China seeks role in Afghanistan

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47662955/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/#.T8vtO1ImGDk
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/03/us-afghanistan-china-idUSBRE85203320120603
http://news.yahoo.com/china-steps-afghan-role-western-pullout-nears-155740560.html

Well would be good, I mean china is not invading them using low key efforts to help Afghanistan as the west pulls out of it. Will it be successful? It might, the militants might not see it as an invasion and trust the Chinese but who knows? We might need to see it after a few years.

China helped other third world countries in Africa by building infrastructure and such. What do you think of this?

Captcha: tickle the ivories

Zef Otter:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47662955/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/#.T8vtO1ImGDk
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/03/us-afghanistan-china-idUSBRE85203320120603
http://news.yahoo.com/china-steps-afghan-role-western-pullout-nears-155740560.html

Well would be good, I mean china is not invading them using low key efforts to help Afghanistan as the west pulls out of it. Will it be successful? It might, the militants might not see it as an invasion and trust the Chinese but who knows? We might need to see it after a few years.

China helped other third world countries in Africa by building infrastructure and such. What do you think of this?

Captcha: tickle the ivories

But off course they do. They spend 0 in war efforts and than when the storm calms down they come and mooch from the profits? Disgusting but smart.

And China helped third world countries the way Europe helped it during the colonisation. No wait, we did even better because on top of infrastructure we brought them cities and technology and jobs. China doesn't even trust black guys enough to work on their fields and prefer to import folks from China.

If there is one world power people should NOT trust it must be China. Even the oh so hated imperialist US of A holds the moral high ground compared to China.

Zef Otter:

China helped other third world countries in Africa by building infrastructure and such. What do you think of this?

What do I think? I think you should look at a thread I made a while ago. More importantly, you should look at one particular comment.

OP: It is interesting to see what China will do there and how,if at all, the Taliban will react to the Chinese government.

Zef Otter:
the militants might not see it as an invasion and trust the Chinese

Bit naive.

Most militants see the dude from two villages away as an invader.

From what I can see, this is a very smart move by China - they won't be coming in as humanitarians (although that won't necessarily preclude them from humanitarian actions to help them get their way), but they will reap the rewards of an Afghanistan with still shaky security forces and a very dangerous enemy to fight (The Taliban know we're leaving in a couple of years, I'm willing to bet there are maddrassas in Pakistan full of 14-15 year old lads who've spent the last 5 years mastering insurgent warfare, who will be rolling into Afghanistan just as we roll out) - In other words, making sure that they get the lions share of any kind of financial boon, including (but not limited to) the supply of weapons, and the extraction (and subsequent trade) of raw minerals.

China helped other third world countries in Africa by building infrastructure and such.

Indeed they did, and in exchange all they demanded was the wealth of those third world nations. It's a good little racket, we (Britain) did it ourselves for a few hundred years, and it yielded really positive results.

China's involvement in developing countries is nothing new. One gets the impression it's been part of the government's foreign policy to cultivate this kind of "soft power".

Not that I'm surprised that it provokes a bit of Sinophobia from some posters, but really if this is something that surprises or threatens you it only shows you haven't studied a damn thing about China for the last 10+ years.

Honestly, I feel like China is going the 1900's America route and finally starting their imperialism esque foreign involvement. I mean, they had their industrial revolution, imperialism is next. But all in all, I am not very trusting of China.

Not really surprising. Afghanistan has a boatload of untapped mineral resources, and China seems to stand something to gain here rather comfortably. Kudos to them, anyways, but it's not like the whole of the Afghan population will truly benefit from this.

Katatori-kun:
China's involvement in developing countries is nothing new. One gets the impression it's been part of the government's foreign policy to cultivate this kind of "soft power".

Not that I'm surprised that it provokes a bit of Sinophobia from some posters, but really if this is something that surprises or threatens you it only shows you haven't studied a damn thing about China for the last 10+ years.

Yeah, lots of Sinophobia indeed.

I think that from China's perspective, it's more like they have to clean up the shit that the west left in their backyard. Unlike most of the posters and most of the governments that were militarily involved in Afghanistan here, China actually lives right next to Afghanistan. So if Afghanistan goes into the shitter, the shit is going to spill over into China. So the Chinese might as well put on some nice PR and make an honest attempt at stabilizing the shit situation that US and allies left in central Asia. If they are successful, they save a lot of headache along their western borders, and they might make some money out of the deal. If not, then shit hits the fan and they'll be forced to use military means in central Asia. Then all the western nations will bitch about how China is trying to invade central Asia and trying to create an empire, completely ignoring the fact that their invasion of Afghanistan set this entire thing up. I also expect India and Russia to step up their role the way China has, since they've got just as much to lose here. Especially India, given the complex relationship between them, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. If shit hits the fan in Pakistan, the most likely target for their loose nukes would be India, so they're probably going to be in hardcore damage control mode.

The thing is, Islam extremism is actually more of a threat to China than most western nations, given that a lot of extremist Muslim factions live either in western China or near it's borders. The western nations can afford to just leave central Asia when the going gets tough, but China, India, and Russia have to deal with the shit they left behind. The whole Afghanistan+Iraq shit from the Bush administration lost the west a lot of friends in Asia, since they've effectively fucked with the national security of 3/4 of the BRIC nations.

Stu35:
Indeed they did, and in exchange all they demanded was the wealth of those third world nations. It's a good little racket, we (Britain) did it ourselves for a few hundred years, and it yielded really positive results.

History doesn't repeat itself but it sure does rhyme.

Awesome! I'm really glad America isn't a scary invader anymore. I mean, it's alright if everyone else is doing it too.

TheDarkEricDraven:
Awesome! I'm really glad America isn't a scary invader anymore. I mean, it's alright if everyone else is doing it too.

I don't think it is the same thing. China is not rolling in over its neighbor's lawn with tanks and troops, and bombs. As far as I understand it they are putting together a sort of plan to further both countries' relationship, which involves doing all sorts of things like training of security forces, permits to exploit the land in search of iron ore deposits, etc., etc. With a massive advantage firmly placed on the Chinese side.

Pingieking:
I think that from China's perspective, it's more like they have to clean up the shit that the west left in their backyard.

I think there may also be just simple pragmatic, enlightened self-interest. The Chinese industrial powerhouse runs on cheap resources. Afghanistan apparently has resources if the country can ever be stabilized enough to exploit them. Making deals with less-developed countries gets China in a position to get those resources. The Chinese government, as the leaders of a country with the world's second-largest economy, could also do well to be percieved by other nations as a leading nation. If cleaning up the US's mess contributes to that perception, well, I don't see too many people in the party turning it down if there's a profit to be had in the bargain.

The thing is, Islam extremism is actually more of a threat to China than most western nations, given that a lot of extremist Muslim factions live either in western China or near it's borders.

Good point. I think the fear of extreme Islam spilling into China is probably more of a fear than the actual Afghanistan conflict spilling over.

unabomberman:

TheDarkEricDraven:
Awesome! I'm really glad America isn't a scary invader anymore. I mean, it's alright if everyone else is doing it too.

I don't think it is the same thing. China is not rolling in over its neighbor's lawn with tanks and troops, and bombs. As far as I understand it they are putting together a sort of plan to further both countries' relationship, which involves doing all sorts of things like training of security forces, permits to exploit the land in search of iron ore deposits, etc., etc. With a massive advantage firmly placed on the Chinese side.

Invading parts of Afghanistan? No, but parts of East/South East Asia? Yep, just look at Tibet and what is going on in the South East Islands. Vietnam, the Philippines are just two examples of countries that feel that China is trying to take land that doesn't belong to them. Come to think of it, China has a dispute with Japan over land as well.

Helmholtz Watson:

unabomberman:

TheDarkEricDraven:
Awesome! I'm really glad America isn't a scary invader anymore. I mean, it's alright if everyone else is doing it too.

I don't think it is the same thing. China is not rolling in over its neighbor's lawn with tanks and troops, and bombs. As far as I understand it they are putting together a sort of plan to further both countries' relationship, which involves doing all sorts of things like training of security forces, permits to exploit the land in search of iron ore deposits, etc., etc. With a massive advantage firmly placed on the Chinese side.

Invading parts of Afghanistan? No, but parts of East/South East Asia? Yep, just look at Tibet and what is going on in the South East Islands. Vietnam, the Philippines are just two examples of countries that feel that China is trying to take land that doesn't belong to them. Come to think of it, China has a dispute with Japan over land as well.

Well, yeah. But, aren't we talking about, well, Afghanistan?

unabomberman:

Helmholtz Watson:

unabomberman:

I don't think it is the same thing. China is not rolling in over its neighbor's lawn with tanks and troops, and bombs. As far as I understand it they are putting together a sort of plan to further both countries' relationship, which involves doing all sorts of things like training of security forces, permits to exploit the land in search of iron ore deposits, etc., etc. With a massive advantage firmly placed on the Chinese side.

Invading parts of Afghanistan? No, but parts of East/South East Asia? Yep, just look at Tibet and what is going on in the South East Islands. Vietnam, the Philippines are just two examples of countries that feel that China is trying to take land that doesn't belong to them. Come to think of it, China has a dispute with Japan over land as well.

Well, yeah. But, aren't we talking about, well, Afghanistan?

Hmmm..true. Sorry, I saw that comment about "neighbors lawn" and I couldn't help but think about the rest of Asia.

Helmholtz Watson:
Yep, just look at Tibet and what is going on in the South East Islands. Vietnam, the Philippines are just two examples of countries that feel that China is trying to take land that doesn't belong to them. Come to think of it, China has a dispute with Japan over land as well.

China isn't invading Tibet. China has already invaded Tibet. And regardless of what you think the status of Tibet should be, at the moment it is part of China. This isn't really something that's up for debate. It's like being upset that the US claims Hawaii.

As for island disputes, you have to understand that almost every country with an East-Asian Pacific border has disputes over various islands in the Pacific. Japan has disputes with China, South Korea, and Russia. All of these countries have been arguing over these islands for years, and there has been no sign that there will be any movement to change that any time soon, but it's also unlikely that any sort of conflict will develop over them. After all, the undersea resources around the islands disputed by Japan and China (which are the only reason anyone gives a damn about these barely inhabitable rocks in the first place) are subject to a joint plan for the two countries to develop them together. Admittedly the South East Islands thing is a bit unusually brazen, but one shouldn't pretend it represents an overall pattern or that it's likely Japan and China will ever come to blows over these islands. Japan has cruisers and submarines and an alliance with the US. More importantly, Japan is a major consumer of Chinese goods and despite whatever historic rivalries they may have their economies are highly inter-dependent.

Politicians from both countries strut and pout and play contests of who can be most outraged about the other's claim to the contested islands. But in effect all these contests are are tools for petty politicians who are insecure about the size of their foreign policy cocks to try and impress the locals with a stern but empty proclamation. It's all theater.

Katatori-kun:

China isn't invading Tibet. China has already invaded Tibet.

Good point

Katatori-kun:
And regardless of what you think the status of Tibet should be, at the moment it is part of China. This isn't really something that's up for debate.

You make it sound like I'm the only one who is opposed to China dominating Tibet, but...I'm...not. I'll agree that the CCP currently controls Tibet, but it is a debate as to whether or not they should. As far as I'm concerned, I see no reason why Tibet shouldn't be allowed to become a independent country or at the very least practice a large degree of autonomy.

Katatori-kun:

As for island disputes, you have to understand that almost every country with an East-Asian Pacific border has disputes over various islands in the Pacific. Japan has disputes with China, South Korea, and Russia. All of these countries have been arguing over these islands for years, and there has been no sign that there will be any movement to change that any time soon, but it's also unlikely that any sort of conflict will develop over them. After all, the undersea resources around the islands disputed by Japan and China (which are the only reason anyone gives a damn about these barely inhabitable rocks in the first place) are subject to a joint plan for the two countries to develop them together.

With the exception of Dokdo Islands, your right about the only importance being resources and not the islands. My point was that just because China doesn't want to control how Afghanistan should be run, doesn't mean that China is above behaving that way in East Asia.

Katatori-kun:
Admittedly the South East Islands thing is a bit unusually brazen, but one shouldn't pretend it represents an overall pattern or that it's likely Japan and China will ever come to blows over these islands. Japan has cruisers and submarines and an alliance with the US. More importantly, Japan is a major consumer of Chinese goods and despite whatever historic rivalries they may have their economies are highly inter-dependent.

Agreed I don't think war would break out, but again I'm just saying that China isn't above behaving like the West and trying to boss others around, like Vietnam or the Philippines.

Katatori-kun:
Politicians from both countries strut and pout and play contests of who can be most outraged about the other's claim to the contested islands. But in effect all these contests are are tools for petty politicians who are insecure about the size of their foreign policy cocks to try and impress the locals with a stern but empty proclamation. It's all theater.

That's a bit of a generalization isn't it? I mean between Japan and China I see what you mean, but with South Korea and Japan I didn't get that impression from my SK friends. They seem to feel that Dokdo is a historical/cultural place for them and was of great importance.

Helmholtz Watson:
You make it sound like I'm the only one who is opposed to China dominating Tibet, but...I'm...not. I'll agree that the CCP currently controls Tibet, but it is a debate as to whether or not they should. As far as I'm concerned, I see no reason why Tibet shouldn't be allowed to become a independent country or at the very least practice a large degree of autonomy.

I know that Tibet is a cause celebre among westerners, especially westerners of a certain youthful demographic. I'm not saying China's possession of Tibet is best for everyone involved. But China has held Tibet for half as long as the US has occupied Hawaii, and our occupation of Hawaii has not always been peaceful or beneficial for the local people either. And yet most Americans think of Hawaii as an inherent part of the US, but China has actually occupied Tibet longer than Hawaii has been a US state. The reality on the ground is more complicated than it often gets credit.

Agreed I don't think war would break out, but again I'm just saying that China isn't above behaving like the West and trying to boss others around, like Vietnam or the Philippines.

That's fair to say. Part of being a local power is having the privilege of flexing your muscles. China's not always going to do that in a benevolent way.

But I think a lot of people, especially Americans, fundamentally fail to grasp what China is all about. China is not some evil empire out to take over the world. China's foreign policy seems from everything I've read to be more about trying to ensure that no foreign power can ever trap or encircle China.

Katatori-kun:
Politicians from both countries strut and pout and play contests of who can be most outraged about the other's claim to the contested islands. But in effect all these contests are are tools for petty politicians who are insecure about the size of their foreign policy cocks to try and impress the locals with a stern but empty proclamation. It's all theater.

That's a bit of a generalization isn't it? I mean between Japan and China I see what you mean, but with South Korea and Japan I didn't get that impression from my SK friends. They seem to feel that Dokdo is a historical/cultural place for them and was of great importance.

Yes, well I'm certain part of the reason your South Korean friends gave that impression is because South Korea controls the Dokdo islands (Takeshima in Japanese, or probably most accurately described by their English name, the Liancourt Rocks). The reality is at present TWO PEOPLE actually live there, supported by thirty-seven police officers on guard duty. There are two cell phone towers, a light house, a helicopter pad, a Korean flag visible from the air, and two desalination plants. All to support two fishermen. Tell me that's not theater to impress people back home.

Speaking of theater, from Wikipedia:

Wikipedia:
One ferry provides rides to the islets every day, and reportedly has a long waiting list.[22] Around 60% of visitors on the ferry are allowed to land in port on the East Islet while the rest are given a tour around the islets. En route to Liancourt Rocks, the ferry shows an animated film featuring a giant robot warding off Japanese invaders.

Katatori-kun:

I know that Tibet is a cause celebre among westerners, especially westerners of a certain youthful demographic. I'm not saying China's possession of Tibet is best for everyone involved. But China has held Tibet for half as long as the US has occupied Hawaii, and our occupation of Hawaii has not always been peaceful or beneficial for the local people either.

I never commented on Hawaii, but I can't recall us saying that they can't practice their religion or have schools where the Hawaiian language is taught. Also, all forms of media are allowed to come to Hawaii, but try having Western media in certain parts of Tibet.

Katatori-kun:
And yet most Americans think of Hawaii as an inherent part of the US, but China has actually occupied Tibet longer than Hawaii has been a US state. The reality on the ground is more complicated than it often gets credit.

I feel like the question has to be asked, do you think that Tibet has the right to express independence? Hypothetically if we went back to the January first 1950, and it was completely up to you on whether or not the CCP would try to invade Tibet, would you have done it?
The two reasons why I have heard that its ok for the CCP to run Tibet is because people want to bring up the past when China had control of the place and because the CCP civilized Tibet. To the first answer, I would ask then what about Korea? In the past China had a hegemony over Korea, do you want that to happen again? To the second justification it seems like a Chinese version of White Mans burden.

Katatori-kun:

But I think a lot of people, especially Americans, fundamentally fail to grasp what China is all about. China is not some evil empire out to take over the world. China's foreign policy seems from everything I've read to be more about trying to ensure that no foreign power can ever trap or encircle China.

Ive read about the place too, and judging by their history, they are not the type to attempt to boss around the world, they just want to bully the rest of East/South-East Asia. I think that the one exceptional time they did try to expand was when the Mongolians were in power, but that ended with that Dynasty(I think).

Katatori-kun:

Yes, well I'm certain part of the reason your South Korean friends gave that impression is because South Korea controls the Dokdo islands (Takeshima in Japanese, or probably most accurately described by their English name, the Liancourt Rocks). The reality is at present TWO PEOPLE actually live there, supported by thirty-seven police officers on guard duty. There are two cell phone towers, a light house, a helicopter pad, a Korean flag visible from the air, and two desalination plants. All to support two fishermen. Tell me that's not theater to impress people back home.

I'm sure its for Korean pride, but like I said I think Dokdo is the different because it seems to be all about pride and has little to do with resources. Kind of like the controversy over calling part of the ocean the Sea of Japan, more to do with Korean pride than resources.

Helmholtz Watson:

Katatori-kun:

I know that Tibet is a cause celebre among westerners, especially westerners of a certain youthful demographic. I'm not saying China's possession of Tibet is best for everyone involved. But China has held Tibet for half as long as the US has occupied Hawaii, and our occupation of Hawaii has not always been peaceful or beneficial for the local people either.

I never commented on Hawaii, but I can't recall us saying that they can't practice their religion or have schools where the Hawaiian language is taught. Also, all forms of media is allowed to come to Hawaii, try having Western media in certain parts of Tibet.

I'm not saying you did comment on it. What I'm saying is that the American occupation of Hawaii has not been peaceful and has not been 100% approved of by Hawaiians- to the point that many mainland Americans are completely unaware that there is even unhappiness among native Hawaiians about their situation. We regard ourselves as the rightful claimants to Hawaii, and I expect that's not all that different from how the average Chinese person feels about Tibet.

Katatori-kun:
And yet most Americans think of Hawaii as an inherent part of the US, but China has actually occupied Tibet longer than Hawaii has been a US state. The reality on the ground is more complicated than it often gets credit.

I feel like the question has to be asked, do you think that Tibet has the right to express independence?

Absolutely, Tibetans as far as I'm concerned have every right to express their opinion. What I'm saying is that A) Americans shouldn't speak for them, and B) what happened in Tibet during the communist revolution should not be taken without further evidence of what modern China will do to neighboring countries.

Hypothetically if we went back to the January first 1950, and it was completely up to you on whether or not the CCP would try to invade Tibet, would you have done it?

Would *I* have done it? Of course not. But then I'm a guilty, insecure American with first world problems (TM) who gets nervous if merely asking a woman out appears to make her uncomfortable. I'm not likely to orchestrate any invasions any time soon.

To the first answer, I would ask then what about Korea? In the past China had a hegemony over Korea, do you want that to happen again?

Irrelevant. There is absolutely no chance of China taking over Korea again. You may as well ask me if I think the Tooth Fairy should take over Korea.

To the second justification it seems like a Chinese version of White Mans burden.

I'm not saying China was right to invade Tibet. What I'm saying is it's unfair to judge the China of 2012 by the actions of the China of 1950. Imagine if the US was subjected to the same kind of bashing. Hell, we like to think we've grown since the Vietnam War, and that's roughly halfway between the Tibet Invasion stick westerners love to bash China with and the present.

Katatori-kun:

Yes, well I'm certain part of the reason your South Korean friends gave that impression is because South Korea controls the Dokdo islands (Takeshima in Japanese, or probably most accurately described by their English name, the Liancourt Rocks). The reality is at present TWO PEOPLE actually live there, supported by thirty-seven police officers on guard duty. There are two cell phone towers, a light house, a helicopter pad, a Korean flag visible from the air, and two desalination plants. All to support two fishermen. Tell me that's not theater to impress people back home.

I'm sure its for Korean pride, but like I said I think Dokdo is the different because it seems to be all about pride and has little to do with resources. Kind of like the controversy over calling part of the ocean the Sea of Japan, more to do with Korean pride than resources.

That's all any of the island disputes end up being- issues of pride. No one in Asia needs them. They're ultimately ways of impressing the local populace. For example, Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara (a monumental racist) is currently trying to use Tokyo money to buy the Senkaku islands that are disputed with China. He's using this move as evidence of his strong, decisive nature. Except the Senkaku islands are already controlled by Japan, and Tokyo would be buying them from a Japanese owner. So he hasn't resolved the territorial despite one whit- he's just wasted government money (plus funds cleverly raised from nationalist donors) to make islands that were already claimed as part of Japan seem to be more Japanese. But he looks stronger to idiot nationalists for having arranged the purchase, meanwhile national government figures have to smooth over the diplomatic mess he caused. That's what I mean by foreign policy cock- all these island disputes are just games to make politicians seem more decisive to voters.

Katatori-kun:

I'm not saying you did comment on it. What I'm saying is that the American occupation of Hawaii has not been peaceful and has not been 100% approved of by Hawaiians- to the point that many mainland Americans are completely unaware that there is even unhappiness among native Hawaiians about their situation. We regard ourselves as the rightful claimants to Hawaii, and I expect that's not all that different from how the average Chinese person feels about Tibet.

Great, the average Chinese citizen thinks that China deserves Tibet. I disagree and say that the two most common justifications I hear are nonsense.
The first one ("we had it in the past!") makes me ask, "and?". China dominated Korea in the past, doesn't mean that they should do it again. Heck if we are going by the past, then the CCP should step down and let Mongolia control China like before. That is, if you want to cling to the past.
The second one ("we made them civilized") makes me think of White Mans Burden.

Katatori-kun:

Absolutely, Tibetans as far as I'm concerned have every right to express their opinion. What I'm saying is that A) Americans shouldn't speak for them,

Why shouldn't we try to help others who have difficulty being heard?

Katatori-kun:
B) what happened in Tibet during the communist revolution should not be taken without further evidence of what modern China will do to neighboring countries.

Ok I admit I might have gone the mark on that one. They invaded Tibet and currently control it. Also, life for Tibetans still is still pretty bad.

Katatori-kun:

Would *I* have done it? Of course not. But then I'm a guilty, insecure American with first world problems (TM) who gets nervous if merely asking a woman out appears to make her uncomfortable. I'm not likely to orchestrate any invasions any time soon.

You know what I mean, if you had more courage then, would you have taken the same actions? If the CCP were listening to you, would you have given the ok to invade?

Katatori-kun:

Irrelevant. There is absolutely no chance of China taking over Korea again. You may as well ask me if I think the Tooth Fairy should take over Korea.

First off, it wasn't directed at you but at the justification I hear from Chinese people about how China controlled it in the past. Second, the question was rhetorical. The whole point was to show how absurd it is to say that because China controlled it in the past, that justifies controlling it now. China had a hegemony over Korea before, but that doesn't mean that they should now, and the same goes for Tibet.

Katatori-kun:

That's all any of the island disputes end up being- issues of pride. No one in Asia needs them. They're ultimately ways of impressing the local populace. For example, Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara (a monumental racist) is currently trying to use Tokyo money to buy the Senkaku islands that are disputed with China. He's using this move as evidence of his strong, decisive nature. Except the Senkaku islands are already controlled by Japan, and Tokyo would be buying them from a Japanese owner. So he hasn't resolved the territorial despite one whit- he's just wasted government money (plus funds cleverly raised from nationalist donors) to make islands that were already claimed as part of Japan seem to be more Japanese. But he looks stronger to idiot nationalists for having arranged the purchase, meanwhile national government figures have to smooth over the diplomatic mess he caused. That's what I mean by foreign policy cock- all these island disputes are just games to make politicians seem more decisive to voters.

When I think about it, didn't the former president of Taiwan say that the islands belong to Japan?

Afghanistan, the graveyard of Empires...
Good luck China.

If they are not the head of an invasion then they may be fine but equally they may face opposition to merely their presence in the country. If this is the case then they must cut their losses and get out before Afghanistan sucks them in.

Politicians try to honour dead soldiers by piling more on top of them... This is for political show...
China have a lot of soldiers to pour on... But Afghanistan may still be a bloody great problem.

China's been worried about it's border with Pakistan and Afghanistan for quite some time due to all the political instability that goes on in the Afpak region. It fears that Islamism, which is well established there, could cross into China and help Islamist organisations in China such as the East Turkistan Islamist Movement in Xinjang Provence. At the moment, as a terrorist organisation they're a nuisance, killing Chinese nationals abroad sporadically and making numerous terror threats, but naturally China doesn't want the ETIM to become any more of a threat than they are now.

So China's been careful to control it's border with Afganistan and Pakistan so prevent Islamist ideas and war materials from crossing into China. China has been co-operating with Pakistan for quite some time already, selling it arms and conducting join training exercises. Therefore China wants to extend this co-operation to Afghanistan, makes perfect strategic sense really. It's in China's national interest to have stable countries on it's doorstep.

Afganistan is quite resource rich, but never had the infrastructure to exploit such resources. Naturally China is interested in Afganistans resources as China needs raw materials for it's economy. The question is how to exploit them with a Taliban insurgency. Economic co-operation could well lead to security co-operation in order to make Afganistan's resources exploitable, if China becomes more bold in it's foreign policy.

Still, the interests of China and the West converge on a promoting stability in Afghanistan, which can only be a good thing.

Comando96:
Afghanistan, the graveyard of Empires...
Good luck China.

That reputation was earned in times quite different, and each time an empire was attempting to seize full control against the will of most or all of the population. And armies did things a little different then from now. The operations against the Taliban are a smashing succes in tactical terms. It's just a little frustrating to watch undisciplined American grunts going around committing war crimes, and not seeing any measurable long term goals fulfilled while occasionally people are killed.

And if China's good at one thing, it's picking their warlord, making sure he wins without losing any of their own and not giving a shit about how their warlord does it, as long as the resources are secured.

Helmholtz Watson:

Katatori-kun:

Absolutely, Tibetans as far as I'm concerned have every right to express their opinion. What I'm saying is that A) Americans shouldn't speak for them,

Why shouldn't we try to help others who have difficulty being heard?

Speaking for someone, and helping them be heard, tend to be to very different things.

thaluikhain:

Helmholtz Watson:

Katatori-kun:

Absolutely, Tibetans as far as I'm concerned have every right to express their opinion. What I'm saying is that A) Americans shouldn't speak for them,

Why shouldn't we try to help others who have difficulty being heard?

Speaking for someone, and helping them be heard, tend to be to very different things.

Good point, I don't think I've ever tried to speak for Tibetan people, just tried to make it that they were heard.

Helmholtz Watson:

Katatori-kun:

I'm not saying you did comment on it. What I'm saying is that the American occupation of Hawaii has not been peaceful and has not been 100% approved of by Hawaiians- to the point that many mainland Americans are completely unaware that there is even unhappiness among native Hawaiians about their situation. We regard ourselves as the rightful claimants to Hawaii, and I expect that's not all that different from how the average Chinese person feels about Tibet.

Great, the average Chinese citizen thinks that China deserves Tibet.

No, you misunderstand. The average Chinese person doesn't think China deserves Tibet. The average Chinese person thinks Tibet is Chinese. You're having the wrong argument. You're trying to counter China's justifications for invading Tibet, but the invasion has already happened. You're trying to battle the past, arguing against something that is already established fact. It doesn't matter if you're right- the invasion already happened. You can't make a fancy argument that will turn back time and fix it.

So the argument to be made is how to fix things going forward. There may be an argument that eventually leads to an independent Tibet, and I think this could be a good thing. But you won't get there by not understanding the Chinese people or for demonizing the the people of today for something that happened 60 years ago. You certainly won't get there by implying that China wants to invade Afghanistan when the truth is simply that the Chinese government has made deals with Afghanistan.

Fearing China isn't going to help Tibet. If you want to help Tibet, I suggest learning Mandarin and Tibetan and then living in both Tibet and Beijing.

Katatori-kun:

Absolutely, Tibetans as far as I'm concerned have every right to express their opinion. What I'm saying is that A) Americans shouldn't speak for them,

Why shouldn't we try to help others who have difficulty being heard?

Because a lot of Americans don't know a damn thing about what they're talking about. Because a lot of Americans are too lazy to really get involved in the issue and work towards a solution- all they're really interested in is sounding off and getting attention for themselves. And because a lot of Americans are over-eager to invent a world bully to demonize in a (futile) effort to make the immoral acts in America's foreign policy history seem less bad by comparison.

Katatori-kun:

Would *I* have done it? Of course not. But then I'm a guilty, insecure American with first world problems (TM) who gets nervous if merely asking a woman out appears to make her uncomfortable. I'm not likely to orchestrate any invasions any time soon.

You know what I mean, if you had more courage then, would you have taken the same actions? If the CCP were listening to you, would you have given the ok to invade?

I think you're missing my point. I was trying to make a joke about the insecurity. It's not an issue of courage, it's the fact that I'm too concerned about making everyone happy to ever order an invasion of anyone. I'm damn near a pacifist. But that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not I would do it. It's already been done. It's history. If you want to solve the problem, it's time to move forward, not engage in baseless Sinophobia over the Internet.

When I think about it, didn't the former president of Taiwan say that the islands belong to Japan?

Could be, but I don't know that any president of Taiwan has any better knowledge or authority on the issue than anyone else. But it certainly would make him look impressive to voters in Taiwan, wouldn't it? Daring to stand up to big ole', mean ole' China? Even though no one in the region gives a damn who he thinks those islands belong to?

It's all theater.

Blablahb:

Comando96:
Afghanistan, the graveyard of Empires...
Good luck China.

That reputation was earned in times quite different, and each time an empire was attempting to seize full control against the will of most or all of the population. And armies did things a little different then from now. The operations against the Taliban are a smashing succes in tactical terms. It's just a little frustrating to watch undisciplined American grunts going around committing war crimes, and not seeing any measurable long term goals fulfilled while occasionally people are killed.

And if China's good at one thing, it's picking their warlord, making sure he wins without losing any of their own and not giving a shit about how their warlord does it, as long as the resources are secured.

Very true.

The perfect leader of Afghanistan (commented a British "spy" in the 1800's) is one who tells the Afghanistan populace that he can keep out the control of foreign powers, and one who tells foreign powers only he can control the populace.

This combined with China... not giving a shit about human beings and they have the best chance of anyone. However they must be prepared to drop their investments if need be, because if they don't then Afghanistan will suck them in too.
An Afghan historian (who immigrated to London), said "it's very easy to get into Afghanistan, we have an open doors policy. However, getting out is the hard part."

might have something to do with the pipeline thats going through afganistan as well. china was looking to get involved in the project

Indeed. Well, good luck to China. Afghanistan has had so many wars, I'd say the populace is pretty used to it by now. It's like an antibiotic resistant bacterium in that sense. China may be about to beat Russia's attempt or America for that matter.

Comando96:
Snip

Basically this.

Comando96:
This combined with not giving a shit about human beings. . .

At least it couldnt end up worse than Iraq.

"Send in the marines?"

(too dangerous)

"Use a sniper?"

(too risky)

"Level the whole village?"

(Capital idea)

No-one wins in Afghanistan. No-one. The best of luck to the Chinese if they think they are going to be any different. Anyone with a rational mind would GTFO very, very quickly.

MasterOfHisOwnDomain:
No-one wins in Afghanistan. No-one. The best of luck to the Chinese if they think they are going to be any different. Anyone with a rational mind would GTFO very, very quickly.

Er, that's only true for a limited (though popular) value for "win".

There's plenty of things you can do with/to Afghanistam that might be desirable for someone.

Zef Otter:

China helped other third world countries in Africa by building infrastructure and such. What do you think of this?

Captcha: tickle the ivories

By "build infrastructure" do you mean " Chance to economically exploit incredibly poor countries who will do anything to get some money from China's trickle down."?

Comando96:
This combined with China... not giving a shit about human beings and they have the best chance of anyone. However they must be prepared to drop their investments if need be, because if they don't then Afghanistan will suck them in too.
An Afghan historian (who immigrated to London), said "it's very easy to get into Afghanistan, we have an open doors policy. However, getting out is the hard part."

Terratina.:
Indeed. Well, good luck to China. Afghanistan has had so many wars, I'd say the populace is pretty used to it by now. It's like an antibiotic resistant bacterium in that sense. China may be about to beat Russia's attempt or America for that matter.

MasterOfHisOwnDomain:
No-one wins in Afghanistan. No-one. The best of luck to the Chinese if they think they are going to be any different. Anyone with a rational mind would GTFO very, very quickly.

I like the way you guys have ignored the OP and common sense and just assumed that China was invading or getting involved militarily. Well done, guys!

Katatori-kun:

No, you misunderstand. The average Chinese person doesn't think China deserves Tibet. The average Chinese person thinks Tibet is Chinese. You're having the wrong argument. You're trying to counter China's justifications for invading Tibet, but the invasion has already happened.

I know that it happened, I'm just pointing out the holes in there justification for it happening. I'm well aware that the year isn't 1949, but 2012.

Katatori-kun:
You're trying to battle the past, arguing against something that is already established fact. It doesn't matter if you're right- the invasion already happened. You can't make a fancy argument that will turn back time and fix it.

Again, I realize it happened, I'm just pointing out the holes in their justification for it happening.

Katatori-kun:

So the argument to be made is how to fix things going forward. There may be an argument that eventually leads to an independent Tibet, and I think this could be a good thing. But you won't get there by not understanding the Chinese people or for demonizing the the people of today for something that happened 60 years ago.

Your leaping to conclusions, I'm not demonizing people from the past, I'm just point holes in the justifications that I have heard.

Katatori-kun:
You certainly won't get there by implying that China wants to invade Afghanistan when the truth is simply that the Chinese government has made deals with Afghanistan.

You must have misread what I said, I didn't say that China was going to invade Afghanistan, I just said that China might try to invade part of South East Asia. I made this comment in response to the idea that China wouldn't ever invade another territory.

Katatori-kun:
Fearing China isn't going to help Tibet.

Who's afraid? I'm not.

Katatori-kun:

Because a lot of Americans don't know a damn thing about what they're talking about. Because a lot of Americans are too lazy to really get involved in the issue and work towards a solution- all they're really interested in is sounding off and getting attention for themselves.

Good thing I'm not like that, huh?

Katatori-kun:
And because a lot of Americans are over-eager to invent a world bully to demonize in a (futile) effort to make the immoral acts in America's foreign policy history seem less bad by comparison.

I never said anything about the US foreign policy history, nor was I trying to justify it.

Katatori-kun:

not engage in baseless Sinophobia over the Internet.

I was just curious as to whether you thought China was right to invade. As for your other comment, like I said, I'm not afraid.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked