Slashdot Mirror


US Asks Vietnam To Stop Russian Bomber Refueling Flights From Cam Ranh Air Base

HughPickens.com writes Reuters reports that the United States has asked Vietnam to stop letting Russia use its former US base at Cam Ranh Bay to refuel nuclear-capable bombers engaged in shows of strength over the Asia-Pacific region. General Vincent Brooks, commander of the U.S. Army in the Pacific, says the Russian bombers have conducted "provocative" flights, including around the U.S. Pacific Ocean territory of Guam, home to a major American air base. Brooks said the planes that circled Guam were refueled by Russian tankers flying from the strategic bay, which was transformed by the Americans during the Vietnam War into a massive air and naval base. Russia's Defense Ministry confirmed that the airport at Cam Ranh was first used for staging Il-78 tankers for aerial refueling of Tu-95MS bombers in January 2014. Asked about the Russian flights in the region, the State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Washington respected Hanoi's right to enter agreements with other countries but added that "we have urged Vietnamese officials to ensure that Russia is not able to use its access to Cam Ranh Bay to conduct activities that could raise tensions in the region."

Cam Ranh is considered the finest deepwater shelter in Southeast Asia. North Vietnamese forces captured Cam Ranh Bay and all of its remaining facilities in 1975. Vietnam's dependence on Russia as the main source of military platforms, equipment, and armaments, has now put Hanoi in a difficult spot. Russia has pressed for special access to Cam Ranh Bay ever since it began delivering enhanced Kilo-class submarines to Vietnam. "Hanoi is invariably cautious and risk adverse in its relations with the major powers," says Carl Thayer. "The current issue of Russian tankers staging out of Cam Ranh pits Russia and China on one side and the United States on the other. There is no easy solution for Vietnam."

33 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're trapped between three fires...

    They need to keep the Americans happy to get American diplomatic support to keep China from eating them.

    They need to keep the Russians happy to get access to cheap arms and possibly whatever diplomatic pressure the Russians have these days.

    And then they need to keep the chinese from salivating every time they look at them.

    Given that the US and Russia are at odds again, it is a very difficult position to be in these days.

    They can't give the Russians or the Americans everything they want because much of what they want is the Vietnamese to choose sides.

    And if they don't keep their allies happy they look more vulnerable to the chinese.

    Poor vietnam.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The US is not going to invade Vietnam or really anyone else for sometime.

      The US is politically fatigued by war.

      The only thing that will get us out of this mode will be an attack on our soil that will force us to savage our opponent so that no other rival thinks that our territory can be struck without a lethal response.

      Or some atrocities against our core allies. The US has many allies and they're not all equally important to us. Strike a member of NATO or one of our core east asian allies... possibly Israel as well.

      Anything outside of that and the US will dither before committing troops.

      Vietnam can host Russian bombers without risking US invasions. The real risk would be political, diplomatic, and economic isolation.

      The US could simply give Vietnam the cold shoulder. And that could be just as dangerous for them because it might embolden the Chinese to invade Vietnam or nearly as bad the Chinese might just start appropriating Vietnamese shipping or build oil wells right off the coast of Vietnam.

      The ability of these countries to protect their sovereign territory from China is based almost entirely on appeals to the international community to see that territorial borders are respected.

      IF the US abandons Vietnam they may find there is no political or economic cost for china to simply take what it wants. Which means Vietnam loses natural resources at the very least and has no recourse. What is more, the US has clean hands in the whole thing because we will not have stolen anything from them. We'll just have selectively abstained from some meetings in the UN.

      That is the sort of thing the US can do to Vietnam without using its military at all. It also has the benefit of making the US look good because we're not the ones taking people's stuff. And there will probably be appeals for the US to do something which itself is an admission of the value of US power. So again, America has that option and it is a pretty strong hand.

      The Russians however are supplying arms to the Vietnamese. Not just guns... ships.... missile batteries. Something that could actually pose a problem for the chinese. The chinese could eat the damage and keep coming. There really isn't much the Vietnamese could do about it. But it would increase the cost or possibly even slow them down a bit.

      Regardless, the Russians don't have to sell weapons to the Vietnamese. And the Russian weapons are pretty good while being a lot cheaper then western suppliers. The chinese are also big suppliers of weapons but like the Russians and Americans they only sell weapons to people they want to have weapons. The chinese are unlikely to sell formidable weaponry to the Vietnamese so they have to rely on whomever might supply them.

      Another option might be the Indians. They're also pretty big arms suppliers. Their alliances are a little confused these days though. Traditionally they were allied with the Russians which is why the US has its complicated relationship with Pakistan. But they have more cultural, economic, and diplomatic ties with the west these days so the relationships are confused.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    2. Re:I feel for them... by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US could simply give Vietnam the cold shoulder.

      What about giving some humanitarian help by coughing up for medical help or compensation for the thousands of Vietnamese children who are still born with damages from Agent Orange? Vietnam is still today suffering from the effects of the brutal US war machine.

    3. Re:I feel for them... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only thing that will get us out of this mode will be an attack on our soil that will force us to savage our opponent so that no other rival thinks that our territory can be struck without a lethal response

      They can whip up a false flag any old time, or go all FBI and just encourage and equip some terrorists, and then they get their excuse.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:I feel for them... by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why "Poor Vietnam"? I see no reason for Vietnam to go along with this, they have historical ties with Russia and geographical ties with China. They start to have to make choices if China and Russia disagree but that does not appear to be the case here.
      The last time China invaded Vietnam, China's troops were pretty much annhialated by village militias. Vietnam had invaded Cambodia to stop the Khmer Rouge and China took exception. The US weighed in on the side of China and the Khmer Rouge.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    5. Re:I feel for them... by Mike+Frett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The US is politically fatigued by war."

      We'll see about that when a Republican is elected next time by holding his hands in the air and chanting nonsense about "Freedom" and how we need to "Protect" it. Since I was born in 1978, EVERY Republican has had some sort of War/Invasion while the Democrats try to stay away, save a few pin-prick Air Strikes to keep the Warmongers happy.

      War is obsolete in my opinion, we as a WORLD can't advance until we learn to live together on this tiny Blue Planet.

    6. Re:I feel for them... by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The only thing that will get us out of this mode will be an attack on our soil that will force us to savage our opponent so that no other rival thinks that our territory can be struck without a lethal response

      They can whip up a false flag any old time, or go all FBI and just encourage and equip some terrorists, and then they get their excuse.

      Maybe, but why would the US want to conqueror Vietnam? The only reason we cared about it before was to try to slow Soviet expansion. That, and the US was still stuck in island-hopping mode a bit from WWII.

      After Vietnam the US learned its lesson and just did what the USSR did in Vietnam - give tons of guns to the locals and turn it into a huge war of attrition. That is why everybody who used to be in the USSR has fond memories of Afghanistan.

      I don't think the US really has any strategic interests there any longer.

      In any case, the US really does seem to be fairly war-fatigued these days. Sure, Bush II would probably have been reluctant to go into Ukraine, but you can bet that there would be a huge deployment against ISIS back in that era. Now the US is more eager to let the Iraqis take care of themselves, and everybody is probably somewhat better off for it.

    7. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 2, Informative

      That sort of thing really doesn't happen.

      I know of three possible examples and they're all highly suspect.

      You have the attack on the Maine which is alleged to have been sabotaged by American forces wanting to justify the Spanish American war, you have Pearl harbor which is alleged to have been intentionally allowed to happen by FDR, and you have the gulf of tonkin which is sort of a tragedy of errors.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re:I feel for them... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're trapped between three fires...

      They need to keep the Americans happy to get American diplomatic support to keep China from eating them.

      They need to keep the Russians happy to get access to cheap arms and possibly whatever diplomatic pressure the Russians have these days.

      And then they need to keep the chinese from salivating every time they look at them.

      Given that the US and Russia are at odds again, it is a very difficult position to be in these days.

      They can't give the Russians or the Americans everything they want because much of what they want is the Vietnamese to choose sides.

      And if they don't keep their allies happy they look more vulnerable to the chinese.

      Poor vietnam.

      So in other words they can choose between China paying them a visit to bring them corrupt free market communism, Russia dropping in to bestow upon them the blessings of cleptocracy or the USA taking another crack at bringing them plutocracy when all they really want to do is practice their own home gown brand of nepotism and corruption?

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    9. Re:I feel for them... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That sort of thing really doesn't happen.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Close your eyes, it can't happen here!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You weren't listening.

      China could just take Vietnamese resources at sea. That would require a naval presence to stop. They're already dicking around with south Korea and Japan. There's no reason for the Chinese to not covet something off the shore of Vietnam... if only fish. A few big chinese fishing fleets could depopulate the seas near Vietnam forcing Vietnamese fisherman to sail farther or just shut down entirely. Either way the price of fish and therefore all relevant food stuffs would go up in Vietnam. And rising food prices in economically depressed countries is a recipe for big fucking problems.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    11. Re:I feel for them... by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No.

      They can choose between:

      1. Not being able to buy cheap weapons from Russia.

      2. Suffering ongoing economic, diplomatic, and strategic undermining from the United States.

      3. The Chinese building oil wells 10 miles off their coast and draining their reserves dry.

      Realistically these are the first things that each power will do if it feels it needs to send a message.

      Russia really can't do much. Vietnam does need their weapons but maybe they can get them from India or possibly get some discounted hand me downs from the US. And keep in mind, that whatever they were buying from the Russians were Russian hand me downs.

      The US can make it harder for US and other western companies to operate in Vietnam which is a lot of money and jobs out the window. And on top of that there are a lot of subtle things the US can do that individually don't matter but collectively are quite debilitating. If you really piss the US off, we can strangle nations. It isn't fast. But it can be sustained for generations... decade after decade after decade. And it just adds up.

      And the Chinese are just right there. They have the most relevant military force in the area and have shown a willingness to just take what they want even with a US presence. Absent such a presence they'll just do a survey of anything they want and in the oceans at least off of Vietnam and strip it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    12. Re:I feel for them... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      I'm just going to point out that from a purely pragmatic position...

      This is quite a contrast compared to the 'morality' play you were tossing at me. Here it seems you accept that we live in a might-makes-right world of battling empires.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:I feel for them... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I love that people also forget that the demomcrats got the US into WW1, WW2,

      You have an odd definition og "got into". In WWI, the deciding factor was Germany started using unrestricted submarine warfare on American ships. It was either fight back or keep losing sailors. In WWII, the Empire of Japan bombed the crap out of a US naval base.

      I mean sure, it might have been a democrat president that finally responded, but in both cases there was not a whole lot of choice remaining.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    14. Re:I feel for them... by ultranova · · Score: 2

      As to the "brutal US war machine"... Is there an "effective' war machine that isn't brutal? That's sort of the whole point.

      In the Age of Information, can a war machine be both brutal and efficient? You need to whip up nationalistic frenzy to get your population to accept mass civilian - or even military - casualties, but doing so risks a demagogue seizing power and looting the country - and that's assuming they're just a cleptocrat, rather than a homicidal maniac.

      US Army realizes this, even if you don't, which is why they're so interested in automated weapons systems. An unmanned vehicle can be sacrificed. You can take more risks with them in unclear situations - precisely the kind US forces keep on finding themselves nowadays - because if someone walking towards it turns out to be a suicide bomber rather than just stupid, it means pork for an arms factory rather than military funerals.

      Furthermore if you really want to start judging the US, I'm going to insist that you compare us against a peer nation and show that we are worse then them in some respect.

      So... that would be hegemonic powers.

      How do you justify such demand? Nothing forces the US to be a hegemonic power. It can make do just fine - indeed, would probably be much better off - with ignoring the world outside its borders. Why would you get to disown the consequences of your choices?

      And it's not Slashdot that will judge US, but history. Slashdot can provide a running commentary on how that judgement seems to be turning out, and tips on how to perhaps improve performance, but that's all. And history doesn't care about "rhetorical landmines"; only choices, consequences, and the pattern that emerges from these determine US's destiny. US is effectively judging itself, just like British Empire, Soviet Union, Roman Empire, etc. did.

      "Judgement" is simply a function of reality that determines what things continue being a part of it. Human capacity for morality reflects it, and give possibility to take corrective action before it's too late. A nation that ignores morals is like a ship that ignores sea charts; it will run into a rock and sink, it's just a matter of how much damage it'll cause first or as it sinks.

      You can compare us against the British Empire, the Soviets, the Holy Roman Empire, the ancient Roman empire, the old Chinese Empire, the Moguls, the Ottoman Empire etc. Big powers only please.

      I wonder if the citizens of these old powers also perceived discussions about their flaws as battles that had to be won, rather than as opportunities to identify weak spots, repair them and thus save their nations. And I also wonder if John "But I drink less than Ted!" Smith ever looked back and regretted all the times he said that as he laid dying in the gutter.

      Too many of the moral comparisons are apples and oranges in that they'll try to compare the US against Switzerland or something. That's silly.

      Why so? If anything, the Swiss would have more of an excuse to go war-mongering, due to having a smaller home market and less resources.

      Word to the wise, I've had this discussion many times and I don't lose it.

      Neither did John. He did, however, lose his career, wife, liver and life. Even if he really did drink less than Ted.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    15. Re:I feel for them... by khallow · · Score: 2

      China only wanted to punish Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, and that was already achieved. So the Chinese just shrugged and went home.

      Given that Vietnam continued to occupy Cambodia through to 1989, a full ten years after the invasion, I think victory is an appropriate term. I think it was a combination of various factors, such as USSR logistics support, including satellite intel (which enabled Vietnam to avoid following China's intended strategy), considerable guerilla warfare, the revelations about the atrocities coming out of Cambodia, and simply not being prepared for a long fight that caused China to retreat from Vietnam.

    16. Re:I feel for them... by HiThere · · Score: 2

      No. It's because it's small and relatively weak. The tactics that work for a small, relatively weak country don't work for a large, relatively strong country. This is why he selected the comparison example he did. He could have also suggested a classical Hindu empire, that of Ashoka, but didn't because that would weaken is argument. OTOH, please do notice that much of Ashoka's history is uncertain, and that he's the ONLY example of an essentially pacifistic emperor. Also that he only converted to Buddhism after conquering most of his empire.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    17. Re:I feel for them... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2

      Your error is thinking the Ukraine conflict is between Putin & Ukraine. One does not negotiate with the house servants.

      Beijing (not Peking) is full of amateur hour mistakes, particularly in its diplomacy. I laugh when Beijing whines "Why are my neighbors allying against me? It must be the machinations of the United States, not when I make diplomatic seizures of all the ocean territory up to their coasts".

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    18. Re:I feel for them... by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      Here it seems you accept that we live in a might-makes-right world of battling empires.

      We do. This is the real world, not Star Trek, there hasn't been an awakening of all humanity that has showed us the error of our ways. The only thing keeping our aggressive tendencies somewhat in check is the fear of mutual destruction. Be happy for that bit at least; we simply flirt with total war these days, we don't actually engage in it.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    19. Re:I feel for them... by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      You have the attack on the Maine which is alleged to have been sabotaged by American forces wanting to justify the Spanish American war, you have Pearl harbor which is alleged to have been intentionally allowed to happen by FDR, and you have the gulf of tonkin which is sort of a tragedy of errors.

      The "tragedy of errors" bit is applicable to Pearl Harbor, more so than the Gulf of Tonkin. Exactly what happened to the USS Maine is disputed, we'll never know for sure, but the simplest explanation (remember Occam's Razor) is an accidental explosion in her coal bunkers. This was the hypothesis of Admiral Rickover, who investigated the historical record, and whatever else one can say about him you can't dispute his thoroughness and talent for engineering.

      There are conspiracy theories surrounding both the USS Maine and Pearl Harbor but none of them pass the smell test. People can never accept the simple explanation for tragic events, it's easier for them to believe that shadowy figures were at play rather than accept the fact that incompetence occasionally combines with bad luck. Ronald Reagan was shot by some mental defective who was trying to impress Jodie Foster. Would people have accepted that explanation if he had died? Scary thought: What if someone shoots the current President? More likely than not it would be that simple, some mentally deranged individual, but almost nobody would be willing to accept that.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:I feel for them... by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      The US has many allies and they're not all equally important to us. Strike a member of NATO or one of our core east asian allies... possibly Israel as well.

      I'm not sure the United States would really march for NATO. An attack on Germany, Italy, the UK, or France? To the ramparts! The Baltic States? Would we really go to war with a nuclear armed state over them? That's the ten million dollar question, isn't it? We're talking about three countries no one has heard of, that have no significant cultural, historical, or economic ties to the US, with combined population roughly that of Maryland. I'm not certain you could sell it to the current United States Congress, never mind the general public, most of whom can't even find Latvia on the map.

      The only countries/regions I can say we'd definitely march for are Western Europe, Canada, Australia, South Korea, and Japan. After that it gets kind of hazy. Israel is most probably on the list but to put it mildly that's a complicated geopolitical relationship.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  2. Re:"There is no easy solution for Vietnam." by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That would work.

    They present one side as "Russia and China", but really, China is in this for themslves. They're making good use of the western sanctions on Russia to enrich themselves, negotiating all of the detals with Russia that they've been wanting to negotiate for a long time at bargain-basement prices that previously Russia had been unwilling to do.

    Vietnam, too, is in this for themselves. They want their military purchases from Russia, and they also want investment from America. Buying them off is almost certainly a possibility. The question then becomes however, can the US really afford to buy off everyone? It's about proportionality... if Russia can spend a couple tens of millions of dollars to make the US spend a billion, Russia wins. On the other hand, if the US can spend a billion dollars to cost Russia a billion, the US winds, because the US economy is so vastly larger than the Russian economy.

    --
    "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
  3. As if we were on some sort of moral high ground. by Simulant · · Score: 3, Interesting


    I'm afraid of Russian nukes too but I fail to see how any one could do anything but laugh at us over this request given our military posturing.

  4. or put another way. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're upset that in the 21st century our status as an unchallenged international superpower is no longer valid. As a nation that relies on secret torture camps, extraordinary rendition, ubiquitous spying on all its citizens, and even their targeted assassination without trial or jury, we've really found ourselves in a pickle after two failed wars in the middle east that accidentally created a terror state in the process. We're incapable of maintaining a functioning government of our own, having forcibly shut down the largest economy in the world twice and lost two ratings grades with standard and poor. As a nation predicated on democracy, freedom, and liberty we're utterly incapable of peaceful foreign policy toward Iran, with the president working toward a diplomatic agreement while the congress works toward an israeli endorsed military strategy.
     
    So if it seems like we're all for freedom and independence when it comes to our international interests, yet wholly opposed to them when it comes to Vietnams soverign military and international policy, it shouldnt come as too much of a surprise.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  5. If the Chinese actually were Involved... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Vietnamese will be likely to stop the flights.

    Their current big international dispute is over their maritime boundaries with China. The CHinese claim almost the entire South China Sea on the basis of something called the "nine-dashed-line," and have a tendency to periodically engage in extreme brinksmanship with all their neighbors in the region, including Vietnam. They actually fought a war with the Chinese in '79. Which means if the Russian flights support China in any way the Vietnamese have every reason to stop them.

    But they aren't involved, so we'll just have to put up with it like we do in Europe.

  6. Lost that war by Drethon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So we put the base in to fight the Vietnam war, lost, and now want to dictate its use?

  7. Re:Doubtful by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Putin needs to get total victory in Ukraine. He doesn't need to actually absorb them literally but he does need to bring them into the Russian sphere of influence and break the western strategic ties in the region. If he doesn't, then his domestic political position collapses.

    You have to keep in mind that prior to the invasion of Ukraine, his polling numbers in Russia were very low. Then he went to war and his numbers popped up.

    If it goes on for too long and he doesn't come out of it looking like a winner then he'll probably suffer for it politically.

    As to china, they have similar political problems brewing as well as mounting economic problems.

    They've just recently sold their US bonds as well as many other assets. Their ability to pump money into their economy is coming to a close. And with that a sea change in china's economic position. And with that, changing political, diplomatic, and strategic relationships.

    We are living in interesting times. ;)

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  8. No Easy Solution by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seems the solution for Vietnam would be all to easy: Simply remind the US that you kicked their asses and took that base fair and square and that if they have a problem with it, they are free to come back over and have their "operation freedom" shoved up their ass all over again because they are allied with both Russia and China and the party raising most of the tensions in the "region" is the US who keeps demanding that the world do as it says or "else".

    1. Re:No Easy Solution by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      Seems the solution for Vietnam would be all to easy: Simply remind the US that you kicked their asses and took that base fair and square and that if they have a problem with it, they are free to come back over and have their "operation freedom" shoved up their ass all over again because they are allied with both Russia and China and the party raising most of the tensions in the "region" is the US who keeps demanding that the world do as it says or "else".

      Sure, and Vietnam could give up about 20 billion in export surplus with the US. We are #2 in trade behind china and Vietnam has a trade surplus with us, unlike with China. They, unfortunately, are the little guy stuck between three powers.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:No Easy Solution by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Informative

      Simply remind the US that you kicked their asses and took that base fair and square and that if they have a problem with it, they are free to come back over and have their "operation freedom" shoved up their ass all over again

      You're a bit confused about the facts. The US kicked North Vietnam's ass repeatedly which is why they signed the peace treaty. After the North Vietnamese agreed to peace the US withdrew from South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese then invaded since the people that kept kicking their ass had left.

      The North Vietnamese didn't take the base "fair and square." They lied, broke a peace treaty, engaged in a war of aggression by invading South VIetnam, and terribly abused the people of South Vietnam in addition to abusing the people of North Vietnam. Ever hear of their "reeducation camps"? Or the boat people?

      As to having ""operation freedom" shoved up their ass," that didn't work out so well for either Saddam or Bin Laden, did it? Or were you confused on that point?

      If you think it is the US "raising most of the tensions in the "region"", you don't know what you are talking about. Try the Chinese, who are threatening their neighbors and making claims on their territory.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  9. Re:Doubtful by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

    Or maybe they just realized it was a good time to do so. The USD is at a 12-year high against the Euro right now (the two are nearing parity), and a 5-year high against the British pound. The American economy has been on a major upswing in the last few years, outpacing the international community, so suggesting America's economy is in a position of weakness at the moment is outright false, suggesting the dollar is worthless is provably inaccurate, but suggesting stuff may go down soon could prove to be true. It remains to be seen. None of us know.

  10. Re:Doubtful by HiThere · · Score: 2

    IIUC, the value of the dollar is tied to the fact that it can be used to buy oil. That the USD is at a 12 year high may be due to the fact that the OPEC are selling oil in dollars at lower prices. How long do you expect this to continue? (If this analysis is correct, then the value of the $ is not primarily based on internal US production, and is out of our direct control. And this also explains our intense military involvement in the Persian Gulf area so that we have rather strong indirect control.)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  11. Re:American Bullshit by Shakrai · · Score: 2

    Even if your reading of history is accurate (hint: It's not) it's completely irrelevant. China ratified the Convention of the Law of the Sea. They gave up their "right" to claim the entirety of the South China Sea when they did that.

    They undoubtedly have national security interests there, just as the United States does in the Gulf of Mexico, the difference is that the US doesn't lay claim to the entire Gulf. There's no need, we simply buy the fucking resources from the other states with claims, which is a course that China could pursue with equal success (she certainly has enough cash) if she didn't have a massive inferiority complex to overcome.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.