christo-f

could not agree more. I mean I respect it, the whole 70s cartoon kitsch but as a style to keep putting out there, no thanks, it's really fucking ugly IMO. Makes me think of that old Tomfoolery cartoon.

In response to Fist, a large part of the US policy in the region is based on encouraging allies/friends to increase their defence spending and action in the region. There's even a typical military-esque acronym for the policy, just can't think of it right now. The US does not want to shoulder the effort by itself and very much wants regional players to increase their commitment in ways that lock them in to the Western side of the balance. Given the high price of US arms and the reluctance of the US to transfer certain technologies and manufacturing rights it's not an easy task to get what are mostly developing countries to buy US. So that means that there has to be a balance between locking countries in to US based purchases (which mean training, maintenance, spare parts, upgrades, etc) and price as to having them buy elsewhere and also allowing countries to increase military power to the point that a) they can move outside of the US sphere of interest and b) that this military capability can contain US interests in any way in the future. I hear you on understanding but not liking, for sure. The paradox of acting in one's own interests can sometimes seem exceedingly uninteresting. I'm rambling and procrastinating from work....

alts and metrik, awesome.

Not to nitpick, but the US is doing this for its own benefit, not to satisfy the reliance of others. IF the US debt is the problem I'm more interested in what the Fed just did to seemingly underwrite the EU!

Wow, that comment of mine really bought out the morons, didn't it?! Even the guy that drew the thing was relaxed and civil in his PM to me. These other people though, hahaha, shit, you'd think that I stole their fucking birthday or something! Quite enjoying seeing the tampon crew cry and spit over it. Anyway,...., Romeo, how we going with that battle? I reckon I'll be all good and done by the weekend. How you truckin with it?

cuze

Where is Fist in all of this? I'm really interested to get his take on it given that he'll have a perspective that many of us cannot have.

I'm interested in strategic issues and geopolitics. I also lived in China, speak the lingo and have emotional ties to the country. What I find interesting is that the majority of Chinese that I've come across, whilst still very nationalistic would much prefer to live in the US. I also spend a lot of time in the US and I rarely experience any religious extremism.

Everyone seems to be focused on the marine deployment and that's really one of the smaller elements to this. The naval aspect along with air capabilities are the real strategic shift here. Subs, carriers, aegis, refuelers, ISTAR and other strategic capabilities are much more important than a few thousand marines.

You think that doesn't happen in China? Have you actually spent any time there or are you making assumptions based on what you think it is like? I've seen middle age women fight over discounted pork on an average week day in a missle class supermarket more times than I can remember. Every time I catch the train on a Beijing subway it's a battle. Try going to an an average market in China and see what the reality is. This is a DAILY occurrence in China. The only reason why this made the news is that it was caught on camera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNpoXYFs57k - watch this one, I mean really fucking watch it. This is a daily occurrence in China: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M-2swB7VaU This is a daily occurrence in China: I'm not trying to say that China is any worse than the US or better in any way, all countries have their problems including my own (insert how Australians have treated the indigens over the decades). But to see you base your opinions on a bit of silliness in a shop in the US says very loudly to me that you have no understanding of China as a country and a culture. Not trying to be rude to you but the observation has to be made.

That debt cannot really be used as a weapon as doing so fucks China as much as it does the US (at this point in time). Not as easy on the example of Apple moving to India. Many brands do not mind that their stuff has been ripped off over the years. the vast majority couldn't afford it anyway so it didn't cut in to much of their sales. What it did was get their brand out there and create awareness and loyalty. As the middle class grows you see more and more pressure put on the govt to increase IPR enforcement. The losses that these companies make are not worth the MASSIVE cost and disruption that moving their manufacturing/assembly operations would create. Second, China would then block access to the Chinese market (even with the knock off issue factored in there is massive profits to be made..., or missed in China). Thirdly, India's transport infrastructure is woeful and doesn't really lend itself yet to large scale manufacturing as China does. Fourth, corruption in India is just as bad as China......, etc. etc. Another angle you have to consider is that companies like Apple, coke, Microsoft, Walmart, etc. work for profit, not national interest. It's not very often that they will coordinate with the USG and almost impossible that they will take a loss because a politician says it would help out with their foreign policy agenda. Basically what I'm trying to lay out here is the massive complexity of these issues and that there are mountains of considerations that have to be addressed when dealing with tier one geopol issues like this. Nothing is simple, linear or straight forward

Whilst on the idea of economic conflict, I agree. On the idea of the balance of forces and long-term rivalry (which I'm not sure that you are actually referring to) there has to be planning now. History shows that great shifts in power are prone to armed conflict. Best have each player shape each others' actions on the chess board now hoping to create a balance that both will accept rather than have them work it out on the battle field.

Quick answer as I'm fried; The Chinese govt hates implementing taxes and allows the MASSIVE tax avoidance that occurs all throughout the economy. Beijing knows very well that increases in taxes will result in increased demands of the govt. and/or increased say in policy making.

Hahahaa, what??!

No, because it doesn't have a style that is reminiscent of the funk/hip hop/whatever style that is usually found in graf (I sometimes thing the same concerning some of the stuff that Augor and Reyes put out. another example would be whats in the sketch to wall thread, the guy that writes phoe, or something). Put it this way, I think it would be more at home on the cover of a Slipknot album than a Hip hip album. That's just my call though. Doesn't make anything right or wrong, just makes it my call, that's all.

I fail to see the 'graf' in that. I see the talent and the art, just don't see what that has to do with graffiti art.

Yeah, because you can only do letters, noting else. No branching out, no innovation and definitely no experimentation. Everyone stick to orthodox graffiti and never do anything different. This page is full of fucking letters, ya fucking graf nazi. People get on the bandwagon and carry on with this "Graf is letters maaaaaan" shit as if no one ever does letters any more. Get a grip, there is way more tradition, orthodox and structured graffiti out there than anything else, that is by far the norm. People have been doing abstract type shit for years, ever heard of a guy called Gaze?! Graf is pushing boundaries, that's what we do, push the boundaries of rules in society and 'acceptable behaviour"..., and all that meaning of life shit. People just want to sound all righteous and make out like they are the standard of graffiti and are the embodiment of graf itself. Pull your head out of your asses, ya narcissistic wankers. How about you just go do you and stop telling everyone else how they should do them. /endrant.

Yes, I'm Australian. I cannot stand Australian politics, other than the foreign policy, defence or security realm. I'm watching Albanese on Lateline right now. Seriously, I'm not a violent guy but the way our politicians dribble utter shit turns me in to Charles fucking Manson. As for the shared facilities agreement with the US, I don't have an opinion. I'm only fleshing out the strategic thinking behind the idea. You may be interested in the latest Quarterly essay by Hugh White that discusses the changing balance in the Pacific and Australia's place in it.

I don't even know where to go with that. The US isn't pushing for an alliance with CHina, they are directly competing with them. IF you meant Australia instead of China, that would be a bit hard to do given that we have a defence treaty with the US and we have been in to every conflict with them in the PAcific and the Mid East since WWII. We have a US base on Australian soil and permanent basing of at least 200 US soldiers already. Of course they've been vague, it's diplomacy. You never want to commit concretely to anything as that takes away any room to move in the future, why would you do that? China said much more than that, they were rather prolific on the matter especially in state owned newspaper opeds. It's not an oil grab? What is it then, claiming territory just for the sake of it? So what do you make of all the exploratory drilling and the moving of a platform in to the area by the Chinese, coincidence? As for net getting my point, I really don't know how I could simplify it any more, I'm sorry.

Pizza cheese style.

I had so much fun writing that.

What??! Did you even look at the maps that I put up? It's China that's doing the oil grab, not the US. The US isn't claiming shit, it's actually sticking up for the claims of other countries. Secondly the reserves that people are hoping for under the SCS are not proven at all.

Who's going to war?! You gotta grasp the concept that this is not a war footing, this is maneuvering between two powers trying to face each other down (following the Sunzi dictum of winning a battle without firing a shot, so to speak). It's like a breakdance battle, Country One is a new kid on the block and has been going around telling other crews that their moves are shit and a new king is in town. The current king, obviously don't wanna play that way so they say they will battle it out to see who stands where. They meet on the piece of vinyl and each country shows the other its moves in order to show how talented they are, how quickly they can react and their commitment to follow through. The new, up and coming County One comes out and robots, the current king, Country Two comes out and pops, County One breaks in to a back spin, Country Two spins on his head. Country One thinks "fuck, dude has serious strength, was willing to take it to the limit, got up there real quick and did like 30 revolutions. This contest isn't worth that much to me/I don't think I have that kind of strength and staying power..., better back down and give some respect". At that point all the other crews watching see the second dude spin on his head and think "Damn, I wanna be down with his crew" and a new system on the street is created. The first dude can either go rogue, start biting moves, getting crack heads to go around capping the second dude's pieces and spreading rumours that he's a snitch. But shit like that always comes out and the system on the street will refuse to deal with the first dude, his finances suffer, no one will sell him paint or guns, etc. and life is tough. Or, the first dude can come in from the cold, get with the system on the street and join in with all the other crews, trading moves, doing productions and maybe even having sub battles amongst his peer competitors and see what happens in the future. Of course, if both countries see themselves as equally powerful or both think they had it on the other and he refused to show respect, the dancing stops and the violence starts. However countries almost never want to go to war it's always a last resort because it's expensive and poses extreme risks. Countries would rather achieve their ends without paying such high costs and taking big risks, they just decide sometimes that it's worth it. That doesn't mean they want war, they want the spoils of war and are willing to do what it takes to achieve their goals. So if they can work out the order of things by maneuver and commitment, such as placing bases here, making alliances there, creating this or that kind of technology and restricting the ability of the other country to maneuver then all the better. That is what we are seeing with agreements like that which was signed with Australia. Ha! Who is?! Keep in mind though that you've just had tens of thousands pulled out of Iraq and more will be drawing out of Afghan soon as well. Plus, budget cuts don't mean you have no budget. The US benefits more than pretty much any other country in the current global system. The US could also keep its benefits if China kept growing as much as it wants as long as it didn't alter the current global system. However taking ownership of whole seas for itself is pretty much telling the system to go fuck itself. so the US could let China do what it wants, Finlandise Vietnam, ROK, Japan and ASEAN (that means basically take control of the countries' policies by the threat of retaliation both economic and diplomatic) and next thing you know there is an extremely powerful entity across the pond with 30%+ of the world's population and economy. At that point the interests of the US are pretty much up to some one else to decide on. Probably something the US and its allies don't want to risk. As in China economically attacking the US by economic means? Sure, then the US hits back with the same. Both countries rely on each other and there isn't much room for either country to take out the other here.

Yeah, I'm thinking of opening a shop up there selling booze, international dial phone cards and porn. Maybe morning after pills too.

Basically, no. Also as above part of the focus is China's shipping routes to the Persian Gulf that go through the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, making Australia key geography. Lastly the US needs bases out if Chinese missile and current naval/air range. No, this is planning for the future, not that distant in the scheme of things, though. Yeah, Ukranian vessel, the Varyag. It's more so a training vessel. China will want to build its own and then also assemble a carrier battle group, formulate doctrine and train. That means you're looking at at least another decade before they will field it with any confidence. Carrier battle groups, even better. China is building submarines faster than anyone else, they are making an anti-ship ballistic missile that has been dubbed the "air craft carrier killer". It is only the US that stops them from taking Taiwan (Japanese and ROK interests also play in to this). You have to understand that defence posture realignments like this are made in view of decades. The shared facilities agreement isn't planned to be fully functional until 2016. China is not an immediate threat (if it was you'd see a totally different response), but trend lines over the last 20-30 years very clearly show that China is moving to establish itself as the regional power. It is painfully obvious (basically overtly stated) that Japan, ROK, Vietnam, Philippines, Thailand. Singapore, Australia, Taiwan, India and a number of other nations in the region would much prefer to keep things as they are. Most nations see China's claims of the Senkaku Islands, the South China See, Arunchal Paradesh, Taiwan, etc. as illegitimate and the recent moves to send military forces to these areas as pure aggression. Below is a map of what China seas as its sovereign territory in the South China Sea Below is a basic map of the relevant shipping routes in South East Asia As you can see China's territorial claim takes in almost all of the South China Sea and brings Chinese territory within a few kilometers of other nation's coast lines. If that territorial claim was realised that would mean that nations such as Vietnam and Philippines could barely sail their own navy out of their ports, let alone have a chance at coastal denial whilst Chinese vessels could freely sail the area. That would also mean that should China choose to any nation utilising these shipping routes (Japan, ROK, Taiwan, RP, Vn., USA, Australia, Canada, etc.) could only rely on Chinese good will for passage. For most States this reliance is considered unacceptable. Keep in mind that neighbouring countries have seen the PLA move in to Tibet and Xinjiang, place thousands of missiles, troops aircraft, etc. on the coast across from Taiwan, allow DPRK to arm itself and attack ROK on multiple occasions, attack Vietnam and India on multiple occasions, etc. etc. It's very difficult to argue that China is a completely benign entity and it could be argued that any state counting on Chinese good intentions is acting irresponsibly toward its own national security. Lastly, and is always the case, there is oil/gas involved. There are thought to be massive energy resources along with minerals, etc., below the sea bed in the region and that is more than likely China's main motivation to claim sovereignty over the area. This would not only mean that there is lots energy accessible to the most energy hungry nation in the world but it would also decrease Chinese reliance to Mid East energy to a degree. To Shape Chinese behaviour when it has solidified its power projection capabilities to that of an accommodating regional power rather than an aggressive and dominating regional hegemon planning and placement has to take place over years and even decades. I mean this basically started with the Korean war in 1951 when Mao convinced Kim Il Sung to take the south. Then with Vietnam (of course that was more about communism and Russia than just China), Nixon's visit to China, support for Taiwan,