Is the world at the beginning of a post-Western Order?

[Disir]

The intrusion of aircraft-carrier battle groups—one from the United States, asserting its “freedom of navigation doctrine,” and the other from China, backing up its ownership claims—has raised the alarm level in the South China Sea dispute.

The US strike group apparently intends to launch regular patrols of the strategic waterway, in the wake of the show of force by the Chinese navy.

This month, the Americans, along with their South Korean allies, will also stage an elaborate military exercise in the East China Sea that will engage stealth jet fighters and long-distance bombers, plus one nuclear submarine.

Blunt gambit
Similarly, the rhetoric of the dispute is hitting a higher pitch. President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State says bluntly that “Chinese access to the islands is not going to be allowed.”

We have yet to see how things develop between the superpowers after that gambit; but we may be sure Hugh White, a strategist at the Australian National University (Canberra), speaks for many East Asians when he says, “Australia cannot risk supporting America at the expense of its relationship with China.”

China is Australia’s biggest market by far— taking more than 30% of all its exports. Most of the region’s states are similarly situated. But the question is larger than one of shifting markets.

At bottom, it seems a question of whether or not the world has reached “the limits of American stamina” (in the words of the English historian Niall Ferguson), and arrived at the beginning of a post-western order, in which China might have a leadership role.

A new world order?
Is the world at the beginning of a post-Western Order? - The Manila Times Online

I think that is going to be huge problem in the future. The quicker the US gets that the less problems there will be. Diplomacy all the way.

 

[yiostheoy]

Disir my dear friend, China only has ONE aircraft carrier.

The USA has over a dozen.

And besides, to Russian attack submarines these dinosaur warships are only slow moving targets.

 

[Disir]

Disir my dear friend, China only has ONE aircraft carrier.

The USA has over a dozen.

And besides, to Russian attack submarines these dinosaur warships are only slow moving targets.

I was thinking more along the lines of forcing countries to work against China or to choose between the US and China.

 

[gtopa1]

Disir my dear friend, China only has ONE aircraft carrier.

The USA has over a dozen.

And besides, to Russian attack submarines these dinosaur warships are only slow moving targets.

I was thinking more along the lines of forcing countries to work against China or to choose between the US and China.

No need to chose; at least not soon. They've been talking about a "Post Western Order" since about the 1930s. "The West" is still the standard bearer of wealth; that's not going to change. The others are merely playing catch-up and frankly I hope they do AS LONG AS WE DON"T GO BACKWARDS.

Greg

 

[Andylusion]

The intrusion of aircraft-carrier battle groups—one from the United States, asserting its “freedom of navigation doctrine,” and the other from China, backing up its ownership claims—has raised the alarm level in the South China Sea dispute.

The US strike group apparently intends to launch regular patrols of the strategic waterway, in the wake of the show of force by the Chinese navy.

This month, the Americans, along with their South Korean allies, will also stage an elaborate military exercise in the East China Sea that will engage stealth jet fighters and long-distance bombers, plus one nuclear submarine.

Blunt gambit
Similarly, the rhetoric of the dispute is hitting a higher pitch. President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State says bluntly that “Chinese access to the islands is not going to be allowed.”

We have yet to see how things develop between the superpowers after that gambit; but we may be sure Hugh White, a strategist at the Australian National University (Canberra), speaks for many East Asians when he says, “Australia cannot risk supporting America at the expense of its relationship with China.”

China is Australia’s biggest market by far— taking more than 30% of all its exports. Most of the region’s states are similarly situated. But the question is larger than one of shifting markets.

At bottom, it seems a question of whether or not the world has reached “the limits of American stamina” (in the words of the English historian Niall Ferguson), and arrived at the beginning of a post-western order, in which China might have a leadership role.

A new world order?
Is the world at the beginning of a post-Western Order? - The Manila Times Online

I think that is going to be huge problem in the future. The quicker the US gets that the less problems there will be. Diplomacy all the way.

Yes.... but you seem to think this is good.

We already gave back Hong Kong to China, and random businessmen in Hong Kong have ended up abducted and killed in China. China has constantly thwarted the democracy of the people in Hong Kong many times, and shown no problems with denying their freedoms they had under Brit rule.

If we don't do anything, China will have no problem invading Taiwan. You seem to think that's good. I can't see how you would think that. Tons of people will die, and the Chinese military will abuse the crap out of them, and you know it, or you should know it. The military had no problem slaughtering students, a bunch of Taiwanese people will be even less of problem.

And then you are going to have an aggressive China, against a growing aggressive Japan. And the only thing standing between them is the US military.

Yet you want us to pull back. What do you think the consequences of that are going to be?

 

[mamooth]

If we don't do anything, China will have no problem invading Taiwan.

China wants Taiwan intact, not as a smoking ruin. They're not stupid. As long as there's hope of that, they won't consider invading.

Yet you want us to pull back. What do you think the consequences of that are going to be?

Not starting WW3 just just because someone wants to act tough? Sounds like a very good idea to me.

 

[Disir]

Disir my dear friend, China only has ONE aircraft carrier.

The USA has over a dozen.

And besides, to Russian attack submarines these dinosaur warships are only slow moving targets.

I was thinking more along the lines of forcing countries to work against China or to choose between the US and China.

No need to chose; at least not soon. They've been talking about a "Post Western Order" since about the 1930s. "The West" is still the standard bearer of wealth; that's not going to change. The others are merely playing catch-up and frankly I hope they do AS LONG AS WE DON"T GO BACKWARDS.

Greg

Indonesia and the Phillipines consider it a problem because they are consistently caught between the US and China's larger designs..........like right now.

 

[Andylusion]

If we don't do anything, China will have no problem invading Taiwan.

China wants Taiwan intact, not as a smoking ruin. They're not stupid. As long as there's hope of that, they won't consider invading.

Yet you want us to pull back. What do you think the consequences of that are going to be?

Not starting WW3 just just because someone wants to act tough? Sounds like a very good idea to me.

Somehow, I doubt that. While China may not want Taiwan a smoking ruin, I am not nearly as convinced they will not invade.

Equally, I am suggesting that pulling back will bring about the WW3 you are worried about.

Again, this is the bully on the playground. Pulling back from a bully, and in effect doing what he wants, is the surest way to cause him to be an even bigger monster on the playground.

The way you keep him in line is you stand up to him, and threaten him.

We and the Europeans pulled back from Hitler, and that turned out great didn't it? But at least no one acted tough? That is directly what caused WW2.

Some years back now, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela started messing around with it's military, and threatening some countries around them until they threatened Columbia. We landed a bunch of marines for "training exercises" and 'acted tough'. The result was, Hugo Chavez pulled back its military and we haven't heard anything about him playing around since then.

So yeah, I think 'acting tough' is the best way to go.

 

[mamooth]

So yeah, I think 'acting tough' is the best way to go.

And what if other countries think they need act tough and stop "appeasing" the USA?

Blind nationalism isn't just a US problem.

 

[Andylusion]

So yeah, I think 'acting tough' is the best way to go.

And what if other countries think they need act tough and stop "appeasing" the USA?

Blind nationalism isn't just a US problem.

That's not a logical question.

When did we ever attempt to invade Taiwan? We're not trying to take over another country. China is. Huge difference. There is nothing for them to appease. If we were trying to take over Mexico, or make Canada the 51st state.... ok then we can talk about how others are tying to appease us, by giving us those countries to take over.

We're not doing that. There is nothing to appease.

 

[mamooth]

When did we ever attempt to invade Taiwan? We're not trying to take over another country.

Iraq, anyone?

That's just recent history. We've taken over many more countries than China has.

 

[Disir]

Yes.... but you seem to think this is good.

We already gave back Hong Kong to China, and random businessmen in Hong Kong have ended up abducted and killed in China. China has constantly thwarted the democracy of the people in Hong Kong many times, and shown no problems with denying their freedoms they had under Brit rule.

Are you British? Either you gave it back or you didn't. What is democracy to you and what freedoms are they currently denied----specifically?

If we don't do anything, China will have no problem invading Taiwan. You seem to think that's good. I can't see how you would think that. Tons of people will die, and the Chinese military will abuse the crap out of them, and you know it, or you should know it. The military had no problem slaughtering students, a bunch of Taiwanese people will be even less of problem.

That is interesting. No other countries support an independent Taiwan. Can you explain why that is?

And then you are going to have an aggressive China, against a growing aggressive Japan. And the only thing standing between them is the US military.

China is heavily involved in other countries via trade. Neither of the examples provided by you indicate a unilateral move is warranted or can serve as a pretext for war.

I remind you that sanctions work both ways and a unilateral move is unwise.

 

[Andylusion]

When did we ever attempt to invade Taiwan? We're not trying to take over another country.

Iraq, anyone?

That's just recent history. We've taken over many more countries than China has.

What are you talking about? Where? Is Japan a state of the US? Is Taiwan? Is South Korea?

Is Iraq ruled by the US, or do they have their own government? Have we taken anything we haven't paid for?

Have we taken over Libya even though we basically bank rolled the revolution for them?

Where have a done this?

The closest you can come to is Puerto Rico, which unlike any other 'conquered' countries, we've given them numerous chances to either vote themselves an independent country, or a free association state, or as a full US state. Now exactly the direct take over that China has over Hong Kong, or that Russia has over Crimea.

So where is this 'we've taken over other countries' at?

You realize that at the end of WW2, we could have owned most of Europe? Especially Germany. We could have simply had our own US State in Europe. Several of them in fact. We didn't. We could have owned Vietnam. We didn't. We could have owned South Korea. We didn't.

We could own Panama and Colombia too, and most of South America. We haven't.

Where is the example of us taking over the world at?

 

[Andylusion]

Yes.... but you seem to think this is good.

We already gave back Hong Kong to China, and random businessmen in Hong Kong have ended up abducted and killed in China. China has constantly thwarted the democracy of the people in Hong Kong many times, and shown no problems with denying their freedoms they had under Brit rule.

Are you British? Either you gave it back or you didn't. What is democracy to you and what freedoms are they currently denied----specifically?

If we don't do anything, China will have no problem invading Taiwan. You seem to think that's good. I can't see how you would think that. Tons of people will die, and the Chinese military will abuse the crap out of them, and you know it, or you should know it. The military had no problem slaughtering students, a bunch of Taiwanese people will be even less of problem.

That is interesting. No other countries support an independent Taiwan. Can you explain why that is?

And then you are going to have an aggressive China, against a growing aggressive Japan. And the only thing standing between them is the US military.

China is heavily involved in other countries via trade. Neither of the examples provided by you indicate a unilateral move is warranted or can serve as a pretext for war.

I remind you that sanctions work both ways and a unilateral move is unwise.

Do not think that China being involved in trade, will prevent China from going to war if we leave the area.

Before World War 1, there were many ivory tower scholars in the US, and in Europe, who all said that it is impossible for nations to go to war, because they were far too tied together economically, and even more ironic, was that they pointed specifically to Germany as the poster child for too economically tied with surrounding nations trade, to ever go to war.

They were wrong.

As to what China has done in Hong Kong, there are numerous examples where business people in HK have been abducted and given trumped up false charges, and at the same time, China routinely over rules the votes of the people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/opinion/china-bullies-hong-kong.html

This elected official was physically removed from the legislature. This guy, and one other, were both prevented from taking their elected positions, because they had a banner which said "Taiwan is not China".

Additionally, Taiwan passed an election reform, which said that the public could vote directly for who they wanted to be the chief executive of the state. (like Governor). China simply refused and eliminated the results. All chief executives of the state must be vetted by China, not the people.

The list of problems is pretty long between the two.

 

[Disir]

Yes.... but you seem to think this is good.

We already gave back Hong Kong to China, and random businessmen in Hong Kong have ended up abducted and killed in China. China has constantly thwarted the democracy of the people in Hong Kong many times, and shown no problems with denying their freedoms they had under Brit rule.

Are you British? Either you gave it back or you didn't. What is democracy to you and what freedoms are they currently denied----specifically?

If we don't do anything, China will have no problem invading Taiwan. You seem to think that's good. I can't see how you would think that. Tons of people will die, and the Chinese military will abuse the crap out of them, and you know it, or you should know it. The military had no problem slaughtering students, a bunch of Taiwanese people will be even less of problem.

That is interesting. No other countries support an independent Taiwan. Can you explain why that is?

And then you are going to have an aggressive China, against a growing aggressive Japan. And the only thing standing between them is the US military.

China is heavily involved in other countries via trade. Neither of the examples provided by you indicate a unilateral move is warranted or can serve as a pretext for war.

I remind you that sanctions work both ways and a unilateral move is unwise.

Do not think that China being involved in trade, will prevent China from going to war if we leave the area.

Before World War 1, there were many ivory tower scholars in the US, and in Europe, who all said that it is impossible for nations to go to war, because they were far too tied together economically, and even more ironic, was that they pointed specifically to Germany as the poster child for too economically tied with surrounding nations trade, to ever go to war.

They were wrong.

As to what China has done in Hong Kong, there are numerous examples where business people in HK have been abducted and given trumped up false charges, and at the same time, China routinely over rules the votes of the people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/opinion/china-bullies-hong-kong.html

This elected official was physically removed from the legislature. This guy, and one other, were both prevented from taking their elected positions, because they had a banner which said "Taiwan is not China".

Additionally, Taiwan passed an election reform, which said that the public could vote directly for who they wanted to be the chief executive of the state. (like Governor). China simply refused and eliminated the results. All chief executives of the state must be vetted by China, not the people.

The list of problems is pretty long between the two.

Again. Can you explain why no other country supports an independent Taiwan?

It's called the one China policy.

Either you gave Hong Kong back or you didn't. Which is it?

It isn't a question of if they can't go to war. If you go back to the article, Australia has much more to lose than gain indicating they would not support it.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Yes.... but you seem to think this is good.

We already gave back Hong Kong to China, and random businessmen in Hong Kong have ended up abducted and killed in China. China has constantly thwarted the democracy of the people in Hong Kong many times, and shown no problems with denying their freedoms they had under Brit rule.

Are you British? Either you gave it back or you didn't. What is democracy to you and what freedoms are they currently denied----specifically?

If we don't do anything, China will have no problem invading Taiwan. You seem to think that's good. I can't see how you would think that. Tons of people will die, and the Chinese military will abuse the crap out of them, and you know it, or you should know it. The military had no problem slaughtering students, a bunch of Taiwanese people will be even less of problem.

That is interesting. No other countries support an independent Taiwan. Can you explain why that is?

And then you are going to have an aggressive China, against a growing aggressive Japan. And the only thing standing between them is the US military.

China is heavily involved in other countries via trade. Neither of the examples provided by you indicate a unilateral move is warranted or can serve as a pretext for war.

I remind you that sanctions work both ways and a unilateral move is unwise.

Do not think that China being involved in trade, will prevent China from going to war if we leave the area.

Before World War 1, there were many ivory tower scholars in the US, and in Europe, who all said that it is impossible for nations to go to war, because they were far too tied together economically, and even more ironic, was that they pointed specifically to Germany as the poster child for too economically tied with surrounding nations trade, to ever go to war.

They were wrong.

As to what China has done in Hong Kong, there are numerous examples where business people in HK have been abducted and given trumped up false charges, and at the same time, China routinely over rules the votes of the people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/opinion/china-bullies-hong-kong.html

This elected official was physically removed from the legislature. This guy, and one other, were both prevented from taking their elected positions, because they had a banner which said "Taiwan is not China".

Additionally, Taiwan passed an election reform, which said that the public could vote directly for who they wanted to be the chief executive of the state. (like Governor). China simply refused and eliminated the results. All chief executives of the state must be vetted by China, not the people.

The list of problems is pretty long between the two.

Again. Can you explain why no other country supports an independent Taiwan?

It's called the one China policy.

Either you gave Hong Kong back or you didn't. Which is it?

Tiawan supports an independent Tiawan.

China has been bullying smaller countries in the South China Sea for years now. Vietnam for one.

 

[Disir]

Yes.... but you seem to think this is good.

We already gave back Hong Kong to China, and random businessmen in Hong Kong have ended up abducted and killed in China. China has constantly thwarted the democracy of the people in Hong Kong many times, and shown no problems with denying their freedoms they had under Brit rule.

Are you British? Either you gave it back or you didn't. What is democracy to you and what freedoms are they currently denied----specifically?

If we don't do anything, China will have no problem invading Taiwan. You seem to think that's good. I can't see how you would think that. Tons of people will die, and the Chinese military will abuse the crap out of them, and you know it, or you should know it. The military had no problem slaughtering students, a bunch of Taiwanese people will be even less of problem.

That is interesting. No other countries support an independent Taiwan. Can you explain why that is?

And then you are going to have an aggressive China, against a growing aggressive Japan. And the only thing standing between them is the US military.

China is heavily involved in other countries via trade. Neither of the examples provided by you indicate a unilateral move is warranted or can serve as a pretext for war.

I remind you that sanctions work both ways and a unilateral move is unwise.

Do not think that China being involved in trade, will prevent China from going to war if we leave the area.

Before World War 1, there were many ivory tower scholars in the US, and in Europe, who all said that it is impossible for nations to go to war, because they were far too tied together economically, and even more ironic, was that they pointed specifically to Germany as the poster child for too economically tied with surrounding nations trade, to ever go to war.

They were wrong.

As to what China has done in Hong Kong, there are numerous examples where business people in HK have been abducted and given trumped up false charges, and at the same time, China routinely over rules the votes of the people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/opinion/china-bullies-hong-kong.html

This elected official was physically removed from the legislature. This guy, and one other, were both prevented from taking their elected positions, because they had a banner which said "Taiwan is not China".

Additionally, Taiwan passed an election reform, which said that the public could vote directly for who they wanted to be the chief executive of the state. (like Governor). China simply refused and eliminated the results. All chief executives of the state must be vetted by China, not the people.

The list of problems is pretty long between the two.

Again. Can you explain why no other country supports an independent Taiwan?

It's called the one China policy.

Either you gave Hong Kong back or you didn't. Which is it?

Tiawan supports an independent Tiawan.

China has been bullying smaller countries in the South China Sea for years now. Vietnam for one.

AND they have consistently backed the wrong side in proxy wars, yeah?

 

[Disir]

against a growing aggressive Japan

Japan takes historic step from post-war pacifism, OKs fighting for allies

Article 9. The changes to the Japans constitution were rammed in which pissed off about half of the Japanese people. The US supported that. Any "growing aggression" you see here is at odds with US current policy.

 

[Marion Morrison]

against a growing aggressive Japan

Japan takes historic step from post-war pacifism, OKs fighting for allies

Article 9. The changes to the Japans constitution were rammed in which pissed off about half of the Japanese people. The US supported that. Any "growing aggression" you see here is at odds with US current policy.

I suppose this is at odds with US policy, Warning: graphic.

 

[Disir]

against a growing aggressive Japan

Japan takes historic step from post-war pacifism, OKs fighting for allies

Article 9. The changes to the Japans constitution were rammed in which pissed off about half of the Japanese people. The US supported that. Any "growing aggression" you see here is at odds with US current policy.

I suppose this is at odds with US policy, Warning: graphic.

Ah..............the 80s........ what does that have to do with the growing aggression of Japan?