'China assisting Taliban in war against US'

Times of India ^ | 10-22-01 | PTI

[Daveforjustice]

China has always been against US. They can opt for any means to cause a damage to American interest.

Time to teach China a lesson too alongwith with Afghanistan.

Those who support and harbour terrorism must be punished.

[dirtboy]

Anyhoot, U.S. gets "cut down to size" by China's Fundie friends; she is now free to range around her own backyard -- in the South China Sea. Taiwan and Japan are left unprotected. Plus now China and several Fundamentalists states are "friends" now -- and just as China always treats her "friends," she would take advantage of that situation to increase her influence in the Arab world. And if PRC can find a way to do it -- and I think it can -- gain de facto, if not de jure, control over the oilfrields without firing a single shot. After the House of Saud is gone, and America is too weak to act, we have End Game.

One little problem - China still does not have a blue water navy. And they can't get control of the Persian Gulf oil without one.

[flamefront]

They have an interest in seeing the U.S. harried and hammered so as to weaken us -- and then PRC may find itself in a position to "break out."

Yes. Even more simply -- if the U.S. were out of the big power picture, show does that leave by DEFAULT.

[x-navy seal]

Genaral George S. Patton: "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..." Go get um boys!!! Take no prisioners!!!Wish I were there with you!!!

[RightWhale]

DEBKA gets way too much airplay on FR. Maybe it's the lack of hourly war front press releases from the White House and the Pentagon that causes any sneeze from DEBKA to be posted over and over and over. Do DEBKA reporters learn their trade at Weekly World News?

[betty boop]

One little problem - China still does not have a blue water navy. And they can't get control of the Persian Gulf oil without one.

You're still thinking in terms of "traditional" warfare -- not to mention Aristotelian logic -- not in terms of "unlimited war" and dialectics. As to whether PRC has a blue-water Navy, ask Jeff Head what he thinks about that one. best, bb.

[betty boop]

Yes. Even more simply -- if the U.S. were out of the big power picture, [who] does that leave by DEFAULT.

Har! Guess who! (And I don't mean Russia.) best, bb.

[dirtboy]

You're still thinking in terms of "traditional" warfare -- not to mention Aristotelian logic -- not in terms of "unlimited war" and dialectics.

Sorry, but throughout history, empires that have failed the sea-power test also fail the longevity test. You can postulate about nontraditional warfare all you want - but until the PRC has a navy that can compete with the United States, they cannot project power outside their neighborhood. Yeah, they could cause trouble in the ditch between them and Taiwan. But they can try and grab the Persian Gulf all they want - but they cannot hold it without serious naval power. That hasn't changed since the age of tiremes, and I don't see it changing anytime soon in the future.

As to whether PRC has a blue-water Navy, ask Jeff Head what he thinks about that one. best, bb.

Well, have him post his opinions if he wishes - although Jeff is pretty busy, and he probably has better things to do. But until the Chinese get real carriers and can perfect side-by-side underway refueling, they cannot compete outside the Straits of Taiwan.

[betty boop]

...they cannot hold it without serious naval power. That hasn't changed since the age of triremes, and I don't see it changing anytime soon in the future.

dirtboy, I'm asking you to think like a Chinese.... best, bb.

[dirtboy]

dirtboy, I'm asking you to think like a Chinese

Doesn't matter if I think like a Chinese, a German (Hitler) or a Corsican (Napoleon) ... they tried empire through land power and neglected their navies. They didn't last.

[betty boop]

they tried empire through land power and neglected their navies. They didn't last.

This isn't about whether you or I think China can "last" without a BWN. It's whether China thinks it can.

China has never been a naval power. China may think that it doesn't need to be one, however -- in a globalized world knitted together by mass communications and riven by mortal hatreds among the "barbarians" -- which it cherishes, nurtures -- and exploits to its perceived advantage. Unlimited War is all about devising effective "workarounds" for perceived "defects" in the PRC position.

But PLA-Navy may well be in a massive build-up mode covertly as we speak. There are massive shipbuilding enterprises in China, supposedly devoted to construction for commercial purposes. China is famous for "hiding" what it does not want the world to see. But because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.... In any event, it can always "requisition" what it needs from the West -- read: Steal the other guy's "stuff" and use it against him. Terrorists are really good at that sort of thing, as recent events well illustrate.

The point is, it's a "brave NEW world" out there -- the old rule book may no longer be current with what China needs -- and what China may be planning.

It's my "worst-case scenario" which may or may not happen. What worries me is I don't see anything going on today that refutes the hypothesis. Thanks for writing, dirtboy. best, bb.

[beowolf]

Relax, dear, he has no idea of whom he is being 'bad' toward. Dirtboy is actually really intelligent, but apparently he can't take a hint.

Regards, as always dear,

Moi

[AM2000]

See what it would take for the Chinese Army to go to the Persian Gulf.

Gwadar.

[betty boop]

...he has no idea of whom he is being 'bad' toward. Dirtboy is actually really intelligent, but apparently he can't take a hint.

Hey wolfie! So nice to see you!

Well, I don't suppose dirtboy is the least bit "dense" at all. It's just he doesn't seem to appreciate the critical distinction between the "order of the anthill" and the "order of human being" in any great measure so far.

I expect he'll figure it out in due course.

all my best, bb.

[pttttt]

The Taliban lie a lot but here's what Bill Gertz had to say about it a few days ago: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/537297/posts.

[timestax]

I would NOT TRUST THOSE RUSSIANS either. I would bet they are assisting Tlaban right now.!!

[timestax]

I would NOT TRUST THOSE RUSSIANS either. I would bet they are assisting Tlaban right now.!!

[zog]

--although the chinese have good relations with several islamic regimes now, in particular selling them arms and infrastructure in exchange for cash and oil, eventually they will need "more, lots, lots more". Like-inside this decade looking at demographics, population, oil resources, rates of increase in industriliaztion (like, you actually do need a lot of oil for all these businesses western guys are setting up there). So- at that time, within this decade I think- I suspect they will have cultured enough young jihaders to stage a series of coups, and put their own puppets in power here and there. Heck, we do it, why shouldn't they? Probably what they think, every other super power in the planet's history has done that. this is the battle of who is the sneekiest, the most ruthless, has the best plans, and who has the most to lose. The chinese fit the bill there pretty well. They are not building that huge offensive war machine for military parades. Hitlers warmachine buildup of the thirties was ignored, the international free traders won then, whoops!

China right now=same deal as back then, history repeating itself, another country, another era, same mistakes. Leopards don't change their spots.

[beowolf]

;-)

I was just being polite...in that you enjoy people underestimating you!-)

[betty boop]

...this is the battle of who is the sneekiest, the most ruthless, has the best plans, and who has the most to lose. The chinese fit the bill there pretty well.... Hitlers warmachine buildup of the thirties was ignored, the international free traders won then, whoops!

Whoops! indeed, zog: History repeating itself ain't a pretty sight -- "caught with our pants down" one more time. :^) IMHO, the your statement above is right on the money. best, bb.