International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Most Chinese Say Their Military Can Crush America in Battle
Source:
The National Interest
URL Source: http://www.nationalinterest.org/blo ... can-crush-america-battle-12414
Published: Mar 14, 2015
Author: Zachery Keck
Post Date: 2015-03-14 13:37:26 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 18729
Comments: 95
The vast majority of Chinese citizens believe the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could seize islands in the East and South China Seas, even if the U.S. military were to intervene in the conflicts. No less than 87 percent of respondents said that the Chinese military already possessed the capability to take back the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands from Japan, according to a recent public opinion poll. When asked whether they still believed the PLA could achieve this objective if the U.S. intervened in the conflict, 74 percent said yes. The numbers were much the same for the South China Sea. When asked whether they believed the PLA could militarily take back disputed islands in the South China Sea, 85.6 percent of respondents said that China’s military could achieve this objective. Even if the U.S. military intervened on behalf of the Southeast Asian nations, about 73 percent of respondents said they still believed the Chinese military would prevail. These were just some of the results of a recent survey published by Andrew Chubb and the Perth USAsia Centre (h/t ASPI’s The Strategist), entitled: “Exploring China’s ‘Maritime Consciousness’ Public Opinion on the South and East China Sea Disputes.” The poll, which was the first in what will be an annual poll on Chinese views of the island disputes, was based on phone interviews conducted with 1,413 adult residents of Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Changsha and Chengdu. Despite the confidence in their country’s military’s capabilities, a slight majority of respondents said they did not want to go to war over disputed islands in either the South or East China Seas. When asked whether it was in China’s national interest to use military force to take back the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, which Japan administers but Beijing also claims, 55.5 percent of respondents said that it was not. Just over 33 percent disagreed while the rest were unsure or didn’t answer. Fifty-four percent of respondents agreed that it was not in China’s interest to use military force to take back disputed islands in the South China Sea, compared to 33.5 percent who disagreed. The rest were unsure or did not answer. The survey participants also didn’t rank the island disputes as particularly important compared with many domestic issues. When the pollsters presented participants with a list of nine issues and asked them to choose the five most important, around 51 percent of respondents selected “island issues with neighboring countries” as one of their choices. Corruption, rich-poor disparity, food and drug safety, moral issues and environmental pollution all ranked higher. Notably, however, the island disputes ranked considerably higher than reunification with Taiwan, which only 22 percent of respondents selected as among their top five issues. The overwhelming belief that the PLA would prevail in a conflict with the United States in the East or South China Seas could make it easier for Chinese leaders to gain support for aggressive policies. At the same time, it could very well make Party leaders more weary of actually initiating a conflict, given the domestic repercussions for them if China is defeated.
Poster Comment: Only because Wall Street helped them... 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Willie Green (#0)
They're right. They have competence, determination, seriousness, and superior numbers working for them. Americans have a population of babyfied soft pussys from top to bottom.
Good. The world would be better off with a weak America that does not sow destruction and revolution overseas.
We don't even have the strength to kill our convicted Baby rapers and child molesters, because they didn't "kill anyone"... we, as a nation, have been pussified. We are as weak as you desire us.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Not yet. But the world would be better off when America is kicked out overseas and forced to come home and guard her borders. There won't be peace in the world (there never will be) but there won't be the USA doing what it did to the Arab world which has helped the rise of ISIS and other evils by the vacuum created by American intervention.
Don't blame America. The Arabs dd it to themselves when they took up islam long before America existed.
Proves my point America can't be involved in the world because its people don't understand the world. Like the president of the USA (a supposed Harvard grad) who starts a war in an Arab Muslim country not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni - something I learned in High School Social Studies history class.
What an ignorant statement. Americans don't understand the world huh. No you don't understand America. Quit whining.
The world would be better off with a weak America that does not sow destruction and revolution overseas. I dunno what you're smoking, but for decades the USA neutralized the Soviet/ChiCom threat, rebuilt Europe and Japan, and increased the standard of living for hundreds of millions. Reagan's America is Day, while 0buma's America is Night. Do not conflate the two. 0buma's philosophy by far matches your very own. A virtuous Pax America void can only be filled by a murderous Commie China, bloody Islam, or reptilian Russia. YET, why is your hypocritical, parasitic, treasonous, treachorous azz STILL sucking at the teat of the USA, Destro?
You are absolutely and painfully CLUE-LESS. Firstly, the sociopath 0bola and his puppetmeisters are about promoting a Caliphate. Secondly, this "supposed Harvard grad" who is a suppose citizen with ANY supposed creds (besides "Communitah Organizer") is a tool and domestic/international sower of division, destruction, and hate. He is an anarchist, but tool-bag just the same. The freak doesn't know the difference between a rectum and vagina either... Haven't you heard of Saul Alinsky? Read any of 0bola's books? Noted ANY of his associates and policies? Been aware of his Church of Hate of Rev. Wright?
Do you believe in a doctrine of American Exceptionalism?
Liberals hate that term. They don't want anything exceptional... cause that would mean less exceptional people exist. That puts a wrench in the equality machine... and hurts those feelings that drives your liberal urges. I thought I'd break the term down... before you spin it into exemptionalism. Now, being one of LF's more liberal posters (Pericles and Willie Green being a few others)... carry on. A discussing forum should have all kinds that drive it. I value all political views... I just wish they would be more honest with what and who they are.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Depends on how you define it. I think we were an exceptional nation. I think our morals have broken down and don't think that is as true as before. I think our constitution was exceptional and gave Americans an opportunity to acheive a lot if they were willing to make the right decisions. I think our form of government was the exception. I don't think we are racially superior or automatically always the most moral. But by in large our values and system is better then the rest of the worlds.
You imply that outsiders have problems with understanding America, so that America is above universal rules of politics and history. This would signify exceptional status.
You see ill will in other views. This is not what "to value" means.
And liberals are less exceptional. All they do is run around and squawk. Their ultimate aim is a dictatorship of duds. Communists believed in a dictatorship of the prolitarariat. Liberals believe in a dictatorship of verbose duds, meaning themselves.
I piss on Reagan's America which created the Islamic jihad we fight today.
I piss on you. The islamic jihad was 1,400 years ago by a shithead named Mohammed and has continued steadfastly since then.
I piss on you. The islamic jihad was 1,400 years ago by a shithead named Mohammed and has continued steadfastly since then. The Islamic jihad of today was organized and trained and trained to organize via the Reagan effort to fight the USSR via Islamic jihad. Try to run from that truth.
English please
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
I piss on Reagan's America Add that to your already long laundry list of libtard values. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck....
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Add that to your already long laundry list of libtard values. Not a liberal - liberal side with jihadists like filthy Reagan did.
Really? I've never met a liberal that liked Reagan. lol
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
What kind of conservative loves a backer of jihad like Reagan was?
English please Reading comprehension problems? You see - ill will (opposite to goodwill) - in the views contrary to your own.
Thar's a lie. Reagan did not endorse jihad.
How the F*ck to you know what I see? I honestly didn't think it was "ill". I figured it was I'll and you forgot the apostrophe, and a few other words... assuming you can't possibly know or testify to what I see. But yes, I did read that wrong. I stand corrected... but your statement is idiotic and about as factual as a Free Thought Project article. lol
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
I piss on you. The islamic jihad was 1,400 years ago by a shithead named Mohammed and has continued steadfastly since then. The Islamic jihad of today was organized and trained and trained to organize via the Reagan effort to fight the USSR via Islamic jihad. There is no islamic jihad of "today" that differs from the purpose and momentum of jihad from the last fourteen hundred years. Reagan used a small obscure group to confront communist jihad and break the back of the Soviet military. It was a smart move. You argue as though Reagan created an enormous tide of supermen that is behind every victory since then. You're crazy.
That's how one justifies hating a great president, such as Reagan. You gotta be KILLary Clinton libtard to speak well of Carter, likewise, you gotta be KILLary Clinton libtard to speak bad of Reagan. I really don't know why posters mask their level of liberal. Be loud and be proud... it is what it is.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Thar's a lie. Reagan did not endorse jihad. Reagan and conservatives ENDORSED jihad in the 80s. https://supportdanielboyd.wordpress.com/usa-printed-textbooks-support-jihad- in-afghanistan-and-pakistan/ From U.S. the ABC’s of Jihad Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, March 23, 2002; Page A01 In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.
Yes, Reagan took a small obscure group of Muslims and gave them billions and sophisticated training to allow them to become a world wide terror threat. Afghanistan would have been better off under the commies - they would have allowed women rights, universal education, tamped down Islamism - stuff the USA tried to do im Afghanistan over a decade later at the cost of much more blood and money. Afghanistan did not break communism (The Red Chinese are still there) and if the USA did nothing in Afghanistan, communism in Russia would still have fallen like it did. In other words it made no difference - but I understand you need to do all you can to not think of the Reagan era being the foundation for the current world wide jihad. https://supportdanielboyd.wordpress.com/usa-printed-textbooks-support-jihad- in-afghanistan-and-pakistan/ From U.S. the ABC’s of Jihad Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, March 23, 2002; Page A01 In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.
From U.S. the ABC’s of Jihad Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, March 23, 2002; Page A01 In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.
“We were quite shocked,” said Doug Pritchard, who reviewed the primers in December while visiting Pakistan on behalf of a Canada-based Christian nonprofit group. “The constant image of Afghans being natural warriors is wrong. Warriors are created. If you want a different kind of society, you have to create it.” https://supportdanielboyd.wordpress.com/usa-printed-textbooks-support-jihad- in-afghanistan-and-pakistan/ Rot in your grave Reagan Administration.
Only in the psychotic exaggerations necessary to maintain and sell your ideaologic commitment. Afghanistan would have been better off under the commies - they would have allowed women rights, universal education, tamped down Islamism An interesting hypothesis. But the fact is, such would have been against their religion, against their accepted social structure, and against the soviet's imposing it. They didn't want Russians in their country telling them what to do.
Willie, what rlk said above is calling out the leftists you love to uphold.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
Rot in your grave Pericles Administration.
That's the first problem right there.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)
You and Washington post writers are the only ones that heard Reagan say it.
An interesting hypothesis. But the fact is, such would have been against their religion, against their accepted social structure, and against the soviet's imposing it. They didn't want Russians in their country telling them what to do. Actually, I know you think Afghanistan was some primitive backwater but it was not - they were very modern looking. Just look up Afghanistan in the 50s through the pre war 70s. And they had a home grown leftist movement from their university graduates from abroad. Pakistan was once more secular than it is now also at that era. This Islamism is a new phenomenon that came about during the 80s.
You don't want to hear it.
Comments (41 - 95) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestMost Chinese Say Their Military Can Crush America in Battle
#2. To: rlk (#1)
. Americans have a population of babyfied soft pussys from top to bottom.
#3. To: Pericles (#2)
Good. The world would be better off with a weak America
#4. To: GrandIsland (#3)
We are as weak as you desire us.
#5. To: Pericles (#4)
There won't be peace in the world (there never will be) but there won't be the USA doing what it did to the Arab world which has helped the rise of ISIS and other evils by the vacuum created by American intervention.
#6. To: rlk (#5)
(Edited)
Don't blame America. The Arabs dd it to themselves when they took up islam long before America existed.
#7. To: Pericles (#6)
Proves my point America can't be involved in the world because its people don't understand the world.
#8. To: Pericles (#2)
(Edited)
Good.
#9. To: Pericles (#6)
Like the president of the USA (a supposed Harvard grad) who starts a war in an Arab Muslim country not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni...
#10. To: A K A Stone, Pericles (#7)
To Pericles: No you don't understand America
#11. To: A Pole (#10)
(Edited)
American Exceptionalism
#12. To: A Pole (#10)
Do you believe in a doctrine of American Exceptionalism?
#13. To: A K A Stone (#12)
(Edited)
Depends on how you define it.
#14. To: GrandIsland (#11)
I value all political views... I just wish they would be more honest with what and who they are.
#15. To: Liberator (#8)
(Edited)
They don't want anything exceptional... cause that would mean less exceptional people exist.
#16. To: Liberator (#8)
#17. To: Pericles (#16)
I piss on Reagan's America which created the Islamic jihad we fight today.
#18. To: rlk (#17)
I piss on Reagan's America which created the Islamic jihad we fight today.
#19. To: rlk (#17)
#20. To: A Pole (#14)
You see ill will in other views.
#21. To: Pericles (#16)
#22. To: GrandIsland (#21)
I piss on Reagan's America
#23. To: Pericles (#22)
liberal side with jihadists like filthy Reagan did.
#24. To: GrandIsland (#23)
Really? I've never met a liberal that liked Reagan. lol
#25. To: GrandIsland (#20)
"You see ill will in other views."
#26. To: Pericles (#24)
What kind of conservative loves a backer of jihad like Reagan was?
#27. To: A Pole (#25)
You see - ill will in the views contrary to your own.
#28. To: Pericles (#18)
(Edited)
I piss on Reagan's America which created the Islamic jihad we fight today.
#29. To: rlk (#28)
You argue as though Reagan created an enormous tide of supermen that is behind every victory since then. You're crazy.
#30. To: rlk (#26)
(Edited)
What kind of conservative loves a backer of jihad like Reagan was?
#31. To: rlk (#28)
(Edited)
There is no islamic jihad of "today" that differs from the purpose and momentum of jihad from the last fourteen hundred years. Reagan used a small obscure group to confront communist jihad and break the back of the Soviet military. It was a smart move. You argue as though Reagan created an enormous tide of supermen that is behind every victory since then. You're crazy.
#32. To: GrandIsland (#29)
https://supportdanielboyd.wordpress.com/usa-printed-textbooks-support-jihad- in-afghanistan-and-pakistan/
#33. To: GrandIsland, rlk (#29)
(Edited)
[In the American provided text book] Above the soldier is a verse from the Koran. Below is a Pashtu tribute to the mujaheddin, who are described as obedient to Allah. Such men will sacrifice their wealth and life itself to impose Islamic law on the government, the text says.
#34. To: Pericles (#31)
Yes, Reagan took a small obscure group of Muslims and gave them billions and sophisticated training to allow them to become a world wide terror threat.
#35. To: rlk, Willie Green (#1)
They're right. They have competence, determination, seriousness, and superior numbers working for them. Americans have a population of babyfied soft pussys from top to bottom.
#36. To: Pericles (#33)
Rot in your grave Reagan Administration.
#37. To: Pericles (#33)
In the American provided text book
#38. To: Pericles (#30)
Reagan and conservatives ENDORSED jihad in the 80s.
#39. To: rlk (#34)
Afghanistan would have been better off under the commies - they would have allowed women rights, universal education, tamped down Islamism
#40. To: rlk (#38)
Reagan and conservatives ENDORSED jihad in the 80s. You and Washington post writers are the only ones that heard Reagan say it.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]