Article

2004-09-29 China-Japan-Koreas

[Brilliant] Taiwan Threat to Attack Shanghai Angers China

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Zenster 2004-09-29 1:50:15 AM|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Make sure to spring for the mine-laying option for the 12 subs.

Posted by Shipman 2004-09-29 8:11:05 AM|| 2004-09-29 8:11:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 This, not the lack of closer targets, is the reason I suggested attacking Chinese assets in other parts of the world.
Video of a torpedoed Chicom container ship going down just outside the St. Nazaire roadstead would have a powerful effect on China's trade partners.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-09-29 8:52:10 AM|| 2004-09-29 8:52:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 "Washington switched diplomatic recognition to Beijing from Taipei in 1979..."

Three guess who was president then.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-09-29 9:02:45 AM|| 2004-09-29 9:02:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Got it this time AC.

Posted by Shipman 2004-09-29 10:06:43 AM|| 2004-09-29 10:06:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Re: #3....

Ummmmm, Gerald Ford? ;^)

Posted by AlanC 2004-09-29 10:25:07 AM|| 2004-09-29 10:25:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Dave, this decade is proving to be the time when we pay for the foreign policy sins of the last two Democrat Presidents, Carter and Clinton. Iran, NoKorea, Iraq, Al-Qaida, Red China, Pakistan, ... the status of every single major threat can be traced back to the Democrat's pseudo-pacifism.

Now imagine if you had Gore in power today. Or if you got Kerry next January.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-09-29 10:47:14 AM|| [http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/] 2004-09-29 10:47:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Washington switched diplomatic recognition to Beijing from Taipei in 1979..." Three guess who was president then

Well geez, louise, in 1979 the USSR was intact and looked strong, was on the march in Afghanistan and around the third world, Communists parties were strong in europe, esp the med, etc. We needed ANY stinking allies, and China was big and hated the Soviets. That move was OBVIOUS, and NECESSARY.

As for Iran, I dont see how Carter could have realistically stopped the mullahs from coming to power. If you think a conventional invasion could have done that, i say that was still on the table when Reagan came in. He didnt attempt to overthrow the Mullahs, now did he?

As for Iraq, that was a result of GHWBushes leaving Saddam in power, when we betrayed the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings against Saddam, a betrayal that haunts us in Iraq to this day.

As for Pakistan, the policy of cooperating with Islamist leaning military types was followed throughout the Reaganite 80s. Clinton is hardly responsible for Perv, and Pervs a damned sight better than folks there who Reagan worked with.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-29 11:10:01 AM|| 2004-09-29 11:10:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 The destruction of Shanghai would easily come close to cancelling any economic benefit China might gain from overrunning the ROC

It's really not about the money for the Sinofascists. Ever talk to one?

Posted by BMN 2004-09-29 11:13:42 AM|| 2004-09-29 11:13:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 What LH said. Reagan cut and ran from Beirut as well.

Different world now. We need to judge both parties on their strategic vision for dealing with it. The neocons have such a vision but it needs a reality adjustment; the Dems have nothing. We deserve better.

Posted by lex 2004-09-29 11:13:53 AM|| 2004-09-29 11:13:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 It's really not about the money for the Sinofascists.

Quite the valid point, BMN. Talking with my friends while I was in Taiwan was quite illuminating. The Chinese concepts of mianzi or lianzi, both similar though different, deal with preservation or loss of face. Mianzi relates to social status, while lianzi is on a personal level.

All of this centers upon high-context and low-context societies, which relates directly to our current difficulties in the Middle East. Excerpts below are from a informative article by Sarah Rosenberg. I recommend reading the entire short piece for some dramatic insights as to why we are encountering so many complications in dealing with the Asiatic mind. Her comments regarding the French are exceptionally instructive. Here are some excerpts:

In general, the U.S. and other Western countries are considered low-context societies. This means that verbal communication is most often direct, and that there is very little concern or need for nonverbal cues in order for people to understand each other. Raymond Cohen, a respected researcher on culture and negotiation, explains that at the core of a low-context society is the belief in the freedom of the individual, hence the term "individualistic" societies.

In these societies, individual rights supercede blind duty to one's family, clan, ethnic group, or nation. People generally try to "say what they mean and mean what they say." In individualistic societies, "[e]quality is the prevailing ethic in society and politics. Status is acquired, not inherited..." and, more importantly, "...contract, not custom, prescribes the individual's legal obligation to a given transaction, role or course of action." In these societies, it is individual, personal guilt that serves as a moral compass. If one commits a social blunder as an adult, in most cases, there is no group shame involved, only personal embarrassment, and (one hopes) a desire to correct the wrong with a sincere apology. Conflicts are seen as a natural part of life; they are simply dealt with and then people move on. In individualistic societies, in theory if not always in practice, people are free to move and associate themselves with any groups they like. In light of all this, the place that face issues hold in low-context cultures is not nearly as important as in collectivistic societies. But when communicating with cultural "others," it is obviously extremely important to make oneself aware of possible differences beforehand. Face, it turns out, is quite a serious issue in many places.

High-context societies include countries such as Korea, China, and Japan in Asia, Middle-Eastern countries such as Egypt and Iran, and Latin American countries. Sometimes, these cultures are referred to as collectivistic, or interdependent. Very often, these high-context cultures are hierarchical and traditional societies in which the concepts of shame and honor are much more important than they are in low-context societies.

In high-context cultures, group harmony is of utmost importance. People in these cultures dislike direct confrontation, and for the most part avoid expressing a clear "no." Evasion and inaccuracy are preferred in order to keep appearances pleasant. There is a danger of losing face simply by not reaching an agreement with another person or group, if that was the goal. Being humiliated before the group, or losing face before one's constituents, can be a fate worse than death in some cases.

The Chinese term lian is the source for the concept of face. "It represents the confidence of society in the integrity of moral character." Loss of face occurs when one fails to meet the requirements of one's position in society. The cornerstone for the conflict resolution process in Chinese culture is for both parties to care about the other's face. In many cases, in order to save face, as in Middle Eastern countries, respected third-party mediators are needed to manage the communication between parties in conflict.

According to Harry Irwin, author of Communicating with Asia, in order to understand Chinese personal corporate and national identities, one must get a feel for all of the face work that is needed. For the Chinese, proper conduct of face maintenance is equivalent to being a moral member of society; the most important social value is creating and perpetuating group harmony. Gaining face is as important a concept as losing face. A primary goal in many Asian cultures is to increase one's face value or standing in society, while successfully avoiding the loss of face.

For results-oriented Westerners, the layered and contorted maze of social relationships in high-context societies comes across as archaic and hopelessly thin-skinned. Yet, this is what we must deal with today if we are to have any hope of overcoming the threat that these eggshell-ego cultures project back upon progressive societies that have dispensed with such cumbersome intracacies.

Posted by Zenster 2004-09-29 12:44:40 PM|| 2004-09-29 12:44:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 You're no fun at all Liberalhawk.

Posted by Secret Master 2004-09-29 12:51:04 PM|| 2004-09-29 12:51:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 "As for Iran, I dont see how Carter could have realistically stopped the mullahs from coming to power." - LH

The man didn't have too much problem with the authoritarian government in South Korea. He danced about reducing commitments, but didn't pull the rug out from under the rulers in Seoul. South Korea had a chance to evolve peacefully into the free democratic ranks.

Sometimes in history it is only a choice between bad and worse. Jimmy elected worse when he failed to back the Shah. The Shah was at least trying to pull his country into the early 20th century. It was the correct step in the process to establishing an environment which could make democracy possible as in South Korea. Industrializing a country is not easy. Our own history is filled with blood spilled to retain order during numerous labor confrontations from Pullman to Detroit. Instead Jimmy was in his own decision making process was in a malaise for which we and the world now pay the price for.

The hostages at the embassy in Terhan, the weakness that gave the green light to the Soviets to do what they wanted in Afghanistan, the opportunity for Saddam to launch a war against the Iranians, the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism jihad, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the suppression of internal uprisings. Do a body count. How many have died and suffered? How many would have died and suffered if the Shah had been permitted to suppress the Mullahs in Iran rather than letting the genie out of the bottle? Sometimes the choice in history is between bad and worse.

Posted by Don 2004-09-29 2:02:04 PM|| 2004-09-29 2:02:04 PM|| Front Page Top

20:24 JJ
10:52 JINSA
09:53 Heartless Bastard
13:03 Heartless Bastard
23:33 Heartless Bastard
23:31 Heartless Bastard
23:01 Heartless Bastard
20:16 Heartless Bastard
00:28 007
00:20 007
00:24 007
00:24 007
00:22 007
00:22 007
00:16 Anymoose
00:16 Anymoose
00:08 Anymoose
00:08 Anymoose
10:25 Floting Clanter5218
19:28 Flagum Whagum2319
00:24 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
21:33 Super Hose
13:36 lex
10:41 lex