• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

China threatens war, calling Trump's bluff?

Skeptic Ginger said:
That's your answer? The concept of diplomacy not in your vocabulary? What is there to gain worth starting a war over?

What did the phone call to Taiwan prove? Do you think maybe it was about Trump's real estate deal he wants with Taiwan?

Think the best way to deal with the militarization of the S China Sea is a poorly thought out answer in a nomination hearing? You don't suppose do you, that Tillerson doesn't know jack about the job of Secretary of State? All you have to do is be a bully, against a country where saving face is an ingrained part of the culture?
Is this what you want to go to war over? Seriously? Are you in the military, planning to join or encourage your kids/grandkids to go fight the Chinese?

Think it might be useful to recruit China to keep N Korea in check with us?
Click to expand...


They know all this about themselves, and would be idiots to open their mouths to try to be tough and force something where they have to back down.
 
I clicked through with surprise...Did China really threaten war?! No. No they didn't. This forum is now just click bait titles to rabble-rouse, I guess.
 
Wolrab said:
FTFY
Click to expand...

I'm sure if you look a little harder, you'll see said phone call was set up before it was made.

Trump’s Taiwan phone call was long planned, say people who were involved
Donald Trump’s protocol-breaking telephone call with Taiwan’s leader was an intentionally provocative move that establishes the incoming president as a break with the past, according to interviews with people involved in the planning.

The historic communication — the first between leaders of the United States and Taiwan since 1979 — was the product of months of quiet preparations and deliberations among Trump’s advisers ....

The call also reflects the views of hard-line advisers urging Trump to take a tough opening line with China, said others familiar with the months of discussion about Taiwan and China....

Several leading members of Trump’s transition team are considered hawkish on China and friendly toward Taiwan, including incoming chief of staff Reince Priebus....

Immediately after Trump won the Nov. 8 election, his staffers compiled a list of foreign leaders with whom to arrange calls. “Very early on, Taiwan was on that list,” said Stephen Yates, a national security official during the presidency of George W. Bush and an expert on China and Taiwan.
Click to expand...
Taiwan initiated the call? I don't think so.

Surprise! You really should read about Trump's pending real estate deal in Taiwan.
Trump's Taiwan phone call preceded by hotel development inquiry

Still think Trump plans to divorce himself from his personal financial interest as POTUS?

Also look into Trump's ignorant knowledge about China's currency valuation. Turns out China's currency valuation is more complex than Trump is aware of.

Surprise! So not only is the complaint currently wrong factually it also, even if it were true, wouldn't make sense logically.

I'll let you read the article yourself. One learns more by active investigation than passive.
 
Last edited:
xjx388 said:
I clicked through with surprise...Did China really threaten war?! No. No they didn't. This forum is now just click bait titles to rabble-rouse, I guess.
Click to expand...

So where's your link with the goods? Curious minds want to know.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So where's your link with the goods? Curious minds want to know.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you ignored my post (with a quote of the official Chinese response), to address that one.

What goods? Your thread title is complete fiction. You were called out on it.

It's click bait.

Your reply here makes less sense than the title.
 
Shiner said:
Interesting that you ignored my post (with a quote of the official Chinese response), to address that one.

What goods? Your thread title is complete fiction. You were called out on it.

It's click bait.

Your reply here makes less sense than the title.
Click to expand...

From the Global Times editorial.

The US has no absolute power to dominate the South China Sea. Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories. Probably he just has oil prices and currency rates in his mind as former ExxonMobil CEO.

He also lacks legality. If China is not allowed access to islands it has long controlled, does this also apply to Vietnam and the Philippines? Should the Nansha Islands become a depopulated zone? What does so-called US freedom of navigation around the Nansha Islands mean?

As Trump has yet to be sworn in, China has shown restraint whenever his team members expressed radical views. But the US should not be misled into thinking that Beijing will be fearful of their threats. Tillerson's statements regarding the islands in the South China Sea are far from professional. If Trump's diplomatic team shapes future Sino-US ties as it is doing now, the two sides had better prepare for a military clash. South China Sea countries will accelerate their negotiations on a Code of Conduct. They have the ability to solve divergences by themselves without US interference. Just as the Philippines and Vietnam are trying to warm their ties with China, Tillerson's words cannot be more irritating.

It is hoped that Tillerson will desire a productive partnership with China more and his harsh words are just coaxing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

But no matter what, China will always respond to various US diplomatic maneuvers.
Click to expand...


How is it the the Trumpistas can only find the sanitized version in the China Daily but not the editorial in the Global Times? http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1028568.shtml

I'd say the OP is fairly accurate. Trump is making idiotic moves, based on advice from retro-conservatives who are living in the 70s. China called them on it. The language, for China, is not in the least oblique.
 
I'm an Australian socialist. How is it that liberalistas' attempt to brand any opposition to their irrationality as being from a Trump fan or supporter?

I missed the part of your quotes where China declares war on anybody, or thing.

Maybe you missed my point?

ETA. I think you didn't miss my point. I think you just didn't like it.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
From the Global Times editorial.

How is it the the Trumpistas can only find the sanitized version in the China Daily but not the editorial in the Global Times? http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1028568.shtml

I'd say the OP is fairly accurate. Trump is making idiotic moves, based on advice from retro-conservatives who are living in the 70s. China called them on it. The language, for China, is not in the least oblique.
Click to expand...

Thank you, even though your post is as scary as hell. I wish Wolfman was around. I'd love to hear his insight.
 
Last edited:
Silly me. I just remembered some of the dogma from the election campaign.

"A non vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump"

Pretty sure that's it. It's just how it applies to all occupants of the planet, and seems to extend to anything written or implied by any anti-Trump zealot, that is hard to process for me.
 
Last edited:
Shiner said:
Silly me. I just remembered some of the dogma from the election campaign.

"A non vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump"

Pretty sure that's it. It's just how it applies to all occupants of the planet, and seems to extend to anything written or implied by any anti-Trump zealot, that is hard to process for me.
Click to expand...

I've referred to it as the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact of '16.

Now, how can we unhurt your feelings and have you address the erroneous accusation YOU made. An equally or even more representative journal has some pretty hawkish words on the subject. It appears you and CE chose to report from the homogenized cooked down version.
 
Shiner said:
I'm an Australian socialist. How is it that liberalistas' attempt to brand any opposition to their irrationality as being from a Trump fan or supporter?

I missed the part of your quotes where China declares war on anybody, or thing.

Maybe you missed my point?

ETA. I think you didn't miss my point. I think you just didn't like it.
Click to expand...

I got your point. You don't understand China. The China Daily published a more diplomatic version. The other paper (same publishers) printed the version for the home country hawks. If you don't see those words as threats then you haven't paid much attention to the Chinese. The watered down version is the official version. The saber-rattling version is the shot across our bow.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
I've referred to it as the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact of '16.

Now, how can we unhurt your feelings and have you address the erroneous accusation YOU made. An equally or even more representative journal has some pretty hawkish words on the subject. It appears you and CE chose to report from the homogenized cooked down version.
Click to expand...

Eh? There has been no declaration of war. That is all.
 
Giz said:
Yeah, the best thing to do is just let them know ahead of any negotiations that we'll appease them.
Click to expand...

Let us be clear here, what do you do if they continue to build the island and then claim the area ?

Start a nuclear war ?

Let us get real, if they start peppering artificial island in an area where they have a very strong military presence there is diddly squat in the long run you or me can do , short of a war. There is far too many resource under that area for China to simply abandon the project, enough of them that it will probably be worth ineffectual economical retaliation.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I got your point. You don't understand China. The China Daily published a more diplomatic version. The other paper (same publishers) printed the version for the home country hawks. If you don't see those words as threats then you haven't paid much attention to the Chinese. The watered down version is the official version. The saber-rattling version is the shot across our bow.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in hearing your take on the S. China Sea. On the one hand, it is a transparent resource grab by China, based on dubious appeals to history. OTOH, it is now a fait accompli that requires acceptance or rejection; ambivalence isn't a long-term strategy.

Whereas I have no doubt that, push coming to shove, in 2017 the US could force China to back down militarily, I wonder if that isn't a huge mistake. Such an action might actually be "fair," and retain precedent in not allowing territorial expansion by military means in international affairs. OTOH, this would solidify an enmity that already threatens as China rises and the US relatively declines. Longer term, it might engender a strong regional pushback to rid the region of US assets once China is stronger. What I do not doubt is that China is a rising conventional military power who will reach rough parity with the US within 20 years, at least in the region. In the world until Trump, maintaining some semblance of respect for international norms was a driving motif for action. Any actions by Trumpistas, however, may come dressed in brown shirts and be seen as completely illegitimate, regardless. Taiwan, Tibet, East China Sea -- all these are far more important than the S. China Sea, so I wonder if the status quo China has created in the latter isn't something we simply have to accept and live with.

Beyond that, I'd greatly appreciate any insights you might have as a resident denizen of the greater region.
 
Just ask yourself this: which country has the more resilient population, the better control of by the government over public opinion?
Self-government is the highest goal for all Chinese: the humiliation of the Opium Wars is still very much on their minds. They will fight to retain self-control, even if it costs them trillions.

The US on the other hand has only cost/benefit considerations: when military action not only becomes too expensive, but will also destroy all Asian trade for a decade or more, it will have to back off.

China has the power because they don't fear the consequences as much as we do.

Unless you are Trump, in which case you will capitulate once you realise that you won't be getting any new ties from your favourite tailor.
 
China is not ready for a war with America yet. I can see China making a few phone calls, like the one to Australia which basically says "Stay out of any argument China has with the USA and we will return the favour. Remember who your number 1 trading partner is."
 
rjh01 said:
China is not ready for a war with America yet. I can see China making a few phone calls, like the one to Australia which basically says "Stay out of any argument China has with the USA and we will return the favour. Remember who your number 1 trading partner is."
Click to expand...

of course it is: It has massively expanded its arsenal of anti-ship missiles on its shores and has enough smaller ships and submarines to make US intervention a costly nightmare. Air-power and defences will making strategic bombings also very costly in terms of shot-down planes.
Its huge population and army make a US invasion a ludicrous proposition.

And all for what? For US control of a stretch of Ocean on the other side of the Pacific?

No, it's really the US who's bluffing, not China.
 
How would the US keep China off the islands without going to war?
China won't let the US blockade the islands, to enforce it the US would have to sink Chinese ships.
It would be a full on war.

And some Trumpsters were claiming Hilary was going to start a war?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom