U.S Military encirclement of China

GarryB wrote:

FAIL. Russia benefits big time from conflicts because it is one of the major exporter of weapons.

Bullshit... Russia make about 100 billion in trade each year with China... very little of that is weapons these days, and India does not buy that much in terms of weapons either.

China and India destroying each other would be very bad for Russian trade to both countries.... bloody good for US however because they can pick India and move their cheap low labour cost slave labour production from China to India and pretend they are doing it to help India when in actual fact it was starting to get expensive in China because wages were going up...

China already invaded India last May & continues to occupy 1000 sq kms of land.

Border disagreements over land that had no occupants at the time is hardly an invasion worth getting upset about.

The killer was a russian, born in moscow...

So what do you suggest us?

Maybe treating your tourists better...

The large majority of New Caledonians is french ethnicity Gary. Have you ever visited Noumea? The Island capital?

Which means the French colonials outnumber the local natives.... no surprise referendums to remain with France seem to pass... but if they are the majority then 53% is a piss poor result if they are a majority... suggests even French colonials don't like France... wow...

My family has much land on Grand Terre, which is the main island of NC and it is our home. I have some kanak friends and i respect them.

But we are the majority

53% is it?

That is OK... as the west declines and China becomes more powerful they will get the transition just right I am sure...

There is no such thing as "colonial". When you are born in NEw Caledonia, you are New Caledonian. That said, math was never your strength.

Ethnic european french make up 44% of the population. The Kanak people are 30%. The rest is polynesian and japanese origin.

Which means alot of kanak and polynesians also voted for France.

As for China, there is no country more hated in New Caledonia than chings. The Kanaks have especial high hatred for them and even hunt chinese tourists.

Ethnic european french make up 44% of the population. The Kanak people are 30%. The rest is polynesian and japanese origin.

This whole referendum looks democratic only on the surface: France succeeded in diluting the local population there, just like the Americans done in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, California, Hawaii, Alaska, the Japanese on Hokkaido/Okinawa & the Han Chinese in Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, & now try to do in Tibet & Sinkiang. Other Chinese, mostly from Fujian done it on Taiwan- its natives were pushed back into the mountainous interior. More Han came to the island during & after 1949 as the result of KMT defeat.

Similarly, China has occupied areas in the South China Sea that belongs to Vietnam, Phillipines and even Indonesia.

no, she isn't holding any Indonesian islands. But but what right other than as a gift from the British, India holds Kashmir, Nicobars & NE States, populated by Muslims, Negroids & Mongoloids?

Tsavo Lion wrote:no, she isn't holding any Indonesian islands.

I didn't say that either. I said China illegally extracts resources from territorial water of South East Asian countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines.  

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3098217/vietnam-warns-chinese-bomber-disputed-islands-south-china


https://asiatimes.com/2020/09/china-indonesia-sea-dispute-hot-and-getting-hotter/

Tsavo Lion wrote:But but what right other than as a gift from the British, India holds Kashmir, Nicobars & NE States

A couple of things in this regard. The British never gifted anything to India. They were here to steal resources not to gift anything. Britain divided India by giving away 1/3 of our land area to create a separate homeland for Muslims called Pakistan.

Britain never added any area to India. Most of the North Eastern states used to be called Kamrup and are a part of ancient India. Tripura and Manipur joined India in 1949 to save themselves from Pakistani and Burmese occupation. In 1947 once the British were kicked out of India the Hindu ruler of Kashmir Hari Singh decided not to join either Pakistan or India. However, Pakistan invaded Kashmir in 1948. To save himself, he decided to merge Kashmir with India.

India on its own never invaded any country, unlike China that has a long history of invading and occupying foreign land like Tibet and Xingiang.


This is map of India from 3000 years ago. You'll notice the British haven't added a thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire#/media/File:Maurya_Empire,_c.250_BCE_2.png

Tsavo Lion wrote:populated by Muslims, Negroids & Mongoloids?

Mongoloids came to North East India as migrants and invaders from China and Burma. India never invaded those areas. Similarly Muslims from Turkey, Afghanistan, Iran, Arabia invaded India. It's not the other way round. Their descendants continue to live in India though it is also true that millions of Hindus were forcibly converted into Islam.

Re Negroids, they never came to India. There are Hindus who do have very dark skin but they are not Negroids.

The British never gifted anything to India.

they did recognize that the Nicobar Islands r under India's control in 1947, did they not?

In 1947 once the British were kicked out of India the Hindu ruler of Kashmir Ranjit Singh decided not to join either Pakistan or India. However, Pakistan invaded Kashmir in 1948. To save himself, he decided to merge Kashmir with India.

fine, but now Kashmiris don't want to be in India.

India on its own never invaded any country, unlike China that has a long history of invading and occupying foreign land like Tibet and Xingiang.

well, the map u posted shows the S. tip of today's India is outside of the empire- so later, it was annexed by other rulers; was it on their own free will to join India? How about the Goa? It was taken by force, despite the locals' wishes. 
If the PRC didn't take Tibet 1st, India would control it just like she held sway in Nepal & Bhutan for decades. 

Similarly Muslims from Turkey, Afghanistan, Iran, Arabia invaded India.

I heard from 1 Indian that Persians came with peace as migrants, not military invaders. If there was a war waged by them against India it would be a well known fact like the other wars involving those u mentioned. OTH, there were 2 far larger migrations from India of the people now called Gypsies. There were many craftsmen, smiths & musicians as well as beggars, crooks, fortune tellers, thieves & other criminals among them. Some small areas in Europe r densely populated by them. 

Re Negroids, they never came to India.

S. India's Dravidian descendants r Negroids or their mixture, as well as Nicobarians.

Tsavo Lion wrote: they did recognize that the Nicobar Islands r under India's control in 1947, did they not?

Rajendra Chola I (1014 to 1042 AD), a famous king from South India used the Andaman and Nicobar Islands as a strategic naval base. In the 18th century european countries like Denmark took over that island but later handed it over to Britain.

But as I had explained to you earlier Britain never added any land mass to India. They did add Burma for a few years but separated it from India in 1938.

Tsavo Lion wrote:fine, but now Kashmiris don't want to be in India.

Which Kashmiris? Hindu Kashmiris? No. Buddhist Kashmiris? No. Just a handful of Pakistan backed muslims who are demanding independence. Even the valley's Shia population do not want independence.

Tsavo Lion wrote:well, the map u posted shows the S. tip of today's India is outside of the empire- so later, it was annexed by other rulers; was it on their own free will to join India? How about the Goa? It was taken by force, [url=https://www.incrediblegoa.org/awareness/why-dont-goans-respect-fellow-indians-from-other-states/][b]despite the locals' wishes

Hindu rulers from south conquered several areas within India. Later the Mughals (who came from Uzbekistan) also added several parts of South India to their empire.

Re Goa, Portuguese were carrying out atrocities on Hindus. Indian government asked Portugal to leave, they chose not to, so India started supporting local Hindus in Goa in their fight against Portugal.  

Tsavo Lion wrote:If the PRC didn't take Tibet 1st, India would control it just like she held sway in Nepal & Bhutan for decades.

China invaded Tibet in 1955. India could have invaded Tibet between 1947-55. But never did. Bhutan is just a protectorate, whose security is guaranteed by India. As far as Nepal is concerned, several Nepalis live in India and vice versa. Question of India invading Nepal doesn't arise. In fact it is China that has send in forces last summer and occupied several parts of Nepal near the gorkha hills.

Tsavo Lion wrote:I heard from 1 Indian that Persians came with peace as migrants, not military invaders. If there was a war waged by them against India it would be a well known fact like the other wars involving those u mentioned. 

 Islamic rulers were all invaders. They never came in peace. Here is the link related to Iranian invasion of India

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah%27s_invasion_of_India

Tsavo Lion wrote:S. India's Dravidian descendants r Negroids or their mixture, as well as Nicobarians.

A few images of Dravidians. Do they appear Negroid to you?

https://www.amazon.com/Vintage-photo-Portrait-Narasimha-Rao/dp/B00TP1IGGK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna_(actor)#/media/File:Nagarjuna_at_62nd_Filmfare_awards_south.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anil_Kumble#/media/File:Former_Indian_cricketer_Anil_Kumble.jpg

Rajendra Chola I (1014 to 1042 AD), a famous king from South India used the Andaman and Nicobar Islands as a strategic naval base.- it's not as if he or all of India legally owned it.

Hindu rulers from south conquered several areas within India. Later the Mughals (who came from Uzbekistan) also added several parts of South India to their empire. - then it means that those areas weren't originally within what is now India.

Re Goa, Portuguese were carrying out atrocities on Hindus. Indian government asked Portugal to leave, they chose not to, so India started supporting local Hindus in Goa in their fight against Portugal. - still, at least a big # of the locals rn't that happy to be part of India to this day.

India could have invaded Tibet between 1947-55. But never did.Bhutan is just a protectorate, whose security is guaranteed by India. ..Question of India invading Nepal doesn't arise. wrote:- she would still have too much influence in Tibet had PRC not taken it, as it could never become neutral Switzerland or Vatican-like state, even as a theocracy- i.e. another Bhutan or Nepal were India held all the cards till recently. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah%27s_invasion_of_India

So, there weren't any Persian migrants coming to India before that?

A few images of Dravidians. Do they appear Negroid to you?-
they look like a mixture of true Negroids & others. Also, if their  ancestors moved to other parts of India & lived there for a few generations w/o mixing with others, they would have such lighter complexion. 

Both India & China r ancient civilizations; both r afraid of being encircled- in fact, India is even more encircled than China. But China itself is encircled, just like Mongolia & Germany, so India is not alone.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Ethnic european french make up 44% of the population. The Kanak people are 30%. The rest is polynesian and japanese origin.

This whole referendum looks democratic only on the surface: France succeeded in diluting the local population there, just like the Americans done in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, California, Hawaii, Alaska, the Japanese on Hokkaido/Okinawa & the Han Chinese in Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, & now try to do in Tibet & Sinkiang. Other Chinese, mostly from Fujian done it on Taiwan- its natives were pushed back into the mountainous interior. More Han came to the island during & after 1949 as the result of KMT defeat.

Similarly, China has occupied areas in the South China Sea that belongs to Vietnam, Phillipines and even Indonesia.

no, she isn't holding any Indonesian islands. But but what right other than as a gift from the British, India holds Kashmir, Nicobars & NE States, populated by Muslims, Negroids & Mongoloids?

When one is born on New Caledonia, you are a native then. So your assumption is wrong.

Cool then I am a Maori...

When one is born on New Caledonia, you are a native then.

not in the eyes of Kanaks from whom most of the inhabited island & its riches were taken. 
U support Taiwan's independence from the PRC u hate, even though it's population is mostly of the same ethnicity as on the mainland opposite to it & no referendum about it was ever held there. The KMT says that they r part of China but don't want to be ruled by the CCP. If/when they come to power again & tensions rize, there may be bloody internal strife worse than in Hong Kong.

GarryB wrote:Cool then I am a Maori...

You are no Maori. The Maori have no claim to own a piece of land exclusively.

You are born on New Zeland and thus you are a New Zealander. The Maori have no right to claim anything.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

When one is born on New Caledonia, you are a native then.

not in the eyes of Kanaks from whom most of the inhabited island & its riches were taken. 
U support Taiwan's independence from the PRC u hate, even though it's population is mostly of the same ethnicity as on the mainland opposite to it & no referendum about it was ever held there. The KMT says that they r part of China but don't want to be ruled by the CCP. If/when they come to power again & tensions rize, there may be bloody internal strife worse than in Hong Kong.

"riches taken" ha ha. France pays each year almost 2 billion € to keep high standard of living in New Caledonia.

I was born in Bourail, which is a small city in New Caledonia. My father was born in Sarramea, which too is a small city in New Caledonia.

My family has roots in New Caledonia that go back 5 generations.

I have more knowledge about the island, its nature...flora and fauna, than most Kanaks. And now you stand there and say its not my home?

I can walk you through the forest of Sarramiea, climb with you on Plateu de Dogny. Show you the giant fig trees, the endemic Parasitaxus usta. Show you the giant Rhacodactlus leachianus geckos and the giant Notu pigeon.

This is my home, our home and i can promise you, we would fight with teeth and claws to destroy anyone who would try to take what is ours.

France pays each year almost 2 billion € to keep high standard of living in New Caledonia.

so what? their life way & culture was reduced/destroyed & forever changed by colonization. A golden cage is still a cage.

This is my home, our home and i can promise you, we would fight with teeth and claws to destroy anyone who would try to take what is ours.

the natives being subjugated & colonized had longer history in their respective areas & felt the same way, if not stronger.

The Maori have no right to claim anything.

oh yes they do, coming to NZ several 100 years before James Cook.  By ur logic, u have even less right to claim New Caledonia as ur home than the Kanaks.

Tsavo Lion wrote:it's not as if he or all of India legally owned it.

He owned it as much as the US government owns the US.

Tsavo Lion wrote:then it means that those areas weren't originally within what is now India.

They were part of India for at least 1500 years before the British came.

Tsavo Lion wrote:still, at least a big # of the locals rn't that happy to be part of India to this day

They can leave, but Portugal won't accept them. Also, it's not a big number. Hindus make up 66%-68% of Goa's population. None of them want to leave.

Tsavo Lion wrote:she would still have too much influence in Tibet had PRC not taken it, as it could never become neutral Switzerland or Vatican-like state, even as a theocracy- i.e. another Bhutan or Nepal were India held all the cards till recently. 

How is PRC's influence in Tibet any better? Killed thousands of Tibetans. Forced thousands including the Dalai Lama to flee to India as refugees. These days PRC is busy exploiting Tibet's resources.

Tsavo Lion wrote:So, there weren't any Persian migrants coming to India before that?

Trade between India and Mesopotamia did exist almost 2000 years ago. But only a few traders arrived in India from Iraq and Iran.

Tsavo Lion wrote: they look like a mixture of true Negroids & others.

Well then that's what most of India across North, East, South, West looks like

Tsavo Lion wrote:Both India & China r ancient civilizations; both r afraid of being encircled- in fact, India is even more encircled than China. But China itself is encircled, just like Mongolia & Germany, so India is not alone.

Being ancient cultures doesn't influence the current evolving narrative. China has a long history of land grab since the end of WW2. They tried to grab land in USSR and Vietnam as well, but were defeated. Most of modern day China was created from 1950 onward.

PRC leadership grabbed enough land to become the 4th largest country in the world since the end of WW2. And as their actions have shown, they intend to grab even more land from other countries.

He owned it as much as the US government owns the US.- by right of conquest which India used/es.   
They were part of India for at least 1500 years before the British came.- but 1600 years before they came that area was independent. U proved both of my points!
How is PRC's influence in Tibet any better? Killed thousands of Tibetans. Forced thousands including the Dalai Lama to flee to India as refugees. These days PRC is busy exploiting Tibet's resources. - no, but nature doesn't tolerate vacuum. It were either India & Anglo-Saxons/Soviets or the PRC using the Tibet high ground to control C/S. Asia.  PRC leadership grabbed enough land to become the 4th largest country in the world since the end of WW2. And as their actions have shown, they intend to grab even more land from other countries.- what else is new? her geographical position is vulnerable, she had 100-200 years of humiliation by the West & Japan, her population is the largest, & most of her territory isn't suitable for life. That's why they remove mountains at home, move Han settlers to Tibet & Sinkiang, buy/rent agricultural land in Tajikistan, & build transportation links/pipelines + strong navy to avoid/break through maritime bottlenecks & defend her claims. India has a lot to learn from them in that regard.

Now, India wants to reach an optimal equilibrium but cannot. India has already provided China an upper hand, so China is not interested in optimal equilibrium with India. The prolonged military standoff at the border created a suitable condition for China to build pressure on India to accept a sub-optimal equilibrium. India missed the train looking at “the West,” and China is far ahead of India. In Asia’s economic, political, and military hierarchy, China wants to see itself at the top, followed by others. Although Indian strategists muse that India is a king in South Asia and the Indian Ocean rimland, Chinese strategists consider India a pawn. The king is someone else who moves India as a pawn for the sake of its strategic objectives. According to mechanics theory, a branch of physics, to attain equilibrium by using a lever, the person near the fulcrum must apply greater force than the person far from the fulcrum. This theory is also applicable in foreign policy, and India needs to put extra energy to attain equilibrium. In this strategic game, India has two strategic options, wage war against China or accept the Chinese demand to implement the agreements and consensus reached in the first and second informal summits. India is facing its worst economic crisis since its independence in 1947. Gross domestic product nosedived by 23.9% in the first quarter of the current fiscal year (April-June). The central government failed to provide goods and service tax (GST) compensation to the state governments, and as a result, Indian federalism is at risk. How India would pay for a war is a crucial question. China also has two strategic options, wage war against India or wear it down by prolonging the border standoff. The payoff of the current Sino-Indian strategic game favors China either way. When China made offers to India at the informal summits for a bilateral partnership to make the Asian century, India held the upper hand. It could bargain for more favorable terms in any Chinese proposal. That scenario has changed dramatically because of Jaishankar’s strategic blunder.“Some kind of understanding or equilibrium” is sub-optimal for India, but optimal for China. If India wants to reach equilibrium, it has to “give” more and “take” less than China, and the latter sets the terms and conditions, not India.By putting all his eggs in the American basket, Jaishankar was not taking a strategic risk. He was gambling. 

You are no Maori. The Maori have no claim to own a piece of land exclusively.

You said because you were born there that you were a native... there native means Kanak, here it means Maori.

Of course I am no maori and you are not a native.

And now you stand there and say its not my home?

You used the term native, which is not the same as home.

This is my home, our home and i can promise you, we would fight with teeth and claws to destroy anyone who would try to take what is ours.

Hahahaha... like France clearly took from the natives... China wont take the country from you... they will just buy land and the price of land will go up and they will keep buying it and soon natives like you wont be able to afford to live there and then when they have a majority they ask for another referendum...

You know... a much nicer and more civilised way than you white fellas that murdered and killed the former natives till they accepted your authority...

China is in no hurry... as far as they are concerned Taiwan is a province of China, and as long as Taiwan doesn't do anything stupid then why would they change their policy?

The only way China and Taiwan will start fighting each other is if Taiwan starts something or if the US pushes them to try something stupid.... which is actually likely because the US would love to see a big war involving China... they can write off their own debt to the country and mobilise for a nice big war which always generates work and distracts the local population from their dire economic situation.

Of course the Military will be ordered to focus on economic targets to damage Chinas economy... that would be an important part of the plan...

Symmetric responce: https://news.antiwar.com/2020/10/23/us-sending-coast-guard-cutters-to-the-pacific-to-counter-china/

GarryB wrote:China is in no hurry... as far as they are concerned Taiwan is a province of China, and as long as Taiwan doesn't do anything stupid then why would they change their policy?

The only way China and Taiwan will start fighting each other is if Taiwan starts something or if the US pushes them to try something stupid.... which is actually likely because the US would love to see a big war involving China...  they can write off their own debt to the country and mobilise for a nice big war which always generates work and distracts the local population from their dire economic situation.

Of course the Military will be ordered to focus on economic targets to damage Chinas economy... that would be an important part of the plan...

Now you are just being silly, an attack on mainland China would likely go nuclear and I doubt he pindos want to get into a situation where either they have to fight a nuclear war on two fronts, or they have to hope Russia doesn't take advantage of them.

Western fishing fleets have been raping the sea for centuries, but when Chinese fishermen start earning a living it becomes a problem that needs action...

Tsavo Lion wrote:US Coast Guard to net wayward Chinese fishing fleets

Most likely in international waters and act just like pirates. The US thinks it owns the global oceans. That is why it wants to
control even the shipping in Russia's Arctic waters.