Recruiting Forum Off-Topic Thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.
#2,153
#2,153
I'm not goin to wade into y'all's differences in opinion. Just want to state the obvious. Obama has been in over his head for a long time now. The China thing is happening in the manner it is because they have seen him kicking the can down the road with no real repercussions when they overstep their boundaries. That does not mean they would not have made attempts to do so against other Presidents. It means they would have done so with less brazen tactics against Presidents they genuinely feared and respected. They are Communist after all. It has zero to do with political party affiliation. It has everything to do with the man sitting in the oval office.

Carry on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,154
#2,154
Darth_Shiveman said:
Also, it's complete conjecture to say that China's agression is due to them "seeing weakness in our command." First of all, China's regional aggression has been a running theme for the last 2-3 decades, if not longer. It's not like things were hunky dory in the east before Obama took over. Their growth in military aggression has followed the growth of their economic and military power along with the decline of economic and military power of other major players in Asia (namely, Russia).

I know it's easier to oversimplify things to make them fit neatly into your worldview, but it's really ignorant and arrogant to imply that you know the reasoning behind all of China's saber rattling. It's a much more complex issue than "Obama's a pansy and them chinamen can sense it :crazy:"
Click to expand...

They knew Obama was gonna be President and they were prepared :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,155
#2,155
Vols4us said:
I'm not goin to wade into y'all's differences in opinion. Just want to state the obvious. Obama has been in over his head for a long time now. The China thing is happening in the manner it is because they have seen him kicking the can down the road with no real repercussions when they overstep their boundaries. That does not mean they would not have made attempts to do so against other Presidents. It means they would have done so with less brazen tactics against Presidents they genuinely feared and respected. They are Communist after all. It has zero to do with political party affiliation. It has everything to do with the man sitting in the oval office.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree. China's brazen tactics have less to do with who is in the White House than most Americans think. America isn't center of the world, and a lot of China's moves haven't been against the US or countries that are strategic to us anyway. Sometimes the moves they make against other neighbors is arguably in our advantage in some ways when it's against a country like India. China would be pulling the same garbage regardless of who we've got in there. It's a multi-layer issue and it's not as black and white as a lot of people like to make it. There's a lot of game theory involved and more countries and interests than just China and the US.

They're aspiring to assert themselves as the dominant power in the region and they're in a position where they have a lot of wiggle room because they know that western powers won't take open military action against them unless there's no alternative. Open conflict would mean world war 3 and nobody would benefit from that. There's not really anything a president can do to stop them from all of their questionably legal flexing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,157
#2,157
While I appreciate your brilliance I will keep my opinion, which oddly is not really different from your own. You speak out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand it's a looming threat. You said in your last paragraph that they are indeed attempting to exert dominance in the region. That's all I ever said. Its also something that traditionally we would take steps to oppose, and no, not necessarily through waging flat out war. Yet on the hand you project everyone but you and your professor is too ignorant to understand all the delicate details and there's nothing worth talking about. What China is doing has been intensified with Obama in office. It absolutely has. They know he isn't going to say anything so they push harder. That's not my imagination. Are the Chinese seizing land, water, and air space that was not theirs to take at an unprecedented rate? Yes. Hell read the Brookings Institute piece on it. As smart as you are on Asian geopolitics they're smarter. They have people who actually get payed to know these things. As a normal, every day person I don't think I'm being imaginative, projective, or misinformed when I say that China has ramped up its bully tactics ala Russia to take advantage of the power vacuum created by our weak leadership and their long existing aspirations. Now if it makes you feel better finding a way to disagree with that in some condescending way then you just right ahead. I'm quite comfortable over here.
 
#2,158
#2,158
Vols4us said:
I'm not goin to wade into y'all's differences in opinion. Just want to state the obvious. Obama has been in over his head for a long time now. The China thing is happening in the manner it is because they have seen him kicking the can down the road with no real repercussions when they overstep their boundaries. That does not mean they would not have made attempts to do so against other Presidents. It means they would have done so with less brazen tactics against Presidents they genuinely feared and respected. They are Communist after all. It has zero to do with political party affiliation. It has everything to do with the man sitting in the oval office.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

You're obviously correct. Everything may not be aimed against us, but they definitely modify the speed and aggression of their actions against any and everyone when the leader of the free world is weak. When America is weak the bad guys get strong. Always have and always will. It's as simple as that.
 
#2,162
#2,162
Sounds like fretting over international affairs and dissecting nonsensical presidential speeches is your hobby. Just sounds like it, not saying it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,166
#2,166
triad280 said:
She still drive that Mack truck?
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
#2,167
#2,167
Skullbone said:
While I appreciate your brilliance I will keep my opinion, which oddly is not really different from your own. You speak out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand it's a looming threat. You said in your last paragraph that they are indeed attempting to exert dominance in the region. That's all I ever said.
Click to expand...

That's not all you ever said. At all. You also either said or implied that:

1. Japan is in jeopardy of having territory seized.
2. China is invading the Senkaku islands.
3. That is allowing them to blockade the South China Sea.
4. It was all a "major play."


Its also something that traditionally we would take steps to oppose, and no, not necessarily through waging flat out war. Yet on the hand you project everyone but you and your professor is too ignorant to understand all the delicate details and there's nothing worth talking about. What China is doing has been intensified with Obama in office. It absolutely has. They know he isn't going to say anything so they push harder. That's not my imagination. Are the Chinese seizing land, water, and air space that was not theirs to take at an unprecedented rate? Yes. Hell read the Brookings Institute piece on it. As smart as you are on Asian geopolitics they're smarter. They have people who actually get payed to know these things. As a normal, every day person I don't think I'm being imaginative, projective, or misinformed when I say that China has ramped up its bully tactics ala Russia to take advantage of the power vacuum created by our weak leadership and their long existing aspirations. Now if it makes you feel better finding a way to disagree with that in some condescending way then you just right ahead. I'm quite comfortable over here.
Click to expand...
1. I'd be happy to read whichever report you're referring to. They make a lot of them. Either way, having read your various inputs on current events and foreign policy, I'm sure you're drawing some false conclusions or making agenda based leaps from whichever report you're referring to.

2. China's aggression has increased. But laying all the fault for that at the foot of one man just shows a shallow understanding of what's going on with China and the world in general.

You say "traditionally" we'd have done something about it, but times have changed. Traditionally, the US had much more leverage against China than we do now. Traditionally, China didn't own large amounts of our debt. Traditionally, the American people have not been as wary of war as they have been over the last decade and a half of unsuccessful attempts to end terrorism. Traditionally, American corporate business interested weren't so intertwined with Chinese ones. Traditionally, China wasn't on pace to have a larger economy than the US in the immediately foreseeable future.

Surely you can see where I'm going with this. It doesn't take an expert in game theory to see that the US just doesn't have the options to utilize soft power against China like we have in the past. What can we do, place economic sanctions on them? Why not slap Xi's wrist while we're at it. Furthermore, the rest of the international community has shown themselves to respond in the same way. China is learning something the US figured out a long time ago: if you're powerful enough, you can pretty much do what you want a lot of the time.

Skullbone said:
You're obviously correct. Everything may not be aimed against us, but they definitely modify the speed and aggression of their actions against any and everyone when the leader of the free world is weak. When America is weak the bad guys get strong. Always have and always will. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...
This is all over-simplified on so many levels. First of all, it's not a matter of "good guys" and "bad guys." It's a matter of one country's interests versus other countries' interests. Those "bad guys" are responsible for making a lot of the luxuries us "good guys" rely on and/or enjoy. Those "bad guys" depend on us "good guys" to fund huge amounts of the labor that allows them to be aggressors. The "bad guys" helped prop up us "good guys" after a financial crisis brought on by fiscal irresponsibility.

I know life is easier if you can just adopt a dualistic "Us vs Them/Good vs Evil" mentality, but that's almost never how the world actually works. You're doing the same thing by laying all acts of aggression over an 8 year period at the foot of one man without taking any other factors into account. You don't seem like an unintelligent guy, but you're being very intellectually dishonest if you think that is how the world works.

You keep saying that China's aggression can be linked directly to Obama being "weak." What viable actions do you think could/should have been taken that have not been. What are the alternatives? What specific moves would a "strong" executive have taken that would have stopped Chinese aggression in their own sphere of influence?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#2,169
#2,169
Darth_Shiveman said:
......... Traditionally, the US had much more leverage against China than we do now. Traditionally, China didn't own large amounts of our debt. Traditionally, American corporate business interested weren't so intertwined with Chinese ones.......
Click to expand...

Some people can't look past the trees to see the forest and some people can't see the trees because of Obama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,171
#2,171
" There are steps the United States can take.

The first is to describe revisionist acts for what they are. We should not downplay or seek to move on from territorial aggression. We must explain why it is an egregious violation of the international order, even where “nonvital” interests are concerned.

The second is to strengthen deterrence by denial. The United States should build defense capacity in vulnerable states and limit the offensive capabilities of revisionists, including training and equipping other countries to deal with unconventional warfare.

The third is to strengthen the regional and global order by making opposition to territorial expansion a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy and by developing legal and diplomatic paths to counter it. In a practical sense, this means pressuring European nations to back the Philippines right to take a case against China over the South China Sea dispute and pressuring the BRICS to condemn Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

Finally, the United States must show that territorial expansion has long-term costs. The United States should clearly communicate to its competitors that a foreign policy of territorial expansion will cause it to move toward a strategy of containment."
 
#2,172
#2,172
"China’s aggression over South China Sea exposes rift between Obama, top Navy advisers."

Sessions Accuses Obama Administration of Being Weak on China - Alabama Political Reporter

"Obama’s Weakness Encourages Chinese Aggression"

"John Bolton: Obama Weakness on Russia, China ‘Has Made Risk of Hostilities Greater’"

"China's Military Isn't Worried About Obama"

I never said it's Obama's sole fault that China is China. He does bare some responsibility. It's his job. And he sucks at it.
 
#2,173
#2,173
Skullbone said:
" There are steps the United States can take.

The first is to describe revisionist acts for what they are. We should not downplay or seek to move on from territorial aggression. We must explain why it is an egregious violation of the international order, even where “nonvital” interests are concerned.
Click to expand...

As if the US hasn't explained to China that we don't want them to do what they're doing. If you think the problem is hat the US hasn't communicated to China that we'd rather them not do what they're doing, I'd like some of what you're smoking.

The second is to strengthen deterrence by denial. The United States should build defense capacity in vulnerable states and limit the offensive capabilities of revisionists, including training and equipping other countries to deal with unconventional warfare.
Click to expand...
Because equipping and training other countries to fight against rival powers has been SUCH a successful strategy for us in the past :crazy:

The third is to strengthen the regional and global order by making opposition to territorial expansion a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy and by developing legal and diplomatic paths to counter it. In a practical sense, this means pressuring European nations to back the Philippines right to take a case against China over the South China Sea dispute and pressuring the BRICS to condemn Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
Click to expand...

As if it's so easy to manipulate the political blocks of countries that formed to stop themselves from being bullied by the US. We haven't had success pressuring the EU in matters of territorial aggression since the disaster that was Iraq. And BRICS has little, if any incentive to condemn Russia's actions since their most powerful member stands to profit from the precedent Russia set.

[/QUOTE]Finally, the United States must show that territorial expansion has long-term costs. The United States should clearly communicate to its competitors that a foreign policy of territorial expansion will cause it to move toward a strategy of containment."[/QUOTE]
This I don't necessarily disagree with. But at the same I'm just not sure we have the leverage we once had for China to do anymore than shrug and say go ahead.
 
#2,174
#2,174
Skullbone said:
"China’s aggression over South China Sea exposes rift between Obama, top Navy advisers."

Sessions Accuses Obama Administration of Being Weak on China - Alabama Political Reporter

"Obama’s Weakness Encourages Chinese Aggression"

"John Bolton: Obama Weakness on Russia, China ‘Has Made Risk of Hostilities Greater’"

"China's Military Isn't Worried About Obama"

I never said it's Obama's sole fault that China is China. He does bare some responsibility. It's his job. And he sucks at it.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but could you provide anything more substantial? Relying on headlines and criticisms from Obama's opponents alone isn't exactly a good method of building informed, unbiased opinions. It's definitely easier to take things at face value, though.

As far as never saying it's all Obama's fault, that's technically not incorrect, but very disingenuous. You've been heavily implying it and summing up the problem as "a weakness in leadership" and nothing else.
 
Last edited:
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top