So says the Chinese equivalent to our Joints Chief of Staff, General Fang Fenghui--and he said it TO and in the presence of our Joint Chief General Martin Dempsey.
"“We do not make trouble. We do not create trouble. But we are not afraid of trouble,” Fang said plainly. “In matters, issues that relate to sovereignty [or] territorial integrity, our attitude has been firm.”
“For the territory which has passed down by our ancestors into the hands of our generation, we cannot afford to lose an inch,” he said." Interesting. Considering the disputed real estate is mostly water bound, I have to wonder if they have the naval power to back up cheap talk and unabashed bluster.
Does it matter, with our pusillanimous commander in chief?
Blame Obama if you like but that isn't the problem. Put a Bush in office or a cheney or Genghis freaking Khan. What matter. We are a nation of managers and slick money siphoning engineers.
I have to wonder if they have the naval power to back up cheap talk and unabashed bluster.
Never ever stopped anyone from talkin' sh!t, before.
Talk must be the cheapest commodity on Earth. Everybody's got plenty to spare. All in the name of jostling for position at the money-trough......eventually the gangs will merge until there are only 2.
If they were smart at that point, they would share us...
The last time the Chinese "talked sh!t", they sent five infantry divisions (80,000 troops) streaming south across the Yalu River to stop cold an American advance. toward Chosin.
quote
: "Now that the American forces are attempting to cross the thirty-eighth parallel on a large scale, the Chinese people cannot stand idly by with regard to such a serious situation created by the invasion of Korea...." Ominously, the Chinese Foreign Office described MacArthur's operations as ". . . a serious menace to the security of China.
Within 30 days, that became 8 divisions. A month later, the Chinese had 150,000 men engaged in the Korean War. The Chinese are an extremely patient people, but they don't often bluff.
It started last century. Don't forget, that China opnely threratened to invade the USSR in the late 1970s, and positioned the troops along their border to do just that.
quote
The reason cited for the (Chinese) attack (on Vietnam) was to support China's ally, the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, in addition to the mistreatment of Vietnam's ethnic Chinese minority and the Vietnamese occupation of the Spratly Islands which were claimed by China. To prevent Soviet intervention on Vietnam's behalf, Chinese Premier Deng warned Moscow the next day that China was prepared for a full-scale war against the Soviet Union; in preparation for this conflict, China put all of its troops along the Sino-Soviet border on an emergency war alert, set up a new military command in Xinjiang, and even evacuated an estimated 300,000 civilians from the Sino-Soviet border.[25] In addition, the bulk of China's active forces (as many as one-and-a-half million troops) were stationed along China's borders with the Soviet Union
The Soviet Bear very quicly backed down and the rest is history.
The last time the Chinese "talked sh!t", they sent five infantry divisions (80,000 troops) streaming south across the Yalu River to stop cold an American advance. toward Chosin.
Within 30 days, that became 8 divisions. A month later, the Chinese had 150,000 men engaged in the Korean War. The Chinese are an extremely patient people, but they don't often bluff.
The Chosin Reservoir. My Dad's stompin' grounds. Yikes.
So says the Chinese equivalent to our Joints Chief of Staff, General Fang Fenghui--and he said it TO and in the presence of our Joint Chief General Martin Dempsey.
"“We do not make trouble. We do not create trouble. But we are not afraid of trouble,” Fang said plainly. “In matters, issues that relate to sovereignty [or] territorial integrity, our attitude has been firm.”
“For the territory which has passed down by our ancestors into the hands of our generation, we cannot afford to lose an inch,” he said." Interesting. Considering the disputed real estate is mostly water bound, I have to wonder if they have the naval power to back up cheap talk and unabashed bluster.
Their naval power is much greater than the naval power of the countries for whom the land is being disputed with. The US NAVY is obviously the most powerful in the world... but I would not be surprised if China makes a run for the land. I mean, we (the US) has basically done nothing to prevent parts of Ukraine from being pieced off... so China (and others) are starting to think this may be a good time as the US is too busy worrying about how it can save the world through socialism.
Whether it's our responsibility or not... the other countries are realizing that there's not too much backing here in the US.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Their naval power is much greater than the naval power of the countries for whom the land is being disputed with. The US NAVY is obviously the most powerful in the world... but I would not be surprised if China makes a run for the land. I mean, we (the US) has basically done nothing to prevent parts of Ukraine from being pieced off... so China (and others) are starting to think this may be a good time as the US is too busy worrying about how it can save the world through socialism.
Whether it's our responsibility or not... the other countries are realizing that there's not too much backing here in the US.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-18-2014).]
You know that happened in late 2008, right? Bush was literally walking out the door, and the Democrats controlled the House and Senate, and the world was mad at him for "over-reacting" to both the Iraq and Afghanistan war. Bush was hardly a pushover. They destroyed two of our buildings, and we conquered two countries. Try again Newf... try again.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You know that happened in late 2008, right? Bush was literally walking out the door, and the Democrats controlled the House and Senate, and the world was mad at him for "over-reacting" to both the Iraq and Afghanistan war. Bush was hardly a pushover. They destroyed two of our buildings, and we conquered two countries. Try again Newf... try again.
Your revisionist history is laughable.
Also "over-reacting" in quotes and Conquered two counties? Hilarious.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: So correct me then... what have I 'revisioned?'
Let's see you stated Bush was LITERALLY walking out the door in August, you then claim Bush did nothing because the "world was mad at him", and finally you claim that two countries were conquered.
You may see these as truth but I doubt many would.
I'd love to hear your solutions to the Ukraine, Syria etc.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Whether it's our responsibility or not... the other countries are realizing that there's not too much backing here in the US.
Quoted for truth.
It makes some people very very angry that George Bush had far far far more world respect than Obama. They just can't understand it, heh. It really is laughable.
George Bush had far far far more world respect than Obama.
Not from what I remember. Bush may have been much quicker to get the US involved in costly unwinnable wars, but to say that he had "far far far more world respect" is absolutely incorrect IMO.
Bush was more popular amongst certain members of this forum is what I recall.
And no, I'm not a supporter of Obama. I'm disappointed with some of his choices and decisions.
It makes some people very very angry that George Bush had far far far more world respect than Obama. They just can't understand it, heh. It really is laughable.
From what I remember as someone who was living outside the US for most of the Bush administration, he was seen as a trigger happy and bible thumping simpleton.
From what I remember as someone who was living outside the US for most of the Bush administration, he was seen as a trigger happy and bible thumping simpleton.
Probably just the circle you run with, really..
As I said, many don't like it. heh, trigger happy, well whatever! but I think there was no doubt that he was seen as a leader THAT WOULD do something. Spin it all you want.
Heh, "World Respect". Strange concept. By who and based on what? Do we value being respected by someone who cherishes peace and the right to control their own destiny, or by someone playing for a similar piece of power as we are?
Because i'm betting what's really being talked about is instilling fear, not respect. Who do you respect more; The guy who beats his dog to control him or the guy who is gentle in his approach? Who does the dog respect more?
Respect in my house comes from love, not fear. Instilling fear is not respect, it's fear.
Respect is given when one has the power to use force/fear and chooses not to. A child learns respect for the parent, but not until after the know the consequences of transgression and fear of those consequences is the first step in learning. A man who is gentle in his approach, but could use force, is respected. One who is gentle because they can do nothing else is seen as weak.
Respect isn't given to someone who is seen incapable of backing up their words. Words are meaningless if there's no belief that they could lead to action.
As I said, many don't like it. heh, trigger happy, well whatever! but I think there was no doubt that he was seen as a leader THAT WOULD do something. Spin it all you want.
If Bush showed up at the negotiating table and said "withdraw your troops or I'll bomb you into the stone age," the person sitting across the table would take that trigger happy simpleton at his word. There would be credible belief that he is both capable and willing to make good on his words.
The "rest" of the world may not LIKE it, but they respected it.
Originally posted by Boondawg: ... Instilling fear is not respect, it's fear.
Respect is nearly always better than fear, but when it comes to the health and welfare of our country, if respect doesn't work, fear will be an acceptable substitute.
If Bush showed up at the negotiating table and said "withdraw your troops or I'll bomb you into the stone age," the person sitting across the table would take that trigger happy simpleton at his word. There would be credible belief that he is both capable and willing to make good on his words.
The "rest" of the world may not LIKE it, but they respected it.
No problem so intricate or intractable that it cannot be quickly resolved to our satisfaction with a massive military intervention.
Makes me wonder why we haven't been living in a perfectly harmonious world since His tenure as President. Oh that's right: Everything went downhill the very day that Obama was elected in 2008.
Is Bush 43 willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him Bush 43?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-18-2014).]
... he was seen as a leader THAT WOULD do something. Spin it all you want.
Mainly one that wouldn't even stop at deceiving is own countrymen to justify a war that got paid for with other people's blood and debt.
quote
Originally posted by Red88FF:Spin it all you want.
Were you living outside of the US at the time or was I???
"...a global sampling in 2005 of 21 nations found that 58% of those sampled believed that the president's reelection would have a negative impact on their peace and security; only 26% believed it would have a positive one. In 18 of the 21 countries surveyed, a majority of respondents held an unfavorable opinion of Bush. Respondents indicated that they judged his administration as "negative" for world security.
"... the only three countries (out of 21 polled) in which a majority or plurality saw Bush’s return to office as positive for peace and security in the world are the Philippines (63%), India (62%), and Poland (44%). [137] In one poll of 10 countries, Israel was the only country where the population had a net favorable opinion, with 62 percent favoring Bush."
"The United Kingdom's Daily Mirror newspaper ran the following headline the day of Bush's reelection: “How Can 59,054,087 People Be So Dumb?”, underlining Bush's unpopularity in some sections of the British press. Among the population of Britain, two-thirds of the population holds a dim view of Bush, a figure that is duplicated in Canada."
Originally posted by yellowstone: ... "...a global sampling in 2005 of 21 nations found that 58% of those sampled believed that the president's reelection would have a negative impact on their peace and security; only 26% believed it would have a positive one. In 18 of the 21 countries surveyed, a majority of respondents held an unfavorable opinion of Bush. Respondents indicated that they judged his administration as "negative" for world security. ...
From the article... The most negative countries are western European, Latin American and Muslim ones.
Western European countries were leaning largely socialist at the time. I won't even get into the geo-political and monetary repercussions of that little foray. It's in the news every day. Latin American countries were/are largely caught up in their own little dictatorships. Other than Jimmy Carter, they pretty much don't care for us anyway. Muslim countries? Imagine my surprise...
From what I remember as someone who was living outside the US for most of the Bush administration, he was seen as a trigger happy and bible thumping simpleton.
quote
Originally posted by Red88FF:
Probably just the circle you run with, really..
As I said, many don't like it. heh, trigger happy, well whatever! but I think there was no doubt that he was seen as a leader THAT WOULD do something. Spin it all you want.
I was in the military and the circles I ran with had that feeling.
No problem so intricate or intractable that it cannot be quickly resolved to our satisfaction with a massive military intervention.
Makes me wonder why we haven't been living in a perfectly harmonious world since His tenure as President. Oh that's right: Everything went downhill the very day that Obama was elected in 2008.
Is Bush 43 willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him Bush 43?
You're projecting.
I don't know of any conservatives who have compared Bush to a deity. Dems on the other hand deify Obama at every opportunity. Compared to their presentation of Bush...
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-18-2014).]
Heh, "World Respect". Strange concept. By who and based on what? Do we value being respected by someone who cherishes peace and the right to control their own destiny, or by someone playing for a similar piece of power as we are?
Because i'm betting what's really being talked about is instilling fear, not respect. Who do you respect more; The guy who beats his dog to control him or the guy who is gentle in his approach? Who does the dog respect more?
Respect in my house comes from love, not fear. Instilling fear is not respect, it's fear.
Also fear only works if you can keep them afraid.
When people see the man behind the curtain the situation changes.
Let's see you stated Bush was LITERALLY walking out the door in August, you then claim Bush did nothing because the "world was mad at him", and finally you claim that two countries were conquered.
You may see these as truth but I doubt many would.
I'd love to hear your solutions to the Ukraine, Syria etc.
1 - Bush had 4 months left in office, compared to the full 8 years in office, that's basically "walking out the door." 2 - The world WAS mad at him. His approval ratings were in the tank, are you disputing this? 3 - The US WAS the government in both Iraq and Afghanistan at the time, that's "conquered" in the truest sense. "Conquer : overcome and take control of (a place or people) by use of military force."
Soo... where's the revisionist history?
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
Not from what I remember. Bush may have been much quicker to get the US involved in costly unwinnable wars, but to say that he had "far far far more world respect" is absolutely incorrect IMO.
Bush was more popular amongst certain members of this forum is what I recall.
And no, I'm not a supporter of Obama. I'm disappointed with some of his choices and decisions.
"respect" definitely would not have been the word I would have used either. But fear, or perhaps "a reluctance to challenge" would be more correct.
That's what you get when you put yourself up for sale...it's not like they stole us. It's all about the Benjamin's....even above patriotism (in terms of what's good for your country ~v~ personal wealth).
Were you living outside of the US at the time or was I???
"...a global sampling in 2005 of 21 nations found that 58% of those sampled believed that the president's reelection would have a negative impact on their peace and security; only 26% believed it would have a positive one. In 18 of the 21 countries surveyed, a majority of respondents held an unfavorable opinion of Bush. Respondents indicated that they judged his administration as "negative" for world security.
"... the only three countries (out of 21 polled) in which a majority or plurality saw Bush’s return to office as positive for peace and security in the world are the Philippines (63%), India (62%), and Poland (44%). [137] In one poll of 10 countries, Israel was the only country where the population had a net favorable opinion, with 62 percent favoring Bush."
"The United Kingdom's Daily Mirror newspaper ran the following headline the day of Bush's reelection: “How Can 59,054,087 People Be So Dumb?”, underlining Bush's unpopularity in some sections of the British press. Among the population of Britain, two-thirds of the population holds a dim view of Bush, a figure that is duplicated in Canada."
Hmmm, well OK. But, it would seem that the residents of those countries believe that Americans really give a damn what they think. That study would seem to be based on what President Bush's election would have an effect on those countries. Not how it would effect the USA. Let me think about this for a second....................
Yep, I vote for and on what's good for us, not what's good for India, Great Britain, Germany or Portugal. BTW, I didn't vote for our current Cluster of Inept and gutless wonders.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
