Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4487
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by Doc » Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:30 am

cassowary wrote:
Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:47 am
Doc wrote:
Thu Jul 16, 2020 6:34 am
Sertorio wrote:
Thu Jul 16, 2020 1:36 am
I would just remind some of you that a Chinese peasant's army, poorly equipped, almost wiped out the US army in Korea, in the 50's... Short of a massive nuclear attack on China, the US doesn't have a chance in hell of winning a shooting war with China. But I suppose the "exceptionals" still believe in miracles...
Korea? As I recall the Chinese lost 30 solders to each US causality. Vietnam kicked CCP butt back in the 70's ANd just a few weeks ago the Indian army fought with CCP special forces in brutal hand to hand combat The CCP not only did not announce how many of its little princeling soldiers died but did not even have a burial ceremony to honor them lest the Chinese people found out how many of their single child soldiers died. But it is pretty apparent the the CCP once again got its butt kicked. Imagine how popular it would be among Chinese one child parents if their one child was killed. Imagine what kind of soldiers little princelings make. It is no wonder the CCP has given up making additional and inferior air craft carriers.
Don't be overconfident, Doc. Much as I hate the Communist Party of China, you must not underestimate the Chinese people.
I think I should have used the term little emperors. People that grew up always getting their way don't make very good soldiers.

I am more worried about cyber warfare.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... s-n1233972
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 4487
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by Doc » Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:30 am

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:26 am
cassowary wrote:
Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:29 am
neverfail wrote:
Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:59 pm
cassowary wrote:
Thu Jul 16, 2020 9:45 pm
neverfail wrote:
Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:24 pm

If you are relying on the Yanks to "save" your country it makes them a fickle, unreliable ally. Just ask any of the Vietnamese "boat people" refugees who fled their country in the aftermath of Communist victory.

Cassowary, please take careful note!
Neverfail,

The Americans are the only game in town to save us from the Communist Chinese. If the US withdraws from Asia Pacific, let me predict what will happen to Australia.

Chinese businessmen, mostly related to top CCP officials like Xi and others will do business in Australia. The Australian government will give them sweetheart deals or bend regulations in their favor. Australians officials will be bribed and the government will not dare to prosecute them.

That is our fate, if America withdraws.
I agree! Yet the track record of the USA of cutting and rumning when the going gets hot still speaks for itself; giving us no cause for confidence.

I notice that you did not post a dissenting view on this either - so you must agree.
Yes, you are right. Americans can only last about 10 years before the home front gives up. What do you expect? America is a democracy and it cannot do anything unpopular for long. That’s a weakness that dictatorships don’t have. Remember that.

But Americans have shown time and again, a willingness to sacrifice blood and treasure for its democratic and humane ideals. It need not have entered the Korean War or Vietnam War. But it did. Which other country would have done that?

And it was not a total failure. America saved South Korea and SE Asia from communism/socialism.
The only reason the US ever goes to war is simply this: the expected loot!...

Whether directly by taking or controlling other peoples resources, or indirectly by the sale of weapons...
Yeah Korea all those oil reserves and gold deposits. :roll:
“"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros

neverfail
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by neverfail » Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:36 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:26 am


The only reason the US ever goes to war is simply this: the expected loot!...

Whether directly by taking or controlling other peoples resources, or indirectly by the sale of weapons...
Sertorio, I could hardly believe what I was seeing when I first read your above post.

In thos case you do not know what you are bloody-well takling about.

neverfail
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by neverfail » Fri Jul 17, 2020 3:19 pm

cassowary wrote:
Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:29 am


Yes, you are right. Americans can only last about 10 years before the home front gives up. What do you expect? America is a democracy and it cannot do anything unpopular for long. That’s a weakness that dictatorships don’t have. Remember that.
Sarcastic reply Cassowary - but I will let that pass.

No! Dictatorships which are not open to corrective censure or guidance from within, do have an unbridled capacity for leading their countries into utter catastrophe - if you recall Hitler's singular acheivement in leading Germany, along with much of Europe desides, to utter destruction.

In the case of Korea they did not last even 3 years. Newly elected US president Dwight Eisenower was sufficiently tuned in to the war weariness of American society in his time to see that the best course was enter into a ceaseftre. That was done over the head of the South Korean leader Syngman Rhee; who was furious when he found out. Rhee was every bit as determined that the whole of Korea should be unified under his (dictatorial) regime as his opponent Kim Il sung was that it should be unified into a Communist state under his leadership. Very nice when you can get somebody else to do your fighting for you as both sides in the war were doing.

In the case of Vietnam it was only the obstinancy of two successive US presidents, going against the prevailing anti-war sentiment and determined to save international face, that kept the US committment going for as long as it lasted. Politics!

Nice to see that you now admit that the US decision to quit Vietnam was prompted by growing anti-war sentiment among the American public instead of attributing it to a dark, lefty conspiracy the way you used to. :D

cassowary wrote:
Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:29 am
But Americans have shown time and again, a willingness to sacrifice blood and treasure for its democratic and humane ideals. It need not have entered the Korean War or Vietnam War. But it did. Which other country would have done that?
Twaddle! In the case of the two World Wars the US as a late entrant to the conflict demonstrated if anything great reluctance to become involved - a bi-product of that sense of isolationism that seems to run deep in teh American national pysche.

Korea? The American led intervention was United Nations sanctioned unliker the later Vietnam intervention. Had the Truman administration not acted to repel a blatant act of aggression/invasion by the North it would have been tantamount to sending Stalin (and Mao) a diplomatic message to the effect that 'you can walk up and urinate all over us whenever you want to - thereby undoing all of the good that the Berlin airlift had done thwarting Soviet expansion plans had then recently done in Europe.

neverfail
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by neverfail » Fri Jul 17, 2020 4:09 pm

Cass, my participation in this discussion has had the effect of "drawing me out" helping me along to a realisation I had not had before. The new awareness is of an apparent traditional "disconnect" between the vantage point of US high public officials and decisionmakers in Washington DC (who are often privy to information not readily available to the public) and US public opinion which is normally isolationist and resistant to US intervention abroad (a bi-product of American "exceptionalism?) - except when they believe that the US can win a cheap and easy military victory (e.g. Iraq 2003) involving no sacrifice on their part.

For helping me along the way I would like to thank you and other participants.

(for instance) The US had held off entering the Second World War for over two years because, while President Roosevelt and colleagues understood the danger posed by the Axis dictators over in Europe, majority US public opinion did not. Ordinary Americans saw things from a different perspective to their leaders. Europe had a bad image among the American public; apparently because of the perceived ingratitude of the powers of Europe over US intervention during the First World War. "Why should we care about goddamned Europe when Europe does not care about us"? It took the combined effect of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour followed a week later by a unilateral declaration of war (apparently a gesture of solidarity towards Germany's Axis partner in the Far East) by Hitler on the US that finally compelled America to go to war.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3848
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by Sertorio » Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:12 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:36 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Fri Jul 17, 2020 8:26 am


The only reason the US ever goes to war is simply this: the expected loot!...

Whether directly by taking or controlling other peoples resources, or indirectly by the sale of weapons...
Sertorio, I could hardly believe what I was seeing when I first read your above post.

In thos case you do not know what you are bloody-well takling about.
Let me tell you a true story:

In 1975 I was in Angola, having been personal secretary of the Governor-general of Angola, appointed already after the 1974 coup. So what I am going to tell is based on personal or very close experience.

The struggle for power in Angola was mostly between the marxist MPLA, politically supported by the Soviet Union, and militarily helped by Cuba, and UNITA, a more traditional African movement led by China and Switzerland educated Savimbi, which was helped by South Africa and some former Portuguese special forces. In 1975 South Africa was about to invade Angola, to help UNITA conquer Luanda and take over power in Angola. The US was inclined to help UNITA, and to that end a meeting took place in Abidjan between Savimbi and one of the American under-secretaries of state.

What I am going to tell now, I only learned many years later, from a student of mine at the university, who was an adopted son of Savimbi. During the mentioned meeting in Abidjan the American told Savimbi that he could count on US support, provided he would guarantee US rights to exploit Angolese oil. Savimbi, who may have thought that with the help of South Africa he didn't much need US support, told the American that oil was the property of the Angolese, and he could not grant those rights on his own, and not before he was in power in Luanda.

As a result, the US decided to support MPLA - from which it may have already secured those oil rights - and dump UNITA. In the process the US forced South Africa to withdraw its artillery and armour from Angola, leaving Savimbi to fight on his own. I can guarantee this withdrawal of the South Africans because it was witnessed by former commandos, who were friends of mine and were with the South African army.

Left on its own, UNITA was unable to force its way into Luanda, and the MPLA gained power. And the US was allowed to exploit the Angola oil...

What we saw here was the US helping an openly marxist movement aided by Cuban forces to gain power, in exchange for oil exploiting rights. In the next few years the US helped MPLA destroy UNITA and kill Savimbi, by giving all the intelligence necessary to achieve this.

So, if you think that the US fights and wages war to help countries becoming free and democratic, you may as well forget it. Money, natural resources and influence, are what moves the US under all circumstances. As I said: loot! Lots and lots of it...

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4132
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by cassowary » Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:31 am

neverfail wrote:
Fri Jul 17, 2020 3:19 pm
cassowary wrote:
Fri Jul 17, 2020 7:29 am


Yes, you are right. Americans can only last about 10 years before the home front gives up. What do you expect? America is a democracy and it cannot do anything unpopular for long. That’s a weakness that dictatorships don’t have. Remember that.
Sarcastic reply Cassowary - but I will let that pass.

No! Dictatorships which are not open to corrective censure or guidance from within, do have an unbridled capacity for leading their countries into utter catastrophe - if you recall Hitler's singular acheivement in leading Germany, along with much of Europe desides, to utter destruction.

In the case of Korea they did not last even 3 years. Newly elected US president Dwight Eisenower was sufficiently tuned in to the war weariness of American society in his time to see that the best course was enter into a ceaseftre. That was done over the head of the South Korean leader Syngman Rhee; who was furious when he found out. Rhee was every bit as determined that the whole of Korea should be unified under his (dictatorial) regime as his opponent Kim Il sung was that it should be unified into a Communist state under his leadership. Very nice when you can get somebody else to do your fighting for you as both sides in the war were doing.

In the case of Vietnam it was only the obstinancy of two successive US presidents, going against the prevailing anti-war sentiment and determined to save international face, that kept the US committment going for as long as it lasted. Politics!

Nice to see that you now admit that the US decision to quit Vietnam was prompted by growing anti-war sentiment among the American public instead of attributing it to a dark, lefty conspiracy the way you used to. :D
??? The two, War weariness and the leftist machinations are not mutually exclusive. It was the left that gave rise to the anti war sentiments by contributing to the war weariness. The left were sympathetic to their fellow socialists. War weariness came about by the left’s portraying of the war as immoral. The blood of those killed in Indo China after its fall are partly in the hands of the western left. That has not changed.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by neverfail » Sat Jul 18, 2020 4:19 am

cassowary wrote:
Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:31 am

??? The two, War weariness and the leftist machinations are not mutually exclusive. It was the left that gave rise to the anti war sentiments by contributing to the war weariness. The left were sympathetic to their fellow socialists. War weariness came about by the left’s portraying of the war as immoral. The blood of those killed in Indo China after its fall are partly in the hands of the western left. That has not changed.
It seems that you are incorrigible after all - and I had hoped that my appeal to your reason over the years had by now enlightened you somewhat. But it seems that some individuals are plain pathologically obscessive in clinging to their nonsensical notions.

Of course individuals and organised groups who identified as "left" jumped on the anti-war-bandwagon: could you have expected then to have done otherwise? But so bloody what? They jumped on it but that did not mean that they built the bandwagon or got it moving. That is where your perceptions of what happened are terribly skewed, Cassowary.

That was done (in the case of Korea) by ordinary people who have lived through (and in the case of many individuals) fought in the Second World War and looked forward to at least a generation or two of peace. The Korean War came as a rude interruption to that post WW2 tranquility.

In the case of Vietnam there were plenty of ordinary Americans who were never able to see how their nation's best interests were being served by having so many of their young men fighting and dying in a distant foreign country of no obvious geostrategic use to the United States. As the war dragged on and America had growing issues at home (like the black civil rights movement and conflict) I can well understand why many Americans would have lost patience with the War and put their political powers-that-be under irristable pressure to bring the horror to an end.

(..and I don't care how much your political hero LKY saw it differently - thats how it was in the USA: so learn to accept it and love it. Why did Lee not send Singapore's fledgling army to Vietnam in support of the Yanks and the South Vietnamese regime if he felt so strongly about the matter? Is it simply easier and cheaper to cheer others on into doing all of your fighting for you?)

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4132
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by cassowary » Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:05 am

neverfail wrote:
Sat Jul 18, 2020 4:19 am
cassowary wrote:
Sat Jul 18, 2020 3:31 am

??? The two, War weariness and the leftist machinations are not mutually exclusive. It was the left that gave rise to the anti war sentiments by contributing to the war weariness. The left were sympathetic to their fellow socialists. War weariness came about by the left’s portraying of the war as immoral. The blood of those killed in Indo China after its fall are partly in the hands of the western left. That has not changed.
It seems that you are incorrigible after all - and I had hoped that my appeal to your reason over the years had by now enlightened you somewhat. But it seems that some individuals are plain pathologically obscessive in clinging to their nonsensical notions.
I am incorrigibly correct.
Of course individuals and organised groups who identified as "left" jumped on the anti-war-bandwagon: could you have expected then to have done otherwise? But so bloody what? They jumped on it but that did not mean that they built the bandwagon or got it moving. That is where your perceptions of what happened are terribly skewed, Cassowary.

That was done (in the case of Korea) by ordinary people who have lived through (and in the case of many individuals) fought in the Second World War and looked forward to at least a generation or two of peace. The Korean War came as a rude interruption to that post WW2 tranquility.

In the case of Vietnam there were plenty of ordinary Americans who were never able to see how their nation's best interests were being served by having so many of their young men fighting and dying in a distant foreign country of no obvious geostrategic use to the United States. As the war dragged on and America had growing issues at home (like the black civil rights movement and conflict) I can well understand why many Americans would have lost patience with the War and put their political powers-that-be under irristable pressure to bring the horror to an end.
There were all sorts of people who opposed the Vietnam war in the US. Some were afraid to get drafted and be killed. Some were afraid one of their loved ones, a son, brother, husband or friend will get killed. But there were those who were on the side of the Communists/Socialists.

I have no quarrel with the first group. If you come out to say that you don't want to go because you are afraid of dying for a faraway country that you don't care about, I can accept that. But it is the second group that I am angry with. These were the people who wanted their country to lose. They infested the universities, newspapers and Hollywood and portrayed American involvement in the war as evil or immoral.

A principled stand would be, "Yes, it is a noble cause to oppose Socialism/Communism because it is evil. But I don't want to die or I don't want a loved one to die just to save the Vietnamese from this evil."

Instead, many Hollywood movies and journalists portrayed US involvement as evil.
(..and I don't care how much your political hero LKY saw it differently - thats how it was in the USA: so learn to accept it and love it. Why did Lee not send Singapore's fledgling army to Vietnam in support of the Yanks and the South Vietnamese regime if he felt so strongly about the matter? Is it simply easier and cheaper to cheer others on into doing all of your fighting for you?)
All LKY said was that the Americans saved us in SE Asia even though the US failed to save Indo-China. This implied that he saw US involvement in Vietnam as a noble deed. Why Lee did not send our fledgling army to Vietnam? Its not because we thought it was not a noble cause. Oh No. We saw it as another version of our own Malayan Emergency with the Americans taking the role of British, Australians and Kiwis and even Rhodesians.

It's because we were honest. We collectively thought, "Yes, the Americans are fighting a noble cause in Vietnam. But we don't want to die. So we won't go."

We wondered and admired the Americans for doing this for 10 long years. Only their ideals and commitment to freedom would have allowed their involvement for so long. During the 10 long years, the Americans sacrificed their own blood and treasure which we and I believe 95% of the world would not have done, no matter how noble the cause. That is why I love America.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 3848
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Some Chinese want to retake Vladivostok

Post by Sertorio » Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:20 am

Pity neither Cass nor Neverfail thought it worthwhile commenting on my Angola experience/example... Difficulty in dealing with facts?...

Post Reply