[ThirdTerm]

Whatever the reason, over the last several weeks, the argument that war over the Diaoyu Islands -- win or lose -- isn’t in China’s interests has begun to appear in the news media. No doubt, this pullback has been further inspired by Japanese allegations (officially disputed by China) that on Jan. 19 and 30, Chinese ships had locked fire-control radar on a Japanese helicopter and vessel, respectively, near the islands. Online, the pragmatic anti-war case has been paralleled by an emerging, even more unexpected argument: The Communist Party uses the islands dispute to distract Chinese from governance issues. Typically, that argument is made by anonymous, poorly followed individuals. But in recent days, more credible voices have begun to question whether the government’s approach to conflict is in the interest of China’s people or just its rulers. On Feb. 11, Mao Yushi, an iconoclastic economist and social reformer with a history of challenging Communist Party orthodoxy, logged into Sina Weibo, China’s leading microblog, and tweeted one of the more remarkable and controversial tweets in recent Chinese social-media history to his 1-million-plus followers:

“My fellow citizens (including you sober-minded politicians): For thousands of years, rulers have taught us to be patriotic. It is they who represent the nation. To love the nation is to love them and their political power. They seldom tell us why we should love the nation. I think patriotism is ultimately for the benefit of the common people, and that patriotism which is detrimental to the people is wrong. … To fight for Diaoyu islands is patriotic, but it is of no benefit to the people.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-14/china-shifts-ever-so-slightly-on-debate-over-islands.html

[feihua]

The Communist Party uses the islands dispute to distract Chinese from governance issues.

The above.


Nonetheless, on paper, literally Japan does not have enough power because because of their constitution. Japan does not have the power to declare war on any nation nor does it have any need.

Remove that clause, even with the current state of their defense forces, they have the power. The technology, the adherence to authority and the alliances involved make this more than merely clear.

The chief reason is the link of command is China's largest inherent weakness. The citizenry is not well adapted to following orders, especially from Beijing. This attitude does carry over into military commands. Beijing is well aware how authority is less respected the further away the linkage happens to be.

The Hainan Incident happened because of Top Gun styled cockiness on the part of the Chinese pilot Wang Wei. This is far more common as an example rather than an exception. It is the chief reason the black boxes have never been released.

Clusterfncks are known as clusterfncks because of the level at which they happen: those who wear clusters of leaves to denote their status. Chinese incompetence would happen at lower levels and it is very doubtful at this time that China can perform many of their major and most important maneuvers because of inefficiency and unprofessional attitudes.

All of that said, that Japan has an inkling to declare war upon any nation is just ridiculous.

[Igor Antunov]

I find the idea of an unprofessional PLA laughable. It has for a long time had the resources and military tradition to produce a top notch chain of command.

No, civil society does not translate to military makeup, because the PLA does not utilise conscripts, they are full time professionals-all 3 million of them (including reserves). Furthermore they aren't sourced from a pool of stupid low-lives looking for a quick buck, a huge number now come from university graduates looking for a guaranteed career. Today it is very difficult to get into what is a guaranteed and very beneficial career. Getting into the 4 million-strong paramilitary force is even more difficult due to even higher demand. Downsizing, and modernisation, alongside massive improvements in China's education system has led to this situation.

The Hainan incident led to the capture of a a major US surveillance jet and a great deal of intelligence onboard. The two pilots were probably ordered to harrass and ultimately force the aircraft to land, which it did. A worthy trade.

The JSDF has a smaller (quality) recruitment pool to work with, and lesser resources, both budgetary and material. Technology is something that is changing every day, the vast numbers of frigates and destroyers for example China has built since 2000 and continues to build are perfectly capable in relation to Japanese hardware and the Chinese defence arms are highly active, having held maneuvers every month or multiple times a month for the past decade.

How long until people around the world wake up from their black and white views of Chinese soldiers wielding ww-2 era firarms and straw hats? Hopefully soon because it is growing alarming, you will be caught with your pants down.

[feihua]

I find the idea of an unprofessional PLA laughable. It has for a long time had the resources and military tradition to produce a top notch chain of command.

No, civil society does not translate to military makeup, because the PLA does not utilise conscripts, they are full time professionals-all 3 million of them (including reserves). Furthermore they aren't sourced from a pool of stupid low-lives looking for a quick buck, a huge number now come from university graduates looking for a guaranteed career. Today it is very difficult to get into what is a guaranteed and very beneficial career. Getting into the 4 million-strong paramilitary force is even more difficult due to even higher demand. Downsizing, and modernisation, alongside massive improvements in China's education system has led to this situation.

The Hainan incident led to the capture of a a major US surveillance jet and a great deal of intelligence onboard. The two pilots were probably ordered to harrass and ultimately force the aircraft to land, which it did.

The JSDF has a smaller (quality) recruitment pool to work with, and lesser resources, both budgetary and material. Technology is something that is changing every day, the vast numbers of frigates and destroyers for example China has built since 2006 and continues to build are perfectly capable in relation to Japanese hardware.

Frigates and destroyers in that region are not necessary because the countries are already so close to each other. Naval powers could only be of benefit for the deployment of troops for land invasion. Land invasion from either side will never happen. If such a war should ever happen in our lifetime, it will be an air battle first and one that is quickly over.

I find the idea of an unprofessional PLA laughable. It has for a long time had the resources and military tradition to produce a top notch chain of command.

Can you show that it has succeeded?

What is a long time?

The citizens were stringing soldiers up and leaving them burning and hanging from bridges nationwide as the call for democracy were finally squelched hardly a generation ago. Since then, the numbers regarding civil unrest especially concerning the usage of bombs against government are in the tens of thousands.

Twice a year on average, Beijing relies upon stirring up nationalistic concerns to dispel the citizenry's domestic concerns. When Beijing attempts to gather the flock, the flock gets to communicate in a more cohesive manner that exposes Beijing and domestic problems through comparisons that do not add up. This contributes to conflict within the ranks and shows Beijing does not have the grip nor the influence it wishes and must revert to local tactics as a means to control.

Furthermore they aren't sourced from a pool .... looking for a .... buck, a .... number .... come ..... looking for a .... career. Today it is .... difficult to get into what is a .... career. Getting into the ..... force is .... difficult due to ... demand. Downsizing, and modernisation, alongside .... China's education system has led to this situation.

When one looks at that with the adjectives removed, your claim remains the same but the picture is more realistic. They are looking for a career but not money? They are looking for stability as well as money? Demand is high because the other choices are not present? The citizens are faced with downsizing despite the numbers needing stability?

I see failure spelled out in those words. Whereas that failure can be argued, I do not think instability can be argued. When a country relies upon entry into the armed forces as the only guarantee, half of the armed forces will split for better opportunity especially when seeking guarantee and certainly when discovering opportunity exists at home as well as overseas, contrary to what the education has taught as well as declined to teach.

For as the Chinese do not forget their enemies, it is just as well known that family comes before nation, for indeed in that region, it is better to be alive.

The Hainan incident led to the capture of a a major US surveillance jet and a great deal of intelligence onboard. The two pilots were probably ordered to harrass and ultimately force the aircraft to land, which it did.

This is hardly the case.

There are plenty of records available but let's please allow wiki for brevity:

On the ground

For 15 minutes after landing, the U.S. aircraft crew continued to destroy sensitive items and data on board the aircraft, as per Department of Defense protocol. They disembarked from the plane after soldiers looked through windows, pointed guns, and shouted through bullhorns. The Chinese offered them water and cigarettes. Kept under close guard, they were taken to a military barracks at Lingshui where they were interrogated for two nights before being moved to lodgings in Haikou, the provincial capital and largest city on the island. They were treated well in general, but were interrogated at all hours, and so suffered from lack of sleep. They found the Chinese food unpalatable as it included fish heads, but this later improved. Guards gave them decks of cards and an English-language newspaper. To pass the time and keep spirits up, Lts. Honeck and Vignery worked up humorous routines based on the television shows The People's Court, Saturday Night Live and The Crocodile Hunter. These were performed as they went to meals, the only time they were together. They gradually developed good relations with their guards, with one guard inquiring of them the lyrics for the song "Hotel California" by the Eagles.[23]
Three U.S. diplomats were sent to Hainan to meet the crew and assess their conditions, and to negotiate their release. They were first allowed to meet with the crew three days after the collision. U.S. officials complained at the slow pace of the Chinese decision.[24]
The 24 crew-members (21 men and three women)[25] were detained until April 11, shortly after the U.S. issued the "letter of the two sorries" to the Chinese. The Chinese military boarded the plane and thoroughly stripped and examined the aircraft's equipment. Reliable sources have speculated that the crew were only partially successful in their destruction of the on-board data and technology, although no official information has been released.[26]

Aftermath

U.S. Navy engineers said the EP-3 could be repaired in 8–12 months,[32] but China refused to allow it to be flown off Hainan island. The disassembled aircraft was released on July 3, 2001, and was returned to the United States by the Russian airline Polet in an Antonov An-124-100.[33]

In addition to paying for the dismantling and shipping of the EP-3, the United States paid for the 11 days of food and lodging supplied by the Chinese government to the aircraft's crew, in the amount of $34,000. The Chinese had demanded one million dollars compensation from the U.S. for the lost J-8 and their pilot, but this was declined and no further negotiations were held.

Both sides were criticized following the event; the Chinese for making a bluff which was called without any real concessions from the American side other than the "Letter of the two sorries," and the Americans first for being insensitive immediately after the event, and then later for issuing the letter rather than taking a harder line.[36]
Following the collision, China's monitoring of reconnaissance flights became less aggressive.[37] As of 2011, flights of US spy planes near the Chinese coastline continue as before the incident.[38][39]
Hainan is currently the home of the PLAN Hainan Submarine Base, an underground facility capable of supporting nuclear ballistic missile submarines.[40] In March 2009, the USNS Impeccable, an ocean surveillance ship of the U.S. Navy was on several occasions approached by Chinese ships and aircraft while operating 75 miles (121 km) south of Hainan in actions Pentagon officials characterized as "aggressive" and "harassment."[41][42]

Igor, you state "probably" harass when indeed it has already been made clear.

The harassment was juvenile at best.

One of the J-8s (81192), piloted by Lt. Cdr. Wang Wei,[9][10] made two close passes to the EP-3. On the third pass, it collided with the larger aircraft. The J-8 broke into two pieces, while the EP-3's radome detached completely and its No. 1 (outer left) propeller was severely damaged. Airspeed and altitude data were lost, the aircraft depressurized, and an antenna became wrapped around the tailplane. The J-8's tail fin struck the EP-3's left aileron forcing it fully upright, and causing the U.S. plane to roll to the left at 3-4 times its normal maximum rate.[8]

In the process, Wang Wei lost his own aircraft due to his own error. That was his reward for his technique and I have doubts it was because of being instructed to do so from higher up. He was already well known with the US group for his cockiness.

Cause of collision
Both the cause of the collision and the assignment of blame were disputed. The American government claimed that the Chinese jet bumped the wing of the larger, slower, and less maneuverable EP-3. After returning to U.S. soil, the pilot of the EP-3, Lt. Shane Osborn, was allowed to make a brief statement in which he said that the EP-3 was on autopilot and in straight-and-level flight at the time of the collision. He stated that he was just "guarding the autopilot" in his interview with Frontline.[17] The U.S. released video footage from previous missions which revealed that American reconnaissance crews had previously been intercepted by Lt. Cdr. Wang. During one such incident, he was shown approaching so close that his e-mail address could be read from a sign that he was holding up. Based on the account of Wang Wei's wingman, the Chinese government stated that the American plane "veered at a wide angle towards the Chinese", in the process ramming the J-8. This claim cannot be verified since the Chinese government refuses to release data from the black boxes of either plane, both of which are in its possession.[18][19][20][21][22]

China gets bogged down. Had it been successful as you want to show it, the gains would have been significant. The intelligence onboard was lost, the plane was returned and China was in the red for casualties. Operations were resumed as normal.

And there are PLA soldiers humming Hotel California and no doubt appreciate the education.

[Igor Antunov]

Stop engaging in semantics, deconstructing my sentences and creating discussions based around the words I used. I knew a guy who engaged in psycho analysis during arguments, he had nothing worthwhile to add to the discussions, his words only served to add fluff and irrelevance. I do it exclusively when I'm lazy and eager to troll. Let's get serious. You need only know the scenario, the balance of power, the context. It is not in Japan's favour.

You present no compelling evidence to the contrary in regards to the Hainan incident, wikipedia articles sourced exclusively from the western viewpoint are cute, but no dice I'm afraid. Even here we learn that the incident was a major humiliation for the US, it had to write a letter of apology before it got it's plane back in pieces. It obviously wanted that plane back.

And want to know which element of the PLA has received greater modernization resources than the navy? The air-force. Yes, it would be a very quick and painful lesson for Japan. Also regarding the point of contention, the disputed islands, the navy would play a very big part.

[feihua]

Stop engaging in semantics, deconstructing my sentences and creating discussions based around the words I used.

The language is flowery. It is hard to understand your point when you want to use words like stupid low-lives. When taking the time to see your true point, rather than your opinion, in all efforts to give you some kind of benefit of a doubt....well, your point comes across to me as being based upon emotion.

That paragraph could have been written about many national populations.

I knew a guy who engaged in psycho analysis during arguments, he had nothing worthwhile to add to the discussions, his words only served to add fluff and irrelevance.

Haven't we all?

I do it exclusively when I'm lazy and eager to troll. Let's get serious. You need only know the scenario, the balance of power, the context. It is not in Japan's favour.

You present nothing to change my view, though, despite my eagerness if not my willingness to see your point. If you want to get serious, it is obvious you have my attention. I have extensive first hand experience in both China and Japan. I have worked with both governments. I have even cleared up some matters to the US State Department regarding government issues of the PRC with the backing of the PRC to the mutual agreement of both, and the satisfaction of the DHS. If you really believe one only need know the scenario, the balance of power and the context, to make assertions, especially in such critical areas, you are lacking other resources that are readily at hand.

Using common available resources does not seem as preferable to you as your opinions. We have both been to China, am I correct? Have we both been to Changsha? Would you like to compare notes? Do you think we can do this without providing personal risk or shall we just try to stick to opinions and keep the adjectives to a minimum, so the facts might have a chance to be revealed on their own? When you speak of something not being in favor, I beg you to seriously consider these questions first on a personal level, especially before taking things to a personal level of telling me what to do.

I am more than willing to compare notes.

We have both been to China, correct?

Have we both been to Changsha?

Do you prefer to stick with common available resources or do you wish something truly compelling?

You present no compelling evidence to the contrary in regards to the Hainan incident,

"Compelling" is your judgment call, Igor. One cannot say I have not presented evidence. I preferred sticking with the wiki entry because the sources provided should be sufficient. If you feel you can maintain that globalsecurity.org, the BBC, the Taipei Times, the Guardian, the Independent, Salon.com, Reuters, The Economist, NPR and more are not reliable sources, please present other sources. I am all eyes. I have presented evidence and you have merely disputed it being compelling.

Facts are facts. Show some "eastern viewpoints," some compelling evidence regarding the incident, please.

wikipedia articles sourced exclusively from the western viewpoint are cute, but no dice I'm afraid.

Roll those bones, then Igor. I am very curious about what you have that has been overlooked.

Even here we learn that the incident was a major humiliation for the US, it had to write a letter of apology before it got it's plane back in pieces. It obviously wanted that plane back.

You are insisting on using these words like "major" when the US flat out rejected what China was asking. "It had to write a letter of apology." You have not even paid the wiki entry attention. I cannot see how you would pay other sources attention.

The United States stated that it was "not a letter of apology," as some state-run Chinese media outlets characterized it at the time, but "an expression of regret and sorrow."[2] While China had originally asked for an apology, the U.S. explained, "We did not do anything wrong, and therefore it was not possible to apologize."[29]

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/a ... 4/12/81342

Now, Reuters and AP feeds the Taipei Times, so you can maintain it as a western source.

What do you have to show besides attacks you claim you have no time for?

And want to know which element of the PLA has received greater modernization resources than the navy? The air-force. Yes, it would be a very quick and painful lesson for Japan. Also regarding the point of contention, the disputed islands, the navy would play a very big part.

How about that, Igor. How about that! The increased illumination has been less than fascinating. It has been predictable, in fact.

Bottom line: Japan cannot declare war on China. Does it have enough power to confront China in a war? Of course, it does.

[ThirdTerm]

The Hainan incident may have shown China's clumsiness in handling the situation involving an American reconnaissance plane which invaded the PRC's exclusive economic zone over the South China Sea and the Chinese jet collided with the wing of the EP-3 after aggressively tailgating the US spy plane, which caused the J-8 fighter's pilot's death. Chinese military personnel may be prone to engage in unprofessional behaviour and the recent incident, in which Chinese ships locked fire-control radar on a Japanese vessel, is another example and the Chinese government was quick to deny such an embarrassing incident. Moreover, the People's Liberation Army's computers located in Shanghai are identified as the sources of recent hacking operations and some rogue elements in the PLA could have been hacking into major American sites during office hours without proper authorisation. There are indications that China is backpedaling on the Diaoyu issue after the strong-worded statements from US government officials and as long as Washington maintains this stance that is supportive of Japan, China would be discouraged from taking military action over the disputed islands to avoid risking a shooting war with the superpower because it does not worth the price as the Chinese blogger sagely pointed out.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida on Friday that the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea are covered by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. Kerry said he reaffirmed the United States' unwavering position that the islands fall under the scope of the bilateral treaty. Under the treaty, the United States is bound to protect the territories under the administration of Japan. Kishida expressed his gratitude for the clarification by Kerry's predecessor, Hillary Clinton, at their meeting in January that the United States opposed "any unilateral actions that would seek to undermine Japanese administration" of the islands. Kerry complimented Japan on the restraint it has shown in handling the Senkaku issue amid heightened tensions with China. The islands are also claimed by China, where they are called Diaoyu.

[feihua]

According to globalsecurity.org

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -intro.htm

People's Liberation Army - Ground Forces / PLA Army

The Army is responsible primarily for military operations on land. At present, the Army has no independent leading organ, and the functions of the leading organ are exercised by the four general headquarters/departments.

Traditionally, China's ground forces have been highly cohesive, patriotic, physically fit, and well trained in basic skills. In addition, they are generally strong in operational and communications security, as well as in the use of camouflage, concealment, and deception. Major weaknesses are lack of transport and logistic support.

Ground force leadership, training in combined operations, and morale are poor. Most soldiers who enter the army are peasants with a poor education, and one-third of China's ground forces leave active duty each year. Consequently, the PLA lacks a large body of experienced professional soldiers who are trained to operate sophisticated equipment.

The PLA is still a party army with nepotism and political/family connections continuing to predominate in officer appointment and advancement. The soldiers, for the most part, are semi-literate rural peasants; there is no professional NCO corps, per se. Military service, with its low remuneration and family disruption, is increasingly seen as a poor alternative to work in the private sector. China's leadership is aware of these weaknesses and is trying to address them in its overall modernization program. Thus, increasingly in the future, officers likely will be promoted on merit as opposed to connections, and the ratio of higher educated volunteer servicemen to conscripts likely will increase.

[Igor Antunov]

Sigh, more myopic sourcing. GS gets all its insider info from the outside and that last part reads like it was written in the 30's. Observe how those poorly led, poorly armed peasants wiped the floor with the battle hardened US forces in korea. Furthermore, ground forces 21st century modernisation was completed years ago. Chinese GPS net for military use region-wide was functional years ago. Shift to Information-centric warfare has been achieved. Airforce and Navy are receiving major love now.

It is like a self propagating agenda train speeding towards a break in the line. As for the rest, points noted guys but I've said my piece, I will let history speak for me, no sense in arguing in circles and with 70 year old stereotypes in play.

[Terrik]

Sigh, more myopic sourcing. GS gets all its insider info from the outside and that last part reads like it was written in the 30's. Observe how those poorly led, poorly armed peasants wiped the floor with the battle hardened US forces in korea.

First off, have you been with PLA soldiers in China? I've had a great deal of experience with soldiers in Shenyang (I lived near a military installation near the city's Koreantown) and Shanghai. It's an entirely accurate description. A lot of them do come from the poor countryside and are indeed semi-literate, as a good portion leave school after middle school. That doesn't mean they can't be molded into effective soldiers through effective training, but it is what it is. Nepotism and "guangxi" is naturally in full effect in the PLA, as it is everywhere else in Chinese societyso it should be no real surprise to anyone who's spend time in China.

Also "wiped the floor" with US soldiers in Korea is highly subjective considering the casualty ratios between the two opposing forces.

[feihua]

Sigh, more myopic sourcing. GS gets all its insider info from the outside and that last part reads like it was written in the 30's.

I'm glad we are at least on the same page when it comes to determining the end of the civil war in China.

In August of 2010, the PLA Daily, news sponsored by the People's Liberation Army stated it had much to learn from the USA:

China's military thinking is outmoded and should learn from others, especially the United States, when it comes to modernizing its vast armed forces, a leading armed forces newspaper said on Sunday.

A commentary in the Liberation Army Daily said modernizing China's military was central to reforms which have seen heavy investment in high-tech weapons like advanced fighter jets.

China has been slimming down its military, the world's largest by number, for the past few years, trying to build a more effective force to face U.S.-supplied Taiwan and Japan, as well as the United States itself.

But this needs creativity and more open thinking, the newspaper said, which could be a problem.

"As there is a rather large influence of conservative thinking in traditional Chinese culture, the task of renewing the culture and thinking of our military will be extremely arduous," it wrote.

China had to "audaciously learn from the experience of the information cultures of foreign militaries," it said.

"History and reality have shown again and again that a country which does not have a world view is a backward one. A military which lacks global vision is one without hope."

The United States was a good example to follow in two regards, it added.

The U.S. military buys technology already available on the open market when it can, such as global positioning systems used in the Gulf War, a cheaper and more practical method than trying to develop such equipment itself, the commentary said.

And the United States pays a lot of attention to training, "enlisting large numbers of able men and boldly using them."

The Chinese military looked on with horror during the first Gulf War in 1990-1991, when U.S. guided missiles and precision bombs easily took out Iraqi equipment such as tanks, much of it similar to what China was using at the time.

Since then the People's Liberation Army has come on in leaps and bounds, though analysts say poor training and coordination among different branches of the military remain serious challenges.

During last year's national day parade, China showed off its Dongfeng 21C missile, which could force U.S. aircraft carriers to keep a greater distance if it is successfully developed into an anti-ship ballistic missile.

That would make it harder for the United States to come to Taiwan's aid in the event of a conflict. China claims the self-ruled, democratic island as its own.

Furthermore, ground forces 21st century modernisation was completed years ago.

How many years ago was that? The one time you could really use an adjective for information, I get shortsheeted!

[Igor Antunov]

First off, have you been with PLA soldiers in China?

Actually, yes.

And sigh at everything else. This turd of an argument has been smeared over too much bread.

[feihua]

First off, have you been with PLA soldiers in China?

Actually, yes.

And sigh at everything else. This turd of an argument has been smeared over too much bread.

So much for holding your piece

You were with the PLA?

Actually, considering that almost every reasonably priced hotel in the PRC is owned, operated and staffed by the PLA, it is quite easy to claim one has been with PLA soldiers in China.

I don't think this could happen with a five day group tour. But in a different situation, say, bringing along a friend who thinks 3,000 yuan is enough, those PLA hotels come in handy.

How were your experiences with the PLA? Did they speak of how you could be taken out with only one peanut?

Such a question can be difficult. I remembered how I wept like a baby when my father-in-law in Changsha wanted me to show him in a book from a Chinese library where China had ever invaded another country.



Igor, c'mon man......numbers are not what it is about. Information is key. Just a little information, just a wee bit, can make one scurry and rethink their goals. This applies to China as it does to our own personal beings. If you have something to share with the class, then allow me to be the B-movie dialog.

I'm dying for some enlightenment.

[Igor Antunov]

It was on a train for 14 grueling hours. There was a group of them in our carriage, 2 shared our cabin and one of them spoke perfect english.

And as I indicated earlier, I'm done with these kinds of piss-ups. Time to let theory play itself out in practice. I've formed my arguments and stand by them. You do the same.

[feihua]

It was on a train for 14 grueling hours. There was a group of them in our carriage, 2 shared our cabin and one of them spoke perfect english.

And as I indicated earlier, I'm done with these kinds of piss-ups. Time to let theory play itself out in practice. I've formed my arguments and stand by them. You do the same.

No way, man. Be a sport.

Sounds like Beijing to Changsha.

Those potted plants make great ashtrays.

Does this seem familiar?







They're not exactly like the world's largest skyscraper going up in 90 days but nonetheless compelling.

Cheers, mate. Of course, I am trying to bust your balls. But what is your interest in supporting such that cannot succeed? I am truly curious. I've got the stooge UK and the monster US triangulated on your radar perspective, but what supports the hope that Japan is defeated by the PRC in a war that will not take place?

[Igor Antunov]

But what is your interest in supporting such that cannot succeed?

[feihua]

Fair enough, I reckon.