(05-24-2016 05:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Im curious as why Obama felt this necessary. Does he think that by doing this the Vietnamese could possibly defend itself against a Chinese invasion? I say...follow the money here. Who is going to profit from this? I smell a rat.

The last time China and Vietnam tangled it wasn't that fun for the Chinese.

This is for the purpose of giving the Chinese additional thinking material in the South China sea.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Can't make everybody happy.

(05-24-2016 10:08 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:47 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  After a disaster of epic proportions for most of his term I think Obama may have finally started to get the hang of it in his twilight days.

This is a response to Chinese shenanigans with our ships and planes in the South China sea. A message that we can cause trouble for them too. I like it.

That's a rather backhanded complement.

Oddly enough, his learning seemed to start to improve around the time the State Dept. changed hands.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(05-24-2016 10:20 AM)john01992 Wrote:  given the OP made reference to the same issues holding us back in nam were present in iraq and afghanstan and his "rules of engagement" comment it's pretty clear to me that the issue he is talking about has little to do with NV vs SV but the way in which we directly fight the war with combatants and civilians.

Well both conflicts involved restrictive ROE, Vietnam had the restrictions in place before troops were on the group. In the Middle East, I would argue that the restrictions were implemented after the missions (ousting of Saddam and the Taliban) were accomplished and the area 'transitioned' into a peace-keeping operation.

There are a lot of valid things to complain about since Obama has been in office, but this isn't one of them. I guess you learn to appreciate the little things when so many bad decisions have been made the past 15 years.

Vietnam is hardly a city on a hill when it comes to human rights, but it's a rapidly evolving society. It'd be one thing if we obsolved Pyongyang from all of their abuses since they've doubled down on juche, it's another when we're dealing with a nation that's been inching towards more of a market economy since Doi Moi. I'd sure as hell rather live in Vietnam today instead of 40 years ago, that's for sure.

If anyone has read a book on Ho Chi Minh they wouldn't be so damning of Viet Nam. The U.S. had a lot to do with the mess that we got into because of the ne'er do wells, the French. We shouldn't have even been involved in Viet Nam's problem from the git go. We were backing corrupt South Vietnamese leaders that couldn't have cared less about their country than about their wallet.

As for human rights you can see some bad dealings just across the border but we still do business with Mexico…and China for that matter.

For once, obama has done something right. You have to give him credit for this one. He still has to make amends on a LOT of screwed up dealings, ahem, the Iran Nuclear Pact for starters.

I'm tellin' ya. Obama is the greatest arms dealer/gun salesman this world has ever seen.

(05-24-2016 10:21 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 05:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Im curious as why Obama felt this necessary. Does he think that by doing this the Vietnamese could possibly defend itself against a Chinese invasion? I say...follow the money here. Who is going to profit from this? I smell a rat.

The last time China and Vietnam tangled it wasn't that fun for the Chinese.

This is for the purpose of giving the Chinese additional thinking material in the South China sea.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Exactly.

Most people assume that since they are both Asian countries with Communist regimes that Vietnam and China are buddies but that's the furthest thing fron the truth. Vietnam was a Soviet client-state in the time that the Soviet-Sino relations were strained, including armed conflicts. Add to that the fact that Vietnam invaded Cambodia and overthrew the Chinese backed Khmer Rouge government, and that Vietnam and China have had border and territorial disputes dating back to the early days of independence from the French. Many of the islands that China is trying to claim Vietnam considers to be Vietnamese.

Obama loves some Commies.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Vietnam is essentially CINO (communist in name only).

Quote:The ruling Communist Party knows better than just about anyone that communist economics are a disaster. Vietnam’s economy has been growing at light speed for a while now. I knew that in advance, and yet it still stunned me. The city trembles with industriousness and entrepreneurship. Small and large businesses are everywhere. Half the residents seem to be in business for themselves. Anything and everything you can possibly imagine is for sale, though it’s not all high-end yet. I saw a Louis Vuitton outlet next to a bootleg CD store, an elegant Western-style café next to low-end bar with hard chairs and no air-conditioning, a Body Shop next to a used clothing store with cast-off second-hand T-shirts from the West, and an art gallery next to a store selling old pots and pans.

...

Hanoi is no longer an impoverished totalitarian backwater. It’s a global city now. And despite the name of its government, communism is finished.

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/...me-vietnam

(05-24-2016 08:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 10:21 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 05:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Im curious as why Obama felt this necessary. Does he think that by doing this the Vietnamese could possibly defend itself against a Chinese invasion? I say...follow the money here. Who is going to profit from this? I smell a rat.

The last time China and Vietnam tangled it wasn't that fun for the Chinese.

This is for the purpose of giving the Chinese additional thinking material in the South China sea.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Exactly.

Most people assume that since they are both Asian countries with Communist regimes that Vietnam and China are buddies but that's the furthest thing fron the truth. Vietnam was a Soviet client-state in the time that the Soviet-Sino relations were strained, including armed conflicts. Add to that the fact that Vietnam invaded Cambodia and overthrew the Chinese backed Khmer Rouge government, and that Vietnam and China have had border and territorial disputes dating back to the early days of independence from the French. Many of the islands that China is trying to claim Vietnam considers to be Vietnamese.

the two nations have animosity going back 700 years. China isn't building aircraft carriers because they want to intimidate the US. they are building them because they want to intimidate vietnam.

Vietnam fought off the Mongols.

Vietnam was the first war where America didn't play to win.

(05-24-2016 09:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  the two nations have animosity going back 700 years. China isn't building aircraft carriers because they want to intimidate the US. they are building them because they want to intimidate vietnam.

And all the other nations in SE Asia as well

(05-25-2016 08:25 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 09:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  the two nations have animosity going back 700 years. China isn't building aircraft carriers because they want to intimidate the US. they are building them because they want to intimidate vietnam.

And all the other nations in SE Asia as well

TBF SK, Japan, and the philipines have a massive US military presence so trying to intimidate them with equipment inferior to the US is a joke. with NK all it takes is sending a little bit of artillery to the border and they will get in line. taiwan knows they have a get out of jail free card anytime China tries to mess with them. so that essentially leaves vietnam by default as the only nation that would truly feel threatened by it and IIRC those carriers will be based in southern chinese ports and carry out their exercises mainly in the south china sea where vietnam is located.

(05-25-2016 08:44 AM)john01992 Wrote:  TBF SK, Japan, and the philipines have a massive US military presence so trying to intimidate them with equipment inferior to the US is a joke. with NK all it takes is sending a little bit of artillery to the border and they will get in line. taiwan knows they have a get out of jail free card anytime China tries to mess with them. so that essentially leaves vietnam by default as the only nation that would truly feel threatened by it and IIRC those carriers will be based in southern chinese ports and carry out their exercises mainly in the south china sea where vietnam is located.

China would disagree with your assessment of SE Asia. What the CCP understands is that the only reason any of them are willing to work together to thwart their expansion is US presence in the region. Despite the economic wealth of SK, Japan, Taiwan and others, without America assistance they are but speed bumps on the road to China asserting regional authority.

The PLAN knows this and is playing a game with the US Military to see just how committed America is to the defense of the region. With the current political climate in the US, do you think America would go to war if China invaded Taiwan or claims the entire South China Sea as their EEZ? Would you?

Right now, we have three flash points where regional conflicts could arise and threaten to go global--the Middle East, the former Iron Curtain countries of Europe, and the South China Sea. A reasonable and effective foreign policy approach would be 1) contain regional conflicts within the region and prevent the spread to global, and 2) within the region maintain the closest balance of power possible. This can be seen as part of point 2.

(05-25-2016 09:05 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 08:44 AM)john01992 Wrote:  TBF SK, Japan, and the philipines have a massive US military presence so trying to intimidate them with equipment inferior to the US is a joke. with NK all it takes is sending a little bit of artillery to the border and they will get in line. taiwan knows they have a get out of jail free card anytime China tries to mess with them. so that essentially leaves vietnam by default as the only nation that would truly feel threatened by it and IIRC those carriers will be based in southern chinese ports and carry out their exercises mainly in the south china sea where vietnam is located.

China would disagree with your assessment of SE Asia. What the CCP understands is that the only reason any of them are willing to work together to thwart their expansion is US presence in the region. Despite the economic wealth of SK, Japan, Taiwan and others, without America assistance they are but speed bumps on the road to China asserting regional authority.

The PLAN knows this and is playing a game with the US Military to see just how committed America is to the defense of the region. With the current political climate in the US, do you think America would go to war if China invaded Taiwan or claims the entire South China Sea as their EEZ? Would you?

I think anyone with a diplomatic sense would disagree with yours.

the key part of that is the US alliance with those nations. Three of those nations are classified as major-non NATO allies. and the fourth has unquestioned support. another point you are missing is that china is not a naval power. their military is a land army rather than a naval one. that's good news for SK, Taiwan, Japan, and the philipines, terrible news for vietnam. they are not going to intimidate those countries unless they build a nimitz. the only country that it will intimidate is vietnam.

china isn't russia. they value their US economic relation too much to screw with it over taiwan and the US allies. they also know that if they pull any stunt it would end up being falklands 2.0 with the net result being much worse for the losing side than it was in 1982. this thread is about obama carrying out his key foreign policy philosophy and the "pivot to asia" and yet you are questioning our commitments to those nations?

you have just as good a chance of the US sitting back on an attack against NATO as you would with the US sitting back on an attack against those countries.

only 15 countries have carriers, so to produce one is a massive physiological blow to your opponents because of the capabilities it gives you that they don't have. however the very reason having a carrier is such a big deal goes out the window when a country has the US as a major ally. so the end result is that the only real effect it has are non-developed nations without US support.

(05-25-2016 09:29 AM)john01992 Wrote:  I think anyone with a diplomatic sense would disagree with yours.

Not true, but instead of providing sources I'll note there is disagreement of my opinion.

Quote:

the key part of that is the US alliance with those nations. Three of those nations are classified as major-non NATO allies. and the fourth has unquestioned support. another point you are missing is that china is not a naval power. their military is a land army rather than a naval one. that's good news for SK, Taiwan, Japan, and the philipines, terrible news for vietnam. they are not going to intimidate those countries unless they build a nimitz. the only country that it will intimidate is vietnam.

China is building functional CVN's by turning reefs into military islands. You also equate naval power to being the equivalent to the US Navy, which China doesn't need to do to assert control over the SCS. The only nation conducting Freedom of Navigation drive byes to contest China's actions are the US and Australia and he 7th fleet can't be everywhere.

Quote:china isn't russia. they value their US economic relation too much to screw with it over taiwan and the US allies. they also know that if they pull any stunt it would end up being falklands 2.0 with the net result being much worse for the losing side than it was in 1982. this thread is about obama carrying out his key foreign policy philosophy and the "pivot to asia" and yet you are questioning our commitments to those nations?

China wants regional control along with maintained economic relational with the US. They want to implement a Sino version of the Monroe Doctrine and have tailored their defensive strategy around A2/AD. Nor would the CCP get on the world stage and and denounce America's naval presence in the region. And I question those commitments when the regional allies have the means and the funds to offer up a better challenge to China's regional aspirations, yet fail to do so.

Quote:you have just as good a chance of the US sitting back on an attack against NATO as you would with the US sitting back on an attack against those countries.

Probably true. I just think that after 15 years of war most US citizens would balk at attempting to police another regional hotspot. If China sinks a CVN/LHA and proves the conflict can't be won conventionally, do you think the US would resort to nuclear weapons? I'm doubtful.

Quote:only 15 countries have carriers, so to produce one is a massive physiological blow to your opponents because of the capabilities it gives you that they don't have. however the very reason having a carrier is such a big deal goes out the window when a country has the US as a major ally. so the end result is that the only real effect it has are non-developed nations without US support.

You vastly overestimate the utility of CVN's in the 21 century. Carriers make a difference in blue water engagements where support from land based aircraft is unavailable. No nation is foolish enough to challenge the USN on that front. But an engagement in the SE Asia is playing in China's backyard. They don't need a CVN to project air power and as I mentioned above, the manmade islands make up for any gaps that might exist in coverage.