Why some fear China and India are on the road to war

With breeding and the subsequent need for resources completely out of control in both countries, clashes are guaranteed into the future. If they don't have the resources inside their countries to support their people, then the only responsible measure for both countries is to curtail their populations. Especially India who have made no efforts whatsoever.

IRM

reply to post by Returners


Hindi Chini bhai bhai... for about eight years until China invaded India, and their premier was joking about marching 100million Chinese into Tibet to urinate the Indians into the ocean, forcing India to home-grow a military industrial complex right? I don't really care if China is right wrong or indifferent or what Britain had to do with it. I wasn't there. I have never knowingly wronged India in any material way (I've been less than reasonable with Ghandi in Sid Meier's Civilization, I admit).

All I'm saying is that there are a lot of potential causes for conflict over there that have been identified and explained by people who know a lot more about the region than I do, and if they are correct then I think my extrapolation of a rough time table is plausible, though certainly not authoritative. Peace in Asia with a benign China that doesn't practice murder, oppression, slavery, or predatory behavior in the international community would be great if it's gonna happen- I certainly won't oppose it.

I hope you're still reading because I can already feel the scathing responses- but I'm not trying to preach down at anybody about China's behavior while ignoring the sins of my own government. I'm coming at this as someone who has long felt it would be better if Western Civilization went through a revolution or a dark age to get itself back on track, but who can see that the ascending powers which will follow the old Western order are going to repeat our sins and drive human kind further into the same old rut.

I will probably live to see my country go through, at the very least, the kind of reality change that France experienced from the Suez Crisis, and possibly worse- even collapse is plausible. I try to view it as just an exciting time to be alive and not worry too much about it, because I long ago realized that I have very very very little influence over the course of events in the big picture. However, the one thing that I really really insist on getting out of it if America does fall, is to see the new order do better- or at least no worse. If I find out that history is just a progression of bad guys getting squeezed out by worse bad guys until they in turn go soft and get squeezed out, I'll immediately dedicate the rest of my life to building some kind of doomsday machine.

Ultimately though what I actually expect is anticlimactic. Somewhere roughly between 2013 and 2033 China and America get into a nationalist war, which may or may not involve Russia and the Koreas, technically separate from but closely related to what basically amounts to a water war between India and China, only to be pulled back from the precipice by powerful trans-national economic interests and forced into a settlement that China likes more than the US or India does, but which also will create a vacuum for a middle eastern axis to emerge from. By the 22nd century I expect an Asia-centric balance of power system, with non-state powers holding the balance between two to four overlapping uneasy coalitions between Chinese, US, Indian, Russian, other Asian states, Europe, and Arab states, in descending order of influence, until that system in turn breaks down into either the dominance of one power or coalition, or another series of wars. It's an old cycle, and China wouldn't be the first ancient empire to get stuck in it.

reply to post by Daniyal


Maybe America will keep its nose out of this....I'm sick of our nation spending millions to deal with others issues but doesn't want to spend a dime to help our own. it's sickening, no wonder why our economy is so poor, we'd rather invest millions to settle problems half way around the war but neglect our own homeless and poor, making limits to assist it's own citizens but will drop my whole income taxes xs 100s to help non citizens.

reply to post by InfaRedMan


India is going to become a major nation where food won't be an issue. They are becoming one of the most educated nations in the world, their percent of population with degrees will soon surpass america....ever wonder why telemarketers and debt collected are from there? They are becoming more intelligent than our own. China on th eother hand even though currently the 2nd strongest economy in the world have many issues. I don't hope for it but in their best interested they should be aligned...together the two nations support nearly 1/3 of the Earth's population.

reply to post by OmiOra


India and China can't be aligned with India, because of US. The US wants India to take over once it goes and hibernates, because the US is wounded, deeply wounded, too many battles.

India will be the Israel of South East and Central Asia.

But luckily we have China, with the help of Pakistan is already pushing against India, hence the Kashmir crisis. India is scared, that is exactly why India wants to forget about BS US sanctions imposed on Iran, and trade with Iran. Strategically, if India forgets about US, and doesn't listen to US double face talk, it will survive, and not break in to twenty pieces.

I wonder if some other country has something to do with this. Maybe a nosy interfering country has stirred up something that caused these two countries to butt heads.

Or maybe it is someones idea of population control. A billion here a billion there, 2 billion less. Job done.

reply to post by Returners

The Sino-Indian War of 1962 where the Chinese attacked the Indians, or is Chinese aggression merely an expression of their peaceful, non Imperialist behaviour? There have been other, less bloody tiffs over the last few decades.

Both India and China have domestic problems with terrorism / insurgency. The difference is that India deals with insurgents like a democracy should - with openness and restraint, whilst China's approach is typical of your average dictatorship where whole areas are oppressed and cut-off.

Both China and India have long histories, but trying to paint China as some sort of "whiter than white" state which has been continuously assailed by Imperialism is both simplistic, crass and ultimately misleading.

I would certainly support Italy’s rights to claim Western Europe on the basis that the Roman Empire existed 2,000 years ago and would certainly expect the US to revert to the native American nations. There has to be common sense and context in territorial disputes!

Regards

Only retards would think India would go to war with China. Indian's own Prime Minster is a chinese by birth ( born in Arunachal Pradesh). Take away the turban and the glasses and pay attention to his speech pattern and you'll see.
Take timeout and read about this Prime Minster. Know what ? Howcome he never stood for elections ? This is a long story and drawn out by the loony new world order crowd who've planned this charade since 1876 or earlier.

Give this image a closer look.

It's only in the West's best interests that china and india go to war.As both are rising economies they are only economic competitors which means things can easily be solved on the table or both countries can joint co-operate with each other.

I think the West wants to keep grudges maintained between india, china and pakistan so they busy themselves in an arms race where most of their budget gets used up instead of developing further.

China will obviously eat india alive if a war does break out and we all know who the Pakistanis will side with.The whole episode will leave asia in tatters.Keeping in mind that all those countries have nukes.

Hopefully things won't go as far.

reply to post by Returners


Um...Tibet ring a bell? They didnt throw the first punch and in fact have been around longer than a unified China...hmm sounds Imperialist no?

reply to post by OmiOra

Originally posted by OmiOra
reply to post by InfaRedMan

 

India is going to become a major nation where food won't be an issue. They are becoming one of the most educated nations in the world, their percent of population with degrees will soon surpass america....

I spent the last year teaching Indian students and their 'degrees' are pretty much worthless in my country. The main reasons being that they don't comply to western standards, and many degrees can also be bought. This is something I know first hand.

Parents who want their children to get an education that is recognised throughout the world invariably send them outside of India to western countries such as America, UK, Canada and Australia. Not only is it sensible but it's also prestigious (bragging rights) for the family. Even my students told me this.

ever wonder why telemarketers and debt collected are from there? They are becoming more intelligent than our own.

Companies outsource to India because the wages are much, much lower. It has nothing to do with intelligence, but has everything to do with the bottom line.

IRM

I have been saying this for years. Everyone thinks that China's big competition is the US. India is its big competetor as well, and they are both fighting for power. They are similar economically, and slightly socially. Not to mention in the same hemisphere.

Originally posted by paraphi
reply to post by Returners

 

The Sino-Indian War of 1962 where the Chinese attacked the Indians, or is Chinese aggression merely an expression of their peaceful, non Imperialist behaviour? There have been other, less bloody tiffs over the last few decades.

Both India and China have domestic problems with terrorism / insurgency. The difference is that India deals with insurgents like a democracy should - with openness and restraint, whilst China's approach is typical of your average dictatorship where whole areas are oppressed and cut-off.

Both China and India have long histories, but trying to paint China as some sort of "whiter than white" state which has been continuously assailed by Imperialism is both simplistic, crass and ultimately misleading.

I would certainly support Italy’s rights to claim Western Europe on the basis that the Roman Empire existed 2,000 years ago and would certainly expect the US to revert to the native American nations. There has to be common sense and context in territorial disputes!

Regards

Heres some information from the #1 news source in India, and they admit that it was India who started it

www.rediff.com...

From the first days of India's Independence, it was appreciated that the Sino-Indian borders had been left undefined by the departing British and that territorial disputes with China were part of India's inheritance. China's other neighbours faced similar problems and, over the succeeding decades of the century, almost all of those were to settle their borders satisfactorily through the normal process of diplomatic negotiation with Beijing.

The Nehru government decided upon the opposite approach. India would, through its own research, determine the appropriate alignments of the Sino-Indian borders, extend its administration to make those good on the ground and then refuse to negotiate the result. Barring the inconceivable -- that Beijing would allow India to impose China's borders unilaterally and annex territory at will -- Nehru's policy thus willed conflict without foreseeing it.

Through the 1950s, that policy generated friction along the borders and so bred and steadily increased distrust, growing into hostility, between the neighbours. By 1958, Beijing was urgently calling for a standstill agreement to prevent patrol clashes and negotiations to agree on boundary alignments. India refused any standstill agreement, since it would be an impediment to intended advances and insisted that there was nothing to negotiate, the Sino-Indian borders being already settled on the alignments claimed by India, through blind historical process. Then it began accusing China of committing 'aggression' by refusing to surrender to Indian claims.

From 1961, the Indian attempt to establish an armed presence in all the territory it claimed and then extrude the Chinese was being exerted by the Army and Beijing was warning that if India did not desist from its expansionist thrust, the Chinese forces would have to hit back. On October 12, 1962, Nehru proclaimed India's intention to drive the Chinese out of areas India claimed. That bravado had by then been forced upon him by public expectations which his charges of 'Chinese aggression' had aroused, but Beijing took it as in effect a declaration of war. The unfortunate Indian troops on the frontline, under orders to sweep superior Chinese forces out of their impregnable, dominating positions, instantly appreciated the implications: 'If Nehru had declared his intention to attack, then the Chinese were not going to wait to be attacked.'

In Summary India unilaterally declared all of the disputed territory "Indian land" and started sending soldiers and killing chinese soldiers stationed in the disputed area.

This went on for an entire year, every month Mao Zedong would call Neru (who was in charge of India) to stop but Neru refused.

The Indians knew full well that China was going to "hit back"

In all of Chinese history in every war that China has been in, China has never threw the first punch.

en.wikipedia.org...

India on the other hand has threw the first punch many times in its conflicts with Pakistan. And the entire origin of conflict was caused by India to begin with. India refused to partition the country on religious lines as a result millions of muslims who wanted to be part of Pakistan ended up in India this has led to an almost 70 years insurgency.

China has been in a lot more wars, but most of them were counter attacks to defend their allies.

Originally posted by Shadowfoot
reply to post by Returners

 

Um...Tibet ring a bell? They didnt throw the first punch and in fact have been around longer than a unified China...hmm sounds Imperialist no?

Tibet has been part of China for a looooongg time, almost 700 years China had sovereignty rights or suzerainty rights to Tibet.

The USA has only been a country for 200 years.

Tibet was also in a civil war against the communist party of tibet

Originally posted by paraphi
reply to post by Returners

 

The Sino-Indian War of 1962 where the Chinese attacked the Indians, or is Chinese aggression merely an expression of their peaceful, non Imperialist behaviour? There have been other, less bloody tiffs over the last few decades.

Both India and China have domestic problems with terrorism / insurgency. The difference is that India deals with insurgents like a democracy should - with openness and restraint, whilst China's approach is typical of your average dictatorship where whole areas are oppressed and cut-off.

Both China and India have long histories, but trying to paint China as some sort of "whiter than white" state which has been continuously assailed by Imperialism is both simplistic, crass and ultimately misleading.

I would certainly support Italy’s rights to claim Western Europe on the basis that the Roman Empire existed 2,000 years ago and would certainly expect the US to revert to the native American nations. There has to be common sense and context in territorial disputes!

Regards

China doesn't have a problem with insurgencies because majority of the population is content with chinese rule.

An insurgency can only last if they have the hearts and minds of the people, a guerilla warrior needs to be able to blend into the crowd, strike out when they have the chance and then blend back into the crowd.

This was done successfully in Vietnam, USSR and China during their revolutions because majority of the population supported the guerillas and gave them shelter.

The only active insurgencies against China are from out of state

Take a look at the timeline in Xinjiang other than the spikes in a single month in 2008 and 2009 everything else is typical # that happens everywhere in China

www.rfa.org...

reply to post by Returners


There are way too many holes for you to successfully argue a non imperialist Chinese agrression on Tibet. For one they desired Tibet as a tactical position to close off the far east from Europeans(like the Brittish who had invaded Tibet as well early in the century)....note they didnt invade the Chinese province of Tibet? Im just saying, or rather history seems to say China can be painted as an aggressor. Heres a quote I found interesting: The Dalai Lama returned to Tibet from India in July 1912 (after the fall of the Qing dynasty), and expelled the amban and all Chinese troops.[88] In 1913, the Dalai Lama issued a proclamation that stated that the relationship between the Chinese emperor and Tibet "had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other."

I believe alot of Chinese misconception at least in regards certain territories as being Chinese, stems from the Mongol Empire. It is still a hot topic today, the Chinese and the Tibetans were both conquered by Ghengis Khan, they were separate entities entirely....what you refer to as 700 years is also false as that is still a Mongol Empire in control...NOT Chinese.

reply to post by necromanser


I can bring you an image of the Pakistani prime minister shaking the hands of USSR leader, yet we all knew Pakistan was part of the bigger proxy war against USSR

Learn from the past, don't become blind by it.

Back then Pakistan allowed itself to be used to defeat a much stronger power (USSR). Now Pakistan has allowed itself to be used to defeat both India and USA.

Originally posted by Shadowfoot
reply to post by Returners

 

There are way too many holes for you to successfully argue a non imperialist Chinese agrression on Tibet. For one they desired Tibet as a tactical position to close off the far east from Europeans(like the Brittish who had invaded Tibet as well early in the century)....note they didnt invade the Chinese province of Tibet? Im just saying, or rather history seems to say China can be painted as an aggressor. Heres a quote I found interesting: The Dalai Lama returned to Tibet from India in July 1912 (after the fall of the Qing dynasty), and expelled the amban and all Chinese troops.[88] In 1913, the Dalai Lama issued a proclamation that stated that the relationship between the Chinese emperor and Tibet "had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other."

I believe alot of Chinese misconception at least in regards certain territories as being Chinese, stems from the Mongol Empire. It is still a hot topic today, the Chinese and the Tibetans were both conquered by Ghengis Khan, they were separate entities entirely....what you refer to as 700 years is also false as that is still a Mongol Empire in control...NOT Chinese.

China had sovereignty over Tibet during the mongols

China had sovereignty over Tibet during Ming dynasty

en.wikipedia.org...

China had sovereignty over Tibet during Ming dynasty

China had sovereignty over Tibet during the Qing dynasty

This was an unbroken line since the Yuan dynasty

Until the British invaded Tibet

en.wikipedia.org...\

During these 700 years many chinese went to live in Tibet, many Tibetans lived in China.

To say that this was imperialistic expansion is a fallacy.

The bottomline is that the relations between China and Tibet had for many years been something that was more than just an alliance. This is something that you cannot deny.

According to the CIA many Tibetans were happy to be reunited with China, the CIA failed miserably in Tibet because every CIA agent that airdropped into Tibet was turned over to the CCP immediately. The CIA continued this for 20 years but they could never get a base of Tibetans to support even the tiniest notion of independence.

en.wikipedia.org...

The CIA officer, Bruce Walker, who oversaw the operations of CIA trained Tibetan agents, was troubled by the hostility from the Tibetans towards his agents: “the radio teams were experiencing major resistance from the population inside Tibet.” [13] The CIA trained Tibetans from 1957 to 1972, in the United States, and parachuted them back into Tibet to organise rebellions against the PLA. In one incident, one agent was immediately reported by his own brother and all three agents in the team were arrested. They were not mistreated. After less than a month of propaganda sessions they were escorted to the Indian border and released.[14]

This is not imperialistic expansion, this is a LIBERATION which means taking back land that was previously yours. If China invaded and occupied a country that had NOTHING to do with it like the USA invading Hawaii, the phillipines, afghanistan, Iraq that is imperialism.

Why attack Tibet?

Tibet being part of China is more legitimate than Okinawa being part of Japan, or the Falklands belonging to the British, or the USA invading Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Not to mention that all of Western USA was land stolen from mexico with the native mexicans systematically genocided.

Good hopefully after its all over there will be 1.5 billion less people on this planet.

India could and should be a strong natural ally to the U.S. Already, our economic interests are becoming evermore intertwined but also both countries are strong democracies with British roots. Despite the big cultural differences, there are also historical connections and some big cultural similarities (both born from British influences).

Their military might actually be potent - they defeated the U.S. in a joint war game exercise several years ago pitting (it was an air-war exercise).

I think this is more about India asserting itself. I don't see any major flashpoints between them and China on the close horizon. They're just saying, diplomatically, 'don't push too far, China, we're going to push back if we have to.' Maybe in the distant future there could be more conflict between them but I seriously doubt either of them want a real war to happen.