Rumsfeld Says China Building Up Military

[Bluezoo]

Rumsfeld Says China Building Up Military
By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 13 minutes ago

SINGAPORE - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Saturday said China is not a threat to the United States but is building up its military without being threatened by any other country.

Rumsfeld challenged China at a regional security conference here, particularly its placing hundreds of missiles in range of Taiwan. He said China was also sharply increasing its military spending and buying large amounts of sophisticated weapons.

"Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?" Rumsfeld said at the conference organized by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, a private, London-based think tank.

China's response was immediate. Cui Tiankai, the director of the Asia bureau of China's foreign ministry, was in the audience for Rumsfeld's speech and told The Associated Press afterwards that he disagreed.

"Since the U.S. is spending a lot more money than China is doing on defense, the U.S. should understand that every country has its own security concerns and every country is entitled to spend money necessary for its own defense," Cui said.

Rumsfeld signaled a harder line against China from the Bush administration, which has criticized Beijing over trade and human rights issues but not directly challenged the Chinese military buildup.

Rumsfeld said the Pentagon's annual assessment of China's military capabilities shows China is spending more than its leaders acknowledge, expanding its missile capabilities and developing advanced military technology.

China now has the world's third-largest military budget, he said, behind the United States and Russia. He did not say how large the U.S. believes China's military budget is.

"Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?" Rumsfeld said at the conference organized by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, a private, London-based think tank.

Cui responded sharply to Rumsfeld during a question-and-answer session.

"Do you truly believe that China is under no threat by other countries?" Cui asked. "Do you truly believe that the U.S. is threatened by the emergence of China?"

Rumsfeld said he does not think any country threatens China and that the United States does not see China as a threat.

Central to the disagreement is Taiwan, a self-governing island Beijing regards as a renegade territory.

China has said it will attack Taiwan if the island tries to declare independence, and it repeatedly calls on the United States to stop selling weapons to Taiwan. Beijing denounced a joint U.S.-Japan statement earlier this year saying the two allies shared the objective of a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue.

The United States is urging the European Union to keep in place its ban on selling weapons to China. Washington argues that any European weapons sold to China could be used in a conflict over Taiwan.

"I just look at the significant rollout of ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan, and I have to ask the question: If everyone agrees the question of Taiwan is going to be settled in a peaceful way, why this increase in ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan?" Rumsfeld said.

He also questioned China's government, saying political freedom there has not kept pace with increasing economic freedom.

"Ultimately, China will need to embrace some form of a more open and representative government if it is to fully achieve the political and economic benefits to which its people aspire," he said.

The defense secretary, who has said he would like to visit China this year, also pressed Beijing to use its influence with North Korea to restart six-nation talks over Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program. North Korea has stayed away for a year from the talks with China, the United States, South Korea, Japan and Russia.

Rumsfeld said the United Nations may need to decide what to do about the nuclear threat from North Korea, which declared in February that it has atomic bombs. North Korea says it needs a nuclear deterrent because of what it calls Washington's "hostile policy" against it.

South Korean Defense Minister Yoon Kwang Ung met privately with Rumsfeld later Saturday. Yoon said his government agrees that China should try to persuade North Korea to rejoin the talks....

For the full text, go to:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050604/ap_on_re_as/rumsfeld_asia

[mudbunny]

can you say "Super-Power"?

[ElHombre]

Rumsfeld said the United Nations may need to decide what to do about the nuclear threat from North Korea...

since his own boss can't decide what to do about it.

[Omz222]

Big deal. According to the logic in the bolded statement, why should each nation maintain a military at all then? :roll:

[Attorney-At-Law]

SINGAPORE (AP) -- China's military buildup, particularly its positioning of hundreds of missiles facing Taiwan, is a threat to Asian security, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Saturday.

Rumsfeld rebuked China at a regional security conference in Singapore, saying it was pouring huge resources into its military and buying large amounts of sophisticated weapons despite facing no threat from any other country.

The Pentagon chief's remarks signaled a harder line against China from the Bush administration, which has criticized Beijing over trade and human rights issues but not directly challenged its military buildup.

The director of the Asia bureau of China's foreign ministry, Cui Tiankai, was in the audience for Rumsfeld's speech and reacted strongly.

"Since the U.S. is spending a lot more money than China is doing on defense, the U.S. should understand that every country has its own security concerns and every country is entitled to spend money necessary for its own defense," Cui told The Associated Press after Rumsfeld's remarks.

Rumsfeld said the Pentagon's annual assessment of China's military capabilities shows China is spending more than its leaders acknowledge, expanding its missile capabilities and developing advanced military technology.

China now has the world's third-largest military budget, he said, behind the United States and Russia. He did not say how large the U.S. believes China's military budget is.

"Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?" Rumsfeld said at the conference organized by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, a private, London-based think tank.

Cui responded sharply to Rumsfeld during a question-and-answer session.

"Do you truly believe that China is under no threat by other countries?" Cui asked. "Do you truly believe that the U.S. is threatened by the emergence of China?"

Rumsfeld said he does not think any country threatened China and that the United States did not see China as a threat.

Central to the disagreement is Taiwan, a self-governing island Beijing regards as a renegade territory.

China has said it will attack Taiwan if the island tries to declare independence, and it repeatedly calls on the United States to stop selling weapons to Taiwan.

Beijing denounced a joint U.S.-Japan statement earlier this year saying the two allies shared the objective of a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue.

The United States is urging the European Union to keep in place its ban on selling weapons to China. Washington argues that any European weapons sold to China could be used in a conflict over Taiwan.

"I just look at the significant rollout of ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan, and I have to ask the question: If everyone agrees the question of Taiwan is going to be settled in a peaceful way, why this increase in ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan?" Rumsfeld said.

He also questioned China's government, saying political freedom there had not kept pace with increasing economic freedom.

"Ultimately, China will need to embrace some form of a more open and representative government if it is to fully achieve the political and economic benefits to which its people aspire," he said.

The defense secretary, who has said he would like to visit China this year, also pressed Beijing to use its influence with North Korea to restart six-nation talks over Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program.

North Korea has stayed away for a year from the talks with China, the United States, South Korea, Japan and Russia.

Rumsfeld said the United Nations might need to decide what to do about the nuclear threat from North Korea, which declared in February that it has atomic bombs.

North Korea says it needs a nuclear deterrent because of what it calls Washington's "hostile policy" against it.

Rumsfeld said North Korea was a worldwide threat because of its record of selling missile technology and other weapons.

"One has to assume that they'll sell anything, and that they would sell nuclear weapons," he said.

Similar U.S. criticism of North Korea has sparked an angry response from Pyongyang.

The state-run Korean Central News Agency this week called Vice President **** Cheney a "bloodthirsty beast" for saying that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il was irresponsible.

U.S. President George W. Bush and other administration officials say the U.S. has no intention of attacking North Korea.

Tensions between the two nations have been rising in recent months.

Last week, the Pentagon suspended its only contact with North Korea efforts to search for the remains of missing servicemen from the Korean War.

U.S. officials said they could not guarantee the search teams' safety in remote areas.

[Zarathustra]

Interesting.

[Jin]

US's military budget is 441.6 Billion...for a population of around 500 million

Japan's military budget is 45.6 billion...for a population of 127 Million

China's military budget is 50 - 70 Billion...for a population of 1.3 Billion



"Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?"


No nation threatens Japan, so one must wonder: Why spend 45 Billion when Japan has pledge peace and would never declare war again



US overstated China's military spending, study says
WASHINGTON (*******) - The Defense Department may have overestimated China's total military spending by more than two-thirds, according to a report for the Air Force released on Thursday.

The RAND Corporation, a research group that studies many issues for the Pentagon, estimated China's military spending totaled $31 billion to $38 billion in 2003, which it said was the most recent year for which full data was available.

By contrast, the Defense Department has put the 2003 figure as high as $65 billion, 71 percent greater than the high end of RAND's estimate.

The communist state itself has used a figure of about $25 billion, but U.S. experts say that does not include research and development, pensions and some other costs normally included by western militaries.

RAND's figure could raise questions about some of the arguments used by U.S. decisonmakers to justify continued spending on big-ticket weapons systems.

The Defense Department, asked to comment on the findings, said it was standing by the numbers it used in its fiscal 2003 annual report to Congress on Chinese military power.

The Pentagon "asks for greater transparency in China's People's Liberation Army military budget reporting," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Gregory Hicks, a Pentagon spokesman.

"It is well known that the PLA is embarked on an ambitious, long-term military modernization effort to develop capabilities to fight and win short-duration, high-intensity conflicts along its periphery," Hicks said.

The Defense Department monitors China's military modernization closely, "particularly those aspects that are directed at Taiwan," he said. The United States is committed to helping Taiwan's self-defense but without provoking China, which deems Taiwan a rogue province.

In its fiscal 2004 annual report to Congress on China's military power, released on May 28 last year, the Pentagon put China's military outlays at $50 billion to $70 billion.

China's military has denounced the Pentagon figures as wildly exaggerated. In a commentary on June 15, the People's Liberation Army said the true sum was about $25 billion, which it equated to 1/19th of U.S. national defense spending.

China, the PLA said, was "one of the countries with the lowest per capita national defense expenditure."

RAND estimated China's defense spending at 2.3 percent to 2.8 percent of gross domestic product in 2003. Using what it called newly available Chinese-language primary sources, it said this was 1.4 to 1.7 times the official Chinese number.

By comparison, U.S. defense spending was 3.8 percent of GDP in 2003, or about $417.5 billion.

"China's defense spending has more than doubled over the past six years," almost catching up with Britain and Japan, said Kent Crane, the RAND study's lead author. "Although the rate of increase has slowed, by 2025 China will be spending more on defense than any of our allies."

James Mulvenon, an analyst who contributed to the report before leaving RAND to join another consulting group, said the U.S. government had been using a lot of "wild-assed guesses" about Chinese military spending rather than digging into original source material.

"Basically, we're correcting a lot of U.S. government estimates that weren't based on empirical fact," said Mulvenon, now at the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis, a Washington-based group that consults for U.S. intelligence agencies.



http://dailynews.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050520/pl_nm/arms_china_usa_dc_8

[jmatucd]

500 million? lol ummm....

Realistically, we defend large portions of the world so that number can easily rise to include the populations of most free nations. Defending them from the tyrannical dictatorships of the world (such as yours). Enjoying the US assets protecting SK, Japan etc?

[Omz222]

500 million? lol ummm....

Realistically, we defend large portions of the world so that number can easily rise to include the populations of most free nations. Defending them from the tyrannical dictatorships of the world (such as yours). Enjoying the US assets protecting SK, Japan etc?
I don't know how many times it has been repeated, but the PRC is not a dictatorship, where the definition of a dictatorship is a government that is headed by a dictator. It used to be a dictatorship and currently it is still an authoritian government, but accusing the PRC of being a "dictatorship" is simply irrational, when considering that the government of China isn't even controlled by one individual/dictator, but by a small group of people.

[duck]

500 million? lol ummm....

Realistically, we defend large portions of the world so that number can easily rise to include the populations of most free nations. Defending them from the tyrannical dictatorships of the world (such as yours). Enjoying the US assets protecting SK, Japan etc?

Do you realize that Chinese ( Mainland, Taiwan, HK, SE Asia ) are financing both the US involvenment in Afghanistan and Iraq? If the Asian investors would withdraw from US financial markets the country would be in ruins.

[Andreas]

Hmmmm..

Has anybody read "the bear and the dragon" by Tom Clancy?....

Could be a scenario thats not "totaly over the top"..

Just my two cents..

Andy

[Lokos]

Andreas:

There's a reason why the Russians are posting all their most advanced equipment in the East - including the T-90Ss.

Generally:

China building up its military?!

This is me with my surprised face:

*me with surprised face*

Lokos

[Bulkowski]

No nation threatens Japan, so one must wonder: Why spend 45 Billion when Japan has pledged peace and would never declare war again

I think North Korea is a pretty big threat, wouldn't you say?

EDIT: And you don't have to declare war on a country per se, just a war on something... p-)

[abncougar]

Rumsfeld said the United Nations may need to decide what to do about the nuclear threat from North Korea...

since his own boss can't decide what to do about it.


cause his own boss doesn't want to piss off anymore of the international community like he has in the past....... :backhand:

[SOG]

US's military budget is 441.6 Billion...for a population of around 500 million

Japan's military budget is 45.6 billion...for a population of 127 Million

China's military budget is 50 - 70 Billion...for a population of 1.3 Billion



USA - 290 million. thanks.

CIA FBook - United States 295,734,134 (July 2005 est.)

[Seiyuuki]

US's military budget is 441.6 Billion...for a population of around 500 million

Japan's military budget is 45.6 billion...for a population of 127 Million

China's military budget is 50 - 70 Billion...for a population of 1.3 Billion



"Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?"


No nation threatens Japan, so one must wonder: Why spend 45 Billion when Japan has pledge peace and would never declare war again

The propagandistic bull**** never get old, does it. Population is as good as dog poop, the U.S. can start force breeding babies like rabbit and they'll get off looking like a peaceful angel.

1. United States - $276.7 billion (FY99 est.)
2. China - $55.91 billion (FY02)
3. France - $46.5 billion (2000)
4. Japan - $39.52 billion (FY02)
5. Germany - $38.8 billion (2002)
6. United Kingdom - $31.7 billion (2002)
7. Italy - $20.2 billion (2002)
8. Saudi Arabia - $18.3 billion (FY00)
9. Brazil - $13.408 billion (FY99)
10. Korea, South - $13,094.3 million (FY02)
11. India - $11.52 billion (FY02)
12. Australia - $11.39 billion (FY02)
13. Iran - $9.7 billion (FY00)
14. Israel - $8.97 billion (FY02)
15. Spain - $8.6 billion (2002)
16. Turkey - $8.1 billion (2002 est.)
17. Canada - $7.861 billion (FY01/02)
18. Taiwan - $7.574 billion (FY02)
19. Netherlands - $6.5 billion (FY00/01 est.)
20. Greece - $6.12 billion (FY99/00 est.)

[Omz222]

At least, having a large good budget for the PLA themselves is still a good thing, as it gives them more possibilities and room to expand, procure better weapons, and continue their modernization. Population is still irrelevant, considering that the American economy is still much larger than those of China. Having a large military budget doesn't make them "bad" or "evil" or "cold-hearted"; it's how the military is used that can influence a nation's image.

[CG51]

this is a suprise to anyone? :roll:

[Jin]

this is a suprise to anyone? :roll:

Not really...
US tries to contain China in everyway possible. US military budget is more than 3 times as ours, and they are telling us that we are threatening stability? oh please... :roll:

[Bluezoo]

this is a suprise to anyone? :roll:

Not really...
US tries to contain China in everyway possible. US military budget is more than 3 times as ours, and they are telling us that we are threatening stability? oh please... :roll:

Oh yes! :lol:

[stuntman]

500 million? lol ummm....

Realistically, we defend large portions of the world so that number can easily rise to include the populations of most free nations. Defending them from the tyrannical dictatorships of the world (such as yours). Enjoying the US assets protecting SK, Japan etc?
I don't know how many times it has been repeated, but the PRC is not a dictatorship, where the definition of a dictatorship is a government that is headed by a dictator. It used to be a dictatorship and currently it is still an authoritian government, but accusing the PRC of being a "dictatorship" is simply irrational, when considering that the government of China isn't even controlled by one individual/dictator, but by a small group of people.

LOL this is a joke right? So let me get this straight, so it really has ten dictators?

[Omz222]

LOL this is a joke right? So let me get this straight, so it really has ten dictators?
Technically, no it isn't, when a dictator essentially rules by him/herself. The government of the PRC is best described as an authoritative oligarchy, where a small group of people enjoys a considerable sum of power, as opposed to one single person such as Kim Jong Il in North Korea. A body of people and a person are still two different things, and a body of people sharing exclusive powers and an individual holding supreme powers are still different in concept, thus labeling an authoritarian government where a group of people shares an exclusive set of powers as a "dictatorship" is fundamentally flawed.

[stuntman]

LOL this is a joke right? So let me get this straight, so it really has ten dictators?
Technically, no it isn't, when a dictator essentially rules by him/herself. The government of the PRC is best described as an authoritative oligarchy, where a small group of people enjoys a considerable sum of power, as opposed to one single person such as Kim Jong Il in North Korea. A body of people and a person are still two different things, and a body of people sharing exclusive powers and an individual holding supreme powers are still different in concept, thus labeling an authoritarian government where a group of people shares an exclusive set of powers as a "dictatorship" is fundamentally flawed.
Look I understand the text book definition but in the contexts of leadership since no one is elected in China it is still a dictatorship Government. Even though a committee appointed him he is the voice of the Government which is not representitive of the people! Hence the name PRC(Peoples Republic of China) is not technically a republic like the USA. So it is ten dictators instead of just one. And yes it is also authoritative Gov. which is the same as dictatorship if you ask me!

[Omz222]

Look I understand the text book definition but in the contexts of leadership since no one is elected in China it is still a dictatorship Government. Even though a committee appointed him he is the voice of the Government which is not representitive of the people! Hence the name PRC(Peoples Republic of China) is not technically a republic like the USA. So it is ten dictators instead of just one. And yes it is also authoritative Gov. which is the same as dictatorship if you ask me!
Interpretations may vary and may also conflict with each other; however, this does not mean that they are technically correct either. While the referral to the PRC government as a "dictatorship" is in fact quite common among many who does not necessarily favour Chinese government, there is still a clear distinction between one person holding power and a group of people holding power together, with a small subset of leaders in the process.

[catalyst]

China does have some levels of voting for the government.....whilst i agree it has no level of politcal freedom...you are allowed to vote for individuals inthe CP who then elect others....

[stuntman]

Look I understand the text book definition but in the contexts of leadership since no one is elected in China it is still a dictatorship Government. Even though a committee appointed him he is the voice of the Government which is not representitive of the people! Hence the name PRC(Peoples Republic of China) is not technically a republic like the USA. So it is ten dictators instead of just one. And yes it is also authoritative Gov. which is the same as dictatorship if you ask me!
Interpretations may vary and may also conflict with each other; however, this does not mean that they are technically correct either. While the referral to the PRC government as a "dictatorship" is in fact quite common among many who does not necessarily favour Chinese government, there is still a clear distinction between one person holding power and a group of people holding power together, with a small subset of leaders in the process.
You are correct and yes I am not favorable to the PRC government.

[jmatucd]

"Technically, no it isn't, when a dictator essentially rules by him/herself. The government of the PRC is best described as an authoritative oligarchy,"

PRC IS A DICTATORSHIP. It's a dictatorship that doesn't mind sending tanks to kill its own civilians who are peacefully protesting. That makes the PRC is DICTATORSHIP that MURDERS ITS OWN CITIZENS FOR DISSENT.

no moral ambiguity there. just tanks n' ****.

[Morboute]

uhm, wasnt that back in the 80's?! i am pretty sure they dont use tanks on their protestors nowdays.

[stuntman]

uhm, wasnt that back in the 80's?! i am pretty sure they dont use tanks on their protestors nowdays.
Wow you age sure shows buddy!

And the
tanks and **** comment was awsome. It reminds me of when I saw my friend who works in a pet shop and I ask what he was selling today and he said Just tanks and ****! rofl

[Seiyuuki]

uhm, wasnt that back in the 80's?! i am pretty sure they dont use tanks on their protestors nowdays.

Chicom are much smarter now, whenever the people got the hard on against the regime, all they have to do is go into the attic, get the bloody shirt and start waving it around and soon, you got peeps running around in organize protests beating a dead horse all to the extacy of the nationalistic motherland.

[Supe]

No nation threatens Japan, so one must wonder: Why spend 45 Billion when Japan has pledge peace and would never declare war again



I think it prudent of Japan to maintain an effective defence posture. Though that budget is large, I am sure quite a bit of that funding gets eaten up by personnel costs. The cost of living in Japan isn't cheap and the government would have to pay those in the military, a wage that is attractive enough to retain them.





1. United States - $276.7 billion (FY99 est.)
2. China - $55.91 billion (FY02)
3. France - $46.5 billion (2000)
4. Japan - $39.52 billion (FY02)
5. Germany - $38.8 billion (2002)
6. United Kingdom - $31.7 billion (2002)
7. Italy - $20.2 billion (2002)
8. Saudi Arabia - $18.3 billion (FY00)
9. Brazil - $13.408 billion (FY99)
10. Korea, South - $13,094.3 million (FY02)
11. India - $11.52 billion (FY02)
12. Australia - $11.39 billion (FY02)
13. Iran - $9.7 billion (FY00)
14. Israel - $8.97 billion (FY02)
15. Spain - $8.6 billion (2002)
16. Turkey - $8.1 billion (2002 est.)
17. Canada - $7.861 billion (FY01/02)
18. Taiwan - $7.574 billion (FY02)
19. Netherlands - $6.5 billion (FY00/01 est.)
20. Greece - $6.12 billion (FY99/00 est.)

I notice Australia ranks quite high in expenditure but compared to most of those countries listed, it just doesn't compare in equipment procurement outcomes. (especially in terms of quantity and in depth of offensive weapons) Many of those countries which spend less on Defence have better equipped Armed Forces than Australia. Again, much of the defence dollar goes toward paying Defence personnel wages, benefits (long service leave, holidays etc) plus maintaining and upgrading bases.

The PLA is in a long process of modernisation and so the Government is going to allocate funding for this. Nothing new here. Most national Defence policies seek to retain/acquire a qualitative advantage or at least a parity with others in their neighbourhood. Much of the equipment of the PLA is still largely based on 50/60's technology and in modern warfare, it amounts to target practice. If both Gulf Wars have taught the PLA something, it is the need for their military to be capable to respond to an opposing force by negating the (technological) edge over them. Naturally, the Americans (in their best interests) are going to want to hamper this. Round and round we go...

Though both nations dance around it, both view each other as a threat.

[seventy6er]

The propagandistic bull**** never get old, does it. Population is as good as dog poop, the U.S. can start force breeding babies like rabbit and they'll get off looking like a peaceful angel.

1. United States - $276.7 billion (FY99 est.)
2. China - $55.91 billion (FY02)
3. France - $46.5 billion (2000)


The fiscal 2006 defense budget of $419.3 billion represents a 4.8 percent increase over fiscal 2005 in real terms, but is about $3 billion less than projected for fiscal 2006 in last year's plan.

This budget does not include an expected administration request for $80 billion in supplemental appropriations, including $75 billion for the Defense Department to cover the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the current fiscal year.

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget06/budget06Agencies.html)

[Jin]

I think it prudent of Japan to maintain an effective defence posture. Though that budget is large, I am sure quite a bit of that funding gets eaten up by personnel costs. The cost of living in Japan isn't cheap and the government would have to pay those in the military, a wage that is attractive enough to retain them.


Japan is already under the protection of the $400 billion plus US military, why do they need such a large sum?. Are you guys saying that only the US, Japan, and SK are allowed to maintain an efficient military and China can't? Why such double standards? :roll: Rumsfeld said that there is no threat. Well, the very nature of his comment is threatening enough.

Most of the funding for the PRC military goes into personnel as well. China does have the largest standing army in the world and presently, China is trying to cut down on the numbers to make it more effective. So, most of the funding goes into the retirement and social programs of the troops.

China is not a dictatorship, who every says that its pretty obvious that they have not been to CHina and see for themselves. Pakistan is a dictartorship, and yet the US sells advanced fighters for its military. So even IF China is a dictartorship, it has nothing to do with this.

[catalyst]

it aint far off a dictatorship.....it doesnt go down to well if you walk in the streets with a I HATE HU JIN TAO billboard straped to your chest.

My friend who is a radio announcer was "asked not to be at work" for 5 days because he blamed the deaths of firefighters on the leadership.....becayse they were ordered to go into a building with no protective equipment to bring ppl out....the building collapesd and they died....he was censored because of that........

One question Jin - di you choose Hu Jin Tao as the Chairman?

[seruriermarshal]

I think it prudent of Japan to maintain an effective defence posture. Though that budget is large, I am sure quite a bit of that funding gets eaten up by personnel costs. The cost of living in Japan isn't cheap and the government would have to pay those in the military, a wage that is attractive enough to retain them.


Japan is already under the protection of the $400 billion plus US military, why do they need such a large sum?. Are you guys saying that only the US, Japan, and SK are allowed to maintain an efficient military and China can't? Why such double standards? :roll: Rumsfeld said that there is no threat. Well, the very nature of his comment is threatening enough.

Most of the funding for the PRC military goes into personnel as well. China does have the largest standing army in the world and presently, China is trying to cut down on the numbers to make it more effective. So, most of the funding goes into the retirement and social programs of the troops.

China is not a dictatorship, who every says that its pretty obvious that they have not been to CHina and see for themselves. Pakistan is a dictartorship, and yet the US sells advanced fighters for its military. So even IF China is a dictartorship, it has nothing to do with this.

I forgot 1000 B2 .

;)

[Ruledbyjames]

What the most worrying thing is their attitude to Taiwan. If they were to declare independance from China then there would be war. This war would suck in an overstreched American military and others. If China claims to be fair etc. etc. then they would surely not meddle with Taiwans affairs. If I were in the Tawainese military I would be sh1ttin bricks at the moment. Even though they may be modernized, the sheer volume of the PLA would overwhelm them. China views them as a "renegade nation" but if it comes to blows who is going to support them? Im not sure who. I have been to China jin and lets just say it wasnt an utopia. Neither are all countries but when you see billboards saying "the police are your friends" and "working is fun" you begin to laugh in an awkward manner. Some American policies I dont agree with but saying that I believe their views on China and her military are reasonable. Dont forget what happens if you try an stage a demenstration in China. They are a great people but their government........well...........lets just leave it at that.

[Supe]

I think it prudent of Japan to maintain an effective defence posture. Though that budget is large, I am sure quite a bit of that funding gets eaten up by personnel costs. The cost of living in Japan isn't cheap and the government would have to pay those in the military, a wage that is attractive enough to retain them.


Japan is already under the protection of the $400 billion plus US military, why do they need such a large sum?.


Should the Japanese assume that this is always going to be case? Do you think that is prudent? A nation's sovereignty should never depend on (agreements, alliances, goodwill) of another nation for its security. With an unstable regime on its doorstep (North Korea), the Japanese would be stupid to not have credible Defence assets/policy. There have been periods of instability in which China (particularly during the cultural revolution) would have posed to Japan, a potential security threat; ditto to sovereignty issues betweeb the Soviet Union (now Russia) and Japan over the Sakhalin and Kuril Islands. Who can guarantee that these high periods tension (which could escalate to war) won't exist again?

The costs of maintaining a professional army in a nation like Japan (expensive) is much more than China. The Chinese defence dollar is going to go further in personnel terms, than it would in Japan, simply because cost of living two these nations are at opposite ends of the spectrum. A Japanese soldier is going to have to be paid commensurate or at least a certain standard to what he/she could get in the private sector. Duty and patriotism is fine and dandy but it won't put food on the family table, pay off a mortgage or any of the plethora of finance draining living expenses a soldier will have to budget for. High personnel costs are what most Western nations not employing conscripts have to plan for. This can add to a fair chunk of the Defence dollar and mean less goes toward equipment purchases. It's a balancing act. I'm pretty sure Japan is no exception and so her Defence budget in light of its security concerns and costs to retain personnel is not excessive. Certainly, the Japanese can afford it.

[NewsMan]

The best part is that we... especially in Wal Mart driven America... we are paying for China's military through other industries that include, of all things, Yao Ming. Hello... a communist country using capitalism is a country using capitalism as a weapon... against us. Their form of capitalism is paying for the weapons that will one day sink our ships.

[Supe]

Are you guys saying that only the US, Japan, and SK are allowed to maintain an efficient military and China can't?

I guess that's what Rummy's saying. It's ludicrous for him to say that... In Rummy's ideal world, the PLA would always remain a 2nd rate force. With the current regime ruling China, I don't disagree. Of course that's wishful thinking, and China like any other nation will do what she does and plan for threats the Government of the day perceives to be.

Strategically speaking, the U.S will do everything in its power to frustrate China's attempt to gain military parity. Influencing the scuppering of defence deals between Israel/EU and China is part of that. One I agree with. It's madness to virtually give away high grade military technology to a nation with ambition and notions of Empire such as China.

[duck]

What the most worrying thing is their attitude to Taiwan. If they were to declare independance from China then there would be war. This war would suck in an overstreched American military and others. If China claims to be fair etc. etc. then they would surely not meddle with Taiwans affairs. If I were in the Tawainese military I would be sh1ttin bricks at the moment. Even though they may be modernized, the sheer volume of the PLA would overwhelm them. China views them as a "renegade nation" but if it comes to blows who is going to support them? Im not sure who. I have been to China jin and lets just say it wasnt an utopia. Neither are all countries but when you see billboards saying "the police are your friends" and "working is fun" you begin to laugh in an awkward manner. Some American policies I dont agree with but saying that I believe their views on China and her military are reasonable. Dont forget what happens if you try an stage a demenstration in China. They are a great people but their government........well...........lets just leave it at that.

Could you please explain the fundamental difference between the US invading Grenada in the Reagan era and China threatening to invade Taiwan?

[NewsMan]

The people of Taiwan are in the millions... direct descendents of a LARGE group of people who chose freedom over communism. Defending the hardships these people endured during WWII for the right to democracy is much different than the scenario surrounding Grenada during the Cold War. Apples and bowling balls.

[NewsMan]

Maybe if they invaded Taiwan, there'd be a popular revolt, so both the US and China would have overstretched militaries...? Heh...

[duck]

Well, just repeating some facts: One million Taiwanese live on the mainland. Taiwanese control large portions of the economy in countries like Indonesia in conjuction with other Chinese. Taiwanese frequently travel to Tibet for R&R.

How about comparing the strategic location of Grenada and Taiwan? What does Taiwan mean in context of oil & raw materials supply routes for the booming Chinese economy?

[Attorney-At-Law]

I am glad to see folks here are paying attention about rise of the Chicom. The wise thing to do for now, IMHO, is to pass on this message to the members of the Congress in our district.

[Ruledbyjames]

Documents captured at the invasion of Grenada supported Regans fear that an airstrip was built to accomodate Russian or Cuban transports which were potential threats to the U.S. I dont know enough about the political climate of the time for that to justify an invasion.


Even so should America take a back seat to a country that wants Independance. Should we not learn from our mistakes. If china did invade taiwan it would be a far bloodier fight then Grenada. With the DPP in taiwan it is evident that they do seek Independance. As the great Irishman charles Stewart Parnell said

" No man shall have the right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation, no man can say thus far shalt thou go and no further"

[duck]

Documents captured at the invasion of Grenada supported Regans fear that an airstrip was built to accomodate Russian or Cuban transports which were potential threats to the U.S. I dont know enough about the political climate of the time for that to justify an invasion.


Even so should America take a back seat to a country that wants Independance. Should we not learn from our mistakes. If china did invade taiwan it would be a far bloodier fight then Grenada. With the DPP in taiwan it is evident that they do seek Independance. As the great Irishman charles Stewart Parnell said

" No man shall have the right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation, no man can say thus far shalt thou go and no further"

Would you support Mexico sending troops to Southern California to defend the Hispanic population if they want to break the Union?

[Jin]

I think it prudent of Japan to maintain an effective defence posture. Though that budget is large, I am sure quite a bit of that funding gets eaten up by personnel costs. The cost of living in Japan isn't cheap and the government would have to pay those in the military, a wage that is attractive enough to retain them.


Japan is already under the protection of the $400 billion plus US military, why do they need such a large sum?. Are you guys saying that only the US, Japan, and SK are allowed to maintain an efficient military and China can't? Why such double standards? :roll: Rumsfeld said that there is no threat. Well, the very nature of his comment is threatening enough.

Most of the funding for the PRC military goes into personnel as well. China does have the largest standing army in the world and presently, China is trying to cut down on the numbers to make it more effective. So, most of the funding goes into the retirement and social programs of the troops.

China is not a dictatorship, who every says that its pretty obvious that they have not been to CHina and see for themselves. Pakistan is a dictartorship, and yet the US sells advanced fighters for its military. So even IF China is a dictartorship, it has nothing to do with this.

I forgot 1000 B2 .

;)

Like I said...If you sell...we will buy. :lol:

[Jin]

it aint far off a dictatorship.....it doesnt go down to well if you walk in the streets with a I HATE HU JIN TAO billboard straped to your chest.

My friend who is a radio announcer was "asked not to be at work" for 5 days because he blamed the deaths of firefighters on the leadership.....becayse they were ordered to go into a building with no protective equipment to bring ppl out....the building collapesd and they died....he was censored because of that........

One question Jin - di you choose Hu Jin Tao as the Chairman?

No...
But then again, I never did say China was a democractic society...

The real question is...

Why should China lower its military budget when US is putting stealth fighters on SK...missile defense systems on Japan....Ageis Frigates in Taiwan? Does Rumsfeld really expect China to lower its defenses? Ya right...

[Seiyuuki]

it aint far off a dictatorship.....it doesnt go down to well if you walk in the streets with a I HATE HU JIN TAO billboard straped to your chest.

My friend who is a radio announcer was "asked not to be at work" for 5 days because he blamed the deaths of firefighters on the leadership.....becayse they were ordered to go into a building with no protective equipment to bring ppl out....the building collapesd and they died....he was censored because of that........

One question Jin - di you choose Hu Jin Tao as the Chairman?

No...
But then again, I never did say China was a democractic society...

The real question is...

Why should China lower its military budget when US is putting stealth fighters on SK...missile defense systems on Japan....Ageis Frigates in Taiwan? Does Rumsfeld really expect China to lower its defenses? Ya right...

It's pretty self-explanatory, crazy lunatic in the North the South Korean got to worry about and if Jongni Il-ly willy decide to fire some ballistic missiles, you expect the Japanese to roll over and accept getting being bombarded (though that controlling nationalism certainly work since you are advocating for it). It is a missile DEFENSE systems, not the missile "take over China and blow it up" systems. When you decide not to aim over 700 missiles at Taiwan, they won't have a need for the Aegis system. Those things cost money in term of legal license procurement, R&D and such, those countries just lack China's gift for neglecting copyright laws and take credit for all its copies. The real question is...are all those force feed propagandistic bull**** working well...it must be if you somehow think South Korea, Japan and Taiwan are all prepping to invade China with the U.S. help to justify Chicom's military spendings. Contrary to your insular view, there is a whole world out there beside China, now stop sucking up for attention.

[MaDuce]

More up to date chart

Budget in billions of $ Percentage of total world budget
United States 399.1 43%
Russia 65.2 7%
China 56 6%
United Kingdom 49 5%
Japan 45.1 5%
France 40 4%
Germany 29.7 3%
Saudi Arabia 19.3 2%
India 19.1 2%
Italy 17.5 2%
South Korea 16.4 2%
Australia 11.7 1%
Turkey 11.7 1%
Israel 10.8 1%
Canada 10.1 1%
Spain 9.9 1%
Brazil 9.2 1%
Netherlands 7.6 1%
Taiwan 7.5 1%
Greece 7.2 1%
Indonesia 6.4 1%
Sweden 5.9 1%
North Korea 5.5 1%
Ukraine 5.5 1%
Singapore 5 1%
Poland 4.4 0%
Norway 4.2 0%
Kuwait 4 0%
Iran 3.5 0%
Belgium 3.3 0%
Pakistan 3.3 0%
Colombia 3.2 0%
Portugal 3.2 0%
Vietnam 3.2 0%
Denmark 2.9 0%
Mexico 2.8 0%
Egypt 2.7 0%
Czech Republic 1.9 0%
Hungary 1.7 0%
Syria 1.6 0%
Argentina 1.6 0%
Rumania 1.5 0%
Cuba 1.2 0%
Philippines 0.8 0%
Libya 0.7 0%
Serbia-Montenegro 0.7 0%
Slovakia 0.7 0%
Bulgaria 0.6 0%
Slovenia 0.5 0%
Sudan 0.5 0%
Lithuania 0.3 0%
Luxembourg 0.3 0%
Estonia 0.2 0%
Latvia 0.2 0%

[duck]

The US only allowed the 60's and 70's wide-scale Japanese industrial espionage to happen because they needed the bases there and for the Okinawan complaints to be ignored by Tokyo. Not much difference, is there?

[Jin]

it aint far off a dictatorship.....it doesnt go down to well if you walk in the streets with a I HATE HU JIN TAO billboard straped to your chest.

My friend who is a radio announcer was "asked not to be at work" for 5 days because he blamed the deaths of firefighters on the leadership.....becayse they were ordered to go into a building with no protective equipment to bring ppl out....the building collapesd and they died....he was censored because of that........

One question Jin - di you choose Hu Jin Tao as the Chairman?

No...
But then again, I never did say China was a democractic society...

The real question is...

Why should China lower its military budget when US is putting stealth fighters on SK...missile defense systems on Japan....Ageis Frigates in Taiwan? Does Rumsfeld really expect China to lower its defenses? Ya right...

It's pretty self-explanatory, crazy lunatic in the North the South Korean got to worry about and if Jongni Il-ly willy decide to fire some ballistic missiles, you expect the Japanese to roll over and accept getting being bombarded (though that controlling nationalism certainly work since you are advocating for it). It is a missile DEFENSE systems, not the missile "take over China and blow it up" systems. When you decide not to aim over 700 missiles at Taiwan, they won't have a need for the Aegis system. Those things cost money in term of legal license procurement, R&D and such, those countries just lack China's gift for neglecting copyright laws and take credit for all its copies. The real question is...are all those force feed propagandistic bull**** working well...it must be if you somehow think South Korea, Japan and Taiwan are all prepping to invade China with the U.S. help to justify Chicom's military spendings. Contrary to your insular view, there is a whole world out there beside China, now stop sucking up for attention.

propagandistic bull****? No..I don't watch CNN... I live in a city where its still a seperate system from the rest of China.

Do you expect China to roll over and let US contain it? You complain about China's military budget. Even though its relatively small compared with the USA's military budget.

At the end of the day...the US is still spending around 3 times as much as China. I don't see how you expect China to keep its defense budget down when US increases every year. Its all pretty rational. I don't see whats so complicated about this.

The economy is also another factor. When the economy grows, all budget including the military budget grows as well.

[TuNeRsHaRk]

thats a Good Question Just Why The **** is china bulding up this Big ass army, lets just hope they dont start a WW3

[duck]

China wants to make sure it gets the resources it needs. Now, any similarities to recent US operations noticeable?

[Jippo]

thats a Good Question Just Why The f*** is china bulding up this Big ass army, lets just hope they dont start a WW3


Just why the ***k is U.S. spending over 6 times more than the closest competitor keeping up this Big ass army, lets just hope they dont start a WW3!

Hello? China is the largest country in the world (India of course is the second largest) with 1.3 billion in habitants. Why it can not spend even half of what U.S. spends (being 1/6 the size of China) without Americans feeling threatened????


-jippo

[Seiyuuki]

it aint far off a dictatorship.....it doesnt go down to well if you walk in the streets with a I HATE HU JIN TAO billboard straped to your chest.

My friend who is a radio announcer was "asked not to be at work" for 5 days because he blamed the deaths of firefighters on the leadership.....becayse they were ordered to go into a building with no protective equipment to bring ppl out....the building collapesd and they died....he was censored because of that........

One question Jin - di you choose Hu Jin Tao as the Chairman?

No...
But then again, I never did say China was a democractic society...

The real question is...

Why should China lower its military budget when US is putting stealth fighters on SK...missile defense systems on Japan....Ageis Frigates in Taiwan? Does Rumsfeld really expect China to lower its defenses? Ya right...

It's pretty self-explanatory, crazy lunatic in the North the South Korean got to worry about and if Jongni Il-ly willy decide to fire some ballistic missiles, you expect the Japanese to roll over and accept getting being bombarded (though that controlling nationalism certainly work since you are advocating for it). It is a missile DEFENSE systems, not the missile "take over China and blow it up" systems. When you decide not to aim over 700 missiles at Taiwan, they won't have a need for the Aegis system. Those things cost money in term of legal license procurement, R&D and such, those countries just lack China's gift for neglecting copyright laws and take credit for all its copies. The real question is...are all those force feed propagandistic bull**** working well...it must be if you somehow think South Korea, Japan and Taiwan are all prepping to invade China with the U.S. help to justify Chicom's military spendings. Contrary to your insular view, there is a whole world out there beside China, now stop sucking up for attention.

propagandistic bull****? Where do you think I live in? Beijing? I don't.

And you expect China to roll over and let US contain it?

Always quick to go to the Japanese part in everything, the typical theoretical nature of totalitarian regime having an external scapegoat for which the nationalism can be focus on to avoid internal defective is working ever so effectively for you peeps . So now it's just the U.S., whatever happen to the good old few minutes ago when it was the U.S., S. Korea, Japan and Taiwan that was containing China. Interesting, Beijing and Hong Kong does not belong to the same country, such simple geography and they criticize the U.S. educational system.



thats a Good Question Just Why The f*** is china bulding up this Big ass army, lets just hope they dont start a WW3


Just why the ***k is U.S. spending over 6 times more than the closest competitor keeping up this Big ass army, lets just hope they dont start a WW3!

Hello? China is the largest country in the world (India of course is the second largest) with 1.3 billion in habitants. Why it can not spend even half of what U.S. spends (being 1/6 the size of China) without Americans feeling threatened????


-jippo

Ever try rebuilding two separate countries with commitment to defend several others...Oh, that is right, they haven't, maybe you should try doing it and we'll see how cheap you can keep it. Until then, as the Yanks like to say, "PUT UP OR SHUT UP."

[duck]

There is certainly not much Japanese left in you, Seiyuuki. You don't happen to be raised in Durandal's family? ;)

[Seiyuuki]

There is certainly not much Japanese left in you, Seiyuuki. You don't happen to be raised in Durandal's family? ;)

Nope, but you should see my family reunion, never a dull moment, the only friendly side of the family is the Cambodian folks, that and the fact they just can't seem to compete with my Vietnamese, Chinese and Japanese side. p-)

[Jippo]

Ever try rebuilding two separate countries with commitment to defend several others...Oh, that is right, they haven't, maybe you should try doing it and we'll see how cheap you can keep it. Until then, as the Yanks like to say, "PUT UP OR SHUT UP."

Or maybe Americans should stop doing it too, there would be a lot less terrorism in the world. And you would have more money to put things right in their country (and world, should they wish to do so: compare U.S. defense budget vs. 3rd world aid and imagine what a getting one less F-22 could buy for Africa).

Anyhow, who are Americans defending half of the world against? At least European public considers George W. to be the biggest threat to the world peace (polls 2004).


-jippo

[duck]

There is certainly not much Japanese left in you, Seiyuuki. You don't happen to be raised in Durandal's family? ;)

Nope, but you should see my family reunion, never a dull moment, the only friendly side of the family is the Cambodian folks, that and the fact they just can't seem to compete with my Vietnamese, Chinese and Japanese side. p-)

I'm dealing with all your ancestors countries except for Cambodia. I knew there must be a less tough spot there somewhere. ;)

[Jin]

Always quick to go to the Japanese part in everything, the typical theoretical nature of totalitarian regime having an external scapegoat for which the nationalism can be focus on to avoid internal defective is working ever so effectively for you peeps . So now it's just the U.S., whatever happen to the good old few minutes ago when it was the U.S., S. Korea, Japan and Taiwan that was containing China. Interesting, Beijing and Hong Kong does not belong to the same country, such simple geography and they criticize the U.S. educational system.


All that stuff you just said about how I'm always quick to go after the JApanese, you said it not me. :roll: I can say the same thing about you and Bluezoo for blaming China for everything... Complaining about China's military budget....which is a lot smaller than the the US.

...you never heard of the 1 country 2 systems? You do know Hong Kong runs under a seperate system right?

[Seiyuuki]

Ever try rebuilding two separate countries with commitment to defend several others...Oh, that is right, they haven't, maybe you should try doing it and we'll see how cheap you can keep it. Until then, as the Yanks like to say, "PUT UP OR SHUT UP."

Or maybe Americans should stop doing it too, there would be a lot less terrorism in the world. And you would have more money to put things right in their country (and world, should they wish to do so: compare U.S. defense budget vs. 3rd world aid and imagine what a getting one less F-22 could buy for Africa).

Anyhow, who are Americans defending half of the world against? At least European public considers George W. to be the biggest threat to the world peace (polls 2004).


-jippo

Nice subject deflection, but now you are just talking political rhetorics which rarely work in real politiks. Of course, the problem would be as soon as they become uninvolve, you got the other blogs with their rants, "Hey, big stinking rich Yankees...why the **** aren't you doing anything to help...!!!"




Always quick to go to the Japanese part in everything, the typical theoretical nature of totalitarian regime having an external scapegoat for which the nationalism can be focus on to avoid internal defective is working ever so effectively for you peeps . So now it's just the U.S., whatever happen to the good old few minutes ago when it was the U.S., S. Korea, Japan and Taiwan that was containing China. Interesting, Beijing and Hong Kong does not belong to the same country, such simple geography and they criticize the U.S. educational system.


All that stuff you just said about how I'm always quick to go after the JApanese, you said it not me. :roll: I can say the same thing about you and Bluezoo for blaming China for everything... Complaining about China's military budget....which is a lot smaller than the the US.

...you never heard of the 1 country 2 systems? You do know Hong Kong runs under a seperate system right?

Never said otherwise, what seem to be the problem, reading or comprehension. Though if you like to believe Hong Kong "system" if free from the whim of the Politburo, work at defying it and get back to me on how that is working out.




There is certainly not much Japanese left in you, Seiyuuki. You don't happen to be raised in Durandal's family? ;)

Nope, but you should see my family reunion, never a dull moment, the only friendly side of the family is the Cambodian folks, that and the fact they just can't seem to compete with my Vietnamese, Chinese and Japanese side. p-)

I'm dealing with all your ancestors countries except for Cambodia. I knew there must be a less tough spot there somewhere. ;)

I try and try and try...just never seem to work out, perhaps I should switch to decaf or drink some more tea. :fork: :-*$ :slap: :| :(

[Rictor]

"Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?" Rumsfeld said at the conference organized by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, a private, London-based think tank.



That made my day. Thank you Rummy, thank you Bluezoo; I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.

[seruriermarshal]

I think it prudent of Japan to maintain an effective defence posture. Though that budget is large, I am sure quite a bit of that funding gets eaten up by personnel costs. The cost of living in Japan isn't cheap and the government would have to pay those in the military, a wage that is attractive enough to retain them.


Japan is already under the protection of the $400 billion plus US military, why do they need such a large sum?. Are you guys saying that only the US, Japan, and SK are allowed to maintain an efficient military and China can't? Why such double standards? :roll: Rumsfeld said that there is no threat. Well, the very nature of his comment is threatening enough.

Most of the funding for the PRC military goes into personnel as well. China does have the largest standing army in the world and presently, China is trying to cut down on the numbers to make it more effective. So, most of the funding goes into the retirement and social programs of the troops.

China is not a dictatorship, who every says that its pretty obvious that they have not been to CHina and see for themselves. Pakistan is a dictartorship, and yet the US sells advanced fighters for its military. So even IF China is a dictartorship, it has nothing to do with this.

I forgot 1000 B2 .

;)

Like I said...If you sell...we will buy. :lol:

To Rumsfeld that's a proof as you thought .

:lol:

[GrimmyRX]

The people of Taiwan are in the millions... direct descendents of a LARGE group of people who chose freedom over communism.

Really? Wow, the KMT were for freedom huh? Funny, they were as much a dictatorship as the Communists. The difference? They were incompitent and got ousted. That and they weren't communist, which I suppose makes all the difference.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that Taiwan is NOW democratic, etc, but back then? Just a bunch of thugs under the KMT and those who had too much invested in the KMT. Both of whom would have gotten their asses shot if they stayed in China.

"Freedom" in the way that you ment it had very little to do with it.

[GrimmyRX]

Somebody mentioned, in referance to Japan, that they are spending such a large amount of cash because though the US may be protecting them now, it won't always be.

Well, if you think about it, China doesn't HAVE anyone protecting it, and whilst they may not have any direct enemies now, how long will that last?

[duck]

I'm quite interested in the influence of Sun Yat-Sen ( Nakayama Sho ) who apparently has been inspiring bot the KMT and the Chinese communists. Sometimes I think the Taiwan conflict is just about different Chinese interest groups using the US political and military machinery for their own goals.

[msnger]

lets use rocks and sticks , that's enough to defeat any country.

US just don't want anybody to have to upper hand.

[ronin2172]

"Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?" Rumsfeld said at the conference organized by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, a private, London-based think tank.



That made my day. Thank you Rummy, thank you Bluezoo; I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.
well one who knows it all what country IS threatning China?

[Omz222]

Regardless, there's little reason in criticizing a nation's decision to increase ot decrease it's defence spendings. It's in many respects, like telling someone that he shouldn' eat apples when there are oranges. Using the Rumsfeld Logic, then why should a nation have a military at all?

[drummerguy5]

All that stuff you just said about how I'm always quick to go after the JApanese, you said it not me. Rolling Eyes I can say the same thing about you and Bluezoo for blaming China for everything... Complaining about China's military budget....which is a lot smaller than the the US.

...you never heard of the 1 country 2 systems? You do know Hong Kong runs under a seperate system right?


out of curiosity, whats the hong kong system like?

what 'perks" do u guys get that the mainlanders miss out on? im aware of the economic freedoms in unregulated markets etc do you have alot more political 'freedom to move' aswell? ive often wondered if the PRC is 'fine-tuning its future policies for the mainland, using Hong Kong as a testing ground for more liberial politcal ideas?

dont know if your were around then, have you knowticed the change much after the british ceeded authority to china?

just interested :)

regards

[Kilgor]

Read my story about china's "peaceful rise"

[Rictor]

"Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?" Rumsfeld said at the conference organized by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, a private, London-based think tank.



That made my day. Thank you Rummy, thank you Bluezoo; I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried.
well one who knows it all what country IS threatning China?
None at all. That's the point. But consider the statement, and the source.

[TheDeacon]

Actually China has a steady history of aggression and supporting pro-Chinese interests in Asia. Consider this: China taking the Paracels from Vietnam in the late Seventies. This action was largely ignored by the UN. Take the fact that China has remained in occupation of Tibet, and that disputed territories with India and Russia are not yet satisfied.

China regards areas like the South China Sea, the Korean penninsula, Indochina and central Asia as being areas of Chinese influence by tradition. Just as the US tolerates certain allies (ie, the UK, Netherlands, France) having warships in the Caribbean within the purview of the Monroe Doctrine, so does China tolerate the presence of the US and its allies in the South China Sea and environs.

Finally, China has always resented the US protection of Taiwan--or the Republic of China, if you will--and South Korea. The fact that trade is going on means little. Frankly, I think it is high time that the Bush government publically recognized that the PRC could mean trouble.

[Attorney-At-Law]

question is rather, what can we do to stop this upcoming aggression?

[Supe]

question is rather, what can we do to stop this upcoming aggression?

A strong economy, reduced deficts and debt (fiscal responsibility), focus on R&D, ensuring children get an opportunity to have a solid education, retain optimism about the country, reward vision. Oh and never lose sight in what your nation represents and try to be consistent with that. No challenger will prevail, when going up against a nation that's got the fundamentals right.

The Soviet Union had at its zenith the biggest military around. It didn't mean squat when going up against the U.S since strength is derived from the economy. That's rather simplistic of course, but I think a strong, vibrant economy is the bedrock to supporting any large military.