Former Australian PM Kevin Rudd said the West should be prepared to use force against China if it acted irresponsibly, a cable leaked by Wikileaks alleges.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11925438
Why the fu-k China still has only 200 atomic bombs, it need immediately produce at least 10000 bombs, how fu-king arrogant are those white pigs.
And what the fu-k is this about Tibet, Aborigines in Australia live at least 10 years shorter than white people, this white pig should take care of them.
And what is wrong with the communists, China must arm it self to the teeth whit every available weapon of mass destruction, so what if it comes to nuclear war, we all be dead.
Imagine how would they scream if some Chinese official said that we need to invade Australia if China need resources
this makes my blood boil, China arm yourself for the total war, if it comes so we will all be dead , so what, but this white pigs must be touth a lesson.
Full Version: West should be prepared to use force against China
Use force? And they think they have any chance winning a war with china?
if a war does happen, china will come on top most definitely.
if a war does happen, china will come on top most definitely.
that's just fuking classic! notice they left that pretty vague as for the reasons for using force. because their reasons would not be legitimate or honorable.
there is no reason to even be talking about war or using force at this time. it goes to show they want to use force or use intimidation against china.
china does need to arm itself to the teeth. i don't like how the west bullies others or thinks they always have to be topdog, especially since asia is usually not about sole world power but regional power.
the west needs to learn that lesson too.
but remember, the united states and australia are trying to set up military bases in australia in order to hedge up china. it seems they are paranoid that china would try to take over australia but i think it's more of a strategic powerplay.
there is no reason to even be talking about war or using force at this time. it goes to show they want to use force or use intimidation against china.
china does need to arm itself to the teeth. i don't like how the west bullies others or thinks they always have to be topdog, especially since asia is usually not about sole world power but regional power.
the west needs to learn that lesson too.
but remember, the united states and australia are trying to set up military bases in australia in order to hedge up china. it seems they are paranoid that china would try to take over australia but i think it's more of a strategic powerplay.
LOL no need to get your blood boiling, this is just empty talk. There are probably some warmongers in the Chinese cabinet as well.
That being said it's still no surrpise that Western leaders are still wetdreaming about Tibet, it’s nothing new and no secret. China must prepare accordingly herself to counter any attempt made on her national sovereignty.
That being said it's still no surrpise that Western leaders are still wetdreaming about Tibet, it’s nothing new and no secret. China must prepare accordingly herself to counter any attempt made on her national sovereignty.
China can overrun Australia while seated on her seat and not take more than one week.
QUOTE (lite @ Dec 6 2010, 09:30 AM) 
Use force? And they think they have any chance winning a war with china?
if a war does happen, china will come on top most definitely.
if a war does happen, china will come on top most definitely.
Depends on where the war would take place, if it took place in China then China wins but if it takes place lets say out in the ocean then most likely Austrailia/West wins.
QUOTE (Titanium @ Dec 6 2010, 01:22 PM)
LOL no need to get your blood boiling, this is just empty talk. There are probably some warmongers in the Chinese cabinet as well.
That being said it's still no surrpise that Western leaders are still wetdreaming about Tibet, it’s nothing new and no secret. China must prepare accordingly herself to counter any attempt made on her national sovereignty.
That being said it's still no surrpise that Western leaders are still wetdreaming about Tibet, it’s nothing new and no secret. China must prepare accordingly herself to counter any attempt made on her national sovereignty.
ya, but notice how he says "the west". this is coming from a country that, for some hilarious reason, is apart of the east asia summit.
i knew from the second i heard that it was BS. australia is NOT asian. there isnt a single actual asian country that actually views itself as part of the west. that label is known for basically white countries.
time to make australia into the australian autonomous region of the PRC.
the US will not help australia. the US is now in two wars fighting sandal-wearing camel jockies and it is losing. what makes rudd think that they will get into a military conflict now with China?
QUOTE (Lorax @ Dec 6 2010, 02:21 PM)
the US will not help australia. the US is now in two wars fighting sandal-wearing camel jockies and it is losing. what makes rudd think that they will get into a military conflict now with China?
Rudd is a funny guy and a puppet of US.
Castrate the F@CKING BASTARD
QUOTE (ClassicalMusic @ Dec 6 2010, 03:32 PM)
Castrate the F@CKING BASTARD
Who to do it and who is to be done?
That's funny coming from an irresponsible leader who got ousted from the position of prime minister. We should also negotiate deals to free Australia, Siberia, and the Americas and kick out immigrants out of those regions. Their arrogance is astounding.
QUOTE (Assange @ Dec 6 2010, 04:15 PM)
That's funny coming from an irresponsible leader who got ousted from the position of prime minister. We should also negotiate deals to free Australia, Siberia, and the Americas and kick out immigrants out of those regions. Their arrogance is astounding.
This is a good solution. Arrogance does not pay anything.
If they declare war we should throw 100000000000000000000 bombs and destroy ourselves and the rest of the earth. That would be a good laugh. fu-king arrogant pigs...
QUOTE (Assange @ Dec 6 2010, 04:22 PM)
If they declare war we should throw 100000000000000000000 bombs and destroy ourselves and the rest of the earth. That would be a good laugh. fu-king arrogant pigs...
Hey! come down my friend.
If the number of the bombs you have written is launched against the enemy. The enemy will be no where to be seen.
What I am saying is that we should blow ourselves up and take out the rest of the world with us if they declare war against us. Because what's the point of existing in a barbaric world?
QUOTE (Assange @ Dec 6 2010, 04:32 PM)
What I am saying is that we should blow ourselves up and take out the rest of the world with us if they declare war against us. Because what's the point of existing in a barbaric world?
Well, according to me the first thing is to hit and hit hard. After killing the enemy, Then we decide what next. They are not so strong to win a war.
My friend I think the first thing is to see the enemy die.
The thing is, what he is saying we all already knew already.
He said the West should be prepared to use force against china if china acted irresponsibly e.g. in Western countries definition includes invading taiwan, backing up north korea or invading south korea.
Mr Rudd, now foreign minister, refused to confirm details of the leaked cable.
However, he has defended Australia's relations with China as "robust".
"It's a robust relationship and diplomacy's a robust business - sometimes there are agreements and sometimes there are disagreements. That's life and that's normal," he said on Monday following the revelations.
p.s he let in 500k Indians into Australia in two years.
He said the West should be prepared to use force against china if china acted irresponsibly e.g. in Western countries definition includes invading taiwan, backing up north korea or invading south korea.
Mr Rudd, now foreign minister, refused to confirm details of the leaked cable.
However, he has defended Australia's relations with China as "robust".
"It's a robust relationship and diplomacy's a robust business - sometimes there are agreements and sometimes there are disagreements. That's life and that's normal," he said on Monday following the revelations.
p.s he let in 500k Indians into Australia in two years.
Australia is a genocidal country that was and is involved in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are violating international environmental norms such as Kyoto and they are staunch supporters of Israel. on top of all that, they are also douchebags of the highest caliber. it's China that should use force against them and invade these bastards to civilize them.
dp
Nothing new here
Imperialism and Hypocrisy are essential components of Western culture
Chinese Sayings: Dogs can't never quit its habit of eating $hit. It's in their blood
However
Thanks to the great discovery of Einstein and invention of the modern ballistic technology, we will make sure that WE DIE & THE WORLD DIES ALONG W/ US
Hehe
Imperialism and Hypocrisy are essential components of Western culture
Chinese Sayings: Dogs can't never quit its habit of eating $hit. It's in their blood
However
Thanks to the great discovery of Einstein and invention of the modern ballistic technology, we will make sure that WE DIE & THE WORLD DIES ALONG W/ US
Hehe
Don't joke about this, it's closer than you think. We all don't want war, just like the Iraqis didn't want war with the US, and the Americans don't want war with Iraqis, but was there even a choice?
The only solution to PEACE is to wake more people up to the "Great Game" that our elites are playing, at the expense of of ALL of us minions. They're all ready with bunkers and what not. The Cold War was just part of this "Great Game" they think they're playing out like the Masters of the Universe.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=22140
The only solution to PEACE is to wake more people up to the "Great Game" that our elites are playing, at the expense of of ALL of us minions. They're all ready with bunkers and what not. The Cold War was just part of this "Great Game" they think they're playing out like the Masters of the Universe.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=22140
QUOTE (qwerty2010 @ Dec 7 2010, 01:02 AM)
Don't joke about this, it's closer than you think. We all don't want war, just like the Iraqis didn't want war with the US, and the Americans don't want war with Iraqis, but was there even a choice?
The only solution to PEACE is to wake more people up to the "Great Game" that our elites are playing, at the expense of of ALL of us minions. They're all ready with bunkers and what not. The Cold War was just part of this "Great Game" they think they're playing out like the Masters of the Universe.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=22140
The only solution to PEACE is to wake more people up to the "Great Game" that our elites are playing, at the expense of of ALL of us minions. They're all ready with bunkers and what not. The Cold War was just part of this "Great Game" they think they're playing out like the Masters of the Universe.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=22140
Yeah everyone should be awake.
Mods, Thank you for the deletion . Sorry for returning fire with fire. 
Peace to ALL!
Peace to ALL!
The Western World consists of a very large part of the world, what exactly does Rudd mean? Not all western countries share the same interests.
Did you know that Australia has the same size population as Taiwan?
but Australia is the same size as China...
and was a dump-hole for British convicts...
but Australia is the same size as China...
and was a dump-hole for British convicts...
QUOTE (Titanium @ Dec 7 2010, 12:20 PM)
The Western World consists of a very large part of the world, what exactly does Rudd mean? Not all western countries share the same interests.
He probably means English-speaking countries
Continental Europeans (or EU aka Deutsche-Franco alliance ) usually don't have the same interests as Anglo-American-Canuck-Aussies alliance
i wouldn't second guess that china would use nuke in case an invasion occurs.
Kevin Rudd is a #1 Machiavellian / Follower of Han Feizi
now he's ratfu-king Gillard and the USA
just watch
now he's ratfu-king Gillard and the USA
just watch
QUOTE
Mr Rudd, the former prime minister who was replaced by Julia Gillard in June, added: "I think there are real questions to be asked about the adequacy of [the US] security systems and the level of access that people have had to that material.
"The core responsibility, and therefore legal liability, goes to those individuals responsible for that initial unauthorised release."
Mr Rudd was dismissed in one leaked US cable as a "mistake-prone control freak"(...)
"The core responsibility, and therefore legal liability, goes to those individuals responsible for that initial unauthorised release."
Mr Rudd was dismissed in one leaked US cable as a "mistake-prone control freak"(...)
I'm Australian and although I'm personally ashamed by what Kevin Rudd has said, I think most people here are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Firstly he says China should be invited to be more active in whats happening around the world, is this bad? China is on its way to becoming a superpower shouldn't she have more influence around the world.
Secondly he sticks his foot in his mouth when he says China should have action taken against her if she acts "irresponsibly", but what does "irresponsibly" mean? Personally if by this he means if China invades Taiwan I would agree with him, if he by "irresponsibly" means if China doesn't start recognising intellectual property rights then I would disagree with him. No definition of "irresponsible" is given and we are also only given one line in the whole dispatch, in what context is he saying this?
Firstly he says China should be invited to be more active in whats happening around the world, is this bad? China is on its way to becoming a superpower shouldn't she have more influence around the world.
Secondly he sticks his foot in his mouth when he says China should have action taken against her if she acts "irresponsibly", but what does "irresponsibly" mean? Personally if by this he means if China invades Taiwan I would agree with him, if he by "irresponsibly" means if China doesn't start recognising intellectual property rights then I would disagree with him. No definition of "irresponsible" is given and we are also only given one line in the whole dispatch, in what context is he saying this?
QUOTE (swingdoctor @ Dec 8 2010, 07:37 PM)
I'm Australian and although I'm personally ashamed by what Kevin Rudd has said, I think most people here are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Firstly he says China should be invited to be more active in whats happening around the world, is this bad? China is on its way to becoming a superpower shouldn't she have more influence around the world.
Secondly he sticks his foot in his mouth when he says China should have action taken against her if she acts "irresponsibly", but what does "irresponsibly" mean? Personally if by this he means if China invades Taiwan I would agree with him, if he by "irresponsibly" means if China doesn't start recognising intellectual property rights then I would disagree with him. No definition of "irresponsible" is given and we are also only given one line in the whole dispatch, in what context is he saying this?
Firstly he says China should be invited to be more active in whats happening around the world, is this bad? China is on its way to becoming a superpower shouldn't she have more influence around the world.
Secondly he sticks his foot in his mouth when he says China should have action taken against her if she acts "irresponsibly", but what does "irresponsibly" mean? Personally if by this he means if China invades Taiwan I would agree with him, if he by "irresponsibly" means if China doesn't start recognising intellectual property rights then I would disagree with him. No definition of "irresponsible" is given and we are also only given one line in the whole dispatch, in what context is he saying this?
Actually China already very active in whats happening around the world, I didn't lie to you, you can see China is very active (if you can read Chinese newspaper or actively follow the China news). But there are miscommunication between the West, China and the rest of the world.
You must know that the world today are divided into 2 bloc, the West and the Non-Bloc. The non-bloc is a neutral group like China, India, Russia, Pakistan, Egypt, Brazil, etc........you call all this as the third world. Although the non-bloc have acknowledge the agreement with the western vision of liberty, economy and science, but when it come to world peace, they have different view. This placing China in the crossroad, as the non-bloc member and as fulfilling the West will.
The non-bloc didn't want to isolate Iran but we also agree that Iran should not develop nuclear weapon. India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, etc don't want to isolate Iran. Look at India-Iran cooperation, Brazil-Iran relationship, etc. So does China. We feel guilty because we are in the crossroad, if we isolate Iran, every people around the world will hate us and if we don't, the West saw us as enemy, supporting evil regime (which the non-bloc countries didn't think so).
The same case with North Korea. The non-bloc don't want a war in Korea, they hate N Korea poverty and isolation, like most of Chinese will too, but they want peaceful development, helping N Korea economy and building good relationship with S Korea that one day this both countries can united peacefully. China already did a lot of effort and finally N Korea agree to end Korean War forever early this year. A big progress, but rejected by US. US even take the step further by held world largest military drill in front of N Korea for a country who willingly to end Korean War forever. Said China didn't do anything to N Korea. We did a lot, but different from the US will.
In Myanmar case. US portrayed China as helping Myanmar regime because we don't want to isolate Myanmar. The non-bloc don't want to isolate Myanmar too. Look at ASEAN, a regional organization in SE Asia, they accept Myanmar as the member, do trading and economy cooperation. But every mistake blamed to China.
In my opinion and many people opinion in many third world countries I visited, US reputation is not very good. The reason is because of his own vision of world domination and aggressive attitude toward any countries who disagree with US will. US and the West think they have a right of the whole world as the winner of the Cold War. This is not a secret and I didn't lie to you. You can check by yourself.
Should China follow the US step? It is good for China to remain neutral and befriend to everyone like the rest of non-bloc. We good with the West and every single countries around the globe. It is bad for China to involve in to invade other countries for the sake of US interest.
You probably will say, what US did is for world peace. I didn't blame for US contribution to the world peace, but it also raise suspicious among non-bloc members. There are United Nation. Why should the West act alone and abandon UN? Is because non-bloc members outnumber the West? A big obstacle to US will and interest? We all willingly to send peace corps and helping the negotiation.
Like in the climate talk or G20? When non-bloc countries outnumber the West bloc. It is also a suspicious to us, why the West never discuss first with non-bloc countries to resolve world problems, always act alone. You know that many non-bloc countries don't have any voices to the world affair. The vocal non-bloc members who oppose US ways, always be labeled as the evil or extremist.
You didn't know that the relationship between China and Taiwan is very good? And also with Japan and S Korea, before US held the military drill. You can find many articles last years about good relationship between China-Japan-S Korea. We did nothing wrong, but suddenly accused from everything.
I have been visited some western countries, and it is very surprising that the people there don't know anything about the non-bloc. They just saw the rest of the world is backward and unorganized. Quite surprising for countries who claim to have a free press. I think you should open your eyes, the world will became multipolar and more democratic.
I don't know why Taiwanese businessmen would sit idly by and watch their business empire on the mainland implode in a China-Taiwan conflict. If I was a powerful Taiwanese business elite, I would stand up to KMT and ask: "You are fu-king dumbass, you will never win against China. You are going to destroy my billion dollar empire in China. GTFO!"
Blood-ties, rationality, and money speak louder than outdated ideological dogma of CCP/KMT past.
That is why Taiwan will have no choice but to surrender without a fight, with significant concessions from CCP of course.
It's the only rational choice that is reflective of the present reality and ensures MONEY btw. China-Taiwan doesn't crumble, making it a lose-lose proposition for powerful business elites in Taiwan and China.
Blood-ties, rationality, and money speak louder than outdated ideological dogma of CCP/KMT past.
That is why Taiwan will have no choice but to surrender without a fight, with significant concessions from CCP of course.
It's the only rational choice that is reflective of the present reality and ensures MONEY btw. China-Taiwan doesn't crumble, making it a lose-lose proposition for powerful business elites in Taiwan and China.
QUOTE (swingdoctor @ Dec 8 2010, 06:37 AM)
I'm Australian and although I'm personally ashamed by what Kevin Rudd has said, I think most people here are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Firstly he says China should be invited to be more active in whats happening around the world, is this bad? China is on its way to becoming a superpower shouldn't she have more influence around the world.
Firstly he says China should be invited to be more active in whats happening around the world, is this bad? China is on its way to becoming a superpower shouldn't she have more influence around the world.
China has many internal problems to deal with
We don't want to be a global superpower
A regional power may be
Go global? No
QUOTE
Secondly he sticks his foot in his mouth when he says China should have action taken against her if she acts "irresponsibly", but what does "irresponsibly" mean? Personally if by this he means if China invades Taiwan I would agree with him, if he by "irresponsibly" means if China doesn't start recognising intellectual property rights then I would disagree with him. No definition of "irresponsible" is given and we are also only given one line in the whole dispatch, in what context is he saying this?
The problem is that who gets to decide what is responsible and what is not?
If Taiwan declares independence and Chinese govt doesn't invade Taiwan, to every Chinese, that's more than irresponsible
This line could echo across every Chinese person's mind
Taiwan is an internal problem of China regardless how outsiders think
Australia doesn't want to fight China haha. It won't profit either party and the US/EU fleets wont allow such aggression from either side. Trade with China is far too profitable to allow a disturbance based on Cowboy diplomacy. The US and EU want to keep profiting so they will keep the waters calm. No need to arm up conflict wont happen, its just useless saber rattling.
QUOTE (AsianGames @ Dec 9 2010, 12:44 AM)
China has many internal problems to deal with
We don't want to be a global superpower
A regional power may be
Go global? No
We don't want to be a global superpower
A regional power may be
Go global? No
Yes but weather China wants to or not, it is becoming a global power.
QUOTE (AsianGames @ Dec 9 2010, 12:44 AM)
The problem is that who gets to decide what is responsible and what is not?
If Taiwan declares independence and Chinese govt doesn't invade Taiwan, to every Chinese, that's more than irresponsible
This line could echo across every Chinese person's mind
Taiwan is an internal problem of China regardless how outsiders think
If Taiwan declares independence and Chinese govt doesn't invade Taiwan, to every Chinese, that's more than irresponsible
This line could echo across every Chinese person's mind
Taiwan is an internal problem of China regardless how outsiders think
Well I guess, since it is Kevin Rudd saying it he would mean in his opinion, whatever that may be.
Well regardless of what Taiwan does, if China invades her, I doubt the rest of the world would stand by and do nothing. Unlike Tibet, the rest of the world can intervene militarily in Taiwan but I don't want to make this a debate about Taiwan.
The irony is that over the same period of time, said leader repeatedly raised questions over the necessity of the expanding Chinese millitary. On the one hand they tell you it is completely unnecessary to waste money on defence whereas behind the scenes they are preparing to attack you.
QUOTE (swingdoctor @ Dec 9 2010, 04:16 AM)
Yes but weather China wants to or not, it is becoming a global power.
Well I guess, since it is Kevin Rudd saying it he would mean in his opinion, whatever that may be.
Well regardless of what Taiwan does, if China invades her, I doubt the rest of the world would stand by and do nothing. Unlike Tibet, the rest of the world can intervene militarily in Taiwan but I don't want to make this a debate about Taiwan.
Well I guess, since it is Kevin Rudd saying it he would mean in his opinion, whatever that may be.
Well regardless of what Taiwan does, if China invades her, I doubt the rest of the world would stand by and do nothing. Unlike Tibet, the rest of the world can intervene militarily in Taiwan but I don't want to make this a debate about Taiwan.
China is becoming a global economic power. Besides nuclear weapons it has almost no means of global power projection. Its blue water navy wouldn't even be able to stand up to the UK or France let alone the US. Its ability to project power in its immediate vicinity is supreme however Western powers will not start a land war(if any at all). Lets just say for arguments sake China decided to fight Australia over Kangaroos rights or some bs. In a non nuclear war it would be over in a week tops. The EU and US would absolutely crush the Chinese fleet and subdue most of its air force once it exits Chinese airspace. That along with cruise missile strikes from subs and various surface vessels on select military installations would take China out of the game very quickly. Not to say the Chinese wouldnt put up a good fight because they would but against the technological superiority of the Western navies and air forces it really has no chance of victory. If it was a land war it would be a different ball game, this wouldnt be. The west shouldn't 'be prepared to use force' it already is. The west should leave China alone, why fight when you can trade and both profit.
QUOTE (bear11 @ Dec 6 2010, 04:32 AM)
Former Australian PM Kevin Rudd said the West should be prepared to use force against China if it acted irresponsibly, a cable leaked by Wikileaks alleges.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11925438
Why the fu-k China still has only 200 atomic bombs, it need immediately produce at least 10000 bombs, how fu-king arrogant are those white pigs.
And what the fu-k is this about Tibet, Aborigines in Australia live at least 10 years shorter than white people, this white pig should take care of them.
And what is wrong with the communists, China must arm it self to the teeth whit every available weapon of mass destruction, so what if it comes to nuclear war, we all be dead.
Imagine how would they scream if some Chinese official said that we need to invade Australia if China need resources
this makes my blood boil, China arm yourself for the total war, if it comes so we will all be dead , so what, but this white pigs must be touth a lesson.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11925438
Why the fu-k China still has only 200 atomic bombs, it need immediately produce at least 10000 bombs, how fu-king arrogant are those white pigs.
And what the fu-k is this about Tibet, Aborigines in Australia live at least 10 years shorter than white people, this white pig should take care of them.
And what is wrong with the communists, China must arm it self to the teeth whit every available weapon of mass destruction, so what if it comes to nuclear war, we all be dead.
Imagine how would they scream if some Chinese official said that we need to invade Australia if China need resources
this makes my blood boil, China arm yourself for the total war, if it comes so we will all be dead , so what, but this white pigs must be touth a lesson.
My ultimate fantasy is all long headed people with ydna r1b accept their fellow long headed bretheren from africa and the mid east.
QUOTE (swingdoctor)
Well I guess, since it is Kevin Rudd saying it he would mean in his opinion, whatever that may be.
Well regardless of what Taiwan does, if China invades her, I doubt the rest of the world would stand by and do nothing. Unlike Tibet, the rest of the world can intervene militarily in Taiwan but I don't want to make this a debate about Taiwan.
Well regardless of what Taiwan does, if China invades her, I doubt the rest of the world would stand by and do nothing. Unlike Tibet, the rest of the world can intervene militarily in Taiwan but I don't want to make this a debate about Taiwan.
Nobody has an alliance with Taiwan except for US, which doesn't even sell Taiwan her best weapons for fear it will eventually get into the hands of the Chinese.
Go figure.
QUOTE
The irony is that over the same period of time, said leader repeatedly raised questions over the necessity of the expanding Chinese millitary. On the one hand they tell you it is completely unnecessary to waste money on defence whereas behind the scenes they are preparing to attack you.
China's military budget rises in proportion to the expansion of her GDP, which is natural for any power. China's military budget rises fast because China's economy is rising fast. Military spending has been the lowest priority for China, it's all about accumulation and growth.
Why so scared? China's military budget can barely run America's military for 2.5 months.
In fact, military spending as a percentage of GDP has dropped since 1980s. Go figure.
QUOTE
China is becoming a global economic power. Besides nuclear weapons it has almost no means of global power projection. Its blue water navy wouldn't even be able to stand up to the UK or France let alone the US. Its ability to project power in its immediate vicinity is supreme however Western powers will not start a land war(if any at all). Lets just say for arguments sake China decided to fight Australia over Kangaroos rights or some bs. In a non nuclear war it would be over in a week tops. The EU and US would absolutely crush the Chinese fleet and subdue most of its air force once it exits Chinese airspace. That along with cruise missile strikes from subs and various surface vessels on select military installations would take China out of the game very quickly. Not to say the Chinese wouldnt put up a good fight because they would but against the technological superiority of the Western navies and air forces it really has no chance of victory. If it was a land war it would be a different ball game, this wouldnt be. The west shouldn't 'be prepared to use force' it already is. The west should leave China alone, why fight when you can trade and both profit.
Within our lifetime, I guarantee you, China will have a military of world-class status.
QUOTE (MiddleKingdom1 @ Dec 9 2010, 08:23 PM)
China's military budget rises in proportion to the expansion of her GDP, which is natural for any power. China's military budget rises fast because China's economy is rising fast. Military spending has been the lowest priority for China, it's all about accumulation and growth.
Why so scared? China's military budget can barely run America's military for 2.5 months.
In fact, military spending as a percentage of GDP has dropped since 1980s. Go figure.
Within our lifetime, I guarantee you, China will have a military of world-class status.
Why so scared? China's military budget can barely run America's military for 2.5 months.
In fact, military spending as a percentage of GDP has dropped since 1980s. Go figure.
Within our lifetime, I guarantee you, China will have a military of world-class status.
It has a world class land army. Blue water navies are much different. China will struggle to even compete with the technological prowess of a European power at sea by 2020 let alone the US. Also by 2020 the US will have 20x the stealth fighters(5th gen or possibly even an advance to the 6th) by the time China has a truly capable stealth fighter initiative. Its hard to write off 11 Supercarriers(with a brand new class being built now). China will be getting up there however and I hope the US helps them.
China will have a 5th gen F-22 equivalent up by 2017 according to the Pentagon.
China should have 5 carriers by 2025. (The year China is projected to eclipse US GDP)
Don't things change fast???
When I was 11 years old (10 years ago in 2000), China's GDP was (1/4) the size of Japan's GDP.
Fast forward, I'm 21 years old (2000-2010), China's GDP has eclipsed Japan's economy. +400% growth in 10 years.
+10% growth in China is equal to +50% growth in India's economy.
China should have 5 carriers by 2025. (The year China is projected to eclipse US GDP)
Don't things change fast???
When I was 11 years old (10 years ago in 2000), China's GDP was (1/4) the size of Japan's GDP.
Fast forward, I'm 21 years old (2000-2010), China's GDP has eclipsed Japan's economy. +400% growth in 10 years.
+10% growth in China is equal to +50% growth in India's economy.
QUOTE (MiddleKingdom1 @ Dec 9 2010, 10:40 PM)
China will have a 5th gen F-22 equivalent up by 2017 according to the Pentagon.
China should have 5 carriers by 2025. (The year China is projected to eclipse US GDP)
Don't things change fast???
When I was 11 years old (10 years ago in 2000), China's GDP was (1/4) the size of Japan's GDP.
Fast forward, I'm 21 years old (2000-2010), China's GDP has eclipsed Japan's economy. +400% growth in 10 years.
+10% growth in China is equal to +50% growth in India's economy.
China should have 5 carriers by 2025. (The year China is projected to eclipse US GDP)
Don't things change fast???
When I was 11 years old (10 years ago in 2000), China's GDP was (1/4) the size of Japan's GDP.
Fast forward, I'm 21 years old (2000-2010), China's GDP has eclipsed Japan's economy. +400% growth in 10 years.
+10% growth in China is equal to +50% growth in India's economy.
Heck yes they do! Im excited to see a Chinese world power. I love the Chinese culture. The 5th gen fighter will come out of production in 2018 and be fully operational(as in out of testing and have an actual air wing) by 2020. I doubt China will have 5 carriers by 2025. Id say more like 3 or 4 with more in production. The US is building a new class of supercarrier as well. Id love to see US China joint military cooperation especially with a revamped Chinese navy. It would be freaking awesome.
And a Merry Christmas to everyone!
MUST WATCH THIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8jw-ifqwkM...feature=related
MUST WATCH THIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8jw-ifqwkM...feature=related
The PLOT THICKENS....apparently, Rudd was axed by the Americans and Gillard was groomed as his replacement. So, was Rudd really pro or anti-China???
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=22350
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=22350
QUOTE
The latest batch of the several hundred leaked US diplomatic cables concerning Australia, provided by WikiLeaks to the Fairfax company’s Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age, provide further extraordinary evidence of Washington’s direct involvement in the anti-democratic coup against former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last June.
Key coup plotters in the Labor Party and trade unions—including senators Mark Arbib and David Feeney, and Australian Workers Union chief Paul Howes—secretly provided the US embassy with regular updates on internal government discussions and divisions within the leadership. As early as June 2008, the American ambassador identified Julia Gillard as the “front-runner” to replace Rudd. In October 2009, i.e., eight months before Gillard was installed in unprecedented circumstances, Mark Arbib informed American officials of emerging leadership tensions. The Australian people, on the other hand, were kept entirely in the dark about any differences between the prime minister and his colleagues until after Rudd was ousted.
Gillard was described, some two years before the coup, by US diplomatic officials as the “rising star” within the Labor government. They made various enquiries into Gillard’s foreign policy sympathies, receiving assurances from government sources that her origins in the party’s “left” faction had no policy significance whatsoever. Arbib told the embassy that Gillard was “one of the most pragmatic politicians in the ALP”; Victorian senator David Feeney added that “there is no longer any intellectual integrity in the factions” and that “there is no major policy issue on which he, a Right factional leader, differs from Gillard”. When embassy officials checked on Gillard with Paul Howes, Australian Workers Union boss and subsequent anti-Rudd coup plotter, observing that “ALP politicians from the Left, no matter how capable, do not become party leader,” he responded immediately: “but she votes with the Right’.”
The Sydney Morning Herald and Age have published parts of the latest material in excerpted form, ahead of their full public release expected in coming weeks. They focus today on Mark Arbib’s role as a “secret US source”. One of the key apparatchiks in Labor’s powerful New South Wales right-wing faction, Arbib reportedly made several requests to US officials that his identity as a “protected” informant be guarded.
The cables refer to Arbib as early as mid-2006, when he served as NSW Labor Party state secretary. After being elected to the senate in the November 2007 federal election, the factional leader deepened his relationship with Washington. A US embassy profile, authored in July 2009, noted that Arbib “understands the importance of supporting a vibrant relationship with the US” and that officials “have found him personable, confident and articulate”. The profile also recorded that he “has met with us repeatedly throughout his political rise”. Other cables referred to the senator as a “right-wing powerbroker and political rising star” and noted his influence within both Labor’s factions and “Rudd’s inner circle”.
The cables make clear that Arbib and the other identified MPs function not simply as mere US “sources”, as characterised in the media today—but rather as agents. Within the Labor and trade unions apparatuses, these party members serve as conduits for Washington’s agenda. The embassy communications reveal the extent to which the US government determines Australian foreign policy and dictates who will hold senior government posts, including the office of prime minister.
A precise chronology of Washington’s sordid, behind-the-scenes manipulation of Australian political affairs, between the Labor Party’s election victory in November 2007 and Rudd’s axing in June 2010, is likely to emerge once WikiLeaks releases the full cache of relevant cables.
Already, however, it is now beyond dispute that Washington began cultivating Gillard at the same time as embassy officials were issuing damning assessments of Rudd, above all over his stance on Beijing. In June 2008, the same month Gillard was named as the “front-runner” to succeed Rudd, the prime minister unveiled his Asia-Pacific Community project, attempting to mediate the escalating strategic rivalry between the US and China. An American embassy cable lambasted this proposal as yet another Rudd initiative launched “without advance consultation”. (See: “WikiLeaks cables cast fresh light on coup against former Australian PM Rudd”)
Key coup plotters in the Labor Party and trade unions—including senators Mark Arbib and David Feeney, and Australian Workers Union chief Paul Howes—secretly provided the US embassy with regular updates on internal government discussions and divisions within the leadership. As early as June 2008, the American ambassador identified Julia Gillard as the “front-runner” to replace Rudd. In October 2009, i.e., eight months before Gillard was installed in unprecedented circumstances, Mark Arbib informed American officials of emerging leadership tensions. The Australian people, on the other hand, were kept entirely in the dark about any differences between the prime minister and his colleagues until after Rudd was ousted.
Gillard was described, some two years before the coup, by US diplomatic officials as the “rising star” within the Labor government. They made various enquiries into Gillard’s foreign policy sympathies, receiving assurances from government sources that her origins in the party’s “left” faction had no policy significance whatsoever. Arbib told the embassy that Gillard was “one of the most pragmatic politicians in the ALP”; Victorian senator David Feeney added that “there is no longer any intellectual integrity in the factions” and that “there is no major policy issue on which he, a Right factional leader, differs from Gillard”. When embassy officials checked on Gillard with Paul Howes, Australian Workers Union boss and subsequent anti-Rudd coup plotter, observing that “ALP politicians from the Left, no matter how capable, do not become party leader,” he responded immediately: “but she votes with the Right’.”
The Sydney Morning Herald and Age have published parts of the latest material in excerpted form, ahead of their full public release expected in coming weeks. They focus today on Mark Arbib’s role as a “secret US source”. One of the key apparatchiks in Labor’s powerful New South Wales right-wing faction, Arbib reportedly made several requests to US officials that his identity as a “protected” informant be guarded.
The cables refer to Arbib as early as mid-2006, when he served as NSW Labor Party state secretary. After being elected to the senate in the November 2007 federal election, the factional leader deepened his relationship with Washington. A US embassy profile, authored in July 2009, noted that Arbib “understands the importance of supporting a vibrant relationship with the US” and that officials “have found him personable, confident and articulate”. The profile also recorded that he “has met with us repeatedly throughout his political rise”. Other cables referred to the senator as a “right-wing powerbroker and political rising star” and noted his influence within both Labor’s factions and “Rudd’s inner circle”.
The cables make clear that Arbib and the other identified MPs function not simply as mere US “sources”, as characterised in the media today—but rather as agents. Within the Labor and trade unions apparatuses, these party members serve as conduits for Washington’s agenda. The embassy communications reveal the extent to which the US government determines Australian foreign policy and dictates who will hold senior government posts, including the office of prime minister.
A precise chronology of Washington’s sordid, behind-the-scenes manipulation of Australian political affairs, between the Labor Party’s election victory in November 2007 and Rudd’s axing in June 2010, is likely to emerge once WikiLeaks releases the full cache of relevant cables.
Already, however, it is now beyond dispute that Washington began cultivating Gillard at the same time as embassy officials were issuing damning assessments of Rudd, above all over his stance on Beijing. In June 2008, the same month Gillard was named as the “front-runner” to succeed Rudd, the prime minister unveiled his Asia-Pacific Community project, attempting to mediate the escalating strategic rivalry between the US and China. An American embassy cable lambasted this proposal as yet another Rudd initiative launched “without advance consultation”. (See: “WikiLeaks cables cast fresh light on coup against former Australian PM Rudd”)
Looks like the US orchestrated a coup against Rudd for not committing Australian troops to Afghanistan and for taking a more neutral stance. So the recent Wikileaks with Rudd assuring Clinton about his stance against China must be judged in this light. This coincides with a series of "coups" in the countries around China, Roh in S Korea, Hatoyama in Japan, etc. Now, Rudd joins the "alumni":
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jul2010/wash-j15.shtml
What was Washington’s role in the coup against Australian prime minister Rudd?
By James Cogan
15 July 2010
As more information drips out, the role of Washington in the June 24 political coup against former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd looms ever larger. It is increasingly apparent that the Obama administration had become concerned that Rudd was wavering in his support for the crisis-wracked US-led occupation of Afghanistan, and that one of the driving forces for his ousting may well have been US insistence that the Australian government—a key US ally—align itself unconditionally with Obama’s intensification of the criminal war.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jul2010/wash-j15.shtml
What was Washington’s role in the coup against Australian prime minister Rudd?
By James Cogan
15 July 2010
As more information drips out, the role of Washington in the June 24 political coup against former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd looms ever larger. It is increasingly apparent that the Obama administration had become concerned that Rudd was wavering in his support for the crisis-wracked US-led occupation of Afghanistan, and that one of the driving forces for his ousting may well have been US insistence that the Australian government—a key US ally—align itself unconditionally with Obama’s intensification of the criminal war.
QUOTE (MiddleKingdom1 @ Dec 9 2010, 09:23 PM)
China's military budget rises in proportion to the expansion of her GDP, which is natural for any power. China's military budget rises fast because China's economy is rising fast. Military spending has been the lowest priority for China, it's all about accumulation and growth.
Why so scared? China's military budget can barely run America's military for 2.5 months.
In fact, military spending as a percentage of GDP has dropped since 1980s. Go figure.
Within our lifetime, I guarantee you, China will have a military of world-class status.
Why so scared? China's military budget can barely run America's military for 2.5 months.
In fact, military spending as a percentage of GDP has dropped since 1980s. Go figure.
Within our lifetime, I guarantee you, China will have a military of world-class status.
blue-water navy baby
QUOTE (bear11 @ Dec 6 2010, 04:32 AM)
Former Australian PM Kevin Rudd said the West should be prepared to use force against China if it acted irresponsibly, a cable leaked by Wikileaks alleges.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11925438
Why the fu-k China still has only 200 atomic bombs, it need immediately produce at least 10000 bombs, how fu-king arrogant are those white pigs.
And what the fu-k is this about Tibet, Aborigines in Australia live at least 10 years shorter than white people, this white pig should take care of them.
And what is wrong with the communists, China must arm it self to the teeth whit every available weapon of mass destruction, so what if it comes to nuclear war, we all be dead.
Imagine how would they scream if some Chinese official said that we need to invade Australia if China need resources
this makes my blood boil, China arm yourself for the total war, if it comes so we will all be dead , so what, but this white pigs must be touth a lesson.
This guy makes the 2 bushes look like geniuses,for aguy who supposedly knows chinese culture,he should know that the chinese govt would rather destroy theworld and itself before giving into outside forces anymore,how the f did this guy ever become prime minister. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11925438
Why the fu-k China still has only 200 atomic bombs, it need immediately produce at least 10000 bombs, how fu-king arrogant are those white pigs.
And what the fu-k is this about Tibet, Aborigines in Australia live at least 10 years shorter than white people, this white pig should take care of them.
And what is wrong with the communists, China must arm it self to the teeth whit every available weapon of mass destruction, so what if it comes to nuclear war, we all be dead.
Imagine how would they scream if some Chinese official said that we need to invade Australia if China need resources
this makes my blood boil, China arm yourself for the total war, if it comes so we will all be dead , so what, but this white pigs must be touth a lesson.
History of Western imperialism in East Asia:
- Europeans use gunboats to submit Japan, Korea and China
- Europeans colonizes South East Asia
- Japan adopts Western technologies to defend itself
- Britain smuggles drug into China
- British forces take out Chinese forces
- European countries + Japan colonizes China
- Japan tries to purge Europeans out of Asia
- Japan massively invests in China
- U.S. fears a stronger and united East Asia lead by Japan
- U.S. supports China against the Japanese
- Japan loses the war
- U.S. recognizes Japan as a major power like German and gives it more power
- U.S. changes side and allies with Japan
- U.S. develops South Korea because of its critical importance to Japan and its control over Asia.
- U.S. contains China
- U.S. denies Vietnam's right to independence as promised for fighting the Japanese
- U.S. goes to war against Vietnam after Vietnam ousts the French from power
- U.S. forces retreat
- Europeans use gunboats to submit Japan, Korea and China
- Europeans colonizes South East Asia
- Japan adopts Western technologies to defend itself
- Britain smuggles drug into China
- British forces take out Chinese forces
- European countries + Japan colonizes China
- Japan tries to purge Europeans out of Asia
- Japan massively invests in China
- U.S. fears a stronger and united East Asia lead by Japan
- U.S. supports China against the Japanese
- Japan loses the war
- U.S. recognizes Japan as a major power like German and gives it more power
- U.S. changes side and allies with Japan
- U.S. develops South Korea because of its critical importance to Japan and its control over Asia.
- U.S. contains China
- U.S. denies Vietnam's right to independence as promised for fighting the Japanese
- U.S. goes to war against Vietnam after Vietnam ousts the French from power
- U.S. forces retreat
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.