NationStates Jolt Archive

...with laughter :p

link (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/HE26Ad01.html)

Weird...careful threats?

ROFL.

I heard another gem tonight on the news. George Bush said (and I quote):

Sounds like kind of a familiar refrain here -- saying "bring it on," kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner -- you know, "wanted dead or alive," that kind of talk.

I love the guy sometimes...:D

Ugh, another embarrasing moment for America.

Lets see, how would the Pentagon react if California, a state of over 35 million people, responsible for 13% of our nations economy, decided to crack off at the San Andreas fault and become an independent nation???? And China wanted to back them?

"If Beijing chooses to use force against Taiwan prior to the 2008 Olympics, China would almost certainly face a boycott or loss of the games."

"We're warning you, China! If you attack Taiwan, we are POSITIVE that your players will be so demoralized and horrified that they will STINK, and we will have a much better chance of winning! Rather, the Europeans will probably take most of the medals, but YOU most certainly will NOT! Aha! Suckers!"

Is that what that sentence sounded like to anyone else the first time they read it? I couldn't stop laughing for a good five, ten minutes. I'm still crying as I type this message... :D

For god sakes, it's not nessacary to pick on every fledgling power

Ugh, another embarrasing moment for America.

Lets see, how would the Pentagon react if California, a state of over 35 million people, responsible for 13% of our nations economy, decided to crack off at the San Andreas fault and become an independent nation???? And China wanted to back them?

I'm sorry, it's very different. It's like the US saying it's going to annex Canada because we kicked the British out of North America.

I think the US realises deep down that it cannot afford to stand up to China in any meaningful way. It holds the US economy by the gonads. As the rest of the link implies, if China decides to stop trading in dollars and goes for euros (or other) instead, the whole kaboodle goes down the tubes including the massive military machine.

"If Beijing chooses to use force against Taiwan prior to the 2008 Olympics, China would almost certainly face a boycott or loss of the games."

"We're warning you, China! If you attack Taiwan, we are POSITIVE that your players will be so demoralized and horrified that they will STINK, and we will have a much better chance of winning! Rather, the Europeans will probably take most of the medals, but YOU most certainly will NOT! Aha! Suckers!"

Is that what that sentence sounded like to anyone else the first time they read it? I couldn't stop laughing for a good five, ten minutes. I'm still crying as I type this message... :D :D :D :D :D

I honestly didnt see it that way but now you've pointed it ou that is exactly what it sounds like!:p


PRICELESS!

I'm sorry, it's very different. It's like the US saying it's going to annex Canada because we kicked the British out of North America.

Not quite. As I understand it, the current administration in Taiwan traces its roots back to WWII when China was being contested by the Communists, Japan and Chang (something or another, I forget). What happened was that Japan got beat up, pulled out, and the Communists took power. The losers fled to Taiwan where they ended up in power. And mind you, China has made it quite clear that Taiwan belonged to it in the first place.

So the Californian example applies better.

I still disagree, especially because Taiwan never belonged to the current communist government of China. California belongs to the US.

Ugh, another embarrasing moment for America.

Lets see, how would the Pentagon react if California, a state of over 35 million people, responsible for 13% of our nations economy, decided to crack off at the San Andreas fault and become an independent nation???? And China wanted to back them?
...and China would threaten to close every single Starbucks' in Canton?:eek:

I still disagree, especially because Taiwan never belonged to the current communist government of China. California belongs to the US.
When the revolution comes, the bush lot flee to california....em, make that florida...will anyone say then that florida is not a part of the u.s.?

When the revolution comes, the bush lot flee to california....em, make that florida...will anyone say then that florida is not a part of the u.s.?
The state will collapse on its own, begging us to come in and aid it.

"If Beijing chooses to use force against Taiwan prior to the 2008 Olympics, China would almost certainly face a boycott or loss of the games."

"We're warning you, China! If you attack Taiwan, we are POSITIVE that your players will be so demoralized and horrified that they will STINK, and we will have a much better chance of winning! Rather, the Europeans will probably take most of the medals, but YOU most certainly will NOT! Aha! Suckers!"

Is that what that sentence sounded like to anyone else the first time they read it? I couldn't stop laughing for a good five, ten minutes. I'm still crying as I type this message... :D
Indeed. It seems very much like the USA's policy of boycotting the USSR's olympics due to Afghanistan.

I.e. nobody cares.

The state will collapse on its own, begging us to come in and aid it.
I guess that was what CommChina thought about Taiwan.

I guess that was what CommChina thought about Taiwan.


I guess they'll all have to wait and see.

Hey, does anyone recall what the last time was boycotts worked as planned?
If ever, I mean...

I'm also getting this strange vision of the ChiComs now suddenly wishing to organise an invasion ( which they had been putting off till Kingdom Come ) in the timeframe of 6 months, just for kicks. :p

I'm sorry, it's very different. It's like the US saying it's going to annex Canada because we kicked the British out of North America.

That doen't even make any sense... Do you know what you are even talking about????? My example is exactly what is going on in China and Tawian right now. Pick up a book and learn about the One-China Policy...:rolleyes:

I guess they'll all have to wait and see.

Hey, does anyone recall what the last time was boycotts worked as planned?
If ever, I mean...

I'm also getting this strange vision of the ChiComs now suddenly wishing to organise an invasion ( which they had been putting off till Kingdom Come ) in the timeframe of 6 months, just for kicks. :p
And risk the Games?

...and China would threaten to close every single Starbucks' in Canton?:eek:

No worse!!! Close down every McDonalds and KFC!!! AAARRGGGHHH

World War III :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

And risk the Games?


More like to call the bluff, dude.

I wonder what Mandarin is for 'bring it on'.

Not quite. As I understand it, the current administration in Taiwan traces its roots back to WWII when China was being contested by the Communists, Japan and Chang (something or another, I forget). What happened was that Japan got beat up, pulled out, and the Communists took power. The losers fled to Taiwan where they ended up in power. And mind you, China has made it quite clear that Taiwan belonged to it in the first place.

So the Californian example applies better.

There was a civil war in China after the collapse of Imperial rule between the Commmunists lead by Mao and the Nationalists led by Chiang Kai-Sek. The Japanese were delighted and invaded (they had already annexed part of the Manchurian peninsular eventually they were defeated by the nationalists. the Communists then defeated the Nationalists who retreated to the isalnd of Taiwan losing hundreds of thousands on the great trek across China. The nationalists called their state on Taiwan the Republic of China. The Communists who controlled the mainland called their state The Peoples Republic of China. The PRC does not recognise the RoC as anything more than a rogue province. The USA has stated that it would defend RoC against PRC if they used force however it does not recognise RoC as a country (very few nations do). PRC is unlikely to invade RoC before the Olympics (v bad PR) but is building up its forces so that if it did the US would not dare to interevene.

More like to call the bluff, dude.

I wonder what Mandarin is for 'bring it on'.
個

個

uh-huh..
*nods*
Er, I don't think it is snazzy enough for a global TV audience

How about Hu shouting 'Kweilo, kweilo'?

PRC is unlikely to invade RoC before the Olympics (v bad PR) but is building up its forces so that if it did the US would not dare to interevene.
The US is bound by law to interevene. Every time China saber rattles at Taiwan, the US dipatches a carrier group to remind the CCP that yes, it will and can.

And with 50,000 troops and the US 7th fleet in Japan, it can be there in a few days.

The US is bound by law to interevene. Every time China saber rattles at Taiwan, the US dipatches a carrier group to remind the CCP that yes, it will and can.

And with 50,000 troops and the US 7th fleet in Japan, it can be there in a few days.
What law?

What law?
The Congress passed a law when we reconized Taiwan instead of the PRC that we have to defend Taiwan. That law is the basis for arms sales between the US and Taiwan (Since, technically, we can't sell to a country we don't reconize).

It's been the bedrock of the US/Taiwan relationship and is still in force, though there has been efforts as of late to repeal it on the general idea that we should be nice to the PRC.

It leaves the US in a very tricky situation as it HAS to defend Taiwan, but doesn't want to agravate China, so it has been busy trying to keep Taiwan from declaring independance.

Edit: The law is the Taiwan Relations Act/1979 http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive_Index/Taiwan_Relations_Act.html

The Congress passed a law when we reconized Taiwan instead of the PRC that we have to defend Taiwan. That law is the basis for arms sales between the US and Taiwan (Since, technically, we can't sell to a country we don't reconize).

It's been the bedrock of the US/Taiwan relationship and is still in force, though there has been efforts as of late to repeal it on the general idea that we should be nice to the PRC.

It leaves the US in a very tricky situation as it HAS to defend Taiwan, but doesn't want to agravate China, so it has been busy trying to keep Taiwan from declaring independance.

Edit: The law is the Taiwan Relations Act/1979 http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive_Index/Taiwan_Relations_Act.html
I wouldn't fancy America's chances of victory if it did become involved in a an armed conflict with China over Taiwan.

I wouldn't fancy America's chances of victory if it did become involved in a an armed conflict with China over Taiwan.
Those that think it is clever to threaten with the olympics might evaluate their chances differently.

But what is there to gain/lose?

1 by interfering?
2 by not interfering?

what is their to lose? - several million people

what is their to lose? - several million people
...by interfering. By not interfering...international goodwill and respect?:p

I think the US realises deep down that it cannot afford to stand up to China in any meaningful way. It holds the US economy by the gonads. As the rest of the link implies, if China decides to stop trading in dollars and goes for euros (or other) instead, the whole kaboodle goes down the tubes including the massive military machine.
And the US consumer holds China by the balls. We stop buying Chinese goods and their whole manufacturing base, which is basically just the manufacturing arm of Walmart, crumbles.

I'm thinking a more practical slogan for the US to use against China would be: "You attack Taiwan, we bomb the shit out of you and ruin your economy".

I'm thinking a more practical slogan for the US to use against China would be: "You attack Taiwan, we bomb the shit out of you and ruin your economy".

Problem: ChiCom reply: You know, we can do the same thing to you ;)

My slogan for China is:

Just give us three more years and hopefully we'll have an administration that can deal with our mutual probelms in a much more intelligent way. Until then, please float the yaun.

And the US consumer holds China by the balls. We stop buying Chinese goods and their whole manufacturing base, which is basically just the manufacturing arm of Walmart, crumbles.


I'm quite sure neither country wants it to come to this. There are more benefits than differences right now.

But punks sporting inadequate boners can keep dreaming of the day when they think China will bitch slap a submissive US.

Problem: ChiCom reply: You know, we can do the same thing to you ;)



How ? by throwing dim sum at us ? the Chinese would no longer have an overpopulation problem if they go to war with the US . so I guess it makes some sense .

My slogan for China is:

Just give us three more years and hopefully we'll have an administration that can deal with our mutual probelms in a much more intelligent way. Until then, please float the yaun.


...and pray we dont have an administration that bends over and accepts them with a smile like the last one did.

The only way to deal with China is if you have an advantage. Then you can deal.
If you give up your advantage, they wont be dealing with you anymore. They'll be running rough-shod all over you. And Tiawan and Japan, etc....

And the US consumer holds China by the balls. We stop buying Chinese goods and their whole manufacturing base, which is basically just the manufacturing arm of Walmart, crumbles.

You do realize that China isn't going to stay the cheap labour capital forever don't you? The same can't be said about the US spending habits though.

........
If you give up your advantage, they wont be dealing with you anymore. They'll be running rough-shod all over you. And Tiawan and Japan, etc....They might even demolish a monumental building, say it was Taiwanese Terrorists and start a war on terror.

The chinese have no scruples:(

I wouldn't fancy America's chances of victory if it did become involved in a an armed conflict with China over Taiwan.
I dont fancy Chinas chances at all.
The US can buy goods, a bit more expensive, but they can still get them, from other sources, meanwhile when the US Government tells Wal Mart that Chinese goods are about to go through the roof, China would be in trouble.

Besides, the only military branch China can even be considered to rival the US in right now is its army. Fourtunatly for Taiwan, theyre an island. Since the US happens to have a military presence in the area, they just have to sink the Chinese transports and shoot down their rather poor transports planes. A nice proving ground for the F-22 :P
Meanwhile, even IF China gets to the island, their economy promptly flops because, unlike Isreal, Taiwan has friends, and those friends might just tap China on the metaphorical shoulder and say, "Ahh, sorry, were not going to buy stuff from you anymore."
Not to mention that Chinas recent good relations with Russia might go down the tubes.

How ? by throwing dim sum at us ? the Chinese would no longer have an overpopulation problem if they go to war with the US . so I guess it makes some sense .


war cant ever be a consideration with China. life in both countries-during a conflict and after- would be so drastically changed. Use of military can only be the absolute last ditch, final straw.

I think with China, economic solutions would be a much better way to go

How ? by throwing dim sum at us ? the Chinese would no longer have an overpopulation problem if they go to war with the US . so I guess it makes some sense .

The Chinese could wipe out the US west coast.

Or they could simply just choose to saturate whatever fleets that are standing off their coasts with nuclear weapons. I seem to remember a general of theirs stating their willingness to use nuclear weapons in the event of an attack/invasion.

And in the case of defensive nuclear use, the Chinese would technically be right in using whatever they had to stop the US.

But I figure nobody would care since that would start WWIII.

...and pray we dont have an administration that bends over and accepts them with a smile like the last one did.

The only way to deal with China is if you have an advantage. Then you can deal.
If you give up your advantage, they wont be dealing with you anymore. They'll be running rough-shod all over you. And Tiawan and Japan, etc....
Ummm... You're right about Clinton, but George Bush let's China have a little dildo play with him before he takes the shlong.

He also lets them put make up on him afterwards. Then he pops their back pimples.

They might even demolish a monumental building, say it was Taiwanese Terrorists and start a war on terror.

The chinese have no scruples:(


clever, though your apples are rotten and you dont even have oranges yet.

You do realize that China isn't going to stay the cheap labour capital forever don't you? The same can't be said about the US spending habits though.
I hope they don't. I can't imagine a better thing that can happen to the US than for Chinese labor costs to start going up.


and up


and up


and up

Ummm... You're right about Clinton, but George Bush let's China have a little dildo play with him before he takes the shlong.

He also lets them put make up on him afterwards. Then he pops their back pimples.


If thats the case as you see it, whats with your slogan to China on the next administration ? If either thing you're saying is right, you should be happy with President Bush dealing with China.

Or you just like the sound of President Bush submitting to China ?

...by interfering. By not interfering...international goodwill and respect?:p

by interfering. let's face it the US doesn't have much international good will or respect at the moment having squandered them in Iraq.

Nor should you overestimate China's reliance on the US as a market. There is plenty of demand across Asia and Europe.

Neither side has any interest in forcing final resolution of what is for both sides a minor irritation .

The Chinese could wipe out the US west coast.

Or they could simply just choose to saturate whatever fleets that are standing off their coasts with nuclear weapons. I seem to remember a general of theirs stating their willingness to use nuclear weapons in the event of an attack/invasion.

And in the case of defensive nuclear use, the Chinese would technically be right in using whatever they had to stop the US.

But I figure nobody would care since that would start WWIII.
The problem with China wiping out the west coast is that the US still has 10,000 plus nuclear warheads, some 2,000 of which are mounted on active ICBM's which can reach ALL of China. So China wipes out a few cities, they take out San Francisco, some other cities in California, maybe Portland in Oregon if they have a nuke to spare.
The US retaliatory strike then takes out Beijing and every other major city in China except possibly Hong Kong, which we give back to the British.
So, the US west coast is rebuilt in different spots, we lose a few nice landmarks, but we arent crippled.
Meanwhile half of the Chinese population is dead and another fourth is dying if radiation poisoning and the rest are going to have to rebuilt the Chinese country from the state it was in just before WWII.

I think China loses.

If thats the case as you see it, whats with your slogan to China on the next administration ? If either thing you're saying is right, you should be happy with President Bush dealing with China.

Or you just like the sound of President Bush submitting to China ?
He's not tough enough on things that do matter, for example floating the yaun and piracy of American, and Eurpoean and everyone esle for that matter, goods. He's not cooperative in places that he should be, for example security in east and Central Asia and energy development and security. His whole policy towards China is ass backwards.

World / Asia-Pacific Print article | Email article




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main page content:
Top Chinese general warns US over attack
By Alexandra Harney in Beijing and Demetri Sevastopulo and Edward Alden in Washington
Published: July 14 2005 21:59 | Last updated: July 15 2005 00:03

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.


ADVERTISEMENT




“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University.

“We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

Gen Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

However, some US-based China experts cautioned that Gen Zhu probably did not represent the mainstream People's Liberation Army view.

“He is running way beyond his brief on what China might do in relation to the US if push comes to shove,” said one expert with knowledge of Gen Zhu. “Nobody who is cleared for information on Chinese war scenarios is going to talk like this,” he added.

Gen Zhu's comments come as the Pentagon prepares to brief Congress next Monday on its annual report on the Chinese military, which is expected to take a harder line than previous years. They are also likely to fuel the mounting anti-China sentiment on Capitol Hill.

In recent months, a string of US officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, have raised concerns about China's military rise. The Pentagon on Thursday declined to comment on “hypothetical scenarios”.

Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an authority on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the threat “is a new addition to China's public discourse”. China's official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Gen Zhu is not the first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.

Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1996 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan. The official is believed to have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff.

Gen Zhu said his views did not represent official Chinese policy and he did not anticipate war with the US.

Additional reporting by Richard McGregor

clever, though your apples are rotten and you dont even have oranges yet.
I've got fresh pears, though. And pretzels.

Problem: ChiCom reply: You know, we can do the same thing to you ;)

We could have the world's largest pissing contest, except instead of that we kill millions of people on either side and reduce Taiwan to a wasteland useless to either side! Fun for the whole family, that.

I think China loses.

If you think China would lose and not the US in a nuclear exchange, you need a reality check. Both people would lose. And you can sure as hell bet that such an exchange would spark off greater nuclear weapons use among the remaining powers.

Everyone loses.

EDIT: Or maybe they decide to wipe out the various fleets instead, reducing America's projection power to zilch. Sure, an eye for an eye retaliation would severely curtail China's military, but America wouldn't be able to do much more fighting anyway since they don't have a fleet worth talking about.

Unless of course America decides to go on a complete wiping out of major population centers. That could probably spark retaliatory strikes from the other powers.

Again, everyone loses.

I've got fresh pears, though. And pretzels.


and I cant stop you from comparing them either

The Chinese could wipe out the US west coast.

Or they could simply just choose to saturate whatever fleets that are standing off their coasts with nuclear weapons. I seem to remember a general of theirs stating their willingness to use nuclear weapons in the event of an attack/invasion.

And in the case of defensive nuclear use, the Chinese would technically be right in using whatever they had to stop the US.

But I figure nobody would care since that would start WWIII.


About twenty minutes or less from the time China luanches the first nuke ..they simply cease to exist as a country. So how is lobbing nukes a valid strategy for them ? The retaliation is not graduated...its a total destruction as promised and advertised ... nukes are not an option for China..unless they plan on mass suicide..

Look Taiwan still exist and has for years because the US has basically allowed it by supporting the NON COmmunist Chinese.....all china has to do is bide their time just like they have been and sooner or later they will merge...its inevitable...provided China becomes more democratic at any rate..they seem to be heading in that direction and the old guard is just frothing at the mouth that they will be dead before their country is re-united..tough shit...sabre rattling...sour grapes ..etc....sooner or later it will just make sense to join back toghether.

so all the war crap is just that..BULLSHIT..it makes NO sense .

so all the war crap is just that..BULLSHIT..it makes NO sense .

Tell that to the hawks in the war rooms of both China and the US.

Tell that to the hawks in the war rooms of both China and the US.

They can kiss my ass .;) its all bullshit and they know it. its like two punk ass kids in a school yard afraid of what the class will think...bunch of assholes .