Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good assessment. The European powers are simply diversifying their portfolio; but on the other hand, it does show that they don't mind annoying the US mildly by getting closer to China.
For China, it is a big win. It has 46% voting rights in AIIB, currently with 57 founding members, compared with 4.5% in world bank and 6.5% at ADB. Seriously, 6.5% at Asian Development Bank, which was always led by the Japanese (15.7%), when China's economy is more than twice Japan's size even in nominal terms? This is why it is taking some actions. UK and France probably didn't say a big F to uncle sam, but China definitely did.
Where did you get the number - 46%
If it is a big F then they should not hold talks in Washington and Washington wouldn't let them hold talks there too.
China's influence over AIIB a concern ahead of founders' meeting | Reuters
Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa will also hold a meeting in Washington this week to iron out details of another international development bank, the $100 billion BRICS bank launched last year, officials in Brasilia and Moscow said.
"The idea is that everything will be ready for 2016," said an official in Brasilia, adding that governance issues will be taken up in Washington.
Good assessment. The European powers are simply diversifying their portfolio; but on the other hand, it does show that they don't mind annoying the US mildly by getting closer to China.
For China, it is a big win. It has 46% voting rights in AIIB, currently with 57 founding members, compared with 4.5% in world bank and 6.5% at ADB. Seriously, 6.5% at Asian Development Bank, which was always led by the Japanese (15.7%), when China's economy is more than twice Japan's size even in nominal terms? This is why it is taking some actions. UK and France probably didn't say a big F to uncle sam, but China definitely did.
I have a hunch, merely a hunch though, that this is more than a minor annoyance for the U.S.
I think the powers that be smell that this is the pivot point into the nation's protracted decline, something that it foresaw in projections dating back to at least 2006. We'll see how events pan out over the coming years.
Re: 'You are not as important as you would like to think you are'
You know all in all I'd think that the Royal Navy has to be happy to have a country putting about 60% of its naval assets in the Asia-Pacific region to make sure China is on the 'straight and narrow' in the region. If in the future conflict escalates there in the Asian region I'd think both countries would be in the position of reprising the roles they had in WWII ocean and sea theaters.
I'm not particularly fond of China, but I'd rather have someone keep the US itself on the straight and narrow everywhere in the world.
Thanks but no thanks. If China's largely symbolic power projection rivalry in the Asia Pacific region is tying down US naval assets that could be employed for mischief elsewhere, then good for them.
If war involving China does ever break out in the Pacific, I'd gladly wager that it would be the result of US meddling in the region in an attempt to destabilise China, rather than aggressive expansionism by Beijing.
But the US was barely involved in Libya - it just provided a little bit of assistance. It was mostly the UK and France doing the heavy-duty work. I wish you idiots would stop trying to claim credit for everything (even if it's something as questionable as Libya). You are not as important as you would like to think you are.
Actually the US shouldn't have been involved at all in Libya and we shouldn't have had to provide any assistance at all. You all keep saying your powerful countries than start acting like it instead of calling others idiots for pointing out your weaknesses. Robert Gates was right in his remarks about European defense was what I was getting at but that just went right over your head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunno
Plus, both nations have had military ventures on their own with no help from Uncle Sam, like the UK with Argentina or its help with Sierra Leone (might as well be a colony still), and France's efforts in Mali to combat extremism. No, we don't need your assistance.
Honestly if the UK got into another war with Argentina I don't know if you all would win that right now.
I also recall a lot of frustration over the lack of progress in the initial few months in the air campaign over the former Yugoslavia.
Evidently, air campaign effectiveness is a multivariate analysis. In the former case Western intelligence had underestimated Qaddafi's military infrastructure.
Apparently you like to look over the obvious that the US can project power worldwide where as most militaries in Europe can't project power in there own backyard which is what I was getting at in my comment. Like the US having to assist other countries during the Libya bombings do to there lacking of logistical support having to rely on the US.
Apparently you like to look over the obvious that the US can project power worldwide where as most militaries in Europe can't project power in there own backyard which is what I was getting at in my comment. Like the US having to assist other countries during the Libya bombings do to there lacking of logistical support having to rely on the US.
To my knowledge it wasn't logistical support under European leadership in Unified Protector that "failed", that the U.S. then "rescued". The Europeans remained in charge of command and communications throughout the campaign, and the main U.S. contribution was through search and destroy missions against aging Cold War era surface to air missiles (SA-2's and SA-3's). As someone already said, the French and British were still doing most of the bombing.
There were problems with intelligence fusion, and some fourth generation European aircraft lacking sensor integration, but the main problem was in trying to achieve major strategic objectives by projection of air power alone, a fundamentally handicapped way of conducting war.
If you want to criticize the length of time it took to achieve those objectives, you can't do so without looking to the US's own performance against ISIS, or in operation Allied Force.
Last edited by CTDominion; 04-16-2015 at 12:17 AM..
To my knowledge it wasn't logistical support under European leadership in Unified Protector that "failed", that the U.S. then "rescued". The Europeans remained in charge of command and communications throughout the campaign, and the main U.S. contribution was through search and destroy missions against aging Cold War era surface to air missiles (SA-2's and SA-3's). As someone already said, the French and British were still doing most of the bombing.
There were problems with intelligence fusion, and some fourth generation European aircraft lacking sensor integration, but the main problem was in trying to achieve major strategic objectives by projection of air power alone, a fundamentally handicapped way of conducting war.
If you want to criticize the length of time it took to achieve those objectives, you can't do so without looking to the US's own performance against ISIS, or in operation Allied Force.
Actually I think I'll just look at Ukraine and see the European response to that to show lack of unity and not being coordinated. Difference between the US bombing ISIS and European Powers with Ukraine is that the US is projecting power around the world which is something only a handful of countries can really do at the moment. Where as Ukraine is in Europe and European powers have struggled to stay united on the matter.
Actually I think I'll just look at Ukraine and see the European response to that to show lack of unity and not being coordinated. Difference between the US bombing ISIS and European Powers with Ukraine is that the US is projecting power around the world which is something only a handful of countries can really do at the moment. Where as Ukraine is in Europe and European powers have struggled to stay united on the matter.
What would the European response be in your opinion? The only one who has disagreed on the economic sanctions is Greece.
Actually the US shouldn't have been involved at all in Libya and we shouldn't have had to provide any assistance at all. You all keep saying your powerful countries than start acting like it instead of calling others idiots for pointing out your weaknesses. Robert Gates was right in his remarks about European defense was what I was getting at but that just went right over your head.
If it shouldn't have been involved at all, then maybe it should have stayed away. The situation would have been no different because America's efforts were practically nonexistent, and it was the major European powers doing the bulk of the fighting. Once again, stop overestimating your importance in the world.
Besides, when the US decides to start a new foreign war, why does it insist on its allies joining? Why did it need the UK in Iraq? Why did it suddenly decide that bombing Syria was a bad idea when the UK rejected to participate?
Quote:
Honestly if the UK got into another war with Argentina I don't know if you all would win that right now.
Right now? Perhaps not, because we are in the process of changing aircraft carriers and planes, so we are admittedly a little vulnerable at this very moment, but it's just a temporary measure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
