US amplifies non-existent Chinese military threat - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
March 10th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
What makes China a threat is its nuclear and ICBM capabilities.

The relative size of China's nuclear arsenal is not due to a pacifist restraint as this article would have you believe, rather it is due to budgetary concerns.
March 10th, 2005  
MadeInChina
 
ROfls

a big country with a huge population, especially one developing, needs a big army, with the most bordering countries.

cmon, even my cousin whos 3 years old knows that big have many and small have little
March 10th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mech
ROfls

a big country with a huge population, especially one developing, needs a big army, with the most bordering countries.

cmon, even my cousin whos 3 years old knows that big have many and small have little
please just refer to the article without anyother comment....i don't want this locked!
--
Boots
March 11th, 2005  
IAmFighter
 
 
The fact remains that the Chinese is ingaging in a military buildup and modernization. Advanced Russian military hardware such as Sukhoi-27 Flanker fighters are being purchased at a rapid pace by the PLA. Additionally, the PRC is working on new model SSNs and SSBNs to upgrade their submarine fleet.
March 11th, 2005  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyca
My reaction to the article... it lost its creditability (for me at least) when its title worded "non-existent Chinese military threat ".
Lost credibility with me in the first 2 words "Self-serving US..."
Lol. That's how I see it too.

Who wrote this, someone related to Bagdad Bob?

Just ask yourself if China's military threat is non-existent why is it pushing hard to aquire European high-tech weaponery?...please.

Clearly propaganda with very little objectivity. People who keep reading articles like this and believing them, end up with tunnel vision.
March 11th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyca
My reaction to the article... it lost its creditability (for me at least) when its title worded "non-existent Chinese military threat ".
Lost credibility with me in the first 2 words "Self-serving US..."
Lol. That's how I see it too.

Who wrote this, someone related to Bagdad Bob?

Just ask yourself if China's military threat is non-existent why is it pushing hard to aquire European high-tech weaponery?...please.

Clearly propaganda with very little objectivity. People who keep reading articles like this and believing them, end up with tunnel vision.

it written by a writer in london....it's at the bottom, maybe you didn't get that far.

of course china is spending up large on Mil tech. their army is outdated, esp in light of the US steamrollering of iraq. just as the US sees china as a threat...i'm sure vise versa is true. so what are they supposed to do? sit on their hands.

p.s just because someone doesn't toe the us line, doesn't make them "bagdahd bob"
March 12th, 2005  
k19
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyca
My reaction to the article... it lost its creditability (for me at least) when its title worded "non-existent Chinese military threat ".
Lost credibility with me in the first 2 words "Self-serving US..."
Lol. That's how I see it too.

Who wrote this, someone related to Bagdad Bob?

Just ask yourself if China's military threat is non-existent why is it pushing hard to aquire European high-tech weaponery?...please.

Clearly propaganda with very little objectivity. People who keep reading articles like this and believing them, end up with tunnel vision.
sounds like you heard too many propagandas from the US media.

firstly, as the allies of US, EU want to lift the ban to "help" china to get more high tech weapon? not a chance. but, political recognizition of human right improvement is the key, which, the americans failed to objectively do so year after year. the ban was 15 years old and will be replaced by other limitation agreements. in fact, an US official said this " we don't understand why EU want to lift the ban when the human right is still an issue in china, look, if they need sale some tech to china, they certainly can deal it as special cases by case, and why lifting the ban?" china will not buy banch EU weapon system, how can they be fited in our history long russian systems in short time?

this kind of idea also make my laugh when we still have blackhawks to in china, and some high tech radar tech as well as from US, which were brought right before the 89 event and held by US right after. Look, the EU thing is basicly, the disagreement between US and EU, one want to make a sale and the other want to keep playing the human rights issue. who is more objective? as a chinese living in beijing when the event happened, and militery trucks passing my windows by, and compare to the situations in china now, i think EU is right and that's the only right thing to do!

secondly, defining the "china as a threat" in US's term, you can see it always states that "china are threating the US's interests around the world", so what is this " US's interests" ? if the american government just a little bit more "kindness" to the world, would there be so many "enemies" was made by the US? if the americans afriad the Taiwan could make them suffer in another war, why don't US step in and holding talks to help both sides unite, or, at least get some sort of understanding? this way who would keep building up militery and anger against the americans? in fact, chinese might just start to love this nation and made them the true friend! too bad, it's not "US's interstes"!

thirdly, americans and chinese don't have major problem that can not be soloved through political term, just like the americans with europeans. hardly, and objectivly calling china as an threat.
March 12th, 2005  
k19
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by k19
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyca
My reaction to the article... it lost its creditability (for me at least) when its title worded "non-existent Chinese military threat ".
Lost credibility with me in the first 2 words "Self-serving US..."
Lol. That's how I see it too.

Who wrote this, someone related to Bagdad Bob?

Just ask yourself if China's military threat is non-existent why is it pushing hard to aquire European high-tech weaponery?...please.

Clearly propaganda with very little objectivity. People who keep reading articles like this and believing them, end up with tunnel vision.
sounds like you heard too many propagandas from the US media.

firstly, as the allies of US, EU want to lift the ban to "help" china to get more high tech weapon? not a chance. but, political recognizition of human right improvement is the key, which, the americans failed to objectively do so year after year. the ban was 15 years old and will be replaced by other limitation agreements. in fact, an US official said this " we don't understand why EU want to lift the ban when the human right is still an issue in china, look, if they need sale some tech to china, they certainly can deal it as special cases by case, and why lifting the ban?" china will not buy banch EU weapon system, how can they be fited in our history long russian systems in short time?

this kind of idea also make my laugh when we still have blackhawks to in china, and some high tech radar tech as well as from US, which were brought right before the 89 event and held by US right after. Look, the EU thing is basicly, the disagreement between US and EU, one want to make a sale and the other want to keep playing the human rights issue. who is more objective? as a chinese living in beijing when the event happened, and militery trucks passing my windows by, and compare to the situations in china now, i think EU is right and that's the only right thing to do!

secondly, defining the "china as a threat" in US's term, you can see it always states that "china are threating the US's interests around the world", so what is this " US's interests" ? if the american government just a little bit more "kindness" to the world, would there be so many "enemies" was made by the US? if the americans afriad the Taiwan could make them suffer in another war, why don't US step in and holding talks to help both sides unite, or, at least get some sort of understanding? this way who would keep building up militery and anger against the americans? in fact, chinese might just start to love this nation and made them the true friend! too bad, it's not "US's interstes"!

thirdly, americans and chinese don't have major problem that can not be soloved through political term, just like the americans with europeans. hardly, and objectivly calling china as a threat.
March 14th, 2005  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zyca
My reaction to the article... it lost its creditability (for me at least) when its title worded "non-existent Chinese military threat ".
Lost credibility with me in the first 2 words "Self-serving US..."
Lol. That's how I see it too.

Who wrote this, someone related to Bagdad Bob?

Just ask yourself if China's military threat is non-existent why is it pushing hard to aquire European high-tech weaponery?...please.

Clearly propaganda with very little objectivity. People who keep reading articles like this and believing them, end up with tunnel vision.

it written by a writer in london....it's at the bottom, maybe you didn't get that far.

of course china is spending up large on Mil tech. their army is outdated, esp in light of the US steamrollering of iraq. just as the US sees china as a threat...i'm sure vise versa is true. so what are they supposed to do? sit on their hands.

p.s just because someone doesn't toe the us line, doesn't make them "bagdahd bob"
I read the whole thing, yes even the part about the writer from london.

The "Bagdad Bob" comment was because it was so ludcrously one sided to far left, that its to the point of well ... being ludicrous.

Just because they don't tow the US line doesn't mean they can't report objectively.

That piece of reporting was NOT objective.

If you want to report, report the facts, don't report it in such a way to influence the readers to your particular political point of view.

If keep believing stuff like that you will no longer see the facts enough to make sound judgements, and you only see what you want to see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k19
sounds like you heard too many propagandas from the US media.
And the Chinese media doesn't report propaganda? Please...

Anyone making that statement who's living in China isn't exactly in a position to say another country's news is propaganda.

Our media isn't the one totaly controlled by the government. I suppose the Chinese media tells the absoulute truth every time, you should hire Bagdad Bob.

I think you need to read a little bit more you could have spared yourself writting that long answer.

The topic was NOT that China was a threat, but the topic was that it was a "non-existent threat". Its not a big threat, but "non-existent threat" it is not.
March 14th, 2005  
k19
 
Quote:
And the Chinese media doesn't report propaganda? Please...
you added that, i didn't.
Quote:
Anyone making that statement who's living in China isn't exactly in a position to say another country's news is propaganda.
speaking for china doesn't means i have to be living in china or be a chinese, you have just prove the point. in fact, i am living in Toronto Canada.
Quote:
Our media isn't the one totaly controlled by the government. I suppose the Chinese media tells the absoulute truth every time, you should hire Bagdad Bob.
i didn't say that neither, you made that up. that's exact my point, when topic related to china, your media is out of controled. controled is bad, out of controled is equally bad.
Quote:
I think you need to read a little bit more you could have spared yourself writting that long answer.
which one the author said is not true? throwing out a word to dismiss others opinion in the article is right thing to do?
Quote:
The topic was NOT that China was a threat, but the topic was that it was a "non-existent threat". Its not a big threat, but "non-existent threat" it is not.
sum up my fact:

i am in toronto, canada, i watch BBC CBC, not CCTV news.
i didn't say china don't do propaganda, in fact, i am pointing out that not only china does propaganda. if all pro-china view is considered propaganda, i hardly think they were not been brain washed as well.
i listen CNN and CBC news everyday, to be fair, CNN's "fact report" was misleading comparing to the BBC abd CBC, what american main stream media is missing is articles like this. They can put huge man hours to educate public the hate, but not even allow some friendly realtions to build up, sadly.

speaking on the topic? i certainly think china is not threating US, but, instead, US is threating china! i have explained in my last part of the reply. US is persuiting interests in an very dangours place, it's not important for their survival, but, seeking benifits, putting itself in danger, you can't blame the other said as threat to you when not limiting your own action. US and china are competetors, i do agree, but a threat? no!

i have said it clear, there is nothing that we can't talk to solve, we certainly not looking for trouble, we don't go into wars if not life-threatened, we would not start wars with US, there is no reason for us to do so, but it doesn't means US won't self-willingly get in one, will that means we were threating US? or the other way around?