GWOT --> GPC

[a fan]

well, putting aside the getting PO'd at one another, seems to me that the rhetoric and showboating of support for Taiwan is not helpful to accomplishing our real objectives, which should be to out compete China (and all authoritarian regimes) without provoking a hot war between us, or any of our allies (including Taiwan), with China.

I disagree that "outcompeting China" is our goal. And I pointed this out with the Forum's Republicans when Trump "stood up to China".

If that's our goal? Why has every POTUS for the last 20 years allowed so many Chinese student VISA's? We've got 300K Chinese students here, in our very best Universities. So either our leaders don't really want us to "outcompete China", or they are idiots. Pick one.

So, I'd agree with Salty that the ever hotter rhetoric isn't helpful, the visits showboating visits by Pelosi and now McCarthy are really unhelpful

That's fine, but this desire to cool the tensions completely contradicts OS's desire for installing more military bases in the region. How the heck would that not ratchet up the pressure between the US and China?

[old salt]

So sure, let's open more bases in the PacRim. More isolationism at the point of a gun. I must be insane to dare to question this idea. Or worse, argumentative.

Isolationism does not mean withdrawing from global commerce & not defending our interests over the horizion,
...unless you favored paying tribute to the Barbary pirates.

Guam & American Samoa are US territory.

Small Pacific lily pad bases, where invited by treaty allies.
https://warontherocks.com/2021/02/acces ... ted-world/

Ok....so now opening even MORE military bases overseas counts as isolationism?

And cut me some slack---you have to be intellectually honest here and admit that calling increasing our military presence...by opening brand new military bases......in an entirely different hemisphere is, to put it politely, a stretch of the definition of the word "isolationism".

Is there anything we could do that ISN'T isolationism in your eyes?

Yes. Intervening to bring about regime change is not isolationism.

We'll never agree on our definitions of isolationism. You use your definition, I'll use mine.

We're not "opening new bases" . We're establishing small contingency "lilly pad" access on military bases of existing treaty allies (Australia & the PI). It's being done for deterrence, to increase the chances they won't have to be used. They're not a threat to China. They're insufficient to mount an attack or conduct a war on China.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-64479712
These days the US is seeking access to places where "light and flexible" operations involving supplies and surveillance can be run as and when needed, rather than bases where large numbers of troops will be stationed.

In other words, this is not a return to the 1980s, when the Philippines was home to 15,000 US troops and two of the largest American military bases in Asia, at Clark Field and nearby Subic Bay.

[a fan]

Yes. Intervening to bring about regime change is not isolationism.

I'd assume you're good with the corollary to that: that intervening to PREVENT regime change is not isolationism.

Correct?

We'll never agree on our definitions of isolationism. You use your definition, I'll use mine.

I'm not using my definition of anything....I'm using the Oxford ED.

You're just making stuff up, whole cloth. Which you're welcome to do. Knock yourself out.

[old salt]

...but this desire to cool the tensions completely contradicts OS's desire for installing more military bases in the region. How the heck would that not ratchet up the pressure between the US and China?

The bellicose rhetoric is insulting & counterproductive. It's a "loss of face" to the Chinese.

Maintaining a small presence on long standing treaty ally military bases is not an "in your face" threat.

There is a significant difference.

[old salt]

Yes. Intervening to bring about regime change is not isolationism.

I'd assume you're good with the corollary to that: that intervening to PREVENT regime change is not isolationism.

Correct? That makes no sense. Hypothetical.

We'll never agree on our definitions of isolationism. You use your definition, I'll use mine.

I'm not using my definition of anything....I'm using the Oxford ED.

You're just making stuff up, whole cloth. Which you're welcome to do. Knock yourself out.

I'm done debating our differing uses of isolationism. It's too simplistic when applied as an all-or-nothing standard.

Expanding our Pacific basing is done to prevent the need for intervening on Taiwan's behalf.

[a fan]

...but this desire to cool the tensions completely contradicts OS's desire for installing more military bases in the region. How the heck would that not ratchet up the pressure between the US and China?

The bellicose rhetoric is insulting & counterproductive. It's a "loss of face" to the Chinese.

Maintaining a small presence on long standing treaty ally military bases is not an "in your face" threat.

There is a significant difference.

That's your OPINION. You have no clue what Xi thinks any more than I do. An opinion isn't a fact. You are 100% welcome to your opinion.

My opinion is that adding more forces and capabilities to the region are by definition more of a military threat to China. If they weren't? Why the heck would we build them? Give our Navy fun ports to relax in?

If I'm a Chinese leader, and I see the US increasing its military presence in my region? I'm gonna notice. And it would make me far more concerned than some stupid irrelevant Congressman inviting Taiwan's leader out to tea.

My opinion.

[a fan]

Yes. Intervening to bring about regime change is not isolationism.

I'd assume you're good with the corollary to that: that intervening to PREVENT regime change is not isolationism.

Correct? That makes no sense. Hypothetical.Hypothetical? It's literally happening right now. Today. Biden and NATO are arming Ukraine to PREVENT regime change in Ukraine. That makes no sense to you? Stop with the gaslighting.

We'll never agree on our definitions of isolationism. You use your definition, I'll use mine.

I'm not using my definition of anything....I'm using the Oxford ED.

You're just making stuff up, whole cloth. Which you're welcome to do. Knock yourself out.

I'm done debating our differing uses of isolationism. It's too simplistic when applied as an all-or-nothing standard.

Expanding our Pacific basing is done to prevent the need for intervening on Taiwan's behalf.

[old salt]

...but this desire to cool the tensions completely contradicts OS's desire for installing more military bases in the region. How the heck would that not ratchet up the pressure between the US and China?

The bellicose rhetoric is insulting & counterproductive. It's a "loss of face" to the Chinese.

Maintaining a small presence on long standing treaty ally military bases is not an "in your face" threat.

There is a significant difference.

That's your OPINION. You have no clue what Xi thinks any more than I do. An opinion isn't a fact. You are 100% welcome to your opinion.

My opinion is that adding more forces and capabilities to the region are by definition more of a military threat to China. If they weren't? Why the heck would we build them? Give our Navy fun ports to relax in?

If I'm a Chinese leader, and I see the US increasing its military presence in my region? I'm gonna notice. And it would make me far more concerned than some stupid irrelevant Congressman inviting Taiwan's leader out to tea.

My opinion.

How many more troops are we stationing in Australia & the PI ? How do they threaten China ?

[old salt]

*

[old salt]

Yes. Intervening to bring about regime change is not isolationism.

I'd assume you're good with the corollary to that: that intervening to PREVENT regime change is not isolationism.

Correct? That makes no sense. Hypothetical.Hypothetical? It's literally happening right now. Today. Biden and NATO are arming Ukraine to PREVENT regime change in Ukraine. That makes no sense to you? Stop with the gaslighting.

...I never claimed that what Biden is doing in Ukraine is isolationist. Just the opposite. It's interventionist.
Your corollary is bogus. They're both interventionist, not isolationist. This is an absurd waste of time.

[a fan]

Yes. Intervening to bring about regime change is not isolationism.

I'd assume you're good with the corollary to that: that intervening to PREVENT regime change is not isolationism.

Correct? That makes no sense. Hypothetical.Hypothetical? It's literally happening right now. Today. Biden and NATO are arming Ukraine to PREVENT regime change in Ukraine. That makes no sense to you? Stop with the gaslighting.

...I never claimed that what Biden is doing in Ukraine is isolationist. Just the opposite. It's interventionist.

Never said you did.

You claimed that Trump was an isolationist. Remember?

So for you:

Trump prevents Zelensky from losing power: Isolationist.

Biden prevents Zelensky from losing power: Interventionist.


....and then acting like I'm nuts for being confused as to what you think isolationism means.

You're right on this much: we're wasting time, and you're not going to cop to having definitions that change depending on who our leader is.

[a fan]

...but this desire to cool the tensions completely contradicts OS's desire for installing more military bases in the region. How the heck would that not ratchet up the pressure between the US and China?

The bellicose rhetoric is insulting & counterproductive. It's a "loss of face" to the Chinese.

Maintaining a small presence on long standing treaty ally military bases is not an "in your face" threat.

There is a significant difference.

That's your OPINION. You have no clue what Xi thinks any more than I do. An opinion isn't a fact. You are 100% welcome to your opinion.

My opinion is that adding more forces and capabilities to the region are by definition more of a military threat to China. If they weren't? Why the heck would we build them? Give our Navy fun ports to relax in?

If I'm a Chinese leader, and I see the US increasing its military presence in my region? I'm gonna notice. And it would make me far more concerned than some stupid irrelevant Congressman inviting Taiwan's leader out to tea.

My opinion.

How many more troops are we stationing in Australia & the PI ? How do they threaten China ?

You said, and I quote "We should quietly maneuver our warships in WPac & continue adding small bases in the region."

You have since clarified you don't mean "in the region" at all. You're now talking about Australia and other places not proximate to China. Or at least not proximate enough to make China feel like it's directed at them, right?

So.....we're square. Talking past each other for the 1,000th time.

[old salt]

You claimed that Trump was an isolationist. Remember?

So for you:

Trump prevents Zelensky from losing power: Isolationist.

Biden prevents Zelensky from losing power: Interventionist.


....and then acting like I'm nuts for being confused as to what you think isolationism means.

You're right on this much: we're wasting time, and you're not going to cop to having definitions that change depending on who our leader is.

Trump was long gone by the time Russia invaded. The support Trump approved allowed the Ukrainians to hold off the Russians long enough for the massive military aid which Biden provided to begin to arrive.
Equating the support that Trump approved to what Biden has lobbied for & provided is absurd.
All or nothing. One size fits all logic.

[old salt]

...but this desire to cool the tensions completely contradicts OS's desire for installing more military bases in the region. How the heck would that not ratchet up the pressure between the US and China?

The bellicose rhetoric is insulting & counterproductive. It's a "loss of face" to the Chinese.

Maintaining a small presence on long standing treaty ally military bases is not an "in your face" threat.

There is a significant difference.

That's your OPINION. You have no clue what Xi thinks any more than I do. An opinion isn't a fact. You are 100% welcome to your opinion.

My opinion is that adding more forces and capabilities to the region are by definition more of a military threat to China. If they weren't? Why the heck would we build them? Give our Navy fun ports to relax in?

If I'm a Chinese leader, and I see the US increasing its military presence in my region? I'm gonna notice. And it would make me far more concerned than some stupid irrelevant Congressman inviting Taiwan's leader out to tea.

My opinion.

How many more troops are we stationing in Australia & the PI ? How do they threaten China ?

You said, and I quote "We should quietly maneuver our warships in WPac & continue adding small bases in the region."

You have since clarified you don't mean "in the region" at all. You're now talking about Australia and other places not proximate to China. Or at least not proximate enough to make China feel like it's directed at them, right?

So.....we're square. Talking past each other for the 1,000th time.

You think Australia is not in the Indio-Pacific region ?
That's news to the US 7th Fleet...& to the Chinese.
Especially when the Aussies get their AUKUS nuc subs.

[a fan]

You claimed that Trump was an isolationist. Remember?

So for you:

Trump prevents Zelensky from losing power: Isolationist.

Biden prevents Zelensky from losing power: Interventionist.


....and then acting like I'm nuts for being confused as to what you think isolationism means.

You're right on this much: we're wasting time, and you're not going to cop to having definitions that change depending on who our leader is.

Trump was long gone by the time Russia invaded. The support Trump approved allowed the Ukrainians to hold off the Russians long enough for the massive military aid which Biden provided to begin to arrive.
Equating the support that Trump approved to what Biden has lobbied for & provided is absurd.
All or nothing. One size fits all logic.

I didn't equate the support. YOU did. Throw stones at yourself. Biden has NOTHING to do with what Trump did, and is immaterial to examining what Trump did.

What I said was, and this is 1000% factually correct: the aid and training that Trump gave to Zelensky kept Russia from rolling into Kyiv in a matter of days, if not hours.

Trump's help literally preserved the Zelensky regime. You BRAGGED about this fact, ffs.

But sure, call it Iso-Old-Saltism. Whatever floats your boat.



But....that's not interventionist. Because OS sez so. Got it. Let's move on.

Edit to add-----language is important. All those citations you gave about Trump's supposed isolationism? They're all wrong. You yourself told me: pay attention to what Trump DOES, not what he says. I did that. And you're punishing me for it here in 2023.

[a fan]

...but this desire to cool the tensions completely contradicts OS's desire for installing more military bases in the region. How the heck would that not ratchet up the pressure between the US and China?

The bellicose rhetoric is insulting & counterproductive. It's a "loss of face" to the Chinese.

Maintaining a small presence on long standing treaty ally military bases is not an "in your face" threat.

There is a significant difference.

That's your OPINION. You have no clue what Xi thinks any more than I do. An opinion isn't a fact. You are 100% welcome to your opinion.

My opinion is that adding more forces and capabilities to the region are by definition more of a military threat to China. If they weren't? Why the heck would we build them? Give our Navy fun ports to relax in?

If I'm a Chinese leader, and I see the US increasing its military presence in my region? I'm gonna notice. And it would make me far more concerned than some stupid irrelevant Congressman inviting Taiwan's leader out to tea.

My opinion.

How many more troops are we stationing in Australia & the PI ? How do they threaten China ?

You said, and I quote "We should quietly maneuver our warships in WPac & continue adding small bases in the region."

You have since clarified you don't mean "in the region" at all. You're now talking about Australia and other places not proximate to China. Or at least not proximate enough to make China feel like it's directed at them, right?

So.....we're square. Talking past each other for the 1,000th time.

You think Australia is not in the Indio-Pacific region ?
That's news to the US 7th Fleet...& to the Chinese.
Especially when the Aussies get their AUKUS nuc subs.

You keep telling me that I"M the one who wants to argue. I was ready to let it drop. You told me that you didn't think that adding bases this close to China posed a threat.

NOW you're telling me that these bases, and YOUR proposed future bases are VERY MUCH proximate to China.

Given that? These new bases you want to add is applying more localized military pressure to China. Which is WORSE than some dumb Congressman shooting off their mouth because in one instance, it's WORDS. And in the other instance, it's real military ACTION. Real sh(t. Assets closer to Taiwan, for example. My opinion, of course....but If XI isn't an idiot, he's FAR more worried about military movement in his region than he is about "losing face". Same goes for American leaders.

We square now? Or are you going to change your mind as to what adding forces in China's region means?

[SCLaxAttack]

well, putting aside the getting PO'd at one another, seems to me that the rhetoric and showboating of support for Taiwan is not helpful to accomplishing our real objectives, which should be to out compete China (and all authoritarian regimes) without provoking a hot war between us, or any of our allies (including Taiwan), with China.

I disagree that "outcompeting China" is our goal. And I pointed this out with the Forum's Republicans when Trump "stood up to China".

If that's our goal? Why has every POTUS for the last 20 years allowed so many Chinese student VISA's? We've got 300K Chinese students here, in our very best Universities. So either our leaders don't really want us to "outcompete China", or they are idiots. Pick one.

So, I'd agree with Salty that the ever hotter rhetoric isn't helpful, the visits showboating visits by Pelosi and now McCarthy are really unhelpful

That's fine, but this desire to cool the tensions completely contradicts OS's desire for installing more military bases in the region. How the heck would that not ratchet up the pressure between the US and China?

You broached the subject of Chinese students at US colleges and universities sixteen posts ago. I’m surprised nobody has responded. I agree. If the objective is to outcompete China (and it should be) their citizens shouldn’t have access.

[a fan]

well, putting aside the getting PO'd at one another, seems to me that the rhetoric and showboating of support for Taiwan is not helpful to accomplishing our real objectives, which should be to out compete China (and all authoritarian regimes) without provoking a hot war between us, or any of our allies (including Taiwan), with China.

I disagree that "outcompeting China" is our goal. And I pointed this out with the Forum's Republicans when Trump "stood up to China".

If that's our goal? Why has every POTUS for the last 20 years allowed so many Chinese student VISA's? We've got 300K Chinese students here, in our very best Universities. So either our leaders don't really want us to "outcompete China", or they are idiots. Pick one.

So, I'd agree with Salty that the ever hotter rhetoric isn't helpful, the visits showboating visits by Pelosi and now McCarthy are really unhelpful

That's fine, but this desire to cool the tensions completely contradicts OS's desire for installing more military bases in the region. How the heck would that not ratchet up the pressure between the US and China?

You broached the subject of Chinese students at US colleges and universities sixteen posts ago. I’m surprised nobody has responded. I agree. If the objective is to outcompete China (and it should be) their citizens shouldn’t have access.

Yes. Or at the very least, they shouldn't be the tallest pig at the trough. Reduce their numbers. 300K at our Universities is nuts if you think that they're our enemy. Makes NO sense to allow that.

Make it easy: allow the same number of Chinese students in the US as there are American students in China.

Know how many we have over there? (snicker) 2,500. How dumb are we?

[old salt]

What I said was, and this is 1000% factually correct: the aid and training that Trump gave to Zelensky kept Russia from rolling into Kyiv in a matter of days, if not hours.

Trump's help literally preserved the Zelensky regime. You BRAGGED about this fact, ffs.

But sure, call it Iso-Old-Saltism. Whatever floats your boat.

But....that's not interventionist. Because OS sez so. Got it. Let's move on.

Edit to add-----language is important. All those citations you gave about Trump's supposed isolationism? They're all wrong. You yourself told me: pay attention to what Trump DOES, not what he says. I did that. And you're punishing me for it here in 2023.

Trump did what Trump did. I agree with all the links I posted.
Compared to other US Presidents & to Congressional leaders, Trump is isolationist.
That's why all our NATO allies were in a meltdown after he was elected & he called them to account.

It's really simple. What Trump did was not interventionist because there was no intervention during his term.
He provided limited defensive aid which did not become a factor until after he'd left office.
The scope & magnitude of what we've done since the invasion makes it interventionist. It's essential for Ukraine's survival.
The isolationist position would have been to offer Zelensky, his family & his govt a ride out of the country, but do nothing more.

[old salt]

You told me that you didn't think that adding bases this close to China posed a threat.

NOW you're telling me that these bases, and YOUR proposed future bases are VERY MUCH proximate to China.

Given that? These new bases you want to add is applying more localized military pressure to China. Which is WORSE than some dumb Congressman shooting off their mouth because in one instance, it's WORDS. And in the other instance, it's real military ACTION. Real sh(t. Assets closer to Taiwan, for example. My opinion, of course....but If XI isn't an idiot, he's FAR more worried about military movement in his region than he is about "losing face". Same goes for American leaders.

We square now? Or are you going to change your mind as to what adding forces in China's region means?

They don't pose a threat to China. We aren't deploying sufficient forces close enough to attack or threaten China.
They're for shortening our supply lines to our forward deployed seaborne forces which might help Taiwan defend themselves.
There won't be B-1's or B-52's deployed to Australia or the PI, or even Japan or S Korea.
They'll deploy to an air base on US territory in Guam.
It's to be able to help Taiwan defend themselves (maybe = strategic ambiguity).
It's insufficient to threaten, attack or invade China.
It's also to resupply our naval forces in keeping open the W Pac sea lanes.