half of Chinese people questioned in a poll believe China and America are heading for a new “cold war”.

The finding came after battles over Taiwan, Tibet, trade, climate change, internet freedom and human rights which have poisoned relations in the three months since President Barack Obama made a fruitless visit to Beijing.

According to diplomatic sources, a rancorous postmortem examination is under way inside the US government, led by officials who think the president was badly advised and was made to appear weak.

In China’s eyes, the American response — which includes a pledge by Obama to get tougher on trade — is a reaction against its rising power.

Now almost 55% of those questioned for Global Times, a state-run newspaper, agree that “a cold war will break out between the US and China”.

An independent survey of Chinese-language media for The Sunday Times has found army and navy officers predicting a military showdown and political leaders calling for China to sell more arms to America’s foes. The trigger for their fury was Obama’s decision to sell $6.4 billion (£4 billion) worth of weapons to Taiwan, the thriving democratic island that has ruled itself since 1949.

“We should retaliate with an eye for an eye and sell arms to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela,” declared Liu Menxiong, a member of the Chinese people’s political consultative conference.

He added: “We have nothing to be afraid of. The North Koreans have stood up to America and has anything happened to them? No. Iran stands up to America and does disaster befall it? No.”

Officially, China has reacted by threatening sanctions against American companies selling arms to Taiwan and cancelling military visits.

But Chinese analysts think the leadership, riding a wave of patriotism as the year of the tiger dawns, may go further.

“This time China must punish the US,” said Major-General Yang Yi, a naval officer. “We must make them hurt.” A major-general in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), Luo Yuan, told a television audience that more missiles would be deployed against Taiwan. And a PLA strategist, Colonel Meng Xianging, said China would “qualitatively upgrade” its military over the next 10 years to force a showdown “when we’re strong enough for a hand-to-hand fight with the US”.

Chinese indignation was compounded when the White House said Obama would meet the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, in the next few weeks.

“When someone spits on you, you have to get back,” said Huang Xiangyang, a commentator in the China Daily newspaper, usually seen as a showcase for moderate opinion.

An internal publication at the elite Qinghua University last week predicted the strains would get worse because “core interests” were at risk. It said battles over exports, technology transfer, copyright piracy and the value of China’s currency, the yuan, would be fierce.

As a crescendo of strident nationalistic rhetoric swirls through the Chinese media and blogosphere, American officials seem baffled by what has gone wrong and how fast it has happened.

During Obama’s visit, the US ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, claimed relations were “really at an all-time high in terms of the bilateral atmosphere ... a cruising altitude that is higher than any other time in recent memory”, according to an official transcript.

The ambassador must have been the only person at his embassy to think so, said a diplomat close to the talks.

“The truth was that the atmosphere was cold and intransigent when the president went to Beijing yet his China team went on pretending that everything was fine,” the diplomat said.

In reality, Chinese officials argued over every item of protocol, rigged a town hall meeting with a pre-selected audience, censored the only interview Obama gave to a Chinese newspaper and forbade the Americans to use their own helicopters to fly him to the Great Wall.

President Hu Jintao refused to give an inch on Obama’s plea to raise the value of the Chinese currency, while his vague promises of co-operation on climate change led the Americans to blunder into a fiasco at the Copenhagen summit three weeks later.

Diplomats say they have been told that there was “frigid” personal chemistry between Obama and the Chinese president, with none of the superficial friendship struck up by previous leaders of the two nations.

Yet after their meeting Obama’s China adviser, Jeff Bader, said: “It’s been highly successful in setting out and accomplishing the objectives we set ourselves.”

Then came Copenhagen, where Obama virtually had to force his way with his bodyguards into a conference room where the urbane Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, was trying to strike a deal behind his back.

The Americans were also livid at what they saw as deliberate Chinese attempts to humiliate the president by sending lower-level officials to deal with him.

“They thought Obama was weak and they were testing him,” said a European diplomat based in China.

In Beijing, some diplomats even claim to detect a condescending attitude towards Obama, noting that Yang Jiechi, the foreign minister, prides himself on knowing the Bush dynasty and others among America’s traditional white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant elite.

But there are a few voices urging caution on Chinese public opinion. “China will look unreal if it behaves aggressively and competes for global leadership,” wrote Wang Yusheng, a retired diplomat, in the China Daily.

He warned that China was not as rich or as powerful as America or Japan and therefore such a move could be “hazardous”.

It is not clear whether anyone in Beijing is listening.



http://www.timesonli...icle7017951.ece

This post has been edited by Silver Surfer: 07 February 2010 - 10:22 AM

0

#2 User is offline   tom 

  • Inimitable
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3,227
  • Joined: 19-July 09
  • LocationPerth, Australia

Posted 07 February 2010 - 10:36 AM

Quote

“We should retaliate with an eye for an eye and sell arms to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela,” declared Liu Menxiong, a member of the Chinese people’s political consultative conference.


Interesting year ahead. I wonder how long till they invade the pilbarra. I wonder if the Chinese central government will scrap the FHOG? ???

Theoretical question only, but you know how insurance contracts do not pay out for acts of war, if you are a renter are you liable if your house gets shelled? :fear: Or can you hide in your bunker knowing that no matter what happens to the house you can just go rent another one? B)
0

#3 User is offline   Silver Surfer 

  • Ed Karan
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced members
  • Posts: 596
  • Joined: 16-November 09

Posted 07 February 2010 - 10:45 AM

View Posttom, on 07 February 2010 - 10:36 AM, said:

Interesting year ahead. I wonder how long till they invade the pilbarra. I wonder if the Chinese central government will scrap the FHOG? ???

Theoretical question only, but you know how insurance contracts do not pay out for acts of war, if you are a renter are you liable if your house gets shelled? :fear: Or can you hide in your bunker knowing that no matter what happens to the house you can just go rent another one? B)


If you think about it, if it did come to a shooting war, the Chinese strategy would be to secure its supply of essential energy and materials as a 1st up objective.

Where would that leave us ?
0

#4 User is offline   tom 

  • Inimitable
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3,227
  • Joined: 19-July 09
  • LocationPerth, Australia

Posted 07 February 2010 - 11:09 AM

View PostSilver Surfer, on 07 February 2010 - 10:45 AM, said:

If you think about it, if it did come to a shooting war, the Chinese strategy would be to secure its supply of essential energy and materials as a 1st up objective.

Where would that leave us ?


I know the Pilbarra would be ideal.

Fortunately they do seem to honour their relationships. Looking at tins wiki article on Iran / Chinese relations looks like that alliance goes back 1000s years. Probably best to keep on their good side.

I'm sweet I have a bunker 50m from my back fence. Shame it is the kind of bunker associated with a sand wedge rather than a morter.
0

#5 User is offline   Bernard L. Madoff 

  • Inimitable
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced members
  • Posts: 6,609
  • Joined: 30-September 09

Posted 07 February 2010 - 01:06 PM

View Posttom, on 07 February 2010 - 11:09 AM, said:

Fortunately they do seem to honour their relationships. Looking at tins wiki article on Iran / Chinese relations looks like that alliance goes back 1000s years. Probably best to keep on their good side.


Hmmm I'm with SS and...

Quote

Where would that leave us ?


The US defence alliance is based on us going into foreign shit holes that don't involve us even though as a nominal force to add political support under the expectation that they will defend us. If (bif IF) a cold war scenario unfolded we will have to choose and I'd say we will go with the USA. It will economically cripple us since Chinese exports will be cut to zero and maybe even the Chinese may try to come and seize their assets.

Interesting times eh? :unsure:

PS Why was Menzies called 'pig iron Bob?'...

Quote

Attorney-General and Minister for Industry Robert Menzies earned the nickname 'pig-iron Bob' with his firm stand against the waterside workers who refused to load scrap iron heading for Japan in 1938.

http://primeminister...id=tcm:13-22114

Coking Coal Krudd?
0

#6 User is offline   tom 

  • Inimitable
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3,227
  • Joined: 19-July 09
  • LocationPerth, Australia

Posted 07 February 2010 - 02:05 PM

View PostTinpusher, on 07 February 2010 - 01:06 PM, said:


The US defence alliance is based on us going into foreign shit holes that don't involve us even though as a nominal force to add political support under the expectation that they will defend us. If (bif IF) a cold war scenario unfolded we will have to choose and I'd say we will go with the USA. It will economically cripple us since Chinese exports will be cut to zero and maybe even the Chinese may try to come and seize their assets.


Their exports may be cut to zero but the stuff they will be making with there massive productive capacity will need lots of iron.

As you point out though it will be strange times indeed if we went on exporting iron and coal to them while they ammased an army. Who am I kidding they already have one that would be our match. If we were lucky they would hold off till they hunted out our submarines, giving us time for the US to come in for support. If we were unlucky they would not bother and just come full steam ahead with an invasion force.

At least Rudd will not need a translator if we capitulate.

What would we do though if the US said stop exporting to them sometime later this year? Trade embargo. I guess we would make sure the US took everything that was destined for the Chinese?
0

#7 User is offline   Bernard L. Madoff 

  • Inimitable
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced members
  • Posts: 6,609
  • Joined: 30-September 09

Posted 07 February 2010 - 02:16 PM

Sorry mon ami, mon anglais est merde* on my part...

Quote

It will economically cripple us since Chinese exports will be cut to zero and maybe even the Chinese may try to come and seize their assets.

I meant OUR exports to China will come to zero economically crippling us.

Your logic is spot on as usual, although...

Quote

I guess we would make sure the US took everything that was destined for the Chinese?

We could ENFORCE policy on South Pacific islands, having seen and drank with Maori infantry I wouldn't put a weeks pay on totally dominating New Zealand. It will be Please Sir, if you may be so kind...


* sorry mate, my English is shit

0

#8 User is offline   tom 

  • Inimitable
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3,227
  • Joined: 19-July 09
  • LocationPerth, Australia

Posted 07 February 2010 - 03:12 PM

View PostTinpusher, on 07 February 2010 - 02:16 PM, said:


We could ENFORCE policy on South Pacific islands, having seen and drank with Maori infantry I wouldn't put a weeks pay on totally dominating New Zealand. It will be Please Sir, if you may be so kind...


I can imagine.

Neither country has any kind of proffessional force that is sizeable enough to invade the other NZ / Aus. We have a few peacekeeping forces scattered around the place and we run out of troops. What is it? Australia can field something like 5000 proffesional soldiers and 15,000 reservists?

I could see 5000 soldiers having trouble just controlling the gangs in Aukland let alone getting beyond this.
0

#9 User is offline   Bernard L. Madoff 

  • Inimitable
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced members
  • Posts: 6,609
  • Joined: 30-September 09

Posted 07 February 2010 - 03:51 PM

We will have air superiority against most countries up to China. Then we'll be slaughtered.

You MUST control the air above a battlefield or over the sea. If you do not you will lose troops.

But, I challenge any occupying force to fight an insurgency in Australia or NZ.

I, for one, will be creating merry hell. Networking with XGJ and Tor will be the issue.

BTW Australian Army to Kiwi Army is 7:1. Its the insurgency issue. A man or woman will defend their homeland with passion. See Iraq and Afghanistan for examples.
0

#10 User is offline   tom 

  • Inimitable
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3,227
  • Joined: 19-July 09
  • LocationPerth, Australia

Posted 07 February 2010 - 04:50 PM

View PostTinpusher, on 07 February 2010 - 03:51 PM, said:

BTW Australian Army to Kiwi Army is 7:1. Its the insurgency issue. A man or woman will defend their homeland with passion. See Iraq and Afghanistan for examples.


Australians are so attached to our homes I fear many of us are just as likely to go down with the ship (house) so to speak.

I cant see many of us taking to the hills. We are not generally as hardened as the Afghans who also have some pretty rugged terrain to hide in. Up your way you have some pretty dense forest so you would probably be able to hide out indefinitely, but over here in Perth, there is nowhere to hide. The sand bunker over the fence is about as good as it gets.
0

#11 User is offline   Bernard L. Madoff 

  • Inimitable
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced members
  • Posts: 6,609
  • Joined: 30-September 09

Posted 07 February 2010 - 05:14 PM

View Posttom, on 07 February 2010 - 04:50 PM, said:

Australians are so attached to our homes I fear many of us are just as likely to go down with the ship (house) so to speak.

I cant see many of us taking to the hills. We are not generally as hardened as the Afghans who also have some pretty rugged terrain to hide in. Up your way you have some pretty dense forest so you would probably be able to hide out indefinitely, but over here in Perth, there is nowhere to hide. The sand bunker over the fence is about as good as it gets.


Guerilla defensive action is house to house, ala Iraq.

I used to live next to a Portuguese Paratrooper (national service and just damn good). Standoffish guy until word got out that I was a Maths tutor (part of a degree when I was a wannabe Tinnie trying to get a commission), I worked with his son with good success.

We got good and drunk and spun. The tales he told from Angola in the early 70s were frightening,

If you want to take some places, some blokes are going to say no and be yes men. I'll be a no.
Lets take em!
0

#12 User is offline   tom 

  • Inimitable
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3,227
  • Joined: 19-July 09
  • LocationPerth, Australia

Posted 07 February 2010 - 05:55 PM

View PostTinpusher, on 07 February 2010 - 05:14 PM, said:

Guerilla defensive action is house to house, ala Iraq.

I used to live next to a Portuguese Paratrooper (national service and just damn good). Standoffish guy until word got out that I was a Maths tutor (part of a degree when I was a wannabe Tinnie trying to get a commission), I worked with his son with good success.

We got good and drunk and spun. The tales he told from Angola in the early 70s were frightening,

If you want to take some places, some blokes are going to say no. I'll be a no.


Sounds like Far north QLD will be a tough one for the invaders then. 8)

I know I will go out on the street with my hands up at the first call for civilians to leave. Assuming they actually give us that opportunity. Seeing as I live in a rental, not much point stayign and defending my turf so to speak, especially seeign I have no weapons to speak of except a boomerang I made at school camp in yr 6. :flex:

Angola would have been frightening. The video we get now from Afghanistan looks scary for either side.
0

#13 User is offline   Sacamento 

  • Aspirant
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 189
  • Joined: 08-November 09

Posted 07 February 2010 - 10:23 PM

You've got a whole bunch of gen x and y that this country has said f*ck you we're taking your house. Can't see the young of this country matching the old Anzacs, far, far from it I suspect. I think the "allies" would lose a WW3.The last thing I want to do is lift a finger for a bunch of lowlife scum specufestors let alone get a leg blown off because of them.

This post has been edited by Sacamento: 07 February 2010 - 10:25 PM

0

#14 User is offline   Mr Medved 

  • Inimitable
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced members
  • Posts: 1,633
  • Joined: 26-November 09

Posted 07 February 2010 - 10:27 PM

A couple of reasons why I doubt an armed invasion is on the horizon (though there'd be many more)...

The ANZUS treaty implies if Australia was invaded then it would receive military support from New Zealand and the USA. Hence, a foreign invader would either be betting on the USA giving up on Australia (Pine Gap, military bases, etc.) or willing to face down the military might of the US (with nukes).

The supply lines would be a bitch to get resources out. There aren't that many railroads/roads that are used to ship out iron ore, coal, etc. It wouldn't take much to put them out of action. Then you have to worry about the typical supply line needs (oil, food, water, medical supplies, armaments, etc.). As mentioned air superiority would be crucial.

It is likely that the battleground will be a mix of economic warfare (currency (de)valuations, tariffs, trade barriers, IP theft, etc.), non-conventional/dirty warfare (biological weapons, chemical weapons, 'minor' terrorist attacks, propaganda warfare, cyber warfare, etc.) and proxy wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Sudan, etc.).

Invasion for resources by force is not likely profitable. It is better to financially squeeze corrupt indebted governments so that they, along with their cronies, award resource contracts to your country's resource and construction companies. Ooh, they're already doing that. Fancy that!

The greater enemy Australia faces is our own governments.
0

#15 User is offline   Bernard L. Madoff 

  • Inimitable
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced members
  • Posts: 6,609
  • Joined: 30-September 09

Posted 08 February 2010 - 05:35 AM

View PostSacamento, on 07 February 2010 - 10:23 PM, said:

You've got a whole bunch of gen x and y that this country has said f*ck you we're taking your house. Can't see the young of this country matching the old Anzacs, far, far from it I suspect. I think the "allies" would lose a WW3.The last thing I want to do is lift a finger for a bunch of lowlife scum specufestors let alone get a leg blown off because of them.


I thought you were a Nationalist?
0

#16 User is offline   urchin 

  • Inimitable
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced members
  • Posts: 1,332
  • Joined: 04-October 09

Posted 08 February 2010 - 06:30 AM

View PostTinpusher, on 07 February 2010 - 03:51 PM, said:

But, I challenge any occupying force to fight an insurgency in Australia or NZ.



bah, all they would have to do is make all beer free and the country would be theirs in about 8 hours time. :P
0

#17 User is offline   Bernard L. Madoff 

  • Inimitable
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced members
  • Posts: 6,609
  • Joined: 30-September 09

Posted 08 February 2010 - 07:10 AM

View Posturchin, on 08 February 2010 - 06:30 AM, said:

bah, all they would have to do is make all beer free and the country would be theirs in about 8 hours time. :P




If the white (Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi) nationalists are like Sacamento maybe I was wrong.
0

#18 User is offline   savagegoose 

  • Inimitable
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced members
  • Posts: 1,771
  • Joined: 06-October 09

Posted 08 February 2010 - 07:20 AM

they will need to do an SLR handout with say 500 rounds of ammo. I'm sure that might help homeland defence. still by the time the utes reaCHED OUR NORTHERN SHORES WE WOULD PROB NEED SOME RESUPPLY OF AMMO.
0

#19 User is offline   Sacamento 

  • Aspirant
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 189
  • Joined: 08-November 09

Posted 08 February 2010 - 08:12 AM

View PostTinpusher, on 08 February 2010 - 05:35 AM, said:

I thought you were a Nationalist?


I am a nationalist so why would I want to fight for a country that consistently sells it's own people out?

And I'm not into saying oi oi oi. It's lame. I don't even watch sport, watching sport is for <people who like sport>. I thought that would be more <a sports-watcher thing>.

<modded>
0

#20 User is offline   Sacamento 

  • Aspirant
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 189
  • Joined: 08-November 09

Posted 08 February 2010 - 08:16 AM

Hell, I'm not even sure I'm a nationalist. I just want to stop immigration, or the high levels of it. I take my beliefs from all areas of the political spectrum, but if a half decent, serious nationalist party came about yeah I'd vote for it.
0

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users