• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

NEWS Waterfront property in the Spratlys? Good investment or not?

HokiePilot said:
Does this have anything to do with the South China Sea?
Click to expand...

Brett and Wink were discussing what military actions could be taken in regards to the South China Sea. I observed that this reminded me of the last time the US confronted a rising power in the East, the response and focus of main effort were economic, not military - the two principles involved in now directing this attack are Peter Navarro and Robert Lighthizer. Lighthizer and his methods are profiled in the Foreign Policy link above.

Along the same lines, you can see what is happening in Turkey (NATO ally) and Iran right now. Couple of recent articles from Forbes...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrap...ffs-likened-to-economic-warfare/#196d3e5915fc

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2018/07/31/u-s-goes-for-chinas-jugular/#4b5ea41766e3
 
IKE said:
Yes, I thought the --
U.S., "I'm not touching you."
PRC, "Stop touching me."
-- routine was part of the game for both sides.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget “first one to tell mom (CNN) doesn’t usually get in trouble...”
 
China: “You’re on my side of the car seat!”
US: “Nuhuh! Mom said we have to share!”
China: “Now you’re looking at my screen!!”
US: “Gimme back my airplane! You broke it!”
Both: “Moooooomm!”
UN: “We urge both sides to show restraint and work towards a productive civil dialogue.”
 
Brett327 said:
Today's headlines certainly don't support that theory.
Click to expand...

I still think Trump's foreign policy focus is against the Chinese economy.

The Trump Trade Strategy Is Coming Into Focus. That Doesn’t Necessarily Mean It Will Work.
Taking an aggressive stance with traditional allies now seems to be just a warm-up for the main event: isolating China.

Not widely mentioned in the new NAFTA agreement but stated here in the NY Times.
One telling piece of evidence for this strategy: a provision in the new North American deal that will make it hard for Mexico or Canada to negotiate a trade deal with a “nonmarket” economy like China without risking their favored access to the United States’ huge market.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
 
I believe the tariffs leveled at China are directed at a broader net result then those economic goals stated. Something similar too the economic component of Reagan's Soviet strategy. He challenged them to an arms race they could not win. It bankrupted the Soviet Union.

I am not saying Trump's tariffs will bankrupt China or lead to the fall of the Chicom government. I am suggesting that like the cost of massive deficit spending on the military in the 80s that hurt our economy, it was simply the cost of winning the cold war by other means. Besides the policy and moral victory, it led to the so called peace dividend in trade for the costly military expansion in the decade prior.

Trump's tariffs may cause economic damage over the short term. But if he gets what he wants, the long term benefit will out weigh the current cost. Any geopolitical benefit would be gravey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top