Dynamic world

[Beatmaster]

Hello Peepz,

Global stability and Global security are anno 2011 a very hot issues worldwide.
Many nations are doing what they think is right to add another layer to their own security and to add another factor to the global security.
And i was wondering why the US Defence Department is nearly always pointing out concerns towards other nations for example:

China’s capabilities worry the US
Russia's capabilities worry the US
Nation ? capabilities worry the US and so on...bla bla bla

As we all know the US army and NATO are the 2 strongest western powers, and some might even say the 2 strongest powers on this planet, and both lifting their weight in terms of security and stability worldwide.
However both are upgrading and making new systems from cyber assets to space assets to conventional assets to secure their own intrests.

However other powers like Russia and China are doing the same and are catching up with US standards as for example Russia and China where always one or 2 steps behind in the past.
The past 10 years it has been shown that both Russia and China has put great effort in their military system to close the gap with the US and its allies.
Imo this will put the US out of their comfort zone and raises their "Concerns" towards their rivals.
My point and question is: Today the technological levels around the world are moving towards new levels, and in many of the technological fields the US has been surpassed by some other nation, as things are constant moving in this dynamic world.
Wich aint bad, because as i said its anno 2011 and nations worldwide are catching up to achieve their own goals and set new standards of their own.

And my question is what makes the US think that their "concerns" are justified against upcomming nations when the US itself predicted some years ago that everything that has granted the US a superpower status and everything that has given the US a comfort zone as their technological and economic progress was for 80% of the world considered not in their reach for the next 30 years? I mean lets face it the US was considered the top dog in nearly everything for like 40 years in a row, and now this top dog position is being challeged by all kinds of nations, for example Russia does challenge the US but within reason and remains somewhat on a dormat status , however accoording to officals and experts China is preparing to challenge, match and overcome the US.
Regardless if Russia can do this or China can do this they are not the only ones that have serious plans in terms of technological progress.
Some EU nations are in most fields equal to the US both military and in other regions.
So its only fair to suggest that China and Russia will do the same on their turn.
Iam not sure how to put this question but bare with me as i try to explain it.
US is a direct rival to China and Russia this has always been and will always will be, the EU is not a rival to anyone of them, but if it wanted to then it could be a formidable contender agree?
Why is the US allowed to judge other nations about a new kind of space/land/sea/air weapon, or Technological heap forward and is allowed to spread the usuall "grave concerns" (wich is bull imo) while the US them self enjoyed enough Technological heaps in the past?
I mean its only fair and reasonable that all kinds of nations worldwide will eventually match the US as time progresses.
25 years ago there was a english proffesor that said:

The biggest mistake the US could ever make is to deny the progress of other nations in fear of losing their "comfortzone" As the world allowed the US to be what it is today, so in all fairness the US will become a relic and a shadow to its own technological achievements when it dares to deny other nations to catch up wich will happen eventually.
The status superpower will remain for several decades, however eventually other powers will have their turn in setting a example to the world and the way how the US uses its politic's and the very dynamic's of the US today will be overcome and matched by others.
In short said the world needs the US in many aspects however if the US does not change their internall and external mechanic's towards the world then the US has more to lose then its status.
This has happend trough-out history, one superpower falls, another one takes its place because they all failed to adapt to the new movements and technological achievements and political ideas by others.
Having the strongest/most modern army in the world does not guarantee that this always will remain, as US politic's always was backed by the faith and believe that if politic's fails that the talking can be done by use of force conventionally and unconventionally.
And as 2010 and 2011 does show us there is a mojor shift in power worldwide and the US will be challenged, both economic and military as well political.
Regardless if this happens peacefully or hostile wich largely depens on how the US is going to react on the fact that other powers nearing the point to equal and offically rival the US in every aspect.

So what does give the US the right to judge other nations?
What does give the US the right to restrict others from achieving what the US already has achieved?
And what will happen to the US if they remain blind and stuborn to today's changes?

Cheers

 

[Spetsznaz]

So what does give the US the right to judge other nations?
What does give the US the right to restrict others from achieving what the US already has achieved?
And what will happen to the US if they remain blind and stubborn to today's changes?

Cheers

I have to tell you dude you are floating to close to politics and I can see a Mod:ar15 this thread.

I will ignore the first 2 questions as they are too political and I do not want to get banned.

"And what will happen to the US if they remain blind and stubborn to today's changes?"

This US is not stubborn to anything and wont be for any time soon
Personally I would like to see the US respond to China's rapid modernization more directly, especially to the DF-21. It is preferable to the US to really get on the Zumwalt class destroyer that they have planned, so it can counter Chinas DF-21.

 

[Beatmaster]

Stuborn, might be the wrong word (Got a little difficulty explaining myself so if i used the wrong words sorry then) Also the questions should not be seen as a political issue but it is aimed globally, as the US is being seen as a sort of leader in the world.
What i mean with stuborn is that the US seems tough to accept changes wich they cannot control, as not everything should be seen hostile or not with the best intentions.

 

[ngatimozart]

Stuborn, might be the wrong word (Got a little difficulty explaining myself so if i used the wrong words sorry then) Also the questions should not be seen as a political issue but it is aimed globally, as the US is being seen as a sort of leader in the world.
What i mean with stuborn is that the US seems tough to accept changes wich they cannot control, as not everything should be seen hostile or not with the best intentions.

It probably is close to political but I don't think that the questions that you raised could be asked in any other context. IMHO they are important questions that need to be asked because how a nation state chooses to use its military might is a political decision. The Sun Tzu Ping Fa which is read in every military school states that out of five options main force should always be the last to be resorted to.

My reasoning is that although Beastmaster may be skirting a political argument (argument in the academic sense) with his question it is actually a strategic question in nature. The US has for many years enjoyed a technological, political and geographical advantage over other nation states that may be seen as potential rivals for resources etc.. For the US military to ignore such a question would be profoundly unprofessional because it is a question of strategy, how they would respond to any given situation if x = y+1 for example. The same would be said for every other military in the world. So the question is this. Based upon historical evidence, powers and nation states have risen to greatness only to fall from greatness at some stage for any number of reasons. Therefore we can imply from that, at some stage in the future, the US may have some probability of following the same path. So if I was a hypothetical officer in the US military tasked by my superiors to plan for such an event, in case it occurred, how would I go about it? I am thinking of it as a thought experiment.

 

[Beatmaster]

Thx for pointing out the idea behind the topic as i did have some difficulties to explain myself, and NO the topic is not aimed political, however the political aspects are obvious.

As you said:
The US has for many years enjoyed a technological, political and geographical advantage over other nation states that may be seen as potential rivals for resources etc..
Thats exactly my point, times are changed the world is way more connected and way more dynamic then lets say 50 years ago.
Resources and Technological assets that use to be shielded due the fact that most nations did not have the skills and the influence needed to gain acces.
Today things are alot differend as some serious nations are busy writing their own succes stories and tales like the US ones enjoyed, So the US will be challenged both technological, political and military wise.
We all see clear evidence that for example the EU countries are slowly advancing to the next level and some even surpass the US in certain areas.
This also applies for asia where the buildup and the technological enrichment goes even further and faster.
How will the US reply to this? What can they do to maintain their comfortzone while staying out of trouble?
Because atm the US aint very happy about the major buildup in asia as it does worry and challenge most western nations....
On the otherhand it would be crazy to tell asia you cannot advance to the next level i mean the US does not own the technological advancement and leadership.
This might sound very harsh and weard but what ia trying to say is that in the old days the US could seriously pressure a nation wich would follow the instructions given due the fact they could not rise-up against the west, simple due the lack of money and technological / political strenght, wich has given the US and the West somewhat of a comfort zone/status.
Nowaday's some nations are capable of blocking the wishes of the west (In a good way or bad way as it does not really matter or the intentions from east vs west and vice versa are legit and guine (Friendly or hostile its just a example)
Look at china it might be not as strong as the average western power, on the otherhand we all can agree they came a long way in a very short period.
It will not take very long before the US find himself on the table with a 100% equal challenger wich did not happen in the history of the US.
The US never faced a worthy oponent and as we all can see it will not take very long before china can be that oponent.
Now the real issue is that the US is losing influence and control over regions in the asia and in middle east wich eventually means that the political nature and military doctrine should be changed as soon the US is not the only world power anymore.
In the past Russia did go to great lenghts to reach and rival the US and they kinda failed mainly because of the collapse, imo it would be reasonable to suggest that China will try it as well and perhaps took some notes from the past.
And with the ever increasing demand for resources and influence this is a perfect setting for a major clash if both the west and east are not going to share.
The US has its own resources and they are going to great lenghts to protect and expand them like they have done in the past 100 years.
The EU is doing the same while helping the US and vice versa, but noone of both ever faced a challenger that could rival this.
And Imo China might be that challenger, wich means that the whole political and military structure and doctrine of the west will need some serious re-writing as with the current protocols and rules this will sooner or later turn out to be a disaster.

I hope i explained myself the right way.
Anyway hope to see some serious reactions about this.

 

[rip]

Hello Peepz,

Global stability and Global security are anno 2011 a very hot issues worldwide.
Many nations are doing what they think is right to add another layer to their own security and to add another factor to the global security.
And i was wondering why the US Defence Department is nearly always pointing out concerns towards other nations for example:

China’s capabilities worry the US
Russia's capabilities worry the US
Nation ? capabilities worry the US and so on...bla bla bla

As we all know the US army and NATO are the 2 strongest western powers, and some might even say the 2 strongest powers on this planet, and both lifting their weight in terms of security and stability worldwide.
However both are upgrading and making new systems from cyber assets to space assets to conventional assets to secure their own intrests.

However other powers like Russia and China are doing the same and are catching up with US standards as for example Russia and China where always one or 2 steps behind in the past.
The past 10 years it has been shown that both Russia and China has put great effort in their military system to close the gap with the US and its allies.
Imo this will put the US out of their comfort zone and raises their "Concerns" towards their rivals.
My point and question is: Today the technological levels around the world are moving towards new levels, and in many of the technological fields the US has been surpassed by some other nation, as things are constant moving in this dynamic world.
Wich aint bad, because as i said its anno 2011 and nations worldwide are catching up to achieve their own goals and set new standards of their own.

And my question is what makes the US think that their "concerns" are justified against upcomming nations when the US itself predicted some years ago that everything that has granted the US a superpower status and everything that has given the US a comfort zone as their technological and economic progress was for 80% of the world considered not in their reach for the next 30 years? I mean lets face it the US was considered the top dog in nearly everything for like 40 years in a row, and now this top dog position is being challeged by all kinds of nations, for example Russia does challenge the US but within reason and remains somewhat on a dormat status , however accoording to officals and experts China is preparing to challenge, match and overcome the US.
Regardless if Russia can do this or China can do this they are not the only ones that have serious plans in terms of technological progress.
Some EU nations are in most fields equal to the US both military and in other regions.
So its only fair to suggest that China and Russia will do the same on their turn.
Iam not sure how to put this question but bare with me as i try to explain it.
US is a direct rival to China and Russia this has always been and will always will be, the EU is not a rival to anyone of them, but if it wanted to then it could be a formidable contender agree?
Why is the US allowed to judge other nations about a new kind of space/land/sea/air weapon, or Technological heap forward and is allowed to spread the usuall "grave concerns" (wich is bull imo) while the US them self enjoyed enough Technological heaps in the past?
I mean its only fair and reasonable that all kinds of nations worldwide will eventually match the US as time progresses.
25 years ago there was a english proffesor that said:

The biggest mistake the US could ever make is to deny the progress of other nations in fear of losing their "comfortzone" As the world allowed the US to be what it is today, so in all fairness the US will become a relic and a shadow to its own technological achievements when it dares to deny other nations to catch up wich will happen eventually.
The status superpower will remain for several decades, however eventually other powers will have their turn in setting a example to the world and the way how the US uses its politic's and the very dynamic's of the US today will be overcome and matched by others.
In short said the world needs the US in many aspects however if the US does not change their internall and external mechanic's towards the world then the US has more to lose then its status.
This has happend trough-out history, one superpower falls, another one takes its place because they all failed to adapt to the new movements and technological achievements and political ideas by others.
Having the strongest/most modern army in the world does not guarantee that this always will remain, as US politic's always was backed by the faith and believe that if politic's fails that the talking can be done by use of force conventionally and unconventionally.
And as 2010 and 2011 does show us there is a mojor shift in power worldwide and the US will be challenged, both economic and military as well political.
Regardless if this happens peacefully or hostile wich largely depens on how the US is going to react on the fact that other powers nearing the point to equal and offically rival the US in every aspect.

So what does give the US the right to judge other nations?
What does give the US the right to restrict others from achieving what the US already has achieved?
And what will happen to the US if they remain blind and stuborn to today's changes?

Cheers

As already pointed out, all professional military organizations seek relevancy by keeping up with an ever changing world. Nothing stands still, if the US enjoys currently enjoys the privileged position of having the most capable military establishment in the world it is only because it hasn’t stood still. How could it be otherwise? So if it reacts to the changing military capacity of China it is only acting rationally as according to the mandates of it mission.

However I think there is more to your complaint that the US military wishes to adapt to an ever changing world. I think that the real complaint is that, the US will not accept military parity with China, not that the US has a witching dagger pointed at China’s’ neck.

Why must we passively accept the idea that we, who are perfectly happy to live within our own borders and who are perfectly capable of successfully taking other peoples lands and resources but, has a long track record of not doing so, must accept parity with a rising power that does not have the same and equal track record of “not abusing” its military power in that way. We do not hate or fear China but neither do we trust it. We will not willingly put our fate or the fate of the world that we want to live in, subject to the power of a country that has nether earned ours or that of its neighbors trust?

You post reminds me of similar complaints that were once made by the old Soviet Union. They complained that whenever they raised their game to attempt to equalize their military forces with ours we would up the stakes once again to a new and higher level. They found this very frustrating. They could not understand why we would not accept parity, which in the case in the later years of the old Soviet Union was all that they wanted. They could not understand that their sphere of influence, the captured and exploited countries of the Easter Block at the time, was not something that was acceptable. If we had accepted their offered parity, then it would have condemned all of the Eastern European countries to Russian domination for some unknown time in to the future and to indorse the idea of a sphere of influence. The presumed right of a greater country to bully, threaten, and manipulate a smaller one, for its own benefit at the expense of smaller country. Which historically, was what a great country’s use of power was all about.

But once again it is about change in an ever changing world, not just the fleeting prowess of military might will change with time but also the necessary changes of how and why you use that power. Not only the means but the goals must change in an ever changing world.

This game will continue until there is ether a military confrontation, with terrible results, or more hopefully a condition of mutual trust is established that does not include the idea of a sphere of influence and all the precepts that go with it.

Whatever greatness the US has or might attain in the future it will be based upon our own efforts to improve ourselves. This has very little to do with the achievements of other countries and we do not benefit from keeping them down, whatever that is supposed to mean. Out standard of success does not first look to our relative position compared to others but to higher standard, what is the best within ourselves.

 

[Beatmaster]

I agree to most what you said, however China has not been that voilent and untrust worthy as most of us believe.
Accoording to several sources China dates back:
China's civilization originated 5,000 years the nation's roots can be traced back 8,000 to 10,000 years.
While the US dates back to July 4, 1776 so to be short China's trackrecord looks to me alot more favourable then the US track record given the fact that the US is a kinda newbie on the block in terms of history.
Granted China did have some seriously savage times where million where killed.
But this is not about who is Holy and who is evil, its about allowing the other to reach your goal the same way as the other did allow you to reach your goals.

As you said:
Why must we passively accept the idea that we, who are perfectly happy to live within our own borders and who are perfectly capable of successfully taking other peoples lands and resources but, has a long track record of not doing so, must accept parity with a rising power that does not have the same and equal track record of “not abusing” its military power in that way. We do not hate or fear China but neither do we trust it. We will not willingly put our fate or the fate of the world that we want to live in, subject to the power of a country that has nether earned ours or that of its neighbors trust?

Iam not anti us or anything so no disrecpect but in terms of trust i think that the US has equal trackrecord of abusing military/political power troughout the past.
And iam the last person to judge that, but this is not the point.
The western mandate and doctrine does not match wel with the eastern believes and views.
So it not a matter of trust but willingness to work as 2 superpowers working alongside, wich also means that the US will have to give-in the same way as China will have to make room for western ideas.
And regardless the trust issue if one of both fails to adapt to this dynamic world and new situation and powershifts this will result in a massive conflict.
The only difference between the previous situations like Russia vs the west is that China is alot more potent and fexible then russia ever was not to mention the fact that the world needs china alot more then they ever needed russia wich became russia's downfall eventually.
With the increasing weakening west due economic problems and political issues does set a dangerous stage for the world.
out of every 10 invested US dollars 5 dollar is a loan so the US and the west ain that powerfull as they use to be, and this is where china has the better cards wich we cannot deny them.
So instead of heading towards a major conflict it would be wise for both to adapt and learn from eachother see my point?

 

[Spetsznaz]

Iam not anti us or anything so no disrecpect but in terms of trust i think that the US has equal trackrecord of abusing military/political power troughout the past.
And iam the last person to judge that, but this is not the point.
The western mandate and doctrine does not match wel with the eastern believes and views.
So it not a matter of trust but willingness to work as 2 superpowers working alongside, wich also means that the US will have to give-in the same way as China will have to make room for western ideas.
And regardless the trust issue if one of both fails to adapt to this dynamic world and new situation and powershifts this will result in a massive conflict.
The only difference between the previous situations like Russia vs the west is that China is alot more potent and fexible then russia ever was not to mention the fact that the world needs china alot more then they ever needed russia wich became russia's downfall eventually.
With the increasing weakening west due economic problems and political issues does set a dangerous stage for the world.
out of every 10 invested US dollars 5 dollar is a loan so the US and the west ain that powerfull as they use to be, and this is where china has the better cards wich we cannot deny them.
So instead of heading towards a major conflict it would be wise for both to adapt and learn from eachother see my point?

Oh, man I am really gonna do my best to stay away from a political debate, mods please dont:mad2

As far as US dependability on China: Although the US does "depend" heavily on China (a lot more than I would like it too)China just as heavily "depends" on the US.

If China said they don't want to do any business and tie off political relations with the US, it would be a pretty bad day for the US, but it would be a National disaster for China.

China modernization and buildup (I believe) will create a rivalry and an arms race. I dont think we are going to have another cold war scenario(I would not rule it out though) where the USSR and the US where enemies, instead China and the US will become rivals. China and the US benefit too much from each other. We may move into a bipolar or multipolar world, but again a cold war scenario is unlikely.

 

[Beatmaster]

Oh, man I am really gonna do my best to stay away from a political debate, mods please dont:mad2

As far as US dependability on China: Although the US does "depend" heavily on China (a lot more than I would like it too)China just as heavily "depends" on the US.

If China said they don't want to do any business and tie off political relations with the US, it would be a pretty bad day for the US, but it would be a National disaster for China.

China modernization and buildup (I believe) will create a rivalry and an arms race. I dont think we are going to have another cold war scenario(I would no rule it out though) where the USSR and the US where enemies, instead China and the US will become rivals. China and the US benefit too much from each other. We may move into a bipolar or multipolar world, but again a cold war scenario is unlikely.

I agree with what you said as this is indeed true.
However i might be wrong on this but can the US be a friendly rival towards china and vice versa given the fact that the regional inbalance and unrest will create major difficulties?
As for example China is building offensive weapons on a massscale to counter or par the US, while the US itself has far strething obligations and intrests in china's backyard.
So does this mix of intrests and priorities create a explosive situation?
And what could China and US do as 2 major powers to look eachother in the eye and talk to eachother without losing credebility?
As China does have serious doubts about the influence from the west in their backyard to them its a serious danger wich explains the massive buildup.
On the otherhand the US does not seem to understand this and sees the buildup as a direct danger to the US.
Imo china wants to make sure they can stop the US if needed as a status quo to force the us to be more willing to give in given the fact that both become one day equal.
For now the US still has and edge....

 

[Spetsznaz]

I agree with what you said as this is indeed true.
However i might be wrong on this but can the US be a friendly rival towards china and vice versa given the fact that the regional inbalance and unrest will create major difficulties?
As for example China is building offensive weapons on a massscale to counter or par the US, while the US itself has far strething obligations and intrests in china's backyard.
So does this mix of intrests and priorities create a explosive situation?
And what could China and US do as 2 major powers to look eachother in the eye and talk to eachother without losing credebility?
As China does have serious doubts about the influence from the west in their backyard to them its a serious danger wich explains the massive buildup.
On the otherhand the US does not seem to understand this and sees the buildup as a direct danger to the US.
Imo china wants to make sure they can stop the US if needed as a status quo to force the us to be more willing to give in given the fact that both become one day equal.
For now the US still has and edge....

I just want to point this out,

you seem to have it in your head that China is the big competitor to the US and the most important threat. To be honest with you Russia is a much more capable opponent to the US than China, so I am surprised you have no mentioned Russia.

Remember Russia continues to have the worlds largest Nuclear stockpile, and then the US, then FRANCE(THIS IS IMPORTANT TO YOUR ARGUMENT) and only then China.

And for those of you who like your pretty sources here you are
Federation of American Scientists :: Status of World Nuclear Forces

I am going to take a neo-realist perspective here and tell you that China and the US will compete on an economic level and Military buildup level as rivals, but as enemy's we will see a cold war scenario where survival and pure military power will become the main component.

Also Important for this thread to discuss if this whole thing is impossible simply become of the role that the UN plays (Which has still not been mentioned)

All post some more on this later tonight, but I have a shitton of homework

 

[Beatmaster]

Well with the west i was meaning US/EU/ = NATO.
I agree Russia is a mutch greater danger, however Russia's part is played in the past and in this scenario they have little play room.
Economic i believe that China can maintain themselfs against the US as neither of both have the strenght to directly hammering onanother knowing that they are to linked to eachother.
So we bot agree on the peacefull rival part.
But thats not what i mean, look at the obligations that the US has towards the neightbours of China and look at the increasingly hostile and instabile region around China and the middle east.
This is China's background and main sphere of infuence so add this to the mix and ask yourself the question will a peacefull rival race not end in a serious conflict? afterall its china's backyard and its miles away from the US sphere of influence.
Its not China's mission to gain influence in the west but mainly in their own direct regions.
And having the US snooping around in those regions will probably not meet a warm welcome as China might fear that this is a peacefull but hostile expanding effort by the US to gain control ofer the local resources wich are huge.
So China will not accept this i think.

 

[Spetsznaz]

Well with the west i was meaning US/EU/ = NATO.
I agree Russia is a mutch greater danger, however Russia's part is played in the past and in this scenario they have little play room.
Economic i believe that China can maintain themselfs against the US as neither of both have the strenght to directly hammering onanother knowing that they are to linked to eachother.
So we bot agree on the peacefull rival part.
But thats not what i mean, look at the obligations that the US has towards the neightbours of China and look at the increasingly hostile and instabile region around China and the middle east.
This is China's background and main sphere of infuence so add this to the mix and ask yourself the question will a peacefull rival race not end in a serious conflict? afterall its china's backyard and its miles away from the US sphere of influence.
Its not China's mission to gain influence in the west but mainly in their own direct regions.
And having the US snooping around in those regions will probably not meet a warm welcome as China might fear that this is a peacefull but hostile expanding effort by the US to gain control ofer the local resources wich are huge.
So China will not accept this i think.

I dont know what you mean when you say, "Russia's part is played in the past and in this scenario they have little play room"

I guarantee you China is not concerned about US involvement in the middle east. NOW, if the US suddenly began to install military installations within Asia and around China, that may become a problem.

What we have is a security dilemma. You provide no evidence of the US attempting to gain control of some sort of "resources"

I am not sure where you are going man. The Bottom line is the US will tolerate only so much and the US already has other problems abroad(VZ, terrorism, economy, Iran) to allow China to become a serious issue.

China does not compete nearly as close as Russia does, and Russia and the US are not that dependent on each other as China and the US

 

[ngatimozart]

I agree with what you said as this is indeed true.
However i might be wrong on this but can the US be a friendly rival towards china and vice versa given the fact that the regional inbalance and unrest will create major difficulties?
As for example China is building offensive weapons on a massscale to counter or par the US, while the US itself has far strething obligations and intrests in china's backyard.
So does this mix of intrests and priorities create a explosive situation?
And what could China and US do as 2 major powers to look eachother in the eye and talk to eachother without losing credebility?
As China does have serious doubts about the influence from the west in their backyard to them its a serious danger wich explains the massive buildup.
On the otherhand the US does not seem to understand this and sees the buildup as a direct danger to the US.
Imo china wants to make sure they can stop the US if needed as a status quo to force the us to be more willing to give in given the fact that both become one day equal.
For now the US still has and edge....

You have the crux of the matter there and my answer to your question is no. I am a Kiwi of Irish Catholic heritage and Maori so that colours my view because of colonisation. I am stating this because it gives a bias to what I am saying.

Neither the US or China willingly play second fiddle to another nation. It is not in their culture. The US has a vision, an ideal that for better or worse, it believes is the best form of government for humanity democracy. It is the basis of western civilisation, a political ideal that started in Ancient Greece some 2300 years ago. Like Christianity or whiskey it comes in many different forms, some good, some not so good. The US version of democracy is heavily influenced by big business,whereas in the UK and in my country, NZ, a different version of democracy exists - a constitutional monarchy. Yet the French have a different version and so on. So the US & to a certain extent the EU, is like a missionary preaching it's version of democracy to the unbelievers or heathens who in there opinion need saving. So my question has to be, is this the best option for people of different cultures? Because in my own experience, two ancient cultures have suffered significant loss because of a new belief system being imposed upon them. This is cultural, not political ,and all through history this has happened.

China believes itself to be the Middle Kingdom placed between Heaven and Earth. This belief has been the same for about 2500 years and I would argue, is still present today even though the present dynasty is officially atheist. They are an ancient people and one thing that we must remember about modern day China is that all the freedoms since Deng Xaio Peng introduced them in the 1980's have been economic NOT political. The Communist Party of China still reigns supreme and brooks no competition. Tianamin Square in 1980, persecution of Galung Fong, Tibet, and covert persecution of various religions in China reinforce that ideal both in the Politburo mind and more importantly in the populace. So I argue that the present Chinese government is all, but in name, an Imperial Dynasty. They are the Middle kingdom above all other kingdoms because they rule by the mandate of heaven and they only fall when heaven withdraws that mandate. That is the core belief of the Chinese culture and why should it change after 2500 years, just because a bunch of atheists sit on the imperial throne. They rule an united China so they must have the mandate of heaven.

They are the reasons why I believe neither the US or China will willingly play single fiddle or kow tow to another nation if they have the might and power not to. This is a cultural argument based upon the cultures of the two protagonists. Political ideals always are culturally driven even before greed enters the equation. The use of main force is the ultimate expression of political power and that is what we have to remember when we discuss global military players and global strategies. We must always remember what is the motivation behind the use of, or perceived use of main force. Then we can understand the what, why and how of things when we think of strategies.

 

[Beatmaster]

Well thats exactly my point, Iran, Syria, Iraq, pakistan and neightbour regions.
N-Korea/S-Korea, Taiwan, Japan its all on the agenda of the US and its obligations and influence.

These are all troubled regions and they are nearly all directly in the Chinese sphere of influence and economic importance to China and in all these regions the US play a major role some in a military way and some in a supporting/economic way.
What i try to say is that this might be a little to mutch US in the eyes of China wich may see this as a attempt by the US to gain control or at least some amount of influence.
Imagine for a sec that i might be right then this is a serious concern for Chinese Economic's and growth.
So iam sorry if i gave you a wrong impression here but te chinese buildup is connected to the US presence in the region wich if this **** hits the fan will turn a economic rival race into a new cold war as the US cannot affort to skip their obligations and china cannot affort to let the US roam free amounght its neightbours.
So thats what in mean with a instabile region where both have equally mutch to lose and given the mistrust from both sides this could proof difficult to handle and might turn out it something bigger.
Russia might have a role to play here but iam not sure what role....somehow i cannot fit them in.....maybe you can.
Anyway i hope this explains what i was trying to say.

As ngatimozard said:
They are my reasons why I believe neither the US or China will willingly play single fiddle or kow tow to another nation if they don't have too. If they have the might and power not to. This is a cultural argument based upon the cultures of the two protagonists. Political ideals always are culturally driven even before greed enters the equation

this is indeed one of the things i was pointing out, both china and us are way to differend to play second fiddle to eachother and as i said if one of both does not give-in then specially with the regional intrests and the differend view it can become explosive.

 

[Spetsznaz]

You have the crux of the matter there and my answer to your question is no. I am a Kiwi of Irish Catholic heritage and Maori so that colours my view because of colonisation. I am stating this because it gives a bias to what I am saying.

Neither the US or China willingly play second fiddle to another nation. It is not in their culture. The US has a vision, an ideal that for better or worse, it believes is the best form of government for humanity democracy. It is the basis of western civilisation, a political ideal that started in Ancient Greece some 2300 years ago. Like Christianity or whiskey it comes in many different forms, some good, some not so good. The US version of democracy is heavily influenced by big business,whereas in the UK and in my country, NZ, a different version of democracy exists - a constitutional monarchy. Yet the French have a different version and so on. So the US & to a certain extent the EU, is like a missionary preaching it's version of democracy to the unbelievers or heathens who in there opinion need saving. So my question has to be, is this the best option for people of different cultures? Because in my own experience, two ancient cultures have suffered significant loss because of a new belief system being imposed upon them. This is cultural, not political ,and all through history this has happened.

China believes itself to be the Middle Kingdom placed between Heaven and Earth. This belief has been the same for about 2500 years and I would argue, is still present today even though the present dynasty is officially atheist. They are an ancient people and one thing that we must remember about modern day China is that all the freedoms since Deng Xaio Peng introduced them in the 1980's have been economic NOT political. The Communist Party of China still reigns supreme and brooks no competition. Tianamin Square in 1980, persecution of Galung Fong, Tibet, and covert persecution of various religions in China reinforce that ideal both in the Politburo mind and more importantly in the populace. So I argue that the present Chinese government is all, but in name, an Imperial Dynasty. They are the Middle kingdom above all other kingdoms because they rule by the mandate of heaven and they only fall when heaven withdraws that mandate.
That is the core belief of the Chinese culture and why should it change after 2500 years, just because a bunch of atheists sit on the imperial throne. They rule an united China so they must have the mandate of heaven.

They are my reasons why I believe neither the US or China will willingly play single fiddle or kow tow to another nation if they don't have too. If they have the might and power not to. This is a cultural argument based upon the cultures of the two protagonists. Political ideals always are culturally driven even before greed enters the equation.

Damn that pretty hard for me to digest

You views on both nations is riddled with logical fallacy's

During the cold war the struggle was more ideological than political (communism vs. Capitalism) The struggle between the US and China is in terms of power. And believe me greed entered the equation along time ago.

Hope I am not being too political

 

[NICO]

I think this is an very interesting and important subject, hopefully we all can keep it civil and not too political and keep the thread going.

The way I understand the theme here is what is the US going to do and what's it's position around the world going to be in the future? Obviously, the politics and the economics have a huge role to play here not just military arguments. If you are a conspiracy theorist or very pessimistic about US economy, talking about the future military needs and role of the US military is kind of a waste of time. You probably are reading this from your personal bunker surrounded by canned food.

If you believe US still has an economic future, then we can proceed. We have the raise of China which seems to be the main point of concern. But China isn't the old Soviet Union. China does a ton of business with USA but also Japan,SK,Australia, Europe,etc...why would China really want to rock the boat? I have heard people say that China might threaten shipping lanes and Taiwan, why would China shot itself in the foot? They do business with Taiwan, it would be easier for China to buy Taiwan than to invade it. As for US Navy, it's role is to insure peace and commerce, not much China should be against.

Next,China depends on us just as much as we need them. As USA is close ally to many countries surrounding China they want to do business with us and our friends. I also have noticed from certain circles the old communist danger refrain, we lose 1 country and then they all fall like dominoes. Well, that might have worked with Soviet Union but how exactly does that work with China? They have a somewhat hybrid private economy with a communist party government. How is this exportable? If China becomes stronger or "wins" a war with USA, does Japan, SK or Australia become communist with huge private sector? Will Japan/SK/Europe stop doing business with one of it's biggest customers:USA?

One thing I remember from the Soviet days was we were so afraid of Soviets but we never looked at the world from Soviet point of view. In this case what about China, they are surrounded by Japan, which occupied them in WWII and big ally of USA now, SK=ally of USA, Australia,Thailand, Singapore are also very close to USA. India is starting to get closer with USA and Pakistan is kind of so-so. We also have a military position in Afghanistan. Let's not forget and be honest here, USA had no problem helping "freedom fighters" in the 80s to fight against Soviets in Afghanistan, now we call them Taliban and hunt them down but China has a decent size Muslim population and some separatists groups, you think the China isn't just a little concerned about that and that USA would just stand on the side lines and we can reassure them "we would never even think about helping separatists?" Oh, and China shouldn't "feel" surrounded? It's just a coincidence, nothing to it.

China is producing some hi tech gear and US military is rightly preoccupied. Does it necessarily mean we are going to war tomorrow? No, on the contrary, I think it is less likely as the economic cost will be too high for both sides but also because of military parity. Like I was telling someone once, what exactly in the West were we expecting, "the Chinese to fly bad copies of Mig19/21s for another 30 years when everyone else is flying F22s and Eurofighters?????" The fact that China is modernizing means we won't go to war and more likely that we will have some form of talks to insure peace and avoid disputes over resources.

Now, for USA, we are going to have to face the fact our economy isn't as strong as it once was and we just don't have the education system to help produce top notch military equipment. We are going to have to draw down in some areas but that doesn't necessarily mean US is done with. We will still have a huge role to play, we can guide nascent democracies in the Middle east and Africa. We are still seen by many countries and people around the world as the only country that can "step in" and help resolve conflicts, obviously it would be nice if Europe would help and come with ONE voice. I mean Britain,France still play important roles around the world, they punch "above their weight", even Germany,Italy and recent new comer Spain have some weight. It's just most Americans aren't there yet but I think many are coming around to the facts of life. But as I said, we will still have an important role to play and it might actually be healthier for USA and the world if we have a little bit less "muscle", a little bit more humility and use more soft power.

I think we might actually have more "power" that way than just "threatening" people with our military. Not sure this is the best example but Google, Facebook and Apple seem to scare the Chinese, Egypt or whoever is "afraid" of the USA more than our aircraft carriers.

In the end, China, USA and the rest of the world have more in common and we all should want peace and global economy to work since if one of us goes down, there is a good chance we all go down.

I tried to keep it as short as possible and tried to steer more towards defense issues as I could, I apologize if I strayed a bit off topic.

 

[Spetsznaz]

I think this is an very interesting and important subject, hopefully we all can keep it civil and not too political and keep the thread going.

The way I understand the theme here is what is the US going to do and what's it's position around the world going to be in the future? Obviously, the politics and the economics have a huge role to play here not just military arguments. If you are a conspiracy theorist or very pessimistic about US economy, talking about the future military needs and role of the US military is kind of a waste of time. You probably are reading this from your personal bunker surrounded by canned food.

If you believe US still has an economic future, then we can proceed. We have the raise of China which seems to be the main point of concern. But China isn't the old Soviet Union. China does a ton of business with USA but also Japan,SK,Australia, Europe,etc...why would China really want to rock the boat? I have heard people say that China might threaten shipping lanes and Taiwan, why would China shot itself in the foot? They do business with Taiwan, it would be easier for China to buy Taiwan than to invade it. As for US Navy, it's role is to insure peace and commerce, not much China should be against.

Next,China depends on us just as much as we need them. As USA is close ally to many countries surrounding China they want to do business with us and our friends. I also have noticed from certain circles the old communist danger refrain, we lose 1 country and then they all fall like dominoes. Well, that might have worked with Soviet Union but how exactly does that work with China? They have a somewhat hybrid private economy with a communist party government. How is this exportable? If China becomes stronger or "wins" a war with USA, does Japan, SK or Australia become communist with huge private sector? Will Japan/SK/Europe stop doing business with one of it's biggest customers:USA?

One thing I remember from the Soviet days was we were so afraid of Soviets but we never looked at the world from Soviet point of view. In this case what about China, they are surrounded by Japan, which occupied them in WWII and big ally of USA now, SK=ally of USA, Australia,Thailand, Singapore are also very close to USA. India is starting to get closer with USA and Pakistan is kind of so-so. We also have a military position in Afghanistan. Let's not forget and be honest here, USA had no problem helping "freedom fighters" in the 80s to fight against Soviets in Afghanistan, now we call them Taliban and hunt them down but China has a decent size Muslim population and some separatists groups, you think the China isn't just a little concerned about that and that USA would just stand on the side lines and we can reassure them "we would never even think about helping separatists?" Oh, and China shouldn't "feel" surrounded? It's just a coincidence, nothing to it.

China is producing some hi tech gear and US military is rightly preoccupied. Does it necessarily mean we are going to war tomorrow? No, on the contrary, I think it is less likely as the economic cost will be too high for both sides but also because of military parity. Like I was telling someone once, what exactly in the West were we expecting, "the Chinese to fly bad copies of Mig19/21s for another 30 years when everyone else is flying F22s and Eurofighters?????" The fact that China is modernizing means we won't go to war and more likely that we will have some form of talks to insure peace and avoid disputes over resources.

Now, for USA, we are going to have to face the fact our economy isn't as strong as it once was and we just don't have the education system to help produce top notch military equipment. We are going to have to draw down in some areas but that doesn't necessarily mean US is done with. We will still have a huge role to play, we can guide nascent democracies in the Middle east and Africa. We are still seen by many countries and people around the world as the only country that can "step in" and help resolve conflicts, obviously it would be nice if Europe would help and come with ONE voice. I mean Britain,France still play important roles around the world, they punch "above their weight", even Germany,Italy and recent new comer Spain have some weight. It's just most Americans aren't there yet but I think many are coming around to the facts of life. But as I said, we will still have an important role to play and it might actually be healthier for USA and the world if we have a little bit less "muscle", a little bit more humility and use more soft power.

I think we might actually have more "power" that way than just "threatening" people with our military. Not sure this is the best example but Google, Facebook and Apple seem to scare the Chinese, Egypt or whoever is "afraid" of the USA more than our aircraft carriers.

In the end, China, USA and the rest of the world have more in common and we all should want peace and global economy to work since if one of us goes down, there is a good chance we all go down.

I tried to keep it as short as possible and tried to steer more towards defense issues as I could, I apologize if I strayed a bit off topic.

Totally agree man.

The Important thing to remember though, is that the US is not "losing" Muscle, (BTW I AM RUSSIAN) even though are economy is going through a rough patch, its been through rough patches before and I don't think the US is slowly deteriorating in comparison to China. It will not be a slow hegemonic decline. If history has should us anything is that a hegemonic power does not go away quietly, remember how Britain was insecure about its power and Germany during WW1?

It will be an economic battle as well as an arms race.

I dont think this can get serious as beatmaster claims it will.
Also, Everyone keeps talking about these mysterious resources? What are these resources that the US is threats over China?

The US has stuff in Japan, SK, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq. But its not like the US is stationing ICBMs in all over SK and Japan and bordering countries of China. As far as Asia is concerned I think that both China and US have equal influence there.

Again there is not a lot of talk on Russia's position in this little adventure of ours

Again Russia is a more superior power than China and Challenges the US on a higher level than China. So who side will Russia take?

(Btw I apologize if I am starting a WW3 scenario, that is not what I mean to do)

 

[NICO]

Totally agree man.

The Important thing to remember though, is that the US is not "losing" Muscle, (BTW I AM RUSSIAN) even though are economy is going through a rough patch, its been through rough patches before and I don't think the US is slowly deteriorating in comparison to China. It will not be a slow hegemonic decline. If history has should us anything is that a hegemonic power does not go away quietly, remember how Britain was insecure about its power and Germany during WW1?

It will be an economic battle as well as an arms race.

I dont think this can get serious as beatmaster claims it will.
Also, Everyone keeps talking about these mysterious resources? What are these resources that the US is threats over China?

The US has stuff in Japan, SK, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq. But its not like the US is stationing ICBMs in all over SK and Japan and bordering countries of China. As far as Asia is concerned I think that both China and US have equal influence there.

Again there is not a lot of talk on Russia's position in this little adventure of ours

Again Russia is a more superior power than China and Challenges the US on a higher level than China. So who side will Russia take?

(Btw I apologize if I am starting a WW3 scenario, that is not what I mean to do)

As you noticed, I was talking about US point of view. Russia obviously has a card to play in the region and around the world. I think they are trying to still figure things out on what exactly their role is in world affairs. I think it is a bit simplistic and somewhat reduces the role and power of Russia just to be seen as a counterweight to USA,IMO. Russia has power and rich history, I think Russia can do better than "we are against USA". It was OK when it was Soviet Union but it seems to me to be quite anachronistic.

Also if Europe gets it's act together, they should have a say. Newcomers like Brazil, India or Turkey can have a region influence. Maybe it is USA declining a bit which is normal (you can't always be on top) but different countries emerging and wanting influence in world affairs. I don't think it will necessarily lead to war, I hope.

 

[ngatimozart]

Damn that pretty hard for me to digest

You views on both nations is riddled with logical fallacy's

During the cold war the struggle was more ideological than political (communism vs. Capitalism) The struggle between the US and China is in terms of power. And believe me greed entered the equation along time ago.

Hope I am not being too political

I do not think my views are logical fallacies. I'm trying very hard to stay away from the political angle. I am arguing from a philosophical rationalist point of view. My world view is that ideology is a logical progression from politics and / or religion. A group of humans form a society from which springs a culture, which in turn begets politics and religion followed by ideology. Now in my world view ideology is political and that in this forum is forsworn.

However I do agree that greed entered the equation a long time ago. To quote Tom Clancy "War is robbery writ large". And if memory serves me, greed is one of the seven sins along with sloth, vanity envy and lust. I can't remember the rest, but being ex service I've probably committed most of them at least once. My views on the US and China presented here are strictly cultural and I think it is an aspect that is overlooked especially in the west. In the west culture seems to be what is the latest fashion or art or celebrity etc. In fact your culture is defined by the way you live your life, where you live and by those who live with and around you, by what you see, hear, taste and smell, by your history and your beliefs etc. But your community's culture defines you as well. That is what the west forgets when they look at other nations. We in the west measure and judge others by our own values and beliefs and that is our weakness. We think that everybody wants to be like us or should be like us when in fact that may not be the case. That adds to our weakness.

I said in an earlier post that I am or Irish extraction and Maori. Well the Maori were the first native people that the British Empire negotiated a treaty with (1840). We were also the first native people to inflict upon the British army a military defeat. But in the end the British eventually won because of sheer weight of numbers. Their weakness was they judged us Maori as primitive natives - savages, who would not withstand modern (19th Century) warfare. Well in the early 19th century we were still known to eat our enemies but we were, and still are, great warriors. The British bombarded our Pa's (forts) with artillery and then marched their infantry up onto what they thought would be blasted and demoralised natives. We fought them off killing a great many with muskets and our traditional weapons. When they bombarded we had retreated to bunkers within our Pa that protected us from shell and shot. After the barrage ceased we ran back to pre-prepared trenches. This had been the way of Maori Pa for many a long time. So the British infantry met fresh and seasoned warriors. After a while they learned of this strategy and used it themselves in future battles. This an illustration of imposing your own beliefs and values as assessment tools on the values of a foreign culture. It can be at your peril.

 

[rip]

I agree to most what you said, however China has not been that voilent and untrust worthy as most of us believe.
Accoording to several sources China dates back:
China's civilization originated 5,000 years the nation's roots can be traced back 8,000 to 10,000 years.
While the US dates back to July 4, 1776 so to be short China's trackrecord looks to me alot more favourable then the US track record given the fact that the US is a kinda newbie on the block in terms of history.
Granted China did have some seriously savage times where million where killed.
But this is not about who is Holy and who is evil, its about allowing the other to reach your goal the same way as the other did allow you to reach your goals.

As you said:
Why must we passively accept the idea that we, who are perfectly happy to live within our own borders and who are perfectly capable of successfully taking other peoples lands and resources but, has a long track record of not doing so, must accept parity with a rising power that does not have the same and equal track record of “not abusing” its military power in that way. We do not hate or fear China but neither do we trust it. We will not willingly put our fate or the fate of the world that we want to live in, subject to the power of a country that has nether earned ours or that of its neighbors trust?

Iam not anti us or anything so no disrecpect but in terms of trust i think that the US has equal trackrecord of abusing military/political power troughout the past.
And iam the last person to judge that, but this is not the point.
The western mandate and doctrine does not match wel with the eastern believes and views.
So it not a matter of trust but willingness to work as 2 superpowers working alongside, wich also means that the US will have to give-in the same way as China will have to make room for western ideas.
And regardless the trust issue if one of both fails to adapt to this dynamic world and new situation and powershifts this will result in a massive conflict.
The only difference between the previous situations like Russia vs the west is that China is alot more potent and fexible then russia ever was not to mention the fact that the world needs china alot more then they ever needed russia wich became russia's downfall eventually.
With the increasing weakening west due economic problems and political issues does set a dangerous stage for the world.
out of every 10 invested US dollars 5 dollar is a loan so the US and the west ain that powerfull as they use to be, and this is where china has the better cards wich we cannot deny them.
So instead of heading towards a major conflict it would be wise for both to adapt and learn from eachother see my point?

I am truly blown away at the depth and carful thought that has been put into the responds of this thread by all of the responders. They are far more insightful and with more deliberately logically constructed arguments than is typically seen in this medium. I am proud to participate with you as best as I can.

If you will indulge me, I would like to clear up a few things about my country the USA, as many of you might want to do the same, as I am sure some of the other participants think there are common miss-understandings of their countries as well. China for one among others that thinks it is being misunderstood. The international media dose not treat any one fairly even the USA though many disagree with that comment.

First, let take on the often mentioned subject of my countries age. Of the great powers of the world it is one of the youngest and let it is strangely at the same time the oldest. How can that be? The US has worked under its constructional form of government since 1788 without any major revisions. This makes it the oldest continual governmental entity of any importance in the world except for the Vatican and they don’t have babies. There are countries and peoples that are far older but in the area of governance they are not continuous in form.

Yes, we are even older than the United Kingdom’s Government for it changed radically when it abolished its rotten ward system of electing parliament members. Or you can take the French who are on their fifth republic while we are still on our first. My country was born into a world dominated by tyrants, kings and empires and has been working from that day to this, to abolish them all. When it first came into being, nobody thought it had a chance to survive and they freely said so. For the first ninety years of our existence the British government, then the greatest power in the world, actively tried its best to retard our growth and weaken us in any way that it could. If to some we now appear to be arrogant, it is because we have continually surpassed other people’s expectations as we plan to do again.

So you can see why we do not buy into the currently popular idea that we are now a waning power. That perception dose not hold the sting that many would think it does or should. If we stop trying to improve ourselves than it will come true I am sure but not until then. Our fate is in our own hands and not in anyone else’s.

There is nothing special about us Americans as human beings as we are just people, there is nothing different in the air that we breathe nor do we believe that we are “God’s chosen people” which gives us providence over any other people. To be an American is about ideals and the ideas behind them. We have not always lived up to those ideals I must admit, for they are very hard ideals to live up to, requiring a standard of public and privet conduct that sometimes goes against the easiest paths of human nature. But whatever greatness we have achieved as a people has been when we have reached for those ideals and our greatest shame has been when we haven’t.

I hope this help you understand us better.

As for the rest, and yes, the world is unstable and going through great changes. But that is normal. The comparative stability of the last forty years has been the exception in human history not the norm. What is new is the reasons for these changes, there amount, and the geographical dispersion of that change.

Surprisingly the major reason for all of this firmament is the increased prosperity in the world. At this point in history, as a percentages of worl's total human population, (not just in absolute numbers), people are heather, wealthier, and freer that any time in human history. I am not saying it is enough and we cannot do more but the statement by any measure is true. How could change not come from such a dramatic difference in the human condition?

We are in the process of managing the transition of the human race to a new state where, fear, misery, short life, and poverty are no longer the norm. The greatest change in human history! Why would you think it would be easy?

Now to address some of the questions posted by others in no peculiar order.

To BESTMASTER

As to you comment, “The biggest mistake the US could ever make is to deny the progress of other nations in fear of losing their "comfortzone" As the world allowed the US to be what it is today, so in all fairness the US will become a relic and a shadow to its own technological achievements when it dares to deny other nations to catch up which will happen eventually.”

How true, if we try to keep other people down, not only would we eventually fail, we would make things much worse for ourselves. But where you are wrong is that our actions are motived by having a comfortzone. A comfortzone is a bubble of unreality that leads to failure. What we have is a strategy. Our strategy is simple, as long as we live in a world dominated by poverty, hate, intolerance, and blind ambition, ether within nations or between nations, nobody will ever be completely safe no matter high they build their walls or how large is their army.

The only solution is to eliminate those things that make people desperate so that you don’t have to all ways be looking over you back for who’s coming up behind you. It is a long game and we have been playing it for a long time. Not alone I admit we have found partners that see the same way as us, that in the long run such a world will make them safer than any temporary military supremacy that they may gain. So you can see why I am not over impressed by the common excitement about temporary military, economic or political conditions and I do not get over excited with the endless lists of matchups of capacities that other use as a substitute for analyses of world conditions.

As to your last three questions.

First, “So what does give the US the right to judge other nations?”

Answer, the same right that they have to judge us, no more and no less. If our judgments have more moral authority than others, it is their problem to solve.
Second, “What does give the US the right to restrict others from achieving what the US already has achieved?”


Answer, none at all. But are you judging our actions properly? This question usually come up at a point where one country has obtained a degree of success under the current system and then it thinks, (often incorrectly) that they can change the rules to make it easier for them in the future. They are not trying to make the system fairer (which we would welcome) as they usually clam but only to give them additional advantages. As if that action would not force others to not follow the rules themselves, both destroying the temporary advantage that was gained but also breaking the system that was purposely designed to allow the advancement of new interacts into it.

Third, “And what will happen to the US if they remain blind and stubborn to today's changes”

Answer, while we would fail of course. But the question is who is the blind and who is not. Your presumption is that the system is rigged to suppress the up and comers of the world while in fact it is rigged but for just the opposite effect, it was rigged to encourage economic and political advancement of the underdeveloped peoples of the world. A system set up to be a part of our overall strategy.

As to the statement, “I agree to most what you said, however China has not been that violent and untrustworthy as most of us believe.
According to several sources China dates back:
China's civilization originated 5,000 years the nation's roots can be traced back 8,000 to 10,000 years.
While the US dates back to July 4, 1776 so to be short China's track record looks to me allot more favorable then the US track record given the fact that the US is a kind of newbie on the block in terms of history.”

The answer, though some people in my country believe that China is Violent and untrustworthy I am not one of them. My country is more violent by its nature than China and probably always will be. Personally I am at peace with that and though we are completely civilized we are not by nature passive or deferring. But trust is a quality that is always earned not assumed. And we all make mistakes so one or two bad incidents do not brand a country one way or another. My position is one of wait and see, not one of quick judgment on that issue. In time China’s true nature and its intentions will be proven by its actions not by any outsider’s judgments.


If you can show me a specific incident where the policy of the US was to keep the health, and welfare of a country that was not trying to kill us at the time, please demonstrate it for all of us on this thread to examine. Please pick one where there is enough factual information available for us to analyze all of its different parts. I do not want to create an argument, I only want to see what you feel are the means that the US are using to hold your or any other country back in your opinion. Really I would like to understand your thinking because it is very different than mine.


I hope this clarifies things for you.

I will try to address some of the other good questions later. Thankyou