U.S. Military Spending Dwarfs China's

[ironsides]

Why would China want to attack Canada? Mao Zedong had written an essay about Dr. Norman Bethune, which is still taught in Chinese middle schools today. Bethune is presented as a model of self-sacrifice for the Chinese to emulate, as well as a symbol of friendship between Canada and China. When a Chinese-speaking Canadian mentions that he's Canadian, praise of Bethune is the first thing he'll hear from the lips of any Chinese with so much as a moderate level of education.

Now tell me, how could a Chinese with such respect for Bethune rationalize a senseless attack against Canada? He would certainly need to be provoked first.

Then look at China's rationalizations of past military actions. Whether Tibet ought ot be a part of China or not is a matter for a separate thread. But one thing is for sure: the Chinese do feel a need to rationalize their presence in Tibet. They place much emphasis on historical documents indicating Tibet's long-time association with China. If they feel a need to rationalize their occupation of a country, how would they do that with Canada, which has never been under Chinese rule at any time in recorded history, which even the Chinese would acknowledge.

We could also look at China's military involvement in Korea, Vietnam, and India. In none of these cases did it ever maintain a military presence. It entered, attacked, and retreated. Such a move cannot benefit China in any material way. The only benefit of such a military strategy is symbolic, as a means of warning a neighbouring country against trying any tricks against China. And in all of those cases, the Chinese had not attacked pre-emptively, but rather re-actively.

Then we have the Chinese classics. Traditional Chinese are strongly influenced by such Chinese quotes as:

四海之內皆兄弟

天下的一家​

Essentially, a pre-emptive Chinese atack on Canada would raise too many cultural taboos for comfort. It woud challenge China's historical, cultural, and military identity.​

可以不要忘记，为什么他们攻击西藏，越南等

"Lets not forget, why did they attack Tibet, Vietnam, India etc."

Canada is a rich country with a small population, if the world stood by and watched, you would be speaking Chinese in a week. China is a modern country today and has very little so called 'taboos".

​

​

 

[Machjo]

Sorry, I made a mistake in my Chinese:

四海之內皆兄弟

天下一家​

 

[Machjo]

The Chinese do have taboos, personal and social. How much do you know about China?

 

[CDNBear]

WWII was different. Hitler clearly intended international expansion. We're not seeing Afghan militaryvehicles storming across national boundaries now are we? If that were the case, we'd be talking about a classic war with our military might pitted against Afghanistans.

But as it turns out, we're the enemy occupying Afghanistan to supposedly find Bn Laden, or so theoriginal argument went. The government coud not even be consistent on the objectives of the mission. At the very least, our soldiers deserve that. In WWII, the mission was clear and hadn't changed once till it was achieved. Once achieved, the war was over. in Afghanistan, the mission changes on a whim only ot be replaced by a new misison, with on end in sight.

Big differences there.

If you follow the conversation, you would note the context in which I was using the comparison. You missed the point obviously.

 

[CDNBear]

The Chinese do have taboos, personal and social. How much do you know about China?

They have great take out. Too much MSG though...;-)

 

[ironsides]

A thousand and one excuses are no explanation for why you can't command respect. They have guts enough to meet you face to face. You stand off over the safety of a horizon and kill anyone in the vicinity. Even if you did get the illusion of a win and you scare the hell out of anyone around you, you still won't be able to walk alone. I praise the troops. It's the methods I detest.

How many Americans were lost in WW-1, WW-2, Korea, pretty much anywhere we fought. Did we take a piece of Asia, or Europe, no. We didn't even stay on Grenada. Just died so some crackers could keep their way of life. Just for the record, if I could have used it all the time, there is nothing better than using artillery, napalm (outlawed now), close air support (as only the Marines can do it) to keep the enemy at arms length. That is the method I preferred to use to protect my Marines. Never got involved with politics.​

 

[lone wolf]

Yep...You seem to think that high tech stalled in Nam...;-)

Don't quit your day job 'cuz a psychic you ain't

Not only was not because the high tech weaponry of that time failed, it wasn't even the capabilities of the men using them. It was simply the way in which the war was directed. Politicians should not run wars. They should just declare them and then get the hell out of the way.

...and how many men on the ground were impaled on punji stakes or gutted by C-rat lids? Air superiority and guns that can spit out a thousand rounds a minute did lits to protect them, eh? Hmm ... isn't that the same as IEDs that still take lives today?

It's hard to get out from underground, when your buried in rubble.

Yeah ... ask anyone who experienced tunnels.

But we don't wage war like that anymore, it's all about lower body counts and better press...:lol:

Uh-huh. Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?

 

[ironsides]

Had that for lunch, very thirsty now.

 

[Machjo]

Even the US has taboos. Let's consider. The US needed Pearl Harbor to drag them into WWII because it was quite isolationist at the time. It could not have gone otherwise.

It needed the threat of communism for the Korean War.

It needed the threat of Communism as an excuse for Vietnam.

It needed the Iraqi attack on Kuwait for Gulf War I.

It needed 9/11 and the refusal of the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden for the Afghan War.

It needed the story of WMD's for the Iraq War.
So even the US has military taboos. It needs a PR machine, a reason for the war that can be accepted by the population.

Heck, even Nazi Germany had military taboos. It needed a False Flag operation. It needed to portray Jews as an untrustworthy enemy of the Germans, communist and cosmopolitan traitors to the German people. It needed to portray itself as a victim of the Treaty of Versaille.

Even Imperial Japan had its military taboos. The Japanese were going to liberate the Chinese, to help the Chinese by creating a Co-Prosperity Sphere.

The Naxis were going to help their Austrian brethren and to avenge the injustice of the Treaty of Versaille and defend their homeland and make the people proud once again.

Even in the age of empire, military taboos existed. The Euopeans were going to civilize the savages, to Christianize them, to save their souls, to educate them, etc.

Every culture has its military taboos, and it can wage war only by finding some way to overcome these taboos. The easiest way is obviously to be legitimately atacked. Otherwise, some kind of noble cause must be found to wage the war. In Italy, it was to regain the ancient glory ofthe Roman empire and to make the Mediterranean an Italian Sea once more.

So what would be China's way of overcoming its military taboos to get its people behind it in a war against Canada?

 

[CDNBear]

Uh-huh. Do you believe in the Easter Bunny?

No, but I believe for no apparent reason you're being a dick, so FU clown, lol...;-)

Don't quit your day job 'cuz a psychic you ain't :razz:

So you don't think that high tech weaponry would fail today then? So you're changing your assertion?

...and how many men on the ground were impaled on punji stakes or gutted by C-rat lids? Air superiority and guns that can spit out a thousand rounds a minute did lits to protect them, eh? Hmm ... isn't that the same as IEDs that still take lives today?

Why put men on the ground at all?

Carpet bombing works well when the media doesn't mess it up on the evening news.

Yeah ... ask anyone who experienced tunnels.

Two words, 'bunker busters', actually, lets make that 5 and add, 'lots of them'.

 

[lone wolf]

No, but I believe for no apparent reason you're being a dick, so FU clown, lol...;-)

So you don't think that high tech weaponry would fail today then? So you're changing your assertion?

Why put men on the ground at all?

Carpet bombing works well when the media doesn't mess it up on the evening news.

Two words, 'bunker busters', actually, lets make that 5 and add, 'lots of them'.

Yeah... Be right.... Go troll someone else.

 

[CDNBear]

Yeah... Be right.... Go troll someone else.

:roll: You're asking me if I believe in the Easter Bunny and you think I'm trolling...ya, you sure a dick today...

Did you forget your meds or something?

:lol:

 

[ironsides]

WWII was different. Hitler clearly intended international expansion. We're not seeing Afghan militaryvehicles storming across national boundaries now are we? If that were the case, we'd be talking about a classic war with our military might pitted against Afghanistans.

But as it turns out, we're the enemy occupying Afghanistan to supposedly find Bn Laden, or so theoriginal argument went. The government coud not even be consistent on the objectives of the mission. At the very least, our soldiers deserve that. In WWII, the mission was clear and hadn't changed once till it was achieved. Once achieved, the war was over. in Afghanistan, the mission changes on a whim only ot be replaced by a new misison, with on end in sight.

Big differences there.

If anybody would like to see a win in Afghanistan, then get out of the business of amateurs running a war and let the professionals do their jobs. That means keeping the media and public out of our business. We were sent there to get Bn Laden, almost had him then amateurs got involved and here we are today.​

 

[RanchHand]

Actually Lone wolf, what is your point? You seem to be all over the place. I'm not being antagonistic. I don't follow what your saying in the thread.

 

[lone wolf]

:roll: You're asking me if I believe in the Easter Bunny and you think I'm trolling...ya, you sure a dick today...

Did you forget your meds or something?

:lol:

You're talking like I'm an idiot and you're the only one who knows anything and I should think you're all that and a bag of berries too? ... then you say I'm a dick?

How do my meds concern you? Go get your own.

 

[lone wolf]

Actually Lone wolf, what is your point? You seem to be all over the place. I'm not being antagonistic. I don't follow what your saying in the thread.

That's the whole thing about a smoke screen. It confuses things.

My point is, US military spending has always dwarfed China's yet Chinese sticks-and-stones doctrine still gives good account of itself against technology and gadgetry.

 

[gerryh]

hate to say it, but I agree with Ranchhand....LW is all over the map and making very little sense anywhere.

 

[Machjo]

可以不要忘记，为什么他们攻击西藏，越南等​

"Lets not forget, why did they attack Tibet, Vietnam, India etc."​

Canada is a rich country with a small population, if the world stood by and watched, you would be speaking Chinese in a week. China is a modern country today and has very little so called 'taboos". ​

Chinese taboos played a role there too. In China, those who defend that Tibet remain part of China insist that it's based on history, that Tibet has always been a part of China. Though we can dispute the claims it doesn't change the fact that China needed at least some token evidence to support its claim, otherwise it would have had to let tibet go. It would have been diplomatically unsustainable. When others tell China to leave Tibet, China can show those historical documents and argue that that is proof that tibet has always been a part of China. True or not is another matter. The poin is that they need this argument to voercome certain cultural taboos. Just attacking Tibet without a reason would never have been acceptable.

As for Vietnam, they could portray themselves as friends of the Vietnamese, trying to help them. Of course, the Americans were using the same arguments.

China's border disputes with India Cambodia, etc. use the same argument of historical possession.

It's interesting to note how, whether we agree with the arguments or not, they tend to be quite consistent. Most American Wars have been wars of liberation from communism, slavery, dictatorship, or other situation of oppression, perceived or otherwise. Most Chinese wars in recent history have been wars of liberation for what is perceived as historically Chinese territory against a perceived occupying force, or a war for national unity, as was the case for the US civil war.

Many of the taboos that need to overcome are similar in all cultures. Perhaps we can say that there is a universal trend. They need to be able to perceive their war as a just war, otherwise support for the war collapes. They need that perception to begin the war, and then need to maintain the perception to continue the war.

Even Nazi Germany was no exception. The Germans had to find or create the argument of a noble cause even for their wars. For them it was avenging the injustices of the Treaty of Versaille. And they needed proof from a neutral source. They got it in the form of a public acknowledgement from Chamberlain that the Treaty was indeed unfair to the Germans.

Imperial Japan created theirs through the Co-Prosperity Sphere. And again, could make it believable by pointing out how the evil Westerners had invaded China, brotherly Japan was to liberate China and help it.

Same with Canada, going to Afghanistan to help the Afghans, to liberate them, to fulfil our NATO obligations and commitments. All of these try to touch on our sence of justice, nobility, pride in the integrity of our nation. No country is an exception, and of course China would be no exception in haivng to try to rationalize a war with Canada too. I just don't see how China could do that unless Canada should militarize heavily or attack China first.

 

[lone wolf]

hate to say it, but I agree with Ranchhand....LW is all over the map and making very little sense anywhere.

8O Gawd! That would mean I'm starting to sound like you!

 

[gerryh]

That's the whole thing about a smoke screen. It confuses things.

My point is, US military spending has always dwarfed China's yet Chinese sticks-and-stones doctrine still gives good account of itself against technology and gadgetry.

are you implying that the Chinese are still in the stone age when it comes to their war machine?