The Chinese agenda

Yes, China appears to be seeking undisputable regional domination (and it seems they are moving into other parts of the world and our own backyard in places like Venezuela). Taiwan is very important strategic location for such regional domination for Asia which is why China's neighbors and other Asian countries in the region do not want China to have Taiwan. We (we as in the United States) should not allow China to take Taiwan either through economic capture or military force. Here is an article concerning current economic policies between China and the United States:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-cant-word-china-210114302.html

We need to make moves to counter China's economic policies and what appears to be, in my view, a deliberate strategy of economic entanglement by China of both the US and Taiwan.

I will also quote the last part of the article:

Quite frankly speaking, I haven't seen any open debate in Congress or the White House which talks honestly about the threat and challenge posed by China. This challenge and threat that is posed by China needs to be address in my view. In addition to properly countering the unfair economic policies/strategy of China, we need to take measures to both raises taxes and cut spending to reduce our national debt, which will help make us stronger and better able to deal with China (and will leave a better future for our children). The current debt "deal" simply just kicks the can down the road and does nothing to address the real problems and issues we are facing when it comes to our National debt.

 

So therefore they should be entitled to make use of all the services our government renders, but not required to contribute to them, in your opinion? I'm as sympathetic to the underprivileged as anyone, but there should be no free rides. I don't care if its a 1% income tax on those making less than $40,000 -- they need to pay something. You can't have half a country paying nothing in taxes; its ridiculous.

This is how: http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html

Warren Buffet has said that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, for heaven's sake.

 

I am not saying anything on this, just giving information.

However, how much money are you going to get from the lowest levels? Take 5% of the pay from a minimum wage worker, and you still end up with almost nothing.

Take 5% of somebody who lives on welfare, and you get nothing.

There is a huge difference between tax rate and the tax paid.

People go on about how the rich "do not pay their fair share", tey they pay the percentage of the taxes in this country.

Look at the first sentence of your reference:

The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show.

Ohhh, how dare they. They pay around 17% of their income in taxes. How many of you can say the same? $105 billion combined among 400 people, and they pay $18 billion in taxes.

Now let's take your income. For every $100 you make, let's take away $17 for taxes.

So who cares that Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of his pay then his secretary. His secretary makes in a year what he probably makes in a day. And he pays thousands of times the amount of money in taxes then she does.

Of course, if he has a problem with this, then all he has to do is stop taking all of those deductions. If there is one thing that ticks me off, is to hear multi-billionaires whine about coprolite like this. If he thinks it is wrong, and that he should pay a higher percentage then his secretary, then why does he do all he can to pay as little as possible?

 

Imagine if they payed 35% of their income like the rest of us top wage earners! Or, indeed, if they payed something like a 60% tax rate, which would be much more equitable! Just think of all the debts we could pay off!

I care. I care very much, in fact. Our tax system works off the backs of the middle class. You have half the country who don't pay anything and then you have the billionaires who pay almost nothing. Therefore, its left to those of us who are decidedly in the middle to slough the majority of the tax burden when it comes to percent taxed. If the conservatives -- for all their lip service about $250,000 and above not being rich and bemoaning increasing the tax burden on small business owners (which are two things I happen to agree with them on) -- would raise the tax rates on the uber-wealthy, then some of that impact on the small business owners and such would be negated. This system is not financially sound and it is in no way, shape, or form equitable or progressive.


And, as for the poor, if the 150 million Americans who escaped the federal income tax all payed just $100, the federal government would raise 15 billion dollars from them in total -- almost the equivalent of how much your beloved robber barons contribute.

 

Most US military and some US political leaders have studied Sun Tzu's Art of War. However, few really understand the true depth and essence of Chinese strategic and tactical thinking. I think for US military and political leaders to better understand the depth and thinking of Chinese strategic, tactical thought, as well as Chinese diplomacy is by studying, learning and getting good at the Asian strategy game of Go. This will help US military and political leaders to better understand Sun Tzu's principles, Chinese strategic, tactical thinking as well as Chinese diplomacy.

It may seem amusing or a foolish suggestion to some that I would suggest the game of Go, but for the beginners all they see is just a board game, but the more experienced players come to terms with the fact that the game of Go is much more than just simply a strategy board game. The game is a living reflection of Chinese philosophy, culture, strategic thinking, warfare, military tactics, and diplomatic bargaining. A little knowledge of Go will take U.S. leaders a long way in understanding the essence of the Chinese way of war and diplomacy. Studying Taoism would also give a much deeper understanding of Chinese strategic and tactical thinking (Sun Tzu was a Taoist). One of the interesting aspects to the game of Go, is that the best computers and machines in the world can't beat mediocre human Go players, where, on the other hand, the best human Chess players in the world are beaten by computers and machines.

 

Know your enemy.

BTW--Go is a great game. It's unfortunately a little time consuming, by American standards, but it's fun.

 

Well sensei, I agree with you for once. Americans and Chinese are very similar. I think there is a basic friendliness, and also nationalism is very big too. Despite Confucianism, which marks the two people's out as very different, there is overwhelming skepticism towards governments. Both countries think they are the centre of the world and both are inclined to hypocrisy ( look now how China criticizes the US for fiscal policy after years of telling people that it's own currency exchange policy was a Chinese internal affair. There are even historical similarities in that both countries threw off imperialism and feudalism with a revolution. Although it might seem that a deferential populace might look more to European business and political models, Chinese managers are hungry for American methods. Our noble sensei is right. There are many interesting similarities.

 

I wouldn't say its because Chess is easier, they are just very different games. Personally I like Go, Chess and Risk. But I agree, more people should try Go.

I generally only play any of the above games against people.

 

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/08/10/general-as-china-aircraft-carrier_8616901.html

Is the US not aware of the use of aircraft carriers? They have 11 of them. What are they worried about? That China might be able to defend itself in a war which the US refuse to enter, again?

 

Do you think the Chinese intend to use their aircraft carrier battle group for defensive purposes? If so, why?

 

Yes. Why not?

 

Imo, aircraft carriers are not useful against peer powers. They are too vulnerable to being overwhelmed by firepower. By 2020 China will be a peer power to America in the Western Pacific.

The Chinese aircraft carrier has no defensive role to play in a Sino-American conflict. How is that the case? Because the conflict would occur in the Western Pacific. Any conflict in the Western Pacific will find Chinese aircraft and missiles swarming the Americans from the Chinese mainland. The Chinese don't need an aircraft carrier to fight the US Navy in the Western Pacific.

If China wants to deter America it will build SSNs and SSBNs, not aircraft carrier battle groups. They put the American homeland at risk.

The Chinese aircraft carrier is the first of a series of aircraft carrier battle groups the Chinese will build in order to dominate the South China Sea. The littoral states of SE Asia are not peer powers for China. Chinese aircraft carriers would sweep their SE Asian foes from the seas.

Ultimately, if the Chinese are more daring than wise they will deploy aircraft carriers to the Andaman Sea and the Indian Ocean in order to defend their "String of Pearls." This will bring them into conflict with India.

 

Aircraft carriers ARE NOT that vulnerable. They're protected by their aircraft and escort cruisers,frigates, and submariens which form defensive envelopes that reach out hundreds of miles. All these escorts are all interlinked to provide a very very potent anti-submarine, anti-aircraft, anti-ship, and anti-missile shield. The aircraft carrier itself is also heavily armored, very manueverable, and difficult to find. There's probably no more dangerous place in the world for an airplane to be than over a U.S. carrier group. A no more difficult place to attack.

There's no way on earth China will be able to match U.S. naval power by 2020. They have yet to field a single aircraft carrier and have zero experience in carrier operations. They also have a tiny navy that is no where near the same level as the U.S. They aren't even considered a blue water Navy by defense experts. China would have to quadruple its number of ships while closing a 20 year technological gap with the U.S. in 9 short years. In other words its impossible. What your envisioning would take 20 minimum and even then is extremely unlikely to happen. China isn't building carriers to challenge the U.S. They're building carriers (or attempting to) in order to project their power and have more global influence. Of course they also want to be able to bully other countries in the South China Sea and snatch up whatever resources they can, but they more than anyone realize just how far away they are from being able to challenge the USN.

 

Ah. So aircraft carriers are only useful for imperialistic ends if I understand you correctly. Then you are not in a position to lecture the Chinese since you have 11 of them.

 

I'm not lecturing the Chinese. I'm giving you information because I think you misunderstand the use of aircraft carriers.

 

Cutting to the chase, you apparently agree with the real point I was making for the benefit of the smoking lady.

 

"You" as in "the United States" (see my first post). No offence but I don't think the Chinese really care what Albert Di Salvo has to say about them.

 

Some Chinese are very interested in what Albert Di Salvo has to say about them because he is their Old Friend. Lao Peng.

 

No, Aircraft Carriers serve multiple roles.

For one, they are perfect convoy protectors. This is why in WWII the US built "Escort Carriers". And in the modern era, this has not ended. Aircraft are still one of the ultimate tools of anti-submarine warfare.

They also are huge detection and elimination forces. A modern US Carrier Task Force has a huge bubble of detection and neutralization, covering hundreds of square miles. By placing that mubble around an area to be defended (a port or island) it can provide a huge degree of defense.

And it is also a mobile air base. It can travel hundreds of miles in order to support many different missions, from disaster relief, evacuations, and military support.

Aircraft Carriers are not actually very effective if used for "imperialistic ends", since they lack the most important tool in that case: ground assault troops. Air Power is only good for eliminating air and sea threats, and of limited use against ground targets. They can't occupy anything, and can't controll anything other then the sea and air. You would need ground forces to effectively be an imperialistic threat.

If you look at the 3 largest uses of modern aircraft carriers (Gulf War I, Afghanistan, Gulf War II), they were supporting players only.

 

I don't understand your point. China clearly wants to play a role as a superpower to support their ability to consume global resources, support extensive soft power and enhance it's prestige. That is the reason for aircraft carriers. In the UK and France the discussion is about whether they want to incur the expense to operate military operations remote from ground bases.

This will happen. Some want to engage in anti China activity right now to pre-empt this emergence of China as a power. That is like trying to stop the tide coming in. And it is self damaging. The West needs to start employing considerable soft power initiatives to start winning a global debate in emerging nations for democracy. This would ensure that an emerging China would be a good thing. You won't here any Chinese saying that on here as to do so to a bunch of laowai would be unpatriotic. All you will get on here are the quisling clones who project an ugly and intolerant nationalism. But you can tell from the shrill anti democratic tones of the Chinese government you can tell that there is a pressure building up for reform and liberty that they are trying to deflect. What will happen is impossible to say, except that China will rise and as with all major powers it will seek military power to support it's economic requirements. Remember, China is a quarter if the world. It has no choice if it wishes to develop other than to engage with the world. The nature of the regime that will drive that confrontation remains to be seen. This will result from how domestic Chinese politics develops, where clearly an economic need for political liberalization will be countered by the entrenched self interest of a corrupt incredibly wealthy communist elite. Western democracies right now are so dysfunctional that their activities give strong support to the agenda of the corrupt elite, who currently use nationalism, xenophobia and brutal repression of dissent to shore up their position, pointing out the hypocrisy and ineffectiveness if liberal democracy to the Chinese population.

 

I think that as far as Americans are concerned the problem with China in terms of foreign policy and their use of military power is the fear that the Chinese might become too much like we are.

 

At the risk of redundancy, the Chinese aren't like the peoples who reside in America. The Chinese don't hate each other.

 

No, it is the fear that China might use this power to annex other nations into itself. Specifically Taiwan, but possibly others from Vietnam and India to Malaysia and Mongolia.

China still claims many nations in the region, due to ancient ownership under Imperial China. It has annexed other nations in the past, and may very well do so again.

No matter what people may think of US Foreign Policy, it does not go around annexing other nations into the United States, or try to say that they are rightfully part of our nation.

 

I understand that. And you're right.

 

We've gone beyond that. We just plant military bases on their territory (we have about 700 around the world right now), buy or intimidate or assassinate their politicians, or let our corporations have their way with them. Colonialism after the pattern of the British Empire is so 19th Century. I think China realises this. After all they've had first hand experience on the receiving end.