Missy89:


I agree with that there was overwhelming American role in Libya and Ukraine. i have never disputed that. seems you are misunderstanding what i have been saying here. What i said is (repeating this for the 3rd time):

Americans role in Libya and Ukraine (obvious) cannot be compared with its role in Egypt where America wasn't the only player in the Regime change. The military establishment wanted power so did the muslim brotherhood. that was why the unrest continued till the military had its way .that was the point i was making.

How about Syria, are you going to dispute America's influence in what happened there? I'm sure you'll also dispute ISIS as well.

Also, Muslim Brotherhood is controlled by Qatar and UAE, and we know who controls both countries and under which axis they belong.

I just noticed you said "even when it was a regional power, with so much wealth, and could have colonised most countries - it never did"

Now that is not factual. they actually did

China is multi ethnic. they took Tibet in 1950 and there is inner Mongolia too.
There is no good or bad country they are all pragmatic. how they choose to exercise that power thou, might be a valid debate

Missy89:

I can see that you evaded some valuable points i made and just like nairaminted, you seems to be more concerned about the damage American foreign policy is doing or has done. I am not looking at it from the perspective at all. I am not discussing policy failure rather i was more concerned about the possibility to carry out such policies, i would leave political ideologist to debate the success and failures or the effects of american policies.

Now,
Geography plays a very important role in power projection and geopolitics. there might be huge animosity to America within its hemisphere but American influence there is undisputed. That cannot be ignored. There is no military or economic power in south and north America to counterbalance or pose a threat to American influence. This was evident during the cold war. But u cant compare this to China. there are formidable regional powers that can undermine China's growing ambitions and we are already seeing this play out of the South China sea and even China's so called ally Russia isn't giving Beijing its full support on its south China sea policies.
There is border dispute with India too along with other countries and everyone in the region is arming themselves right now there are up to 7 powers (with different ambitions) in that area alone that can take on each other fair and square.

America's technology transfer had its risks but played a significant role in creating some sort of economic "beachhead" for American companies in China and it was another way to further isolate the soviets. let me share some papers with you from the Bureau of Export Administration and Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security about the issue and some Princeton papers to get an idea of what i am saying

https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1985/8510/851004.PDF

http://fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/dmrr_chinatech.htm

http://fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98-485.pdf

I do not doubt the Chinese economical influence, but that's only economic. This is a soft power projection and an economy as large as China would be able to do that.

Now, you're going on a tangent by bringing foreign policy into it. The argue is about China never being able to project a super power status as powerful militarily as America. And I questioned why you believed that, since America's military projection has just been superfluous, with unnecessary military bases everywhere and wars against defenseless countries. Without necessarily taking on a formidable foe. Even with that, it has shielded itself behind NATO, since it performed woefully in Vietnam. So, how about outline what makes the American military status insurmountable, since it has never fought a conventional war by itself against a 1st or 2nd tier military power?

Yes, geography does play a role. However, China is unique since it has advantages over most of the countries around it, including Russia. The geographical role you're alluding to is basically the same with Europe. However, that never stopped Great Britain from being a military super power. So, what's the basis of your argument again?

American influence in that axis can't be disputed for now. However, as America continues to decline, its influence will continue to reduce drastically, and sooner or later, those countries would ditch America for their economic interests, which are intertwined with people's interests. Hence bilateral trades among countries in that axis have been increasing at an alarming rate. And they will continue to go where the money is and where their interests will be well served. Also, China doesn't need Russia's support in the South China sea, it's formidable enough to handle that by itself - even against a combined Japanese and American aggression.

About the links you posted, those are links about mutual economic policies. I was expecting something about military technology transfer since the debate is about military projection. I think they're inconsequential, since both countries benefited from it. American corporations got cheap labour for extremely high profits, in exchange for China's prosperity. Classic capitalism, nothing special. And right now, China doesn't need America that much anymore.

I want to see links about military.

SirShymex:


Now, you're going on a tangent by bringing foreing policy into it. The argue is about China never being able to project a super power status as powerful militarily as America. And I questioned why you believed that, since America's military projection has just been superfluous, with unnecessary military bases everywhere and wars against defenceless countries. Without necessarily taking on a formidable foe. Even with that, it has shielded itself behind NATO, since it performed woefully in Vietnam. So, how about outline what makes the American military status insurmountable, since it has never fought a conventional war by itself against a 1st or 2nd tier military power?

Yes, geography does play a role. However, China is unique since it has advantages over most of the countries around it, including Russia. The geographical role you're alluding to is basically the same with Europe. However, that never stopped Great Britain from being a military super power. So, what's the basis of your argument again?

America influence in that axis can't be disputed for now. However, as America continues to decline, its influence will continue to reduce drastically. and sooner or later, those countries would ditch America for their economic interests, with are intertwined with people's interests. Hence bilateral trades among countries in that axis have been increasing at an alarming rate. And they will continue to go where the money is and where their interests will be well served. Also, China doesn't need Russia's support in the South China sea, it's formidable enough to handle that by itself - even against a combined Japanese and American aggression.

About the links you posted, those are links about mutual economic policies. I was expecting something about military technology transfer since the debate is about military projection. I think they're inconsequential, since both countries benefited from it. American corporations got cheap labour for extremely high profits, in exchange for China's prosperity. Classic capitalism, nothing special. And right now, China doesn't need America that much anymore.

I want to see links about military.

If you actually read those papers you would notice where it was analyzed that those technology could be diverted for military use.

Britain is an Island. That is self explanatory. That is why it was easier for Japan to be a great power too in the 1900s. The same cannot be said for countries like Russia, Germany and probably France and China. If they were Islands too, It would be easier to project power in the midst of many regional powers. take a look at both world wars. it was triggered by Regional powers trying to dominate the area. Austria-Hungary, France, Russian empire and the Germans. even before the war they fought each other for decades. Thats how it will always be. Britain could have stayed out of both wars if it wanted to.

I have given you enough reasons why It may never happen. its simple. there are too many regional powers around China with different interest . having bases everywhere and fighting xyz is a military power projection. NOW, what they choose to do with it has to do with policies. yes i agree most of them are not right but that isn't the concern of this topic.

soft power through economic means, Yes China will do that. but economic power isn't enough and at this point it is still dependent

SirShymex:


How about Syria, are you going to dispute America's influence in what happened there? I'm sure you'll also dispute ISIS as well.

Also, Muslim Brotherhood is controlled by Qatar and UAE, and we know who controls both countries and under which axis they belong.

Syria yes i agree

ISIS has more to do with failure of policy. Training Rebels to fight Assad was a bad idea (still is). i would phrase it this way. "American Syrian policies created ISIS".

In the next three decades, China would be the absolute world power assuming things keep going at the same pace...

Missy89:

If you actually read those papers you would notice where it was analyzed that those technology could be diverted for military use.

Britain is an Island. That is self explanatory. That is why it was easier for Japan to be a great power too in the 1900s. The same cannot be said for countries like Russia, Germany and probably France and China. If they were Islands too, It would be easier to project power in the midst of many regional powers. take a look at both world wars. it was triggered by Regional powers trying to dominate the area. Austria-Hungary, France, Russian empire and the Germans. even before the war they fought each other for decades. Thats how it will always be. Britain could have stayed out of both wars if it wanted to.

I have given you enough reasons why It may never happen. its simple. there are too many regional powers around China with different interest . having bases everywhere and fighting xyz is a military power projection. NOW, what they choose to do with it has to do with policies. yes i agree most of them are not right but that isn't the concern of this topic.

soft power through economic means, Yes China will do that. but economic power isn't enough and at this point it is still dependent

Whether a tiny bit of it were diverted for military or not, is just based on assumptions and it's inconsequential since we all know the primary source of the Chinese military power. Classic American academics trying to take credit for something America has no influence in.

Lmao @ Britain being an Island. And how's that different from Spain? Perhaps, you need to travel around Europe to know how close, and connected all the countries are. The whole of Western Europe isn't even as big as America. If UK being an Island is an excuse, don't you think Iceland, which is even more isolated should've been a super power then, since geography favours it? And also, why has Australia which is by itself, in the middle of nowhere, not turn into a super power? USSR became a super power despite being surrounded by formidable countries - and it was never that militarily strong before the 2nd world war.

Also, explain how Britain could have stayed out of both world wars if it wanted. It seems you don't know much about European history and geography.

Not impressed with you on this thread. Maybe, next time. However, everything you posited is reminiscent of how Hitler and the Nazis were underestimated till they caught everyone by surprise. It would have been a different story, if the Nazis had stayed in Western Europe, without attacking Russia. America wouldn't even have joined that war if that had happened...it would've signed a treaty with Hitler, and kept its influence in the Americas. Don't ever underestimate an intellectual property, especially one with a great history. And stay away from too much American propaganda.

I'll leave you with a quote from Napoleon Bonaparte about China: "China is a sleeping giant. Let her sleep, for when she wakes she will move the world.”

SirShymex:


Whether a tiny bit of it were diverted for military or not, is just based on assumptions and it's inconsequential since we all know the primary source of the Chinese military power. Classic American academics trying to take credit for something America has no influence in.

Lmao @ Britain being an Island. And how's that different from Spain? Perhaps, you need to travel around Europe to know how close, and connected all the countries are. The whole of Western Europe isn't even as big as America. If UK being an Island is an excuse, don't you think Iceland, which is even more isolated should've been a super power then, since geography favours it? And also, why has Australia which is by itself, in the middle of nowhere, not turn into a super power? USSR became a super power despite being surrounded by formidable countries - and it was never that militarily strong before the 2nd world war.

Also, explain how Britain could have stayed out of both world wars if it wanted. It seems you don't know much about European history and geography.

Not impressed with you on this thread. Maybe, next time. However, everything you posited is reminiscent of how Hitler and the Nazis were underestimated till they caught everyone by surprise. It would have been a different story, if the Nazis had stayed in Western Europe, without attacking Russia. America wouldn't even have joined that war if that had happened...it would've signed a treaty with Hitler, and kept its influence in the Americas. Don't ever underestimate an intellectual property, especially one with a great history. And stay away from too much American propaganda.

I'll leave you with a quote from Napoleon Bonaparte about China: "China is a sleeping giant. Let her sleep, for when she wakes she will move the world.”

You are missing many points and not very realistic at all.

First, do not assume that because i dont support the notion that China is going to be the next superpower makes me pro american policies. that is self evident in my posts so you should know better.

Now to the main issues.
You don't seem to get the dynamics of how nations become very powerful. England started the industrial revolution not Spain or Iceland. that made her a front runner in industrialization. then you look at the internal dynamics of those countries as well then you would see that the Iceland Britain example is not even comparable. Australia interior is mostly a desert and is only useful for mining. and the population cores are on the coast and its agricultural core is even cut off from its population. It is more of an isolated country within an Island so it has always relied of foreign powers (US/UK). I gave you a more comparable example which was Japan.

Britain could have choose not to defend Belgium (The Germans believed they wont initially. i can go into details if you want me to) and in the Second world war, the purpose of British involvement was not achieved (they declared war on Germany because of the Danzing offensive, and at the end of the war, Polish territorial integrity was not maintained and it was occupied by another power ).

For China to reach the standards of what is even close to a superpower. like i said. it will take DECADES (3-4). What you dont seem to understand is as the country grows internally, the growing middle class will start making demands and they will still have to go thru an inevitable social/labor unrest within the country. The international global system was set up by the western powers and it hasn't been adjusted (fully)to accommodate emerging powers like China because it has a different system so to speak.

This has noting to do with propaganda but facts and opinions. You and nairaminted are more concerned about America's policies. you are debating this as an idealist. that is why it is difficult for you to see where i am coming from.

Napoleon's quote might not be a good source for predicting geopolitics. he made too many wrong predictions in his lifetime
Hitler did not catch anyone by surprise either.

Missy89:

You are missing many points and not very realistic at all.

First, do not assume that because i dont support the notion that China is going to be the next superpower makes me pro american policies. that is self evident in my posts so you should know better.

Now to the main issues.
You don't seem to get the dynamics of how nations become very powerful. England started the industrial revolution not Spain or Iceland. that made her a front runner in industrialization. then you look at the internal dynamics of those countries as well then you would see that the Iceland Britain example is not even comparable. Australia interior is mostly a desert and is only useful for mining. and the population cores are on the coast and its agricultural core is even cut off from its population. It is more of an isolated country within an Island so it has always relied of foreign powers (US/UK). I gave you a more comparable example which was Japan.

Britain could have choose not to defend Belgium (The Germans believed they wont initially. i can go into details if you want me to) and in the Second world war, the purpose of British involvement was not achieved (they declared war on Germany because of the Danzing offensive, and at the end of the war, Polish territorial integrity was not maintained and it was occupied by another power ).

For China to reach the standards of what is even close to a superpower. like i said. it will take DECADES (3-4). What you dont seem to understand is as the country grows internally, the growing middle class will start making demands and they will still have to go thru an inevitable social/labor unrest within the country. The international global system was set up by the western powers and it hasn't been adjusted (fully)to accommodate emerging powers like China because it has a different system so to speak.

This has noting to do with propaganda but facts and opinions. You and nairaminted are more concerned about America's policies. you are debating this as an idealist. that is why it is difficult for you to see where i am coming from.

Napoleon's quote might not be a good source for predicting geopolitics. he made too many wrong predictions in his lifetime
Hitler did not catch anyone by surprise either.

No, you're the one conflating so many issues, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the US shambles of a foreign policy, since the Clinton era. It's about your claim that China can never project itself as a military superpower like the superfluous American military power, which as been lousy at best - without any real achievement. I'm just questioning what's insurmountable about the American military projection that can't be toppled. We're talking about the only military super-power in history that has never been tested in a conventional war, by any strong country - and that hasn't been able to win one asymmetry war, against minnows. I'm just telling you to get real, and stop peddling propaganda.


Also, it seems you're lost in semantics. How's the Brittania industrial revolution different from the Chinese economic and modern industrial revolution, at a time when all the major powers, are in decline and most its neighbours being weak, or not competitive enough? And no matter how you spin it, the truth is glaring, and the geography of where China is, isn't that much different from the UK. The internal dynamics is also somewhat similar. When the UK rose, it wasn't just England, it was a nation of many nations.

Heck, even England can be divided into many frontiers. Then you can correlate Ireland, with Taiwan - just too many similarities. Japan being Island, wasn't the reason for its rise - and perhaps, we can also cite the rise of Japan since it's also surrounded by formidable powers, with power tussle throughout its history. And why did you ignore Spain, since its geopraphy is somewhat similar to the UK, and it had the first modern and powerful navy, but was never able to transfer that into being a formidable military power, and that would've countered your emphasis on navy?

Furthermore, like I told you in my previous post, you don't really know much about European history and geography. Yes, Great Britian was an isolated empire before World War 1 because it was solely dependent on its wealth that came from India. However, it wasn't in its best interest for any country to be dominant in Europe, because they would negate some of its influence. Hence it joined both wars. And once you understand the tribalism in Europe, and how the politics is, you'll get a better picture.

And when has America ever stopped going through civil unrest, despite all the brutality hidden from the media? But did that negate its superpower status? All the racial crisis of the 60s, 70s, and 80s etc..

Hitler was underestimated because of the The Treaty of Versailles. And no one ever thought the Nazis would have enough to prosecute a war. The country was broke, and under economic siege by the Jews. Go read your history books again, and never underestimate an intellectual property.

Anyway, you're the one peddling US propaganda for the US masses - more like a feel good story. This is reality, not jejune tales.

Still waiting for links about American military technology transfer to China.

SirShymex:


No, you're the one conflating so many issues, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the US shambles of a foreign policy, since the Clinton era. It's about your claim that China can never project itself as a military superpower like the superfluous American military power, which as been lousy at best - without any real achievement. I'm just questioning what's insurmountable about the American military projection that can't be toppled. We're talking about the only military super-power in history that has never been tested in a conventional war, by any strong country - and that hasn't been able to win one asymmetry war, against minnows. I'm just telling you to get real, and stop peddling propaganda.

I think America's status as a super-power is not just about its military strength but also its ability to shape events in other countries. This could be through civil society, military or economic means. Ironically, it applies to the protests/unrest across the middle east, the toppling of several regimes, and in many cases dictating the foreign policies of individual countries or blocs! Hell, it managed to get 100 countries at the United Nations to condemn Russia's policy on crimea and even forced Europe to impose self-harming sanctions.

Why fight a war with Syria, if you can simply wait for the right opportunity to hijack simple protests and cause massive havoc?

In addition to its large military, It is this ability to influence governments or shape events in other countries that defines its super-power status.

Nice arguments from shymex and missy,

Though it appears missy is so sure of Americas absolute political dominance, that she tends to see other countryies advances as paper tiger. For me I think the points raised by shymex and nairamint show their depth of understanding in the evolving politics of the 21st century.
On a final note I believe we will witness a paradigm shift in the world's political landscape.

SirShymex:


No, you're the one conflating so many issues, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the US shambles of a foreign policy, since the Clinton era. It's about your claim that China can never project itself as a military superpower like the superfluous American military power, which as been lousy at best - without any real achievement. I'm just questioning what's insurmountable about the American military projection that can't be toppled. We're talking about the only military super-power in history that has never been tested in a conventional war, by any strong country - and that hasn't been able to win one asymmetry war, against minnows. I'm just telling you to get real, and stop peddling propaganda.


Also, it seems you're lost in semantics. How's the Brittania industrial revolution different from the Chinese economic and modern industrial revolution, at a time when all the major powers, are in decline and most its neighbours being weak, or not competitive enough? And no matter how you spin it, the truth is glaring, and the geography of where China is, isn't that much different from the UK. The internal dynamics is also somewhat similar. When the UK rose, it wasn't just England, it was a nation of many nations.

Heck, even England can be divided into many frontiers. Then you can correlate Ireland, with Taiwan - just too many similarities. Japan being Island, wasn't the reason for its rise - and perhaps, we can also cite the rise of Japan since it's also surrounded by formidable powers, with power tussle throughout its history. And why did you ignore Spain, since its geopraphy is somewhat similar to the UK, and it had the first modern and powerful navy, but was never able to transfer that into being a formidable military power, and that would've countered your emphasis on navy?

Furthermore, like I told you in my previous post, you don't really know much about European history and geography. Yes, Great Britian was an isolated empire before World War 1 because it was solely dependent on its wealth that came from India. However, it wasn't in its best interest for any country to be dominant in Europe, because they would negate some of its influence. Hence it joined both wars. And once you understand the tribalism in Europe, and how the politics is, you'll get a better picture.

And when has America ever stopped going through civil unrest, despite all the brutality hidden from the media? But did that negate its superpower status? All the racial crisis of the 60s, 70s, and 80s etc..

Hitler was underestimated because of the The Treaty of Versailles. And no one ever thought the Nazis would have enough to prosecute a war. The country was broke, and under economic siege by the Jews. Go read your history books again, and never underestimate an intellectual property.

Anyway, you're the one peddling US propaganda for the US masses - more like a feel good story. This is reality, not jejune tales.

Still waiting for links about American military technology transfer to China.

I shared a link from a about how us satellite policy might have being aiding the Chinese missile program but i bet you did not read that or pretended as if you did not see it. If you read those papers, you would see where there were concerns of how the technology transfers could be aiding the PLA because most of the civil scientists also works for the PLA

You are getting too emotional with your submissions and like i keep saying, stop worrying about policy failures and talk about the ability to implement it. my argument is that China cannot match that type of power projection (good or evil) for decades to come. You probably think being a super power is just economic (I already gave China that)

And you don't seem to understand how Insurgency/asymmetry war works. If you get the concepts, you wont even bring it up(i can go into details if you want me to). And saying that because a military power hasn't been tested against any real power means it might be weak is just naive. Military planners do not plan or make decisions based on that type of theories but visible capabilities and facts.

I think it would depend on who you ask as regards Spain's military power. they almost conquered and entire hemisphere (the Americas). They Fought The British from 1585 till around 1783. they were involved in the American project just as much as Britain and France was. So when you say Spain was not a formidable military power, I don't know what you are talking about.They Defeated the British in 1630 (Treaty of Madrid),and there were few defeats,some stalemates and many territorial changes with the British and the French. You should read about the Anglo-Spanish wars.Or what do you mean by "formidable"?

Social unrest will always continue in any civilized society, that's how social/labour institutions grow or die. Yes it will still continue in the US and the point i was making is that China doesn't have one yet. many reform still has to be in place. Either it is still being suppressed or the growing middle class are not making the demands yet.

When you say Britain does not want any major power in Europe, that doesn't mean Britain couldn't have been neutral and still prevent a major power in Europe. 2 different things

Lol @ Hitler was under estimated because of the treaty. You say it has if Hitler just started the war overnight and the money to prosecute the war just flew out of his a5s in 1939. When he told his generals that he was increasing Germany army divisions from 7 for around 30. The allies knew, when he occupied the Rhineland again, the allies knew, When he took Austria, they knew about it. When he wanted the sudetenland land in Czechoslovakia, his generals(one of them Hans Oster of the Abwehr) signaled the allies to stand firm and wanted to plot against him, yet Chamberlain rushed to Munich and handed him Czechoslovakia and threatened to freeze the Czechs foreign assets if they don't comply. Russia signaled the allies and the Czechs that they would send troops to defend Czechoslovakia, but the allies rebuffed it and Poland wouldn't even allow them passage. So how was the war a surprised exactly?. Before the war, Germany was no longer in recession, people were working and the even hosted an Olympic games. Seizing Czechoslovakia gave him the extra resources he needed.

Go and read General Maurice Gamelin memoirs and records from those involved in the war. The Allies were willing to tolerate the fascists but not the communists and they expected Hitler to go Eastward from the get go. When he invaded Poland, Even thou England and France declared war, they didn't really do anything. it was known as the Phony war in Britain and the French called it "drôle de guerre" (strange war). They only started Fighting when he turned West.

NB

Few Typos!

Now that we have moved far away from the topic. It is important to make my points clear

1. Nairaminted believes Russia and China are in some kind of Military Alliance and i was trying to make him understand that it might be false. because they both have different interests

2. That geopolitical constraints will probably not make China a superpower. but an Economic power (If we use the characteristics of American influence to measure how superpower would look like)

Will reply both comments in a bit.

Missy89:


I shared a link from a about how us satellite policy might have being aiding the Chinese missile program but i bet you did not read that or pretended as if you did not see it. If you read those papers, you would see where there were concerns of how the technology transfers could be aiding the PLA because most of the civil scientists also works for the PLA

You are getting too emotional with your submissions and like i keep saying, stop worrying about policy failures and talk about the ability to implement it. my argument is that China cannot match that type of power projection (good or evil) for decades to come. You probably think being a super power is just economic (I already gave China that)

And you don't seem to understand how Insurgency/asymmetry war works. If you get the concepts, you wont even bring it up(i can go into details if you want me to). And saying that because a military power hasn't been tested against any real power means it might be weak is just naive. Military planners do not plan or make decisions based on that type of theories but visible capabilities and facts.

I think it would depend on who you ask as regards Spain's military power. they almost conquered and entire hemisphere (the Americas). They Fought The British from 1585 till around 1783. they were involved in the American project just as much as Britain and France was. So when you say Spain was not a formidable military power, I don't know what you are talking about.They Defeated the British in 1630 (Treaty of Madrid),and there were few defeats,some stalemates and many territorial changes with the British and the French. You should read about the Anglo-Spanish wars.Or what do you mean by "formidable"?

Social unrest will always continue in any civilized society, that's how social/labour institutions grow or die. Yes it will still continue in the US and the point i was making is that China doesn't have one yet. many reform still has to be in place. Either it is still being suppressed or the growing middle class are not making the demands yet.

When you say Britain does not want any major power in Europe, that doesn't mean Britain couldn't have been neutral and still prevent a major power in Europe. 2 different things

Lol @ Hitler was under estimated because of the treaty. You say it has if Hitler just started the war overnight and the money to prosecute the war just flew out of his a5s in 1939. When he told his generals that he was increasing Germany army divisions from 7 for around 30. The allies knew, when he occupied the Rhineland again, the allies knew, When he took Austria, they knew about it. When he wanted the sudetenland land in Czechoslovakia, his generals(one of them Hans Oster of the Abwehr) signaled the allies to stand firm and wanted to plot against him, yet Chamberlain rushed to Munich and handed him Czechoslovakia and threatened to freeze the Czechs foreign assets if they don't comply. Russia signaled the allies and the Czechs that they would send troops to defend Czechoslovakia, but the allies rebuffed it and Poland wouldn't even allow them passage. So how was the war a surprised exactly?. Before the war, Germany was no longer in recession, people were working and the even hosted an Olympic games. Seizing Czechoslovakia gave him the extra resources he needed.

Go and read General Maurice Gamelin memoirs and records from those involved in the war. The Allies were willing to tolerate the fascists but not the communists and they expected Hitler to go Eastward from the get go. When he invaded Poland, Even thou England and France declared war, they didn't really do anything. it was known as the Phony war in Britain and the French called it "drôle de guerre" (strange war). They only started Fighting when he turned West.

NB

Few Typos!

Are you crippled?

publicenemy:


Are you crippled?

what?

Missy89:


what?

Yea... Are you crippled?

Missy89:


what?

You are very intelligent.

You sound like someone who has no choice but to sit in front of the internet all day reading her favourite topics. You make references that are extreamely far fetched and ur always right cos I google them. You take ur time typing long write ups just to explain ur point here on NL. And av read ur posts on other topics (imagine quantom physics).ur 25 old, Other people ur age would have their hands full with no time for the so much in ur head.

So u a cripple?

publicenemy:


You are very intelligent.

You sound like someone who has no choice but to sit in front of the internet all day reading her favourite topics. You make references that are extreamely far fetched and ur always right cos I google them. You take ur time typing long write ups just to explain ur point here on NL. And av read ur posts on other topics (imagine quantom physics).ur 25 old, Other people ur age would have their hands full with no time for the so much in ur head.

So u a cripple?

What makes you think i am 25?.
I am not crippled.
and No I am not always online. It is just weird debating shymexx and i would rather stay online and get it over with. no matter how long it takes. I dont have any online restrictions and most of what i post is not from a pc.

that's a very strange question thou, are cripples (whatever that means) the only ones permitted to used the internet 247?

Missy89:


What makes you think i am 25?.
I am not crippled.
and No I am not always online. It is just weird debating shymexx and i would rather stay online and get it over with. no matter how long it takes. I dont have any online restrictions and most of what i post is not from a pc.

that's a very strange question thou, are cripples (whatever that means) the only ones permitted to used the internet 247?

Why do you think it's weird debating me?

Just trying to tell you that your assertions are wrong.

Will post the reply in a few mins - watching NFL.

Missy89 is whooping Shynexx's a*ss?? I love it!

Anybody capable of whooping his a*ss is my friend. *Girl power*

Missy89:





What makes you think i am 25?.
I am not crippled.
and No I am not always online. It is just weird debating shymexx and i would rather stay online and get it over with. no matter how long it takes. I dont have any online restrictions and most of what i post is not from a pc.

that's a very strange question thou, are cripples (whatever that means) the only ones permitted to used the internet 247?

Lols... Never mind the cripple q. I once read you tell someone you are into fencing. "

Most of what I post is not from p.c"

From where then, classes?

Missy89:

I shared a link from a about how us satellite policy might have being aiding the Chinese missile program but i bet you did not read that or pretended as if you did not see it. If you read those papers, you would see where there were concerns of how the technology transfers could be aiding the PLA because most of the civil scientists also works for the PLA

You are getting too emotional with your submissions and like i keep saying, stop worrying about policy failures and talk about the ability to implement it. my argument is that China cannot match that type of power projection (good or evil) for decades to come. You probably think being a super power is just economic (I already gave China that)

And you don't seem to understand how Insurgency/asymmetry war works. If you get the concepts, you wont even bring it up(i can go into details if you want me to). And saying that because a military power hasn't been tested against any real power means it might be weak is just naive. Military planners do not plan or make decisions based on that type of theories but visible capabilities and facts.

I think it would depend on who you ask as regards Spain's military power. they almost conquered and entire hemisphere (the Americas). They Fought The British from 1585 till around 1783. they were involved in the American project just as much as Britain and France was. So when you say Spain was not a formidable military power, I don't know what you are talking about.They Defeated the British in 1630 (Treaty of Madrid),and there were few defeats,some stalemates and many territorial changes with the British and the French. You should read about the Anglo-Spanish wars.Or what do you mean by "formidable"?

Social unrest will always continue in any civilized society, that's how social/labour institutions grow or die. Yes it will still continue in the US and the point i was making is that China doesn't have one yet. many reform still has to be in place. Either it is still being suppressed or the growing middle class are not making the demands yet.

When you say Britain does not want any major power in Europe, that doesn't mean Britain couldn't have been neutral and still prevent a major power in Europe. 2 different things

Lol @ Hitler was under estimated because of the treaty. You say it has if Hitler just started the war overnight and the money to prosecute the war just flew out of his a5s in 1939. When he told his generals that he was increasing Germany army divisions from 7 for around 30. The allies knew, when he occupied the Rhineland again, the allies knew, When he took Austria, they knew about it. When he wanted the sudetenland land in Czechoslovakia, his generals(one of them Hans Oster of the Abwehr) signaled the allies to stand firm and wanted to plot against him, yet Chamberlain rushed to Munich and handed him Czechoslovakia and threatened to freeze the Czechs foreign assets if they don't comply. Russia signaled the allies and the Czechs that they would send troops to defend Czechoslovakia, but the allies rebuffed it and Poland wouldn't even allow them passage. So how was the war a surprised exactly?. Before the war, Germany was no longer in recession, people were working and the even hosted an Olympic games. Seizing Czechoslovakia gave him the extra resources he needed.

Go and read General Maurice Gamelin memoirs and records from those involved in the war. The Allies were willing to tolerate the fascists but not the communists and they expected Hitler to go Eastward from the get go. When he invaded Poland, Even thou England and France declared war, they didn't really do anything. it was known as the Phony war in Britain and the French called it "drôle de guerre" (strange war). They only started Fighting when he turned West.

NB

Few Typos!

Still doesn't make sense, and still the same propaganda junk US academics are notorious for, in claiming glory for everything it has nothing to do with. Like it claimed the glory for a world war 2 it joined three years late. And you're now shifting goal post again, from military technology transfer, to economic technology transfer (which is more of normal capitalism for corporations to maximise profits with cheap labour and cheap resources availablity) - and now, it's satellite policy miraculously transferred to missile technology lol.

1). Chinese missile and nuclear programme were built with the help of the Soviets, way before whatever the US transferred to China. And all the improvements were done based on espionage, and rogue arm technology dealers. It tested its first nuclear warhead in 1964.

2). All other military super powers were tested and they excelled, hence they became great. You can start from Alexander the Great, to the Roman Empire, to Mongolia, to Ottoman Empire, to Napoleon, to Great Britain. That's how you can determine how powerful a country is militarily. Thus it's only right that I question your innuendos about an untested military power being insurmountable. How can you even judge how powerful, or great it's without a legit test, by another formidable power? Heck, it backed out of every confrontation with a formidable power, and used economic warfare instead. So, your assertions are basless, and illogical. I want practicality - and since US has refused to go to war with any formidable country, whatever capability it has on paper is inconsequential.

3). What you're alluding to was when Spain was able to put together a modern navy before anyone else, due to the moorish influence. And when it defeated Brittania in 1630, Britannia wasn't a super-power. Heck, it wasn't even united back then. The Kingdom of England and Scotland were united in 1707, and the industrial revolution started in 1790. And subsequently, it became a super-power afterwards. So, argue based on timeline, and not innuendos.

4). At the height of the British empire, there were social unrests all the time. Go read about Charles Dicken's book about poverty in London, especially Oliver Twist, and the class problems in the UK, till the latter part of the 20th century. And there has always been unrest in America. But America is the master at suppressing folks who have legitimate concerns. Heck, the US is not even a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

Also, you seem to be oblivious to Chinese history. Go read its history before making any conclusions. And make sure your source isn't from pseudo-educated American academics who always twist everything. Read from British, or Chinese sources, especially Oxford or Cambridge historians.

4). Where did I assert that Great Britain never wanted to be a major power in Europe? I said it was isolated because its own source of wealth came from India, and it focussed on that, without sharing it with anyone else. However, it had a stake in not letting any other power to become dominant in Europe, thus enabling a competing power to take advantage of the mediterranean - which is the primary route to the source of its wealth. Then you have to examine the tribalism in Europe, and the need to always protect tribal interests.

5). Well, if you don't know Hitler was underestimated, then there's absolutely no point discussing history with you, since a toddler knows he was underestimated. Heck, that was why he was allowed to take over Germany as the Chancellor. They would have stopped him, if they viewed him as a threat. And the Treaty of Versailles brought Germany to its knees, with the country in great depression. And even the Jews threatened the Germans before the war. Yes, the same Jews that ended up in holocaust camps. Go back to your history books again, and this time, come back with something more factual.

BananaBender:
Missy89 is whooping Shynexx's a*ss?? I love it!

Anybody capable of whooping his a*ss is my friend. *Girl power*

No woman can whoop my ar.se in anything in life.

So its cripples that have monopoly of the internet 24/7 I can't laugh

Been following the debate btw shymexx and missy89 for d last couple of days, I'm enjoying it though

Not to digress from the topic been discussed. The allies seriously underestimated the extent of Hitler's ambition leading up to the 2nd world war.

GuyFawkes:
So its cripples that have monopoly of the internet 24/7 I can't laugh

Been following the debate btw shymexx and missy89 for d last couple of days, I'm enjoying it though

Not to digress from the topic been discussed. The allies seriously underestimated the extent of Hitler's ambition leading up to the 2nd world war.

Tell Missy.

She has been watching too much Fox News of late. Sean Hannity and Billy O'reilly!

SirShymex:

No woman can whoop my ar.se in anything in life.

I have whooped your a*ss severally.

Have several seats. If you weren't a chauvinist, u might hv a chance at being smart.

Btw, you guys should continue. It's actually interesting. I might just follow the young lady, I see a potential abiL.

SirShymex:


Tell Missy.

She has been watching too much Fox News of late. Sean Hannity and Billy O'reilly!

I doubt she watches all those vitriolic nonsense spewed on faux news

She knows better than that.

publicenemy:


Lols... Never mind the cripple q. I once read you tell someone you are into fencing. "

Most of what I post is not from p.c"

From where then, classes?

I meant i hardly use the PC as a medium. i use other portable devices

GuyFawkes:


I doubt she watches all those vitriolic nonsense spewed on faux news

She knows better than that.

I only watch those clowns for educational purpose on YouTube. Shymexx has been trying hard to use reverse psychology tactic to discredit what i have been saying. he keeps throwing in one or 2 jabs and setting up minefields in his submission but i can see them and will keep avoiding it

BananaBender:


I have whooped your a*ss severally.

Have a several seats. If you weren't a chauvinist, u might hv a chance at being smart.

Btw, you guys should continue. It's actually interesting. I might just follow the young lady, I see a potential abiL.

Lol. don't derail the thread.

And I'm not a chauvinist, just living the dreams of my father, on how to always be the man against women.

GuyFawkes:


I doubt she watches all those vitriolic nonsense spewed on faux news

She knows better than that.

Well, I'm shocked about her posts on this thread.

Wasn't planning to contribute, but I just had to do, to correct a lot of things.