Are we making too big of a deal about China's first aircraft carrier?

***Chinas carrier is a very nice target...

Again, seems our candidness, our genuineness, our integrity, hence [indirectly] our honor too are being called into question here: I mean with today’s “sure-kill” French “Exocet missiles”, don’t you agree that same can be said for all surface vessels large and small and however crude or however cutting edge? Simply put: Carriers are a two way street and so are some modern day French Exocet ballistic missiles.

Them ChiComs are not dumb. Already, as far fetched as it may seem, words on the street is that the next group of Chinese CV’s to come out will be stock with what’s deemed as naval 5th. generation cutting edge aircrafts so jump on them again guys. Our pride, our ego, and our self-consciousness are dependent on our ability for our own words of self-comfort.

When will we come to terms with the idea that our world goes round and round and that the sun shines on both sides of the hemisphere and so does the wind-shifts of course.

I don’t understand your question, but what I am talking about is taking each carrier and replacing them with 14-15 other surface combatant ships.

This includes 3-4 mini-drone carriers, each with double the mission capability of the current carrier.

The drones are robotic, they have a human telling them what their orders are, but they carry out those orders independently. They are able to coordinate their attacks just like humans would do.

Also, lets not forget they aren’t subject to g-force blackout. They can out dog fight a human pilot any day of the week if it comes to that.

[ Our pride, our ego, and our self-consciousness are dependent on our ability for our own words of self-comfort. ]

Obama (as Bill Clinton did) is probably selling the Chinese our advanced weaponry as we speak.. the traitors that they both were and are..

If the US would stop buying Chinese goods, their economy would fall like a house of cards.

You have an odd way of expressing yourself, that often does not sit well with American conservatives.

It may be odd in this paradigm, but it doesn't mean it’s odd in general. I'm not insulting anyone or promoting communism. I'm not saying anything anti-American, etc. I simply believe, the nation of China, has the right to industrialize and become a developed nation. And one in which America sees China the same way Americans see Britain. Not entirely, though. I don't expect Americans to embrace Chinese celebrities the way Americans embrace Will and Kate. That's something different all together. But economically and politically, yes, I'd like to see that future.

Remember, if you express sympathy for the struggles of ordinary Chinese to overcome the shackles of their oppressive central government and achieve a more prosperous future -- then we agree entirely.

Well, I have. I don't agree with China's one child policy. I don't agree with her hukou system (the policy of not granting residency to Chinese in one city from another city) as this causes hardship. And I am all for rooting out corruption in China's government structure. And even for a coming democracy. An improvement in all this would increase China’s standard of living.

But ya see....that isn't what matters on this forum. What matters here, isn't how the Chinese are treated by their government, whether real or embellished or whether they improve their lot in life. What matters here, is that China sent a man into space and eventually one will be sent to the moon. What matters here is that China built this high speed rail system or a great big dam. Or that China send their own satellites into space. I'll admit many American conservatives have come a long ways. There was a time when people were indignant about China's steel production. But overall, the issue on the FR and many neo Cons, is that China is moving forward economically. And that is what bothers most neo Cons. And that is wrong. Americans should never wish for another country to stay in the dark ages. If anything, we should wish for all nations of the world to be brought up to first world standards, including China. To wish otherwise, would be to insist on a Western centric world. And it would be un-Christian at that (I'm not saying with an intent to take a jab, I really do feel that way, that it would be un-Christian to wish the world to stay behind while the West moved on).

But if you express sympathy for the totalitarian Chi-Com government's efforts to more thoroughly control its people, or expand its power to Taiwan or any other foreign territory, then you will get blasted here

Well, here's the thing, as far as Taiwan goes....its peculiar to me, that Taiwan is such a concern to so many conservative Americans. Think about it, other parts of the world have these types of issues as well, and most Americans don't even know about it. Or even care. When Russia bombed the Chechynian territories, conservative Americans hardly cared about it. Yet, any hint of claim on Taiwan seems to draw ire from American conservatives.

-- and rightly so.

Well, I sort of agree with you in a sense if Michael Savage came to the NAACP and was straight forward with his views. Yes, I am entering someone else's space and paradigm.

So, ponder life, for you to insist on a "right" for China to build 8 to 10 carriers (why not 80 to 100?), is to suggest something deeply wrong with your way of thinking.

I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I implied 80 to 100. I realize, there is a point where it becomes war time intentions, based on the size of the country. And I've made that point many times, that China isn't going for war time intentions based on her budget and other equipment she does have and had for decades. Re-read my post again. I was saying that many Americans see Britain’s two aircraft carriers as a mere after thought. As normal as mom's apple pie. And that in a comparative way, it would be like China having 44 carriers. And I further clarified that China doesn't need 44 carriers to defend herself. But that a number of 8-10 would be sufficient. And for a country the size of China, 8-10 would be sufficient.

Did you know, that the United States during WWII, built 25 large carriers and 50 small carriers. And all of it was eventually brought to bear on island of Japan? Think about it, it took that many carriers to invade Japan. When I say China has a right to build 8-10 carriers, I feel that is sufficient for her defense of water ways, for supply routes, etc. But its not even close to for a major invasion of a major nation. Not even close. And keep in mind to keep one carrier afloat at all times requires a total of 3. So, if China builds 9, at most she can keep on a 24/7 basis, is three.

I have nothing against other countries building carriers either. For example, Britain, she can build four or five if she can afford it. So, if Britain’s carriers don’t bother, why should it bother me if China build some herself. I’m not promoting Chinese communism by overlooking her carriers any more than the resurrection of the British Empire by overlooking Britain’s carriers. My point is, Britian’s planned two carriers is like China having 44. But that 8-10 carriers for China would be like Britain having half of a Queen Mary Class carrier. 8-10 carriers for China would be like the US having three carriers. And that given China’s population and potential economic size, 8-10 would reasonable.

In what sense does China need any carriers?

Well, why don't you ask that about Britain, France, and India? Or Brazil? Or Russia? Or Italy? What's funny is that Robert Gates asked that question when referring to America's 11 carriers. He was lamblasted by the neo Cons. When European Union, which is less than half the size of China in population, begins to cut military expenditures, many neo Cons fret over it. And seldom do American neo Cons ask the same question as the Europeans, 'why do we need all this militry'. Yet, somehow that question is appropriate for China. By the way, just as a side note, there are a total of 21 active carrier’s in the world. Only one of them is China’s.

Is China today seriously threatened by some powerful new military force? Has some other nation asked China to protect them? If so, from whom? Obviously, the answers are "no and no."

Well....once again, why do Britain and France need carriers. Or Russia or India? Why aren't those questions asked of them?

So China's new carriers are simply exercises in self-glorification and intimidation of her neighbors, who can only respond by building more carriers of their own.

Did you know the Chinese public pressed their government for carriers? People in China knows they are the only major power without one. Brazil has one. Thailand has one. Australia did have one.

And who benefits from all these new carriers? Certainly not the Chinese people who, like Americans, should be fully focused on reducing the size, cost and authority of their bloated and oppressive central government.

One again, it is the Chinese people who are pressing their government for the building of aircraft carriers. You have an odd way of expressing yourself, that often does not sit well with American conservatives.

It may be odd in this paradigm, but it doesn't mean its odd in general. I'm not insulting anyone or promoting communism. I'm not saying anything anti-American, etc. I simply believe, the nation of China, has the right to industrialize and become a developed nation. And one in which America sees China the same way Americans see Britain. Not entirely, though. I don't expect Americans to embrace Chinese celebrities the way Americans embrace Will and Kate. That's something different all together. But economically and politically, yes, I'd like to see that futre.

Remember, if you express sympathy for the struggles of ordinary Chinese to overcome the shackles of their oppressive central government and achieve a more prosperous future -- then we agree entirely.

Well, I have. I don't agree with China's one child policy. I don't agree with her hakou system (the policy of not granting residency to Chinese in one city from another city) as this causes hardship. And I am all for rooting out corruption in China's government structure. And even for a coming democracy.

But ya see....that isn't what matters on this forum. What matters here, isn't how the Chinese are treated by their government, whether real or embellished. What matters here, is that China sent a man into space and eventually one will be sent to the moon. What matters here is that China built this high speed rail system. Or that China sends their own satellites into space. I'll admit, many American conservatives have come a long ways. There was a time when people were indignant about China's steel production. But overall, the issue on the FR and many neo Cons, is that China is moving forward economically. And that is what bothers most neo Cons. And that is wrong. Americans should never wish for another country to stay in the dark ages. If anything, we should wish for all the world to be brought up to first world standards, including China. To wish otherwise, would be to insist on a Western centric world. And unChristian at that (and I'm not saying with an intent to take a jab, I really do feel that way, that it would be unChristian to wish the world to stay behind while the West moved on).

But if you express sympathy for the totalitarian Chi-Com government's efforts to more thoroughly control its people, or expand its power to Taiwan or any other foreign territory, then you will get blasted here

Well, here's the thing, as far as Taiwan goes....its peculiar to me, that Taiwan is such a concern to so many conservative Americans. Think about it, other parts of the world have these types of issues as well, and most Americans don't even know about it. Or even care. Even when Russia bombed the Chechyna territories, conservative Americans hardly cared about it. Yet, any hint of claim on Taiwan seems to draw ire from American conservatives.

-- and rightly so.

Well, I sort of agree with you in a sense if Michael Savage came to the NAACP and was straight forward with his views. Yes, I am entering someone else's space and paradigm. So, ponder life, for you to insist on a "right" for China to build 8 to 10 carriers (why not 80 to 100?), is to suggest something deeply wrong with your way of thinking.

I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I implied 80 to 100. I realize, there is a point where it becomes war time intentions, based on the size of the country. And I've made that point many times, that China isn't going for war time intentions based on her budget and other equipment she does have and had for decades. Re-read my post again. I was saying that many Americans see Britains two aircraft carriers as a mere after thought. As normal as mom's apple pie. And that in a comparative way, it would be like China having 44 carriers. And that she doesn't need 44 carriers to defend herself. But that a number of 8-10 would be sufficient. And for a country the size of China, would be sufficient.

Did you know, that the United States during WWII, built 25 large carriers and 50 small carriers. And all of it was eventually brought to bear on island of Japan? Think about it, it took that many carriers to invade Japan. When I say China has a right to build 8-10 carriers, I feel that is sufficient for her defense of water ways, for supply routes, etc. But its not even close to for a major invasion of a major nation. Not even close. And keep in mind to keep one carrier afloat at all times requires a total of 3. So, if China builds 9, at most she can keep on a 24/7 basis, is three.

In what sense does China need any carriers?

Well, why don't you ask that about Britain, France, and India? What's funny is that Robert Gates asked that question when referring to America's 11 carriers. He was lamblasted by the neo Cons. When European Union, which is less than half the size of China in population, begins to cut military expenditures, many neo Cons fret over it. And seldom do American neo Cons ask the same question as the Europeans, 'why do we need all this militry'. Yet, somehow that question is appropriate for China.

Is China today seriously threatened by some powerful new military force? Has some other nation asked China to protect them? If so, from whom? Obviously, the answers are "no and no."

Well....once again, why do Britain and France need carriers. Or Russia or India? Why aren't those questions asked of them?

So China's new carriers are simply exercises in self-glorification and intimidation of her neighbors, who can only respond by building more carriers of their own.

Did you know the Chinese public pressed their government for carriers? People in China know they are the only major power without one. Brazil has one. Thailand has one. Australia did have one.

And who benefits from all these new carriers? Certainly not the Chinese people who, like Americans, should be fully focused on reducing the size, cost and authority of their bloated and oppressive central government.

Once again, it is the Chinese people who are pressing their government for the building of aircraft carriers. By the way, did you know, Gates asked the same question. What do we need 11 carriers for? What enemy are we trying to fight? Etc. He was lamblasted by the neoCons. I don’t agree with Gates myself. But I find it ironic, that the very people who keep a microscopic eye on China’s one carrier would like to see the US

I’m working on a re-write, my last post was jumbled a bit.

Thread cop?

Did you have an opinion about China’s rapidly growing military, or simply want to stifle one side of the discussion?

You have an odd way of expressing yourself, that often does not sit well with American conservatives.

It may be odd in this paradigm, but it doesn't mean it’s odd in general. I'm not insulting anyone or promoting communism. I'm not saying anything anti-American, etc. I simply believe, the nation of China, has the right to industrialize and become a developed nation. And one in which America sees China the same way Americans see Britain. Not entirely, though. I don't expect Americans to embrace Chinese celebrities the way Americans embrace Will and Kate. That's something different all together. But economically and politically, yes, I'd like to see that future.

Remember, if you express sympathy for the struggles of ordinary Chinese to overcome the shackles of their oppressive central government and achieve a more prosperous future -- then we agree entirely.

Well, I have. I don't agree with China's one child policy. I don't agree with her hukou system (the policy of not granting residency to Chinese in one city from another city) as this causes hardship. And I am all for rooting out corruption in China's government structure. And even for a coming democracy. An improvement in all this would increase China’s standard of living.

But ya see....that isn't what matters on this forum. What matters here, isn't how the Chinese are treated by their government, whether real or embellished or whether they improve their lot in life. What matters here, is that China sent a man into space and eventually one will be sent to the moon. What matters here is that China built this high speed rail system or a great big dam. Or that China send their own satellites into space. I'll admit many American conservatives have come a long ways. There was a time when people were indignant about China's steel production. But overall, the issue on the FR and many neo Cons, is that China is moving forward economically. And that is what bothers most neo Cons. And that is wrong. Americans should never wish for another country to stay in the dark ages. If anything, we should wish for all nations of the world to be brought up to first world standards, including China. To wish otherwise, would be to insist on a Western centric world. And it would be un-Christian at that (I'm not saying with an intent to take a jab, I really do feel that way, that it would be un-Christian to wish the world to stay behind while the West moved on).

But if you express sympathy for the totalitarian Chi-Com government's efforts to more thoroughly control its people, or expand its power to Taiwan or any other foreign territory, then you will get blasted here

Well, here's the thing, as far as Taiwan goes....its peculiar to me, that Taiwan is such a concern to so many conservative Americans. Think about it, other parts of the world have these types of issues as well, and most Americans don't even know about it. Or even care. When Russia bombed the Chechynian territories, conservative Americans hardly cared about it. Yet, any hint of claim on Taiwan seems to draw ire from American conservatives.

-- and rightly so.

Well, I sort of agree with you in a sense if Michael Savage came to the NAACP and was straight forward with his views. Yes, I am entering someone else's space and paradigm.

So, ponder life, for you to insist on a "right" for China to build 8 to 10 carriers (why not 80 to 100?), is to suggest something deeply wrong with your way of thinking.

I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I implied 80 to 100. I realize, there is a point where it becomes war time intentions, based on the size of the country. And I've made that point many times, that China isn't going for war time intentions based on her budget and other equipment she does have and had for decades. Re-read my post again. I was saying that many Americans see Britain’s two aircraft carriers as a mere after thought. As normal as mom's apple pie. And that in a comparative way, it would be like China having 44 carriers. And I further clarified that China doesn't need 44 carriers to defend herself. But that a number of 8-10 would be sufficient. And for a country the size of China, 8-10 would be sufficient.

Did you know, that the United States during WWII, built 25 large carriers and 50 small carriers. And all of it was eventually brought to bear on island of Japan? Think about it, it took that many carriers to invade Japan. When I say China has a right to build 8-10 carriers, I feel that is sufficient for her defense of water ways, for supply routes, etc. But its not even close to for a major invasion of a major nation. Not even close. And keep in mind to keep one carrier afloat at all times requires a total of 3. So, if China builds 9, at most she can keep on a 24/7 basis, is three.

I have nothing against other countries building carriers either. For example, Britain, she can build four or five if she can afford it. So, if Britain’s carriers don’t bother me, why should it bother me if China build some herself. I’m not promoting Chinese communism by overlooking her carriers any more than the resurrection of the British Empire by overlooking Britain’s carriers. My point is, Britian’s planned two carriers is like China having 44. But that 8-10 carriers for China would be like Britain having half of a Queen Mary Class carrier. 8-10 carriers for China would be like the US having three carriers. And that given China’s population and potential economic size, 8-10 would reasonable.

In what sense does China need any carriers?

Well, why don't you ask that about Britain, France, and India? Or Brazil? Or Russia? Or Italy? What's funny is that Robert Gates asked that question when referring to America's 11 carriers. He was lamblasted by the neo Cons. When European Union, which is less than half the size of China in population, begins to cut military expenditures, many neo Cons fret over it. And seldom do American neo Cons ask the same question as the Europeans, 'why do we need all this militry'. Yet, somehow that question is appropriate for China. By the way, just as a side note, there are a total of 21 active carrier’s in the world. Only one of them is China’s.

Is China today seriously threatened by some powerful new military force? Has some other nation asked China to protect them? If so, from whom? Obviously, the answers are "no and no."

Well....once again, why do Britain and France need carriers. Or Russia or India? Why aren't those questions asked of them?

So China's new carriers are simply exercises in self-glorification and intimidation of her neighbors, who can only respond by building more carriers of their own.

Did you know the Chinese public pressed their government for carriers? People in China knows they are the only major power without one. Brazil has one. Thailand has one. Australia did have one.

And who benefits from all these new carriers? Certainly not the Chinese people who, like Americans, should be fully focused on reducing the size, cost and authority of their bloated and oppressive central government.

One again, it is the Chinese people who are pressing their government for the building of aircraft carriers.

And one in which America sees China the same way Americans see Britain.

I hope I never live to see America "see" a Communist Dictatorship the same way as Great Britain. Everything I needed to know about the "new and improved" ChiComs I learned at Tiananmen Square.

It was a joke. Next time I’ll put a big “/JOKE!” at the end.

Did you read?

If you did, you would have identified that there was someone on this thread who wasn’t in the discussion and was only engaged in personal attacks.

If the only thing that someone is replying to a comment with is the words “I hate you” how is that taking part of the discussion?

I hope I never live to see America "see" a Communist Dictatorship the same way as Great Britain. Everything I needed to know about the "new and improved" ChiComs I learned at Tiananmen Square.

I suppose it depends how old you are. If you are in below 50, I believe you'll see democracy come to China. If you are below 30, I believe you will see the US and a democratic China work to tackle global issues.

And for the toddlers, they may live to see a day, when the Chinese grumble about America's lack of involvement in global affairs while the Chinese (from a democratic China) take on the burden of policing the world..

I believe the post you referred to, was thinking the poster was in so many words, communist.

What if that’s right?

Is it still a ‘personal attack’?

ponder life: "But overall, the issue on the FR and many neo Cons, is that China is moving forward economically. And that is what bothers most neo Cons. And that is wrong.
Americans should never wish for another country to stay in the dark ages.
If anything, we should wish for all nations of the world to be brought up to first world standards, including China. "

I'll say it again, in so many words: you seem clueless about what's going on in the minds of American conservatives.
So, in effect, you accuse us of racism, or some other form of nationalism, discriminating against China in favor of, say, Britain or France.

Well, let me be blunt: it's not China's race that's the problem here, it's their stinkin' Communist government.
Do you remember when Bill Clinton ran on the slogan: "It's the economy, stupid"?
Well, for American conservatives, it's not China's economy, it's the socialism, stupid.

When China becomes a real constitutional republic (or some reasonable facsimile of one), it will have as many friends among American conservatives as any other country.

ponder life: "...I am all for rooting out corruption in China's government structure.
And even for a coming democracy.
An improvement in all this would increase China’s standard of living. "

American conservatives don't care so much about the word "democracy."
What we support is a strictly limited constitutional republic, with most governmental powers residing in the various states and local governments.
That's what we want here, and what we'd like to see in countries like China.

Today, China is nowhere close to such an idea, indeed, has expressed no real intentions for such ideals.
What China is today, simply stated, is the old Chi-Com single party ruling over a growing "capitalistic" economy.
But it is not real capitalism, it's state-controlled capitalism, meaning it's more like the old fascism of Mussolini's Italy, or the National Socialism of Hitler's Germany.

So there is no way -- zero, zip, nada -- that American conservatives are ever going to cozy up to the old Chi-Coms.
It ain't goin' to happen, so fuhgeddaboudit!

ponder life: "I'll admit many American conservatives have come a long ways.
There was a time when people were indignant about China's steel production.
But overall, the issue on the FR and many neo Cons, is that China is moving forward economically.
And that is what bothers most neo Cons.
And that is wrong. "

Complete B*ll Sh*t! You ought to be ashamed of cr*pping such nonsense, here on Free Republic!
What American conservatives care most about is the THREAT represented by an economically powerful COMMUNIST government.

Just think about it: Americans don't care about economic progress, or military expenditures in India, even though India was a long time ally of the old Soviet Union.
Why is that?
Because India is a functioning multi-party Democracy, because India is more-or-less capitalistic, because we have a long history of peaceful relations with India, and because Indians could well prove helpful in the future, for example, in dealing with rogue elements in, say, Pakistan.

So, it's not Chinese prosperity Americans fear, its their Communist government.

ponder life: "Americans should never wish for another country to stay in the dark ages."

American conservatives rightly wish for all communistic governments to fail utterly, including now, sadly, our own.

ponder life: "...it would be un-Christian to wish the world to stay behind while the West moved on..."

That is very sick talk, which you should be ashamed of.
It tells me you really understand nothing about conservative values and ideals.
No conservative wishes harm on ordinary Chinese people.
We do wish to see the Chi-Com government utterly destroyed, by its own people, and replaced with something resembling a real constitutional, representative republic.

ponder life: "Think about it, other parts of the world have these types of issues as well, and most Americans don't even know about it.
Or even care.
When Russia bombed the Chechynian territories, conservative Americans hardly cared about it.
Yet, any hint of claim on Taiwan seems to draw ire from American conservatives."

First of all, no American conservative is a big fan of fascist Russia (if that's the right word for it?).
But if you are looking for what standards we set, then think about the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Every few years, Puerto Ricans VOTE do they want to become another state in the United States?
If I remember right, the vote is usually pretty close, but the majority still want neither state-hood nor independence.
They like being a commonwealth.
And that's fine with us -- when, or if, the day comes that they vote to become a state, then they can apply to Congress, and Congress presumably will accept the application, and they will be a state.

And that is how good and decent people do such things.
Those same people will strongly oppose China's attempt to take Taiwan by force, because such force is not how good people act.
As for Russian Chechynian territories, or the nation of Georgia, there is simply no way that Americans can protect or police every remote corner of the earth.
The equivalent for China would be its actions in Tibet.
So far as I know, we've made no promises to protect Tibet against anything the Chinese might decide to do.

But Taiwan is entirely different, with a long history of independence, plus decades old American commitments to help defend her.

ponder life: "I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I implied 80 to 100."

No need for you to play stupid -- China's building of 80 or 100 aircraft carriers would be no more arbitrary than 8 or ten.
Any number of aircraft carriers is ridiculous for a country which needs zero.

Which brings us precisely back to the US State Department's question:

"We would welcome any kind of explanation that China would like to give for needing this kind of equipment"

Who does China expect to fight with these carriers?
What territory does it intend to attack or defend, and why?
Those seem to me questions Chinese should be asking themselves.

ponder life: "And I've made that point many times, that China isn't going for war time intentions based on her budget and other equipment she does have and had for decades."

There are major wars (i.e., WWII) and there are much, much smaller wars.
Major wars are, thankfully, quite infrequent, but small wars, not so infrequent.

A small military force capable of seizing islands in the South China Sea, or say, Quemoy and Matsu or even Taiwan, could be protected under China's nuclear umbrella.
A large fleet of carriers would not necessarily be needed for such operations.

ponder life: "I was saying that many Americans see Britain’s two aircraft carriers as a mere after thought.
As normal as mom's apple pie.
And that in a comparative way, it would be like China having 44 carriers."

Britain is arguably America's closest ally, with vital interests often paralleling our own.
They have supported us in virtually every military operation since the Second World War.
So any carriers Britain builds cannot be a threat to us, rather they are a welcomed asset from a valuable ally.

ponder life: "Did you know, that the United States during WWII, built 25 large carriers and 50 small carriers."

Depending on how you define "large" and "small" carriers, I think the US had over 50 "large" carriers, including such "light carriers" and Lt Bush's San Jacinto:

Plus, there were another 80+ smaller Escort Carriers, such as USS Sargent Bay:

ponder life: "...I further clarified that China doesn't need 44 carriers to defend herself.
But that a number of 8-10 would be sufficient.
And for a country the size of China, 8-10 would be sufficient."

As long as China does not threaten its neighbors, it needs zero carriers.

ponder life: "So, if Britain’s carriers don’t bother me, why should it bother me if China build some herself."

China is still ruled by its Communist Party, and their interests can easily threaten world peace.

ponder life: "Well, why don't you ask that about Britain, France, and India? Or Brazil? Or Russia? Or Italy?
What's funny is that Robert Gates asked that question when referring to America's 11 carriers.
He was lamblasted by the neo Cons. "

It is not "neo-con" to believe in a strong national defense, and people who claim it is are attempting to win through insults arguments they can't win on merit.

The US has always welcomed military support from friendly nations.
The issue with China is: just how "friendly" are its Communists masters?

On the other hand, if you consider the case of a less-than-100% friendly country like Russia, the question becomes, what exactly can the US do about Russia's navy?
The answer, of course, is nothing except to make certain we are strong enough to defeat it.

The same applies to China's Communist government, and with that, I'll call it a night...

;-)

No, I don’t know where you get this even, did you even try to read the posts?

They post in question is clearly indicated by the reply I sent to the post that is offensive that has no other redeeming value

It offered a personal attack, a quip, with no other information in the reply. If there was anything of redeeming value in the reply, it wouldn’t have been flagged by me. There was no argument, no discussion to shut down, just a sharp elbow jab.

xxxObama (as Bill Clinton did) is probably selling the Chinese our advanced weaponry as we speak.. the traitors that they both were and are..xxx

even if true, which is a ridiculous assumption in the first place, still, you must firstly have the brains to decipher all of those theorems and all of those formulas that goes with the territory of engineering. i mean if without the brains, no amount of clintonite offers are of any use because it takes brain power to crack those codes. and brains, of course, is something that [prc aeronautic engineers, designers, and scientists] proven they have no shortage.

[ still, you must firstly have the brains to decipher all of those theorems and all of those formulas that goes with the territory of engineering. ]

Well I am not very smart.. I am a republican..
I voted for three different Bushes several times and even Bob Dole.. and if that is not enough I voted for Juan McLaim as well..

I’m slow but Perry/Romney/Huntsman even Newt don’t tempt me anymore..

Bachmann / caine is the dream team.. this cycle..

And what is wrong with a "Western centric" view of the world? I AM a westerner. Most people on these boards are. Why shouldn't my own perspective be by far the most important one to me?

I don't personally think that China having a carrier is, in and of itself, such a big deal. It's what it portends that is slightly worrying. China's economy is booming, the Western economies are stagnating. China's military is expanding (in both numbers and capability), the West's military is contracting. China's power and influence is growing, the power and influence of the West is retreating. Excuse me if I find the fact of my culture declining while that of another is expanding into the resulting gap a bad thing.

This is all very well thought out, but the problem to westerners, as you say, is that China is moving up the value chain. In the old days, we had technology and knowledge and industry, and they had people who labored for not very much. Now, increasingly they have technology and knowledge. They already have the industry, and they still have lots of people. In the future when they have as much technology and knowledge as we have, and still far more labor, what will we have to trade with them? Tourism?

The assets of the West are declining, the assets of the Chinese are growing. That's not the greatest news I've ever heard.

See my post above. 5+ years and unless we do something between now and then to regain our mementum, they will be pushing our buttons, and doing so in the WESTPAC.

Actually, I think they'll be pushing the buttons of the countries they're looking to get one over on (territorially-speaking), and waiting to see how USG responds. At one time or another, China has claimed just about all of East Asia and much of Central Asia as vassal states, whether or not the "vassal states" truly accepted their putative status as part of the Celestial Kingdom. My sense is that the military they're building is aimed at "regaining" these territories rather than out of any Marxist or Communist ideological imperatives. IMO, this website, established about a month ago, encapsulates the Chinese worldview and zeitgeist pretty succinctly.