U.S. warns China not to attempt Crimea-style

[acidhead]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA322DA20140404?irpc=932

U.S. warns China not to attempt Crimea-style action in Asia

By David Brunnstrom

WASHINGTON | Thu Apr 3, 2014 11:58pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China should not doubt the U.S. commitment to defend its Asian allies and the prospect of economic retaliation should also discourage Beijing from using force to pursue territorial claims in Asia in the way Russia has in Crimea, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday.

Continued...

*****

[MordorOrc]

Yeah, no. That ain't gonna happen. For one thing, China has what it has that matters to it most and what it doesn't have is only there for prestige purposes. Taiwan is pretty much an independent country unto itself and Beijing knows it can't do squat to change that.

There isn't anything under dispute between China and it's neighbors that requires Crimea style annexation.

[Space Commander Travis]

And hands up whoever believes that China is likely to take the slightest notice of Mr. O and Mr. K's bluster?

[Frank Merton]

Mongolia would be pretty hard for the West to defend if the Russians, because of some tit for tat, allowed it. Vietnam is in a similar situation, and the Chinese have already several times used force to "teach the Vietnamese a lesson." As China's military gets stronger, its neighbors get more and more uneasy, and a few hundred Americans in Darwin is not going to worry them much.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

a few hundred Americans in Darwin is not going to worry them much.

If anything, those Yanks up north will be a worry to us Aussies!

[Frank Merton]

If anything, those Yanks up north will be a worry to us Aussies!

But countries like the Philippines and Singapore and Indonesia and even Vietnam are quietly happy to see them there.

[lightly]

I'm not sure i would rate his statements to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee an official warning to China?

Edited April 4, 2014 by lightly

[+OverSword]

Free Tibet! (?)

Oh wait, nevermind. too late

Edited April 4, 2014 by OverSword

[RoofGardener]

Taiwan, perhaps ?

[supervike]

I think it'd be better for us, as Americans, to go back to the Isolationists stance we took early in the last century.

[Space Commander Travis]

I think it'd be better for us, as Americans, to go back to the Isolationists stance we took early in the last century.

And to stop seeing everyone as the New Hitler, and always using that as the excuse for intervention, perhaps.

[supervike]

And to stop seeing everyone as the New Hitler, and always using that as the excuse for intervention, perhaps.

Absolutely. The world can deal with any 'new Hitlers'. We've got our own problems.

[antarix]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China should not doubt the U.S. commitment to defend its Asian allies and the prospect of economic retaliation should also discourage Beijing from using force to pursue territorial claims in Asia in the way Russia has in Crimea, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday.

China claims that some parts of India, in its north eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh, are its part. But it had avoided use of force to annex that area not because (i) USA is an ally of India or (ii) economic retaliation but purely because of the fact that India is also a nuclear weapon equipped nation. So, consequences of such a forceful action will be lethal.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Absolutely. The world can deal with any 'new Hitlers'. We've got our own problems.

Your lot said that about Old Hitler as well.

18 Million people died. There's a difference between adventurism and doing the right thing.

[Frank Merton]

I don't think the Chinese have much chance of obtaining their objectives in Taiwan if they keep Tibet in the way they are doing it.

[Frank Merton]

China claims that some parts of India, in its north eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh, are its part. But it had avoided use of force to annex that area not because (i) USA is an ally of India or (ii) economic retaliation but purely because of the fact that India is also a nuclear weapon equipped nation. So, consequences of such a forceful action will be lethal.

I don't see India going into a nuclear exchange over that, with their two or three bombs and China's hundreds, so there is a weakness in your analysis. Maybe making a permanent enemy out of India and its people and sending a really scary message to the rest of the world caused good sense to overrule the blind nationalists in China for once.

[Space Commander Travis]

Your lot said that about Old Hitler as well.

18 Million people died. There's a difference between adventurism and doing the right thing.

Yeah, but that's the point. Any leader of any country that doesn't do what the U.S. wants it to is automatically described as the New Hitler now. It just demeans what the original Hitler was really like.

[+and-then]

Your lot said that about Old Hitler as well.

18 Million people died. There's a difference between adventurism and doing the right thing.

So America was wrong to wait so long to help then but today we are wrong for trying to stay ahead of the curve and stop someone like him from rising again? At what point (if any) is what America does correct in any way?

[antarix]

I don't see India going into a nuclear exchange over that, with their two or three bombs and China's hundreds, so there is a weakness in your analysis. Maybe making a permanent enemy out of India and its people and sending a really scary message to the rest of the world caused good sense to overrule the blind nationalists in China for once.

Leave alone India, no nation will go for nuclear exchange over that. But it is exactly this fear of use of nuclear power that China is keeping to itself. And secondly, how do you know that India has just 2-3 bombs and China hundreds? Rather than finding the weakness in my analysis, you should first find the weakness in your facts and need to authenticate them with some source. The question is - Has India or China declared their nuclear arsenal?

By the way, one site that has an approximation of such numbers, put these figures as 240 with China and about 100 with India.

http://www.armscontr...aponswhohaswhat

So, it is not that much difference between two countries as you are trying to make out.

Edited April 6, 2014 by antarix

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

So America was wrong to wait so long to help then but today we are wrong for trying to stay ahead of the curve and stop someone like him from rising again? At what point (if any) is what America does correct in any way?

As I said, there's a difference between adventurism and doing the right thing.

[+and-then]

As I said, there's a difference between adventurism and doing the right thing.

I see - who gets to decide that difference? Would it be that it's only considered altruistic when it agrees with an individual's criteria?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I see - who gets to decide that difference? Would it be that it's only considered altruistic when it agrees with an individual's criteria?

Well lets see, Hitler invades Austria, Poland, Belgium, France and tries to invade Britain and Russia. America does nothing.

Saddam Hussein says rude things about the President.

Which one of these two events needed American intervention more?

And if you use the "corrupt tyrant" excuse, there's a list of other tyrants that need American led deposal.

[SHaYap]

And its Hollywood La La Land all over again ~

[Dark_Grey]

Well lets see, Hitler invades Austria, Poland, Belgium, France and tries to invade Britain and Russia. America does nothing.

Saddam Hussein says rude things about the President.

Which one of these two events needed American intervention more?

And if you use the "corrupt tyrant" excuse, there's a list of other tyrants that need American led deposal.

This. It's not purely coincidental that every country the US swoops in to save just "happens" to have resources America wants and the countries that don't appear to have any intrinsic value are left to rot. If you want to do what's right, do what's right all the time - not just when it benefits you.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Dark_Grey

[+and-then]

Well lets see, Hitler invades Austria, Poland, Belgium, France and tries to invade Britain and Russia. America does nothing.

Saddam Hussein says rude things about the President.

Which one of these two events needed American intervention more?

And if you use the "corrupt tyrant" excuse, there's a list of other tyrants that need American led deposal.

REALLY? And Chamberlain had no culpability? Or France? Just admit it man, America is your (and several others here) whipping boy for the world's problems. I accept that my country has done wrong but people on these forums who constantly throw jibes about the US get on my last nerve sometimes. It's a big world and there is PLENTY of blame to go around if one looks at the situations honestly. If it makes you feel somehow justified or superior to name and shame the US then by all means continue - but it gets really old after awhile and it's also pointless.