A small victory for China for now....

[chauism]

<In other words, show the good quality of Chinese culture of being humble and merciful.>

Being humble to the people who are arrogant DOES NOT work and being merciful to the people who are merciless DOES NOT work; unless you are prepared to be buried or trampled.

So, China needs to show its power to humble those who are arrogant and show its capability to be merciless to those who are merciless.

NOTE: The devastating results of Opium War 1 and Opium War 2 to China and its people shall not be repeated again in China's modern history. And I hope the Chinese people, leaders, and government would inscribed these two tragedies on their mind.

There are many countries in this world would like to see China back in the 1800 where foreign powers rule certain area of China and the Chinese people smoke opium.

Being humble and merciful does not mean to back off from any confrontation, but you have to understand the virtues of proportional response especially you are more powerful than the others.

 

[mDumb]

<Gradually with China increasing in power, she will become more and more aggressive against the foreigh aggressors>

No, I am not condoning China to become more aggressive but I expect China to be more assertive.

<To those who dare to offend our Great Han Empire,we will kill them no matter how far they run away. >

To accomplish this China must have economic and military powers. I hope the later will be realized in 10 or 20 years.

<Being humble and merciful does not mean to back off from any confrontation, but you have to understand the virtues of proportional response especially you are more powerful than the others.>

That's exactly my message, China SHOULD NOT back off from any country when its security is compromised.

Fu&k about let your right cheek be slapped if your left cheek is slapped.

 

[Hafizzz]

Final Victory for China...sort of :

US expert: aircraft drops out due to China pressure
US expert: aircraft drops out due to China pressure - Taiwan News Online

The USS George Washington CVN-73, an American nuclear-powered supercarrier, will not participate in the joint drill of the US and South Korea held on the Yellow sea away from the southeast coastlines of China, Ralph A. Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum CSIS(Center for Strategic and International Studies), told reporters today, according to local news reports.

The withdraw marks a bad precedent, Cossa noted, indicating it might be a turning point for the US military presence in the west Pacific Ocean. The supercarrier should at least visit a South Korean harbor to show its existence, the specialist of Asian affairs said.

A joint drill organized by the US and South Korea is to be held from July 25 to 28 with an aim to deter the belligerent North Korea after the Tian Ship incident which has cast an intensive atmosphere shadowing the Korean Peninsula.

The 97,000-ton USS George Washington CVN-73 is expected to be part of a battle array including 20 ships, 200 aircrafts and a total of 8,000 personnel according to a statement released by the United Nations command led by the US.

Some strategic analysts estimated that the US might relocate the supercarrier to military bases in the Japan Sea to deflect possible criticism from China, a country commonly seen as the biggest challenger to the US’s military presence in the Asia Pacific region.

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, is scheduled to visit Seoul, the capital city of the South Korea, with defense minister Robert Gates in search for more consensus on the drill.

 

[subject17]

China's carrier killer is designed to destroy a 100,000 tons super carrier with possibly one single strike. This is definitely overkill for an Indian AC. Yet, I still think China should share this technology with Pakistan in the near future.

It's time for you to return to your planet Mars.

 

[chauism]

Final Victory for China...sort of :

It did not drop out, the CVBG just relocated to Sea of Japan for the exercise where it will not be facing any unnecessary confrontation with Chinese air force or navy, but yes it is a victory diplomatically. Also, I think that the credits also have to go to millions Chinese netizens that have continuously protested against it online. Beside not wanting to piss off the Chinese government, US does not want to anger 1/5 of the global population.

So it is wise for US to rethink about pushing democracy in China, it seems that the Chinese people in general are more hawkish to deal than the current authoritarian government, and a democratic China is not going to be more friendly to US in the future.

 

[Hafizzz]

It's time for you to return to your planet Mars.

Pakistan is a LOYAL ally of China and I see no reason why China wouldn't share the technology with Pakistan when Indian AC poses a threat to both China and Pakistan.

It did not drop out, the CVBG just relocated to Sea of Japan for the exercise where it will not be facing any unnecessary confrontation with Chinese air force or navy, but yes it is a victory diplomatically. Also, I think that the credits also have to go to millions Chinese netizens that have continuously protested against it online. Beside not wanting to piss off the Chinese government, US does not want to anger 1/5 of the global population.

So it is wise for US to rethink about pushing democracy in China, it seems that the Chinese people in general are more hawkish to deal than the current authoritarian government, and a democratic China is not going to be more friendly to US in the future.

Democracy ??? USA wants China to be her new lapdog.....Japan, S. Korean , Taiwan and Singapore are already US lapdogs.

 

[chauism]

Pakistan is a LOYAL ally of China and I see no reason why China wouldn't share the technology with Pakistan when Indian AC poses a threat to both China and Pakistan.

Because there is a ban of transferring missile or its technology to any other countries if the missile range is beyond 300 km.

Then I am still wondering how did UK get their Trident II/D5 missile for their SSBN though.

Democracy ??? USA wants China to be her new lapdog.....Japan, S. Korean , Taiwan and Singapore are already US lapdogs.

Well, in the eyes of many Americans and their politicians, a democratic China is going to be easier and friendly to deal with than the current authoritarian government, since US is the leader of the free world.

 

[subject17]

Pakistan is a LOYAL ally of China and I see no reason why China wouldn't share the technology with Pakistan when Indian AC poses a threat to both China and Pakistan.

My remark was not on china selling to pakistan, but on taking AC so easily by your so called AC killers. You think AC are sitting ducks inviting to be killed.

 

[CardSharp]

Well, in the eyes of many Americans and their politicians, a democratic China is going to be easier and friendly to deal with than the current authoritarian government, since US is the leader of the free world.

The ultimate American folly. The reason why they failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush's Straussians advisors, held the deep belief that if only you gave these Sunnis and Shias democracy, Iraq will turn into suburban Ohio overnight. This thinking lead them to be unprepared for the insurgency and cost them the war as far as I'm concerned.

Someone once said "we are very popular with ourself and democracy one of the founding myths about why America is so great.

 

[chauism]

The ultimate American folly. The reason why they failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush's Straussians advisors, held the deep belief that if only you gave these Sunnis and Shias democracy, Iraq will turn into suburban Ohio overnight. This thinking lead them to be unprepared for the insurgency and cost them the war as far as I'm concerned.

Someone once said "we are very popular with ourself and democracy one of the founding myths about why America is so great.

American Myths - and their realities

American Myths - and their realities

Introduction & Links to 10 false myths that shape your life

By Rey Barry


Wisdom begins with unlearning wrong things we were taught

Every nation sees itself as superior to all other nations. Patriotism is universal.
It is built partly on fact but mostly on myths created by its people and government.

Americans believe we are superior to other nations and can tell you why. Britishers think they are superior and can tell you why. Germans are convinced they are and can, with apologies, tell you why. The French believe it more firmly than most, though they are unsure why.

That doesn't stop France from requiring that every nation must print its passport in French. Kiss their arrogant *** or you can't enter their country. (The only other country with that arrogant requirement is the USA.)

The people of Libya, a country three times the size of France and a sponsor of what Americans call international terrorism, believe leader Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi is the greatest living person, and believe their nation is the world leader in moral values as a freedom fighter.

They believe it so completely that people who study these things, like the CIA, rate Libyans the most patriotic people on earth.

Everyone with a god is convinced it sides with them. On that reliance will muslims and U.S. Marines each lay down their lives for a cause, and parents sacrifice their children.

Patriotism is exaggerations pleasant to believe dunned into our heads. "Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out," warned Thomas Cardinal Wolsey in the 16th century, a wise man we still quote today.

There is no memory gene. Every baby is a clean slate. Patriotism must be drilled into young minds if children are to grow up willing to die for the homeland. (Calling it Fatherland or Motherland makes it easier to die for.)

"We are the best" is in education codes throughout the world. All countries require school texts to promote their kind of government, their economic system, their nation as superior. For the US, the legal code in Texas supplies the typical mantra: schools are to indoctrinate "democracy, patriotism, and the free-enterprise system."

Convincing people they are the greatest and their government worth dying for is easy, and every government is successful. Children believe authority. First interpret history so you look good, then create myths of moral superiority. Your young are now willing to die for you unless someone re-programs them. Which isn't easy. As Mark Twain observed, "You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into."

To serve our country, we were raised on lies. Some were incidental; some were deliberate. Here are some examples of American history bunk you and I were fed.

Your school history book told you the British burned the US capital during the War of 1812. Poor, mistreated us. The book didn't tell you we burned Canada's capital the year before and the Brits were settling the score. That's why you just learned that. Our moral superiority to the British evaporates if history isn't doctored to make us look good.

Every nation must alter its history. True history would show bad as well as good, a no-no.

Consider Emma Lazarus's words on America's Statue of Liberty:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Emma well knew the rest of the story but didn't tell it: "And I will build a nation on their toil at minimum wage, and exploit their vulnerabilities, and provide the strong the opportunity for field promotion."

No dream is free. To dream we must give up reality.

For the most part those immigrants were people who left home because they had nothing. When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. They came from the group that hadn't made it, or lost what they had and chose to start anew in a new land.

In truth our forebears were largely Europe's losers and those Africans whose chiefs captured and sold them.

We glamorize them because some deserve it. Those who were strong did not take losing lying down, for which they deserve respect.

Does that explain why so many Americans find it easier to bond with incompetent politicians and oppose the best and brightest? Democracy allows people to choose leaders they can relate to. The flaws of who we elect mirror our own flaws.

We aren't taught that. Instead, children believe leaders are wise. Few ever reach the first step to true knowledge - unlearning what we were taught.

For example, we, and black people in particular, were taught that Lincoln fought the Civil War to end slavery. Is that true? Absolutely not. Slavery didn't motivate Lincoln, as every Lincoln scholar knows. Among his scores of letters making this clear is the one published by newspaper editor Horace Greeley in which the president says:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would do that also ..." [1862]

Another example.

Historians writing textbooks love President Woodrow Wilson. They relate to him. He was a college professor and the president of Princeton before he entered politics. Unlike most politicians, he came from the intellectual side of town, my side. They idolize him as America's philosopher-king, as indeed he was.

Historians praise his championing the League of Nations. He undertook a noble and costly fight for a good cause that appealed to historians, so the school textbooks they write tell us about it terms aglow.

But textbook writers fall short of telling us that Wilson, a southerner raised during the racist jim crow era, brought racism -back- into government hiring, and was one of the most racist presidents of all time. Some male historians who mention it say his wife was to blame. Is it not acceptable anymore for a philosopher-king to be racist?

Textbook writers also do not tell us that on the sidewalk outside Wilson's White House was a permanent circle of women gathered around a fire making a spectacle for the press of burning Wilson's speeches. Why? Woodrow Wilson, philosopher-king, was the most powerful voice of his day arguing -against- giving women the vote.

Historians couch in soft terms, if they even mention it, that Wilson sought campaign contributions and support from the most despicable big money self-interests in the nation. Then he repaid them by sending US Marines to invade more countries south of us than any President before or since. The purpose? Exploitation.

Woodrow Wilson was the father of banana republics, that league of cruel and corrupt nations south of us beholden to United Fruit and other US business interests.

The philosopher-king validated the concept of colonialism-without-responsibility. Wilson's policies destroyed the chance for successful democracies in South and Central America - and the lives of millions - by giving big landowners everything, plus the firepower to keep it.

To stay in the White House, the philosopher-king knowingly allowed himself to be used by evil interests for evil purposes, and knew it. This conflicts with the values we extol, especially the belief intellectuals are morally superior, or at least moral. Are they? Woodrow Wilson wasn't.

Was it so important that Wilson be re-elected? His campaign slogan for re-election was "He kept us out of war," and Americans thanked him for that by voting for him. But once re-elected, he took us into the war, causing the death of 116,500 American boys and the wounding of 204,000.

Would it damage Wilson's credibility as the philosopher-king and the champion of the League of Nations to teach a balanced view of him? Absolutely. It would raise issues about his motives. It would teach us that philosopher-kings use lying, corruption, and opportunism just like other politicians.

And most of all, it would let ordinary people see a side of US morality they're not supposed to see, not if Marines are expected to die for our morality.

"But Sire ..." is not music to the king. "But Sir ..." is not music to the command.

We were taught so many myths. We rely on our cliches as truth. "No two snow flakes are alike." Generations of teachers told you that. In the 21st century at least one "snow flake scholar" is claiming it's true, despite that only a few thousand flakes have been catalogued out of the yearly trillions that fall.

Ok, pay attention new age flake scholars like Ken Libbrecht of Caltech, because mis-education blinded you to common sense within the grasp of cavemen.

The number of snow flakes is limitless; the number of unique 6-pointed crystal designs is not. No two alike? Given infinite time to create snow flakes, every snow flake design will be duplicated an infinite number of times. [Long after I wrote this they discovered in 2009 that some snow flakes are triangular!]

Here's another favorite. The rotation of the earth controls which way water swirls down the toilet, clockwise in the southern hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the northern.

Your science teacher told you that, as do most science programs on TV. That's another myth we all believe. What's the truth? The rotation of the earth - the cariolis effect - is far too small to affect minor water drainage. North or South, it can go either way, left or right. Check it out with the Library of Congress and then test it yourself, as I did.

Most Americans believe 13 is an unlucky number. Multi-story buildings are built with the 13th floor labeled 14, evidence to all that the stupid really are in charge.

<> Unlucky? Our country began with 13 colonies and had 13 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 13 stripes on our flag, and 13 letters in "E Pluribus Unum." The most powerful nation on earth was built on the number 13. It's especially absurd for African Americans to have triskaidekaphobia (fear of 13) since the 13th Amendment abolished slavery.

Were it not for generations of dimwits passing on superstitions to children, Americans would associate 13 with patriotism and good luck. It would be our national number.

13 letters in a name? Robert Redford, Jennifer Lopez, Britney Spears. The 13th element in the Periodic Table: Aluminum. The 13th US president: Millard Fillmore who died peacefully at 74 after founding the SPCA.

Myths take many forms. Would Ralph Lauren have his name on our clothes if he hadn't changed it from Ralph Lipschitz? Could John Wayne have become heroic as Marion Morrison? Would Judy Garland make hearts throb as Frances Gumm? Would Jon Stewart make it on Comedy Central if he had remained Jon Liebowitz? Could Florence Nightingale Graham have sold cosmetics without becoming Elizabeth Arden?

Here are ten myths indoctrinated into American minds which are not true. Which do you feel is better, perpetuating myths or telling the truth? You know where I stand.

Choose any and enjoy.

"The US separates church and state"
"Justice will triumph"
"We have self-government"
"You cannot be forced to incriminate yourself"
"Americans have free speech"
"Americans have free radio and TV"
"No man is above the law"
"Corporate political contributions aren't bribery"
"The best is yet to come"
"Abner Doubleday originated baseball"

 

[CardSharp]

Neat, it looks like we agree on the majority of issues. That's pretty rare with my particular perspectives.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

if i were chinese president, i would order army attack those america fleet which enter into yellow sea. that's core interests,can give up even a little space.

And if I was the American President the ships would be there and long as they were on the high seas and if they were attacked then let the war begin if that is what China wants.
Far as I am concerned if the Chinese think they can tell americans what parts of the oceans they can sail their ships on, then the war has already begun.

 

[CardSharp]

And if I was the American President the ships would be there and long as they were on the high seas and if they were attacked then let the war begin if that is what China wants.
Far as I am concerned if the Chinese think they can tell americans what parts of the oceans they can sail their ships on, then the war has already begun.

dumb as a brick, you and &#26368;&#29233;&#39640;&#21476;&#38518; are two peas in a pod... a horrible horrible hate filled pod.

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

dumb as a brick, you and &#26368;&#29233;&#39640;&#21476;&#38518; are two peas in a pod... a horrible horrible hate filled pod.

I dont hate anyone, if China wants a war, then thats up to them, if they attack american ships on the high seas, then war its going to be. I dont think americans can or will be imtimdated by the Chinese. If Obama starts kow&#183;tow&#183;ing, to the Chinese he is not going to be president very long. If that is something China expects they are going to very disapointed..

We have talked ourselves into believing that China is already a hyper-power. It may become one: it is not one yet. China is ringed by states - Japan, Korea, Vietnam, India - that are American allies when push comes to shove. It faces a prickly Russia on its 4,000km border, where Chinese migrants are itching for Lebensraum across the Amur. Emerging Asia, Brazil, Egypt and Europe are all irked by China's yuan-rigged export dumping.

Michael Pettis from Beijing University argues that China's reserves of $2.4 trillion - arguably $3 trillion - are a sign of weakness, not strength. Only twice before in modern history has a country amassed such a stash equal to 5pc-6pc of global GDP: the US in the 1920s, and Japan in the 1980s. Each time preceeded depression.

The reserves cannot be used internally to support China's economy. They are dead weight, beyond any level needed for macro-credibility. Indeed, they are the ultimate indictment of China's dysfunctional strategy, which is to buy $30bn to $40bn of foreign bonds every month to hold down the yuan, refusing to let the economy adjust to trade realities. The result is over-investment in plant, flooding the world with goods at wafer-thin export margins. China's over-capacity in steel is now greater than Europe's output.

This is catching up with China, in any case. Professor Victor Shuh from Northerwestern University warns that the 8,000 financing vehicles used by China's local governments to stretch credit limits have built up debts and commitments of $3.5 trillion, mostly linked to infrastructure. He says the banks may require a bail-out nearing half a trillion dollars.

As America's creditor - owner of some $1.4 trillion of US Treasuries, agency bonds, and US instruments - China can exert leverage. But this is not what it seems. If the Politburo deploys its illusiory power, Washington can pull the plug on China's export economy instantly by shutting markets. Who holds whom to ransom?

Any attempt to retaliate by triggering a US bond crisis would rebound against China, and could be stopped - in extremis - by capital controls. Roosevelt changed the rules in 1933. Such things happen. The China-US relationship is no doubt symbiotic, but a clash would not be "mutual assured destruction", as often claimed. Washington would win.

Contrary to myth, the slide to protectionism after the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act did not cause the Depression. Trade contracted more slowly in the 1930s than this time. The Smoot-Hawley lesson is that tariffs have asymmetrical effects. They devastate surplus countries: then America. Deficit Britain did well by retreating into Imperial Preference.

Barack Obama has never exalted free trade. This orthodoxy is, in any case, under threat in the West. His top economic adviser Larry Summers let drop in Davos that free-trade arguments no longer hold when dealing with "mercantilist" powers. Adam Smith recognized this too, despite efforts by free-trade ultras to appropriate him for their cause.

China's trasformation has been remarkable since Deng Xiaoping unleashed capitalism, but as ex-diplomat George Walden writes in China: a Wolf in the World? you cannot feel at ease with a regime that still covers up Mao's murderous nihilism. He reminds us too that China has never forgiven the humilations inflicted by the West when the two civilizations collided in the 19th Century, and intends to exact revenge. Handle with care.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...uro-spoiling-for-a-showdown-with-America.html

 

[chauism]

And if I was the American President the ships would be there and long as they were on the high seas and if they were attacked then let the war begin if that is what China wants.
Far as I am concerned if the Chinese think they can tell americans what parts of the oceans they can sail their ships on, then the war has already begun.

Good thing is that both of you aren't, so the world is still run by people who are intelligent enough to know the consequences of their doings.

Looks like the USA is already messing with China, Obama meeting with the Dala Lama , sending advanced weapons to Tawian, sending a nuclear subs to the China Sea along with air craft carriers, now what are you going to do about it.

I guess Uncle Sam's decision of not sending the CVBG to the yellow sea is pretty much a big slap on your face for you then. Just be patient, more will be on the way.