Duterte tells Obama to go to hell, will break up with US
- spitthedog
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 123
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:19 pm
What does China get for all this less strings attatched infrastructure spending in Laos, Cambodia and the Philippines then?
Are they looking for the Yuan to be the reserve currency of SE Asia?
Are they looking for the Yuan to be the reserve currency of SE Asia?
"I don't care what the people are thinking, i ain't drunk i'm just drinking"
- violet
- Suspicious Little Mad Woman
- Reactions: 289
- Posts: 19709
- Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:48 pm
- Location: About as far away as can be.
yep, re. Indonesia.Hot_Pink_Urinal_Mint wrote:Violet, Australia doesn't have a choice.
I posted this link about the US pivot to Asia
http://apjjf.org/2014/12/36/Vince-Scapp ... ticle.html
It's a long summary from the Australian perspective but if you scroll to the end you'll understand why 'we' have no choice. The summary doesn't mention the UKUSA Sigint agreement but it is a cold war relic.
It would take an anti-US Prime Minister or politician to change these agreements. Mark Latham was the last and I don't think we'll see the likes of someone like him again.
ALL Australian National Security and Foreign Policy must be formulated around this 1948 SIGINT agreement.
There is no choice. We have US Bases and Pinegap.
ETA: Indonesia remains Austrlalia's greatest threat. In national security jargon it is called "The arc of instability"
Yep re. the US bases.
ok... not on top of things with the SIGINT agreement. Noted. However, as we have recently seen with Russia,there is always a choice and agreements can be broken.
The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.
- Plutarch
- Plutarch
- Felgerkarb
- Sir Felgerkarb, Kt Pb
- Reactions: 240
- Posts: 9138
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:22 am
- Location: Castle Felgerkarb, Felgerkarbia (Formerly Preah Vihear)
- Contact:
China has not needed to expand militarily, but they will. Using economic forces, rather than military, they have retained control of huge swaths of sub Saharan African strategic resources. Should things get nasty, expect Chinese military to secure those resources if necessary, so don't bullshit yourselves. China is pretty damn clever. The US sends the military, then the economic stuff. China sends the economic stuff, then the military. It is their doctrine.
====================
Why are the gods such vicious cunts?
Where is the god of tits and wine?
Why are the gods such vicious cunts?
Where is the god of tits and wine?
Geopolitical influence. Reduced opposition to its territorial disputes (it wasn't that long ago that Manila and Beijing were close to coming to blows over the Scarborough Shoals) and in Laos and Philippines' case at least, first dibs on huge mineral / energy reserves (or at least influence over how it's distributed).spitthedog wrote:What does China get for all this less strings attatched infrastructure spending in Laos, Cambodia and the Philippines then?
Are they looking for the Yuan to be the reserve currency of SE Asia?
I wonder what military assets China holds in the so-called South China Sea
Does anyone here know, maybe Felg can clue us in.
China has dropped big dosh on Duterte personally, as they have in many places across the globe.
The lure of a few hundred million or more is all those guys need to sell their soul. That is all they were after in the first place. They know that means they can abandon their shithole country at the time of their choosing.
I hope China is not so foolish as to fire on a US naval vessel in international waters. That has the potential to result in a catastrophe.
Does anyone here know, maybe Felg can clue us in.
China has dropped big dosh on Duterte personally, as they have in many places across the globe.
The lure of a few hundred million or more is all those guys need to sell their soul. That is all they were after in the first place. They know that means they can abandon their shithole country at the time of their choosing.
I hope China is not so foolish as to fire on a US naval vessel in international waters. That has the potential to result in a catastrophe.
If you don't know where you're going, any road takes you there.
- springrain
- I'm on 3000; na na, na na na
- Reactions: 48
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:25 pm
You think the USA is guiltless of this? I can mention several examples of the same heartless & soulless manipulation - in countries such as Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Venezuela, Sri Lanka and so on ...David L wrote: China has dropped big dosh on ******* personally, as they have in many places across the globe.
The lure of a few hundred million or more is all those guys need to sell their soul. That is all they were after in the first place. They know that means they can abandon their ****** country at the time of their choosing.
Britain has also carried out the same tactics in many countries ...
It is not a question of patriotism (I am British, but will happily post about such disgraceful manipulation by that particularly nasty corporation - for that is what it is) but a question of folk realising that manipulation and destruction of livelihood on a vast scale is a monstrous, global evil.
The scum that bit-by-bit destroy the livelihoods of ordinary folk are in cahoots with each other; it matters not whether they crawl behind their facades of being 'Chinese', 'American', or 'British'.
'History is a set of lies agreed upon.'
Attributed to Napoleon
Attributed to Napoleon
I am not defending the many foreign policy mistakes of the US. The topic is PI and Duterte.
Your reply, as civil as it is, reminds me of the deflection tactic of Trump's campaign to the indiscretions of his opponent's spouse.
Your reply, as civil as it is, reminds me of the deflection tactic of Trump's campaign to the indiscretions of his opponent's spouse.
If you don't know where you're going, any road takes you there.
To be fair, their sole carrier was blowing that much black smoke out I wouldn't be surprised if it broke down before it got anywhere near the Med.violet wrote:so, what's Russia up to with it's fleet in the North Sea?
provocation/chest beating?
and how long until China starts calling in all those financial favours across the world?
interesting times indeed....things are gonna change but how soon?
also, would Russia really use its warships against a European country unprovoked and have a good old fashioned invasion? I ask because it always interests me that the UK and others in the area push their pieces onto the board. Is it all necessary or is it just 'what we do'?
Nah, Putin's fantasy is to reassemble the Soviet Union.
The bare-chested horseback riding despot will try to pick off the former territories of that failed state one by one. Everything else is pure bluff directed at his domestic audience.
As Dirty Harry would say, a man has to know his limitations.
Vlad, where are you...your input would be helpful.
PS: I don't know about smoke bellowing Russian carriers. But I do remember the Kursk submarine.
The bare-chested horseback riding despot will try to pick off the former territories of that failed state one by one. Everything else is pure bluff directed at his domestic audience.
As Dirty Harry would say, a man has to know his limitations.
Vlad, where are you...your input would be helpful.
PS: I don't know about smoke bellowing Russian carriers. But I do remember the Kursk submarine.
If you don't know where you're going, any road takes you there.
- Hot_Pink_Urinal_Mint
- I need professional help
- Reactions: 71
- Posts: 1035
- Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:19 pm
- Location: Right behind you
At least there are some skeptics in US Policy circles...
Daniel L. Davis is a widely published analyst on national security and foreign policy. He retired as a Lt. Col. after twenty-one years in the U.S. Army, including four combat deployments, and is a Foreign Policy Fellow for Defense Priorities and a member of the Center for Defense Information's Military Advisory Board.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-sk ... ests-16271The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) celebrated the release of a major foreign-policy paper on Monday, entitled “Extending American Power: Strategies to Expand U.S. Engagement in a Competitive World Order.” The paper, authored by a panel whose cochairs were Robert Kagan and James P. Rubin, is designed to “help shape the national conversation on America’s role in the world during the run-up to the presidential election in November 2016.” If the policy recommendations in this twenty-two-page report are followed by the next administration, the result won’t be to extend American power abroad. It would most likely cripple it.
The theme of the policy options and recommendations throughout this paper reflect the ambitions of an imperialist, domineering and expansive global power. The authors can’t, of course, describe their aspirations in those unpalatable terms. America would properly reject them immediately. Instead they seek to embed these concepts in pleasant, noble terms, explaining they seek to promote “the idea that American leadership is critical to preserving and strengthen the bedrock of today’s international order.” This highlights an important point up front. Definitions matter.
For too long now, the adherents of a hawkish school of foreign policy, often referred to as neocons, have repurposed the definition of “leadership” to mean international engagement, enabled by the stationing of combat forces or outright employing lethal military power abroad, to “shape” or coerce foreign governments to comply with American directives. At the same time, they have successfully stained any who advocate for a restrained use of force by deriding them as “neo-isolationists” who “fail to lead.” This militaristic foreign policy advocated by Kagan, Rubin and their coauthors, however, ultimately undercuts American interests and violates traditional American values in four major ways...
Daniel L. Davis is a widely published analyst on national security and foreign policy. He retired as a Lt. Col. after twenty-one years in the U.S. Army, including four combat deployments, and is a Foreign Policy Fellow for Defense Priorities and a member of the Center for Defense Information's Military Advisory Board.
SecState Kerry needs to send a polite diplomatic note to this despot. Something along the lines of "'eff off asshole, you and your shithole country are on your own..."
Philippines' Duterte says didn't really mean 'separation' from U.S.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china ... SKCN12L28T
Philippines' Duterte says didn't really mean 'separation' from U.S.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china ... SKCN12L28T
If you don't know where you're going, any road takes you there.
- Felgerkarb
- Sir Felgerkarb, Kt Pb
- Reactions: 240
- Posts: 9138
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:22 am
- Location: Castle Felgerkarb, Felgerkarbia (Formerly Preah Vihear)
- Contact:
China doesn't have to win an armed conflict to win politically, they know this. All they have to do it cripple ONE fleet, destroy ONE carrier, and the myth of American invincibility melts away. They are setting the chessboard up for that move. BUT, the Japanese made that same mistake with Pearl Harbor...that said, I am not sure our manbun culture, infested with lefty moral relativism, has the BALLS to do what should be done after the next Pearl when our own media, and frankly some citizens, say we "deserved" it.
Maybe I am a product of that era, I was raised by members of the greatest generation, so I see things differently. One thing I do know, if a nuke goes off, and a fleet is fried, anyone that pulls that laughing up your sleeve, smug moral relativistic shit to me is gonna get fucking stomped then and there. Call me what you will, but there are a few that still think western hegemony is superior...not clean, not perfect, not even nice...but I prefer that to the alternative.
Maybe I am a product of that era, I was raised by members of the greatest generation, so I see things differently. One thing I do know, if a nuke goes off, and a fleet is fried, anyone that pulls that laughing up your sleeve, smug moral relativistic shit to me is gonna get fucking stomped then and there. Call me what you will, but there are a few that still think western hegemony is superior...not clean, not perfect, not even nice...but I prefer that to the alternative.
====================
Why are the gods such vicious cunts?
Where is the god of tits and wine?
Why are the gods such vicious cunts?
Where is the god of tits and wine?
I appreciate your views, and won't call you anything.Felgerkarb wrote:China doesn't have to win an armed conflict to win politically, they know this. All they have to do it cripple ONE fleet, destroy ONE carrier, and the myth of American invincibility melts away. They are setting the chessboard up for that move. BUT, the Japanese made that same mistake with Pearl Harbor...that said, I am not sure our manbun culture, infested with lefty moral relativism, has the BALLS to do what should be done after the next Pearl when our own media, and frankly some citizens, say we "deserved" it.
Maybe I am a product of that era, I was raised by members of the greatest generation, so I see things differently. One thing I do know, if a nuke goes off, and a fleet is fried, anyone that pulls that laughing up your sleeve, smug moral relativistic shit to me is gonna get fucking stomped then and there. Call me what you will, but there are a few that still think western hegemony is superior...not clean, not perfect, not even nice...but I prefer that to the alternative.
My late father was a WW2 USN veteran too, but never claimed a greatest generation status. That is a Brokaw invention. Made a nice book title though.
I have a number of relatives and friends in my circle, and their offspring, who wear a (or wore) a uniform. My niece's husband is a CPO, he wears no haircut resembling a man bun, and is as sharp as a knife.
There is no such thing as wiping out USN. Maybe a carrier and it's task force, if the Chinese, Russian, Iranian, DPRK, et al decide that is a cunning plan. But I doubt they would try, they all know the tactical and strategic consequences of that folly. And nothing would, as you put it, melt away.
As far as nukes are concerned, shit, I don't even want to contemplate that, but would be absolutely MAD.
If you don't know where you're going, any road takes you there.
Ww3 will be fought using drones and computer hackers.
Guns, carriers, missiles and shit are just for bluster, show and blowing up brown people.
A model aircraft from maplins, with a bit of tweaking could take out an aircraft carrier, hell even the us navy found out in various exercises that a canoe with an outboard could sink a flagship. Then, if some nerds operating out of a bunker in china with wifi could knock out the eastern seaboard.....
Guns, carriers, missiles and shit are just for bluster, show and blowing up brown people.
A model aircraft from maplins, with a bit of tweaking could take out an aircraft carrier, hell even the us navy found out in various exercises that a canoe with an outboard could sink a flagship. Then, if some nerds operating out of a bunker in china with wifi could knock out the eastern seaboard.....
Massive stalker
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
Duterte tells citizens to shoot corrupt officials
by Jitters » Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:33 pm » in Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar and Lao forums - 10 Replies
- 4279 Views
-
Last post by vladimir
Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:57 pm
-
-
-
Sar Kheng tells police to stop spanking people
by Bong Burgundy » Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:15 pm » in Cambodia News - 5 Replies
- 5316 Views
-
Last post by Cricket99
Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:30 am
-
-
-
Office chair that won't break when I sit on it
by orde » Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:25 am » in Questions and Answers - 2 Replies
- 1436 Views
-
Last post by v12
Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:02 pm
-
-
-
American badly beaten in S'ville; his mom tells Trump he's the victim of human traffickers and sellers of human organs
by gavinmac » Sun Apr 19, 2020 10:10 am » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 16 Replies
- 7978 Views
-
Last post by AceFrehley
Thu Apr 23, 2020 6:48 am
-
-
- 6 Replies
- 624 Views
-
Last post by kinard
Fri Feb 03, 2023 12:52 pm