[Greapyjeory]

Agreed



Again I concur. The funny thing is now people get mad we don't pursue this type of strategy and intervene. And your right about China (Tough Vote: Top Countries: Will China overtake the US?), its going to be up to them to start policing all this stuff, and they are not exactly the ones you want to be doing that sort of thing...



And this is the main reason the UN has not passed anything to help Libya as of yet!

Nice blog entry. That's some quality research there...

[Greapyjeory]

You must be blind sir.. NO one wants the US to intervene.. Europe doesn't, Italy doesn't, China doesn't, Russia doesn't, the Arab league(which should have the ultimate decision point) doesn't, and several other countries don't want a US led military action.

It's a valid point when applied to a lot of other situations. For example, the world expected us to help out with the tsunami victims a few years back, and the current tsunami situation in Japan is similar.

France asked the US not to act militarily, and demanded to be the only country to strike an attack in Libya. As did the United Kingdom.

Everyone is pressuring to avoid US intervention... no one here is getting "mad" about you not pursuing this type of strategy and intervene.. So where are you getting this impression? Most Americans live with the concept that the US = Awesome, and that because of their economic/financial power, they can afford to stick their noses everywhere. Most of you believe the whole world supports America, but never before has there ever been a radical increase in anti-Americanism.

A lot of the most vocal Americans can be characterized that way, but I would say that there is a growing interest in isolationism here right now. We've learned a hard lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan, and so a lot of us are reluctant to support more interventionism.

The article you listed, only describes the overtake of China in terms of largest economy and Population number, but nothing new or predicted about military technology, or military politics. How can you say that China will adopt the exact same expansion tactic the US has been doing ever since the end of WWII?

I can't speak for him, but personally, history suggests that, as China grows more prosperous, they will intervene in more conflicts. They've already done this some in Africa -- in Sudan in particular.

China already plays the economic imperialism game quite well by investing heavily in a lot of power players like the U.S., Australia, Brazil, and various parts of Africa.

This is usually the first step towards more military interventionism, since economic investments abroad can lead to vested interests in conflicts that might affect them.

[Gozmand]

Imposing a no-fly zone is nothing less than an act of war that can easily force the nations involved to take further steps, including ground troops. Many of those bashing inaction on the part of the West, the Europeans and/or Obama are making it sound as if we were talking about a videogame. Especially so since it is not even clear WHO exactly we are supposed to support. The rebels are a pretty heterogeneous bunch of people with a wide variety of views and positions and have only days ago taken steps to establish a joint leadership. Stopping a dictator from butchering people sounds like a good and noble task but interfering without exactly knowing whose side we are taking is something that lessons from past interventions should tell us to be pretty cautious about. Humanitarian aid is another question though.

THANK YOU, that's exactly what I meant by deeper problems to take into consideration.

[Gozmand]

It's a valid point when applied to a lot of other situations. For example, the world expected us to help out with the tsunami victims a few years back, and the current tsunami situation in Japan is similar.

Yes totally, but there is a giant difference between a humanitarian intervention and a military intervention. Yesterday I read the US sent some planes with medical apparatus and food goods, correct me if I'm wrong.
For me that's great, I favour US intervention when it comes to actually helping the victims. I solely oppose military intervention

A lot of the most vocal Americans can be characterized that way, but I would say that there is a growing interest in isolationism here right now. We've learned a hard lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan, and so a lot of us are reluctant to support more interventionism.

I know, a great deal of smart Americans are able to differentiate good from bad, and so understand the importance of certain war steps. unfortunately, good smart Americans are a minority.

I can't speak for him, but personally, history suggests that, as China grows more prosperous, they will intervene in more conflicts. They've already done this some in Africa -- in Sudan in particular.

China already plays the economic imperialism game quite well by investing heavily in a lot of power players like the U.S., Australia, Brazil, and various parts of Africa.

This is usually the first step towards more military interventionism, since economic investments abroad can lead to vested interests in conflicts that might affect them.

well, I kind of agree.. But, China has been among the top 4 countries in terms of economy size, for the past several years. And I don't recall any military expansion outside China. Although, sometime last year I read about a possibility for expansion, but it's not set on stone.

However, please read this article about China's military ambitions, and let me know what you think. It talks about a diplomatic strategy.
Chinese navy has no plan for overseas bases
also, click on the NEXT PAGE button under the article for the second page of the article.

And then check this short entry about US bases around the world
Destructing the US’s Destructive Military Empire An Organic Intellectual

I quote from the above link: "According to the 2008 official Pentagon inventory of our military bases around the world, our empire consists of 865 facilities in more than 40 countries and overseas U.S. territories. We deploy over 190,000 troops in 46 countries and territories. In just one such country, Japan, at the end of March 2008, we still had 99,295 people connected to U.S. military forces living and working there — 49,364 members of our armed services, 45,753 dependent family members, and 4,178 civilian employees. Some 13,975 of these were crowded into the small island of Okinawa, the largest concentration of foreign troops anywhere in Japan."

[Greapyjeory]

Yes totally, but there is a giant difference between a humanitarian intervention and a military intervention. Yesterday I read the US sent some planes with medical apparatus and food goods, correct me if I'm wrong.
For me that's great, I favour US intervention when it comes to actually helping the victims. I solely oppose military intervention

Agreed. I'm also only in favor of humanitarian interventionism for the most part, although I'm against that as well sometimes.

I know, a great deal of smart Americans are able to differentiate good from bad, and so understand the importance of certain war steps. unfortunately, good smart Americans are a minority.

Good Americans are aplenty. As for smart... well, what nation can claim that their average citizen is "smart?"

well, I kind of agree.. But, China has been among the top 4 countries in terms of economy size, for the past several years. And I don't recall any military expansion outside China. Although, sometime last year I read about a possibility for expansion, but it's not set on stone.

However, please read this article about China's military ambitions, and let me know what you think. It talks about a diplomatic strategy.
Chinese navy has no plan for overseas bases
also, click on the NEXT PAGE button under the article for the second page of the article.

I think it's good for PR. I don't necessarily buy it though. My best friend is of Korean descent, and a lot of his extended family in South Korea will often share their perceptions on China and Japan. The general impression that China seems to be making among their neighbors is one of economic imperialism.

It's natural for China to seek out natural resources abroad, because having affordable access to them is essential for sustainable growth. Plenty of other much smaller nations have addressed these concerns via interventionism, and it's no surprise that China would have the same interests especially because they have so many mouths to feed. China's needs are somewhat comparable to America's, since both of our economies are so huge.

And then check this short entry about US bases around the world
Destructing the US’s Destructive Military Empire An Organic Intellectual

I agree that we are overextending ourselves militarily. It is a very costly arrangement, and as Elbridge Gerry once noted, a large military makes it very tempting to use it.

I think these things come in cycles. As the author of that blog noted, the Soviet Union partially fell due to its own overextension, and I think America will have to eventually draw down its forces across the world similarly to how the British did over half a century ago.

China, on the other hand, is experiencing the early stages of imperialism with its rapid economic expansion.