Why waning powers meddle in Asian affairs

[CriticalThought]

The whole issue with North Korea is that the US-bloc no longer has any cards to play, they look powerless to their people.

So their only realistic option is to blame it on China, to say: "Oh the problem can be fixed, but China isn't helping us enough".

It's just political scapegoating, the truth is that no one can do anything about North Korea, unless they want to fight them directly. And no one cares enough to do that.

The only thing the world can do, is sit by and watch as lunatics like Donald Un buy new wigs and test out new bombs.

Agreed. Just as they like to offload the Afghan problem on Pakistan.

 

[gambit]

Unfortunately, I have seen you have wandered into discussions that you have neither experience nor knowledge,...

And I would like to see where in those instances have I made definitive declarations about subjects that I have neither experience nor knowledge.

Just state your points, don't keep harping on others lack of experience or knowledge as your main points of argument.

If you make definitive declarations that are wrong about subjects that you have neither experience nor knowledge, it is absolutely necessary to point out your lack of them.

Did you really think that guy who couldn't spell "sergeant" correctly as a fraud and not a typo.
Sometimes, I cannot spell it correctly as well, like "sargent".

Do you even know what is a 'typo' and how can it happen ?

A 'typo' is an inadvertent mistake in spelling, not because I do not know how to spell the word, but because of certain environmental factors.

Take the letters 'i' and 'o' for examples.

If I verbalize 'topical', here is the definition of 'topical'...

- (of a subject) of immediate relevance, interest, or importance owing to its relation to current events.

If I verbalize 'typical', here is the definition of 'typical'...

- having the distinctive qualities of a particular type of person or thing.

Completely different.

You cannot 'typo' in VERBAL speech. It is impossible. The environmental factors do not allow it.

On the other hand, the letters 'i' and 'o' are next to each other on the keyboard so they are often typed in lieu of each other. Reading a sentence in the context of a paragraph, it is usually clear to a reader that there was an inadvertent error in spelling. The entire context of the sentence and paragraph would hint at the correct word of 'topical' or 'typical'. The environment of the keyboard made such errors possible. That is why there is auto-correct in typed speech but not possible in verbal speech.

Now look at the words 'sergeant' and 'sargent'. There is no way anybody can typed those words in error. The combinations 'se' and 'sa' are sufficiently far apart from each other.

It was not only the misspelling of 'sergeant' that gave the fraud away. It was a combination of many things that he claimed about being an officer in general that got me suspicious. Misspelling 'sergeant' is just one of them. If he was an officer, most likely he would have to write performance reports on his NCOs. If I was SSG. Jones, I would look at my reporting official quite differently if he wrote/typed 'sargent' in addressing and/or referring to me.

In the absence of definitive identification on an anonymous Internet forum, what you say and how say about certain subjects will be taken apart by those who are experienced in those subjects. An army officer would not presume how to tell an air force officer on the air force officer's specific duties, but there inevitable commonalities and one of them is leadership and they both should be able to talk -- at least -- on that abstract level. If one of them is a fraud, sooner rather than later, he will make a mistake.

The point here is this...

I care very little about what you claimed of yourself. And I fully expect you to care very little of what I claimed about myself. That leave only the CONTENTS of we ( virtually ) say on the Internet. If you and I have little or no knowledge and experience in the subject, all we would do is jerk each other off and enjoy the mutual respect. But if there is any discrepancy in knowledge and experience, the longer the debate, the lower any respect, eventually to zero.

Regarding Gary and firearms, I have never been in ground combat and he claimed he has in Iraq. What he said -- the little details -- can be only from those who actually have been in under combat stress, and I have a few Iraq war combat vets as acquaintances and friends. Army uses guns more than Air Force ( me ). So my advice to anyone who have never even fired a gun to be careful in talking about guns around him.

I find Chinese members discourse here generally interesting, knowledgeable, nothing that we would classify as foolish.
Frankly nothing special about firing a gun except that they won't know the fun of it.

Nothing for you. Plenty enough for me.

I don't think we need to be gun owners to make arguments about guns.

Being a gunowner is just a part of living in a firearms allowance culture, especially like the US. So if you meet an American, whether online or in real life, it is safe to assume that he knows something about firearms, perhaps even better than you, unless he say something otherwise.

You think only the US Army and the US Marine Corps have thousand yds shooters ?

Once you are past the borders of California and New York, there are plenty of 1,000 yds shooters who have NEVER been in the military. They are not 'snipers' in the military sense of the word, but they know their rifles and ammo as well any Army/Marine sniper knows their own. In fact, often the US Army and Marine calls upon civilian experts for assistance. Personally, I once knew a high school senior -- from Pocatello Idaho -- who had with a single shot put down a buck at 900 yds. SHE learned from her father who had to shoot vermins to protect his ranch.

I do not know what the gun culture is like down in Australia, but in speaking for the US, unless you shoot recreationally, do not presume you know more than an American about guns.

Your Chinese friend is making a fool out of himself with his arguments about guns.

 

[gambit]

Agreed. Just as they like to offload the Afghan problem on Pakistan.

Considering Pakistan was a major player in the Cold War fight against the USSR and that now Pakistan is a major refuge for the Taliban...

 

[CriticalThought]

Considering Pakistan was a major player in the Cold War fight against the USSR and that now Pakistan is a major refuge for the Taliban...

Your officials are shown fully cleared areas and they acknowledge as much in Pakistan. Back in America they start singing a different tune. This is a repeat of Iraqi WMDs happening.

 

[gambit]

Your officials are shown fully cleared areas and they acknowledge as much in Pakistan. Back in America they start singing a different tune. This is a repeat of Iraqi WMDs happening.

Please...

Pakistan will always be the Taliban's fallback refuge.

 

[CriticalThought]

Please...

Pakistan will always be the Taliban's fallback refuge.

There you go. Always. There is nothing we can do about it because you have implicated us for eternity. Your mistake.

 

[gambit]

There you go. Always. There is nothing we can do about it because you have implicated us for eternity. Your mistake.

We implicated you ?

The basic history is clear. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan was hostile to India and India was friendly to the Soviets. There were no choice for Pakistan. Either be trapped or work with US in trying to create instability in Afghanistan. Your leadership back then made the decision they felt necessary.

 

[CriticalThought]

We implicated you ?

The basic history is clear. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan was hostile to India and India was friendly to the Soviets. There were no choice for Pakistan. Either be trapped or work with US in trying to create instability in Afghanistan. Your leadership back then made the decision they felt necessary.

Why are you so intent on linking present with past? What happened in the past has no bearing on the present or future. Except if you are looking to pass the buck.

 

[gambit]

Why are you so intent on linking present with past? What happened in the past has no bearing on the present or future. Except if you are looking to pass the buck.

THAT is not true.

History is linear. A chain of causes and effects where the effects from the previous events are the causes of the current event. If you are even a cursory student of history, that would have been quickly recognizable.

No one act without motivation. That motivation may came from a provocation. That provocation may come from without, like a painful prod or pleasurable experience, or from within like reading a book that explains an attractive idea. Even the medically diagnosed mentally ill person needs that motivation, which may come from a chemical imbalance or something physically wrong with his brain. But essentially, no one or no country acts without a provocation.

A perceived need is a provocation. The formulation for that need, whether flawed or perfect, came from observation. Acts from meeting a need have consequences, and the consequences becomes causes for the next events in the chain of history.

 

[CriticalThought]

THAT is not true.

History is linear. A chain of causes and effects where the effects from the previous events are the causes of the current event. If you are even a cursory student of history, that would have been quickly recognizable.

No one act without motivation. That motivation may came from a provocation. That provocation may come from without, like a painful prod or pleasurable experience, or from within like reading a book that explains an attractive idea. Even the medically diagnosed mentally ill person needs that motivation, which may come from a chemical imbalance or something physically wrong with his brain. But essentially, no one or no country acts without a provocation.

A perceived need is a provocation. The formulation for that need, whether flawed or perfect, came from observation. Acts from meeting a need have consequences, and the consequences becomes causes for the next events in the chain of history.

And the current events show American incompetence in managing foreign wars. Out of this observation, is born the consequence of making Pakistan the punching back for your failures.

Oh, by the way, the Taliban were American financed, American supplied, and in the case of Stingers, even American trained. You are dealing with the consequences of your own past actions. Keep us out of this mess.

 

[gambit]

And the current events show American incompetence in managing foreign wars. Out of this observation, is born the consequence of making Pakistan the punching back for your failures.

Actually, the record is quite favorable to US.

WW II came out with Western Europe in better shape than Eastern Europe, Japan also came out better. The Korean War have SKR in better shape than NKR. For Viet Nam, when the US was fully engaged, SVN was in better shape than NVN. That left the ME...

Oh, by the way, the Taliban were American financed, American supplied, and in the case of Stingers, even American trained. You are dealing with the consequences of your own past actions. Keep us out of this mess.

Oh, by the way. The Taliban did not exist back when Raygun was Prez.

 

[jhungary]

And the current events show American incompetence in managing foreign wars. Out of this observation, is born the consequence of making Pakistan the punching back for your failures.

Oh, by the way, the Taliban were American financed, American supplied, and in the case of Stingers, even American trained. You are dealing with the consequences of your own past actions. Keep us out of this mess.

The term and key word is "FOREIGN WAR"

Name me any country in the world which can touch another country 13,000 mile away from its own border? Without staging Area, without using any resource from outside all in the while draining her own resource to the Allies and stay and fight in that place for 10 + years? There are no one can pull this off except the US. Not Russia, Not China, Not everywhere.

Foreign war is different than proximity war. A lot of logistic involve in a foreign war, especially an Expedition like US invasion in Afghanistan. And couple with the fact the US also in the position of invading another country in a similar distant. The feat alone is actually an achievement.

Anyone can have a 2 millions strong military, how many of those 2 millions you can send to war outside your own domain of influence is the only thing that counted. There are not a single country today can pull off a successful invasion on another country oceans away and succeed to dispel the regime. And that is a fact, it does not matter how you view the invasion in Afghanistan or How you view the US Armed Forces.

 

[CriticalThought]

Actually, the record is quite favorable to US.

WW II came out with Western Europe in better shape than Eastern Europe, Japan also came out better. The Korean War have SKR in better shape than NKR. For Viet Nam, when the US was fully engaged, SVN was in better shape than NVN. That left the ME...


Oh, by the way. The Taliban did not exist back when Raygun was Prez.

How convenient 'that left the ME' !!!!!!

You have left a wake of death and destruction behind you like a drunk elephant in a China shop. After causing wide spread misery, you think offering material benefits absolves you of everything. Like giving Red Indians some reserves and special status and letting the horrors disappear into the past gives you that feel good feeling. You fundamentally do not recognize people's right to self-respect. Everyone who has benefited from you in/after wars has done so by licking your boots. Well, in the Taliban you have found people who will rub your nose on the ground at all costs. It's not in their psyche to give up. And your failure is that you simply cannot fight ill-defined ghosts who don't follow a script. Drunk elephant in China shop causes havoc, drunk elephant caught in heavy, irregular growth of ultra-sharp thorns gets killed in a macabre fashion. So your saving grace is pointing fingers at Pakistan. Orderly, civilized Pakistan. Exactly the kind of system you specialize in tearing apart. Well, we'll let the world know the reality.

And what a great way to look at history. It suits you to stop at the Taliban and forget the springwell whence they sprung: the Afghan Jihad. If there was no Afghan Jihad, there would be no Taliban. If Americans hadn't left after AJ there would be no Taliban. Don't admit your failures and point at Pakistan.

And oh, who has been training and arming the Taliban these past many years? Let's see. Here are the facts: the Taliban have thoroughly infiltrated the Afghan army. You have given them world class training. They are buying world class weapons with drug money from corrupt American army men. This is now the stuff of Hollywood! Taliban videos are showing American special forces tactics. You have been digging your own grave and now want to bury Pakistan in it. Or, like a Grim Reaper, you were always the undertaker who had marked Pakistan's grave in Afghanistan all the while smiling as friend from the other side of your face.

Here is the reality. Haqqani Network is either a mental disease showing your febrile minds, or the dagger up your sleeve that you always hid. If former, then as a friend we will ask you to see a doctor. If latter, well we are now solidly in the Russo-China block. Here is the other truth: after WW2 you have only ever threatened the weak and the meek. And you have only ever succeeded against those helpless countries who found themselves unaligned with any major power. This is your key weakness and we know it well.

The term and key word is "FOREIGN WAR"

Name me any country in the world which can touch another country 13,000 mile away from its own border? Without staging Area, without using any resource from outside all in the while draining her own resource to the Allies and stay and fight in that place for 10 + years? There are no one can pull this off except the US. Not Russia, Not China, Not everywhere.

Foreign war is different than proximity war. A lot of logistic involve in a foreign war, especially an Expedition like US invasion in Afghanistan. And couple with the fact the US also in the position of invading another country in a similar distant. The feat alone is actually an achievement.

Anyone can have a 2 millions strong military, how many of those 2 millions you can send to war outside your own domain of influence is the only thing that counted. There are not a single country today can pull off a successful invasion on another country oceans away and succeed to dispel the regime. And that is a fact, it does not matter how you view the invasion in Afghanistan or How you view the US Armed Forces.

The point is, do whatever you like, just don't point fingers at us. That's the whole point.

 

[jhungary]

The point is, do whatever you like, just don't point fingers at us. That's the whole point.

the thing is, the American finger is not pointing at you, but your own countryman's finger pointing at yourself.

For a country that was ravaged by an "Alternation" of Taliban, Pakistani sure was not in a mood or of any interest to take care of this business, say whatever you like, but the matter of facts remain, time and time again, when there are this "problem" in Afghanistan, chances are one way or another they came from the other side of the border.

Not saying anything about the Pakistani, but there exist some fraction in Pakistani does not want this problem to be solved, even if it was the Pakistani themselves being killed by these people.

 

[CriticalThought]

the thing is, the American finger is not pointing at you, but your own countryman's finger pointing at yourself.

For a country that was ravaged by an "Alternation" of Taliban, Pakistani sure was not in a mood or of any interest to take care of this business, say whatever you like, but the matter of facts remain, time and time again, when there are this "problem" in Afghanistan, chances are one way or another they came from the other side of the border.

Not saying anything about the Pakistani, but there exist some fraction in Pakistani does not want this problem to be solved, even if it was the Pakistani themselves being killed by these people.

And facts on the ground speak otherwise. Today, we don't have any terror camps, training camps etc. Lawless regions are fully under army control. We take foreign dignitaries into these areas to give them first hand experience of situation on the ground. And we are giving lessons to others in how to deal with insurgencies. What is happening, is that our competence is now highlighting American incompetence. Too bad for you, but please don't point fingers at us.