FORBES
"We Can Only Count On 33 F-22s To Fight Tonight"
Eric Tegler, Contributor, Aerospace & Defense
According to calculations by retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General David Deptula, the United States can count on just 33 F-22s to be ready to fight at any time.
Most Americans have no idea that barely two squadrons of the world’s premier jet fighter would be able to go to war at moment’s notice.
Conversely, U.S. adversaries know that the Raptor is a significant but limited threat.
The crash of a U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor last Friday morning at a training range about 12 miles outside Eglin Air Force Base in Florida has again brought the relatively small number of Raptors into focus.
While the Air Force officially lists 186 jets (now 185) in its inventory and the airplane that crashed was one of 28 dedicated training F-22s, assessing the number of the combat capable, or combat ready, Raptors isn’t as simple as subtracting (now 27) trainers from 185 airplanes.
Deptula, the dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, sat down and ran through the numbers.
They don’t look good.
The Fight Tonight Formula
The Air Force’s Air Combat Command declined a request to provide the number of combat-coded (i.e. potentially combat ready) F-22s currently in the inventory.
Deptula explains that he made his calculations using USAF numbers from 2017 which were as follows:
Primary mission aircraft inventory (PMAI): 123
Primary training aircraft inventory (PTAI): 28
Primary development aircraft inventory (PDAI): 16
Backup aircraft inventory (BAI): 19
Attrition Reserve: 0
“In 2018 the F-22 mission capable rate was 52 percent,” Deptula observes.
“So .52 x 123 = 64 combat capable F-22s ready to fight at any given time.”
Sixty-four Raptors sounds few enough but it does not reflect operational realities.
“Real-time mission planning assumes 1/3 in the fight; 1/3 preparing to launch; 1/3 recovering [returning/landing]."
"So one could count on about 21 F-22s airborne in a fight at any one time…across the entire USAF F-22 inventory.”
“A surge with adequate preparation could certainly increase this number,” Deptula allows.
“When deployed for combat, mission capable rates average well above 80 percent, so bump up the number to 98 mission capable aircraft available with about 33 in the fight at any one time.”
An Uncomfortable Position
Given such low numbers of available aircraft (and not many more trained Raptor pilots), it’s reasonable to assume that Air Force theater commanders or Combined Forces Air Component commanders may not feel confident of having airplanes that can effectively gain air superiority against a formidable foe in any of several regions of the world.
“We’re already past the point of being uncomfortable with the numbers,” Deptula says.
When F-22 production/buy decisions were being determined during the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, Deptula says he succeeded in convincing then-Air Force Chief of Staff John Jumper that the right number of F-22s to buy was 381 Raptors.
“That was based on an assignment of one combat-coded squadron per Air Expeditionary Force (AEF)."
"There were ten AEFs."
"Ten times 24 [jets per squadron] is 240 combat-coded jets.”
Deptula rounded out his calculation with a traditional equation for fighter aircraft: To meet training requirements, a number of Raptors equaling 25 percent of the combat-coded force was needed.
The 60 additional F-22s would bring the total to 300 airplanes.
Another five percent of the combat/training total (300) would be needed for test purposes, adding another 15 Raptors for a new total of 315.
Backup aircraft inventory is assumed at ten percent of the cumulative total, adding 32 more Raptors (for 347).
Then Deptula says, you compute an Attrition Reserve, ten percent of the previous categories so 34 additional aircraft which gets you to total of about 381 aircraft.
Thanks to the decision by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to truncate the buy to 187 – backed by President Barack Obama – in 2009, a cushion for F-22s does not exist.
“There are zero attrition aircraft in the current fleet."
"Every airplane that is lost has a significant impact on the force,” Deptula says.
Quickly transitioning dedicated training Raptors, which lack updates to make them effective in combat, is currently not an option.
The Air Force has been looking at the possibility of bringing those F-22s up-to-date, potentially adding another squadron of combat-capable airplanes.
But defense budget issues from Sequestration to expected reductions due to COVID-19 have, and likely will, prevent the Service from following through.
“That’s all you can do with the exception of re-opening the [F-22 production] line."
"And they’re not going to re-open the line.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler ... a251245310
AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
THE DAILY CALLER
"Yellen Predicts ‘Rapid Inflation’ After Downplaying Risk For Months"
Thomas Catenacci
16 JULY 2021
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen acknowledged “rapid inflation” will persist for several more months after she repeatedly downplayed the risk of consumer price increases.
Americans can expect consumer prices to continue their rapid rise until returning to normal in the “medium term,” Yellen said Thursday in an interview with CNBC.
But Yellen, along with top Federal Reserve officials, predicted inflation wouldn’t be a concern.
“We will have several more months of rapid inflation,” Yellen told CNBC.
“So I’m not saying that this is a one-month phenomenon.”
“But I think over the medium term, we’ll see inflation decline back toward normal levels,” she said.
“But, of course, we have to keep a careful eye on it.”
Yet in February, Yellen downplayed the risks of inflation, saying the Treasury Department had the tools to deal with the risk “if it materializes.”
She also pushed back on former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers’ warning that President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package would trigger massive, once-in-a-generation inflation.
Yellen added that the Biden administration was more worried about jobs than rising prices.
One month later, the Treasury secretary downplayed inflation again when asked if the $1,400 stimulus checks included in the relief package could boost prices, according to the Associated Press.
She again pushed the legislation, saying it was key for a full economic recovery.
“I really don’t think that is going to happen,” she said in the March 8 interview, the AP reported.
“We had a 3.5% unemployment rate before the pandemic and there was no sign of inflation increasing.”
Then, one week later, Yellen doubled down, arguing again that there wouldn’t be significant inflation.
“Is there a risk of inflation?"
"I think there’s a small risk and I think it’s manageable,” Yellen told ABC News.
“I don’t think it’s a significant risk,” she continued.
“And if it materializes, we’ll certainly monitor for it but we have tools to address it.”
However, consumer prices have surged faster than they have in decades, according to government data.
Economists also expect inflation to rise higher and for longer than previously expected.
In addition, several major U.S. corporations have recently announced price increases while the highest number of small businesses have reported price hikes since 1981.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... hp&pc=U531
"Yellen Predicts ‘Rapid Inflation’ After Downplaying Risk For Months"
Thomas Catenacci
16 JULY 2021
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen acknowledged “rapid inflation” will persist for several more months after she repeatedly downplayed the risk of consumer price increases.
Americans can expect consumer prices to continue their rapid rise until returning to normal in the “medium term,” Yellen said Thursday in an interview with CNBC.
But Yellen, along with top Federal Reserve officials, predicted inflation wouldn’t be a concern.
“We will have several more months of rapid inflation,” Yellen told CNBC.
“So I’m not saying that this is a one-month phenomenon.”
“But I think over the medium term, we’ll see inflation decline back toward normal levels,” she said.
“But, of course, we have to keep a careful eye on it.”
Yet in February, Yellen downplayed the risks of inflation, saying the Treasury Department had the tools to deal with the risk “if it materializes.”
She also pushed back on former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers’ warning that President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package would trigger massive, once-in-a-generation inflation.
Yellen added that the Biden administration was more worried about jobs than rising prices.
One month later, the Treasury secretary downplayed inflation again when asked if the $1,400 stimulus checks included in the relief package could boost prices, according to the Associated Press.
She again pushed the legislation, saying it was key for a full economic recovery.
“I really don’t think that is going to happen,” she said in the March 8 interview, the AP reported.
“We had a 3.5% unemployment rate before the pandemic and there was no sign of inflation increasing.”
Then, one week later, Yellen doubled down, arguing again that there wouldn’t be significant inflation.
“Is there a risk of inflation?"
"I think there’s a small risk and I think it’s manageable,” Yellen told ABC News.
“I don’t think it’s a significant risk,” she continued.
“And if it materializes, we’ll certainly monitor for it but we have tools to address it.”
However, consumer prices have surged faster than they have in decades, according to government data.
Economists also expect inflation to rise higher and for longer than previously expected.
In addition, several major U.S. corporations have recently announced price increases while the highest number of small businesses have reported price hikes since 1981.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets ... hp&pc=U531
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 11, 2021
Rep. Luria’s WSJ Op-Ed: Does the Pentagon Take China Seriously?
NORFOLK, VA — House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Vice-Chair Elaine Luria penned an Op-Ed in today’s Wall Street Journal on the “Say-Do Gap” in the U.S. approach to China, arguing that what the Pentagon “says” about Beijing does not match what the current budget request “does.”
“Military leaders identify China as our number one challenge, often calling Beijing ‘an increasingly capable strategic competitor,’ as Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley has warned, or a ‘pacing’ threat."
"Yet the budget request reduces the ability of the Navy and the Air Force — the services that would have outsize roles in any conflict in the Western Pacific — to respond to threats in that region,” Vice-Chair Luria wrote.
“Meanwhile, the budget promises undeveloped weapons that may take decades to enter the fleet, funded by a ‘divest to invest’ strategy.”
Vice-Chair Luria has consistently advocated for a 3-5 percent annual increase in defense spending and supported policies to counter the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) influence and aggression.
At an oversight hearing in April, she pressed military and foreign policy experts on the need for an increased INDOPACOM presence to respond to the threat posed by PRC’s rising navy.
Last month, Congresswoman Luria co-introduced the Arctic Security Initiative Act of 2021, legislation requiring the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct a security assessment of the Arctic region and establish an Arctic Security Initiative (ASI) with a five-year plan to fully resource the DOD and individual service-specific strategies for the Arctic.
In the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, Congresswoman Luria successfully advocated for the inclusion of $2.2 billion to combat the growing threat of China through the Pacific Deterrence Initiative.
Vice-Chair Luria is a House co-sponsor of the SHIPYARD Act, a $25 billion investment in American Shipyards.
Does the Pentagon Take China Seriously?
By Rep. Elaine Luria
Our national defense leaders have a problem: What they say doesn’t line up with what they do.
The mismatch is apparent in the latest Pentagon budget, and a “say-do” gap undermines the trust of Congress and the American people.
Military leaders identify China as our No. 1 challenge, often calling Beijing “an increasingly capable strategic competitor,” as Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley has warned, or a “pacing” threat.
Yet the budget request reduces the ability of the Navy and the Air Force — the services that would have outsize roles in any conflict in the Western Pacific — to respond to threats in that region.
Meanwhile, the budget promises undeveloped weapons that may take decades to enter the fleet, funded by a “divest to invest” strategy.
The Navy wants to retire 15 ships, including seven guided-missile cruisers and four littoral combat ships, while procuring only two surface combatant ships and two submarines.
(Fortunately, Congress’s budget draft would buy another destroyer and limit the retirements.)
Naval aviation procurement dropped 15.6% over 2021 even as the Navy speeds up F/A-18 retirements.
The USS Ronald Reagan, based in Japan to counter a threat from China, is overseeing the Afghanistan withdrawal in the Middle East because no other aircraft carrier is available.
Meanwhile, China is building warships at an astonishing rate.
In 2010, the U.S. Navy had 68 more ships than the Chinese Navy.
Today, we have 63 fewer, a swing of 131 ships in 10 years.
The Air Force is also following the Pentagon’s “divest to invest” lead.
Combat aircraft procurement is down 22% from 2021.
The force wants to retire 137 aircraft, more than double the number it plans to buy.
After the retirement of 17 B-1s last year, the Air Force’s bomber inventory is at a level top officers have called the bare minimum.
Ammunition procurement is down more than 40%.
China in recent years has focused on procuring advanced aircraft and has the world’s third-largest air force.
In addition, China has an extensive ground-based conventional missile force, including the DF-26, known as the “carrier killer,” and capable of striking Guam.
The defense budget tells the American people and allies that although we say China is a threat, we are not taking action to respond.
Take Gen. Milley’s June 17 assessment of the threat that China will invade Taiwan: “I think the probability is probably low, in the immediate, near-term future.”
This directly contradicts statements by Adm. John Aquilino, the Pacific combatant commander, who testified that China could be prepared to take Taiwan by force in the next six years: “We’ve seen things that I don’t think we expected, and that’s why I continue to talk about a sense of urgency.”
Congress has a duty to close the “say-do” gap, whether through increased funding or redirecting other Pentagon dollars, and to provide the resources needed to deter China.
If you believe Adm. Aquilino — and I do — we may not have another year to waste.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Rep. Luria’s WSJ Op-Ed: Does the Pentagon Take China Seriously?
NORFOLK, VA — House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Vice-Chair Elaine Luria penned an Op-Ed in today’s Wall Street Journal on the “Say-Do Gap” in the U.S. approach to China, arguing that what the Pentagon “says” about Beijing does not match what the current budget request “does.”
“Military leaders identify China as our number one challenge, often calling Beijing ‘an increasingly capable strategic competitor,’ as Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley has warned, or a ‘pacing’ threat."
"Yet the budget request reduces the ability of the Navy and the Air Force — the services that would have outsize roles in any conflict in the Western Pacific — to respond to threats in that region,” Vice-Chair Luria wrote.
“Meanwhile, the budget promises undeveloped weapons that may take decades to enter the fleet, funded by a ‘divest to invest’ strategy.”
Vice-Chair Luria has consistently advocated for a 3-5 percent annual increase in defense spending and supported policies to counter the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) influence and aggression.
At an oversight hearing in April, she pressed military and foreign policy experts on the need for an increased INDOPACOM presence to respond to the threat posed by PRC’s rising navy.
Last month, Congresswoman Luria co-introduced the Arctic Security Initiative Act of 2021, legislation requiring the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct a security assessment of the Arctic region and establish an Arctic Security Initiative (ASI) with a five-year plan to fully resource the DOD and individual service-specific strategies for the Arctic.
In the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, Congresswoman Luria successfully advocated for the inclusion of $2.2 billion to combat the growing threat of China through the Pacific Deterrence Initiative.
Vice-Chair Luria is a House co-sponsor of the SHIPYARD Act, a $25 billion investment in American Shipyards.
Does the Pentagon Take China Seriously?
By Rep. Elaine Luria
Our national defense leaders have a problem: What they say doesn’t line up with what they do.
The mismatch is apparent in the latest Pentagon budget, and a “say-do” gap undermines the trust of Congress and the American people.
Military leaders identify China as our No. 1 challenge, often calling Beijing “an increasingly capable strategic competitor,” as Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley has warned, or a “pacing” threat.
Yet the budget request reduces the ability of the Navy and the Air Force — the services that would have outsize roles in any conflict in the Western Pacific — to respond to threats in that region.
Meanwhile, the budget promises undeveloped weapons that may take decades to enter the fleet, funded by a “divest to invest” strategy.
The Navy wants to retire 15 ships, including seven guided-missile cruisers and four littoral combat ships, while procuring only two surface combatant ships and two submarines.
(Fortunately, Congress’s budget draft would buy another destroyer and limit the retirements.)
Naval aviation procurement dropped 15.6% over 2021 even as the Navy speeds up F/A-18 retirements.
The USS Ronald Reagan, based in Japan to counter a threat from China, is overseeing the Afghanistan withdrawal in the Middle East because no other aircraft carrier is available.
Meanwhile, China is building warships at an astonishing rate.
In 2010, the U.S. Navy had 68 more ships than the Chinese Navy.
Today, we have 63 fewer, a swing of 131 ships in 10 years.
The Air Force is also following the Pentagon’s “divest to invest” lead.
Combat aircraft procurement is down 22% from 2021.
The force wants to retire 137 aircraft, more than double the number it plans to buy.
After the retirement of 17 B-1s last year, the Air Force’s bomber inventory is at a level top officers have called the bare minimum.
Ammunition procurement is down more than 40%.
China in recent years has focused on procuring advanced aircraft and has the world’s third-largest air force.
In addition, China has an extensive ground-based conventional missile force, including the DF-26, known as the “carrier killer,” and capable of striking Guam.
The defense budget tells the American people and allies that although we say China is a threat, we are not taking action to respond.
Take Gen. Milley’s June 17 assessment of the threat that China will invade Taiwan: “I think the probability is probably low, in the immediate, near-term future.”
This directly contradicts statements by Adm. John Aquilino, the Pacific combatant commander, who testified that China could be prepared to take Taiwan by force in the next six years: “We’ve seen things that I don’t think we expected, and that’s why I continue to talk about a sense of urgency.”
Congress has a duty to close the “say-do” gap, whether through increased funding or redirecting other Pentagon dollars, and to provide the resources needed to deter China.
If you believe Adm. Aquilino — and I do — we may not have another year to waste.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 12, 2021 AT 10:58 AM
Paul Plante says:
As a veteran of Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson’s war to impose his will on the people of Viet Nam by force, since to a Democrat, power comes from the muzzle of a gun, and speaking in here as what is known in the veteran’s community as a “senior veteran,” which is somebody with a working memory of what has gone before who is old enough to know better, based on knowledge of that history, and who is not concerned about political retaliation for speaking out, and who is supposed to speak out for those in service or about to enter service who are unable to speak for themselves, when I read this Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by this Democrat congresswoman Elaine Luria, I am forced to think that we are dealing with a hysterical dangerous lunatic with her infernal (irritating and tiresome) screeching about China, which nation happens to be a debt-holder of the considerable debt this nation has amassed, as well as being a trade partner.
According to CNN Money, China, Canada and Mexico are the country’s largest trading partners, accounting for nearly $1.9 trillion worth of imports and exports.
According to the website of the United States Trade Representative, and my goodness, you would think a real hot-shot Democrat like House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Vice-Chair Elaine Luria would be right on top of this, we have as follows:
The top five purchasers of U.S. goods exports in 2019 were: Canada ($292.6 billion), Mexico ($256.6 billion), China ($106.4 billion), Japan ($74.4 billion), and the United Kingdom ($69.1 billion).
end quotes
According to the World Bank website, we have:
In 2017, United States major trading partner countries for exports were Canada, Mexico, China, Japan and United Kingdom and for imports they were China, Mexico, Canada, Japan and Germany.
end quotes
And in answer to the question “Who is China’s biggest trade partner?” we have as follows:
Rank Importer Exports from China (US$)
1. United States $452,576,771,000
end quotes
Now, that is what I am seeing with respect to China, because that is what there is to see, and I think any high school student here in the United States of America who was not being taught to be stupid, but instead was taught to engage in critical thinking would see the same, given we are dealing with official government figures here, so when House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Vice-Chair Elaine Luria writes in her Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal that what the Pentagon “says” about Beijing does not match what the current budget request “does,” what exactly is it that the Pentagon, which is supposed to be answerable to the AMERICAN PEOPLE, is saying about China?
And where pray tell, are they getting their information from?
Are they making things up like was the case with Viet Nam, telling us outright lies about the “threat” Viet Nam, some 8,987 miles across an ocean from Washington, D.C., posed to our “national security,” which was a joke and a BIG LIE, as was pointed out to me in 1969 by some real pissed-off ARVNS who made it quite clear to me that they wanted us gone from THEIR country, and out of their lives with the war we were imposing on them, against their will.
In response to that U.S. charge about the Vietnamese being a threat to the mainland U.S., one of the ARVNs swept his arm around, and asked me what I saw, which was ox carts with wooden wheels and water buffalo pulling plows made of a tree trunk with a root still attached to serve as a plow, and he asked me, “HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET THERE,” referring to the Vietnamese invading the U.S., which was an absurd and ridiculous proposition, given the Vietnamese had no shipping or aircraft capable of moving an invading army across the ocean so they could invade the U.S.
And now we are hearing that same sort of nonsensical BULL**** from this Democrat Elaine Luria, who tells us, to wit:
“Military leaders identify China as our number one challenge, often calling Beijing ‘an increasingly capable strategic competitor,’ as Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley has warned, or a ‘pacing’ threat.
end quotes
Oh, really?
And when these “military leaders” identify China as our number one challenge, often calling Beijing “an increasingly capable strategic competitor,” which is exactly what we, the American People, have made them, what exactly do they mean by the term “capable strategic competitor?”
The American People, to whom the Pentagon answers to, would like to know.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Paul Plante says:
As a veteran of Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson’s war to impose his will on the people of Viet Nam by force, since to a Democrat, power comes from the muzzle of a gun, and speaking in here as what is known in the veteran’s community as a “senior veteran,” which is somebody with a working memory of what has gone before who is old enough to know better, based on knowledge of that history, and who is not concerned about political retaliation for speaking out, and who is supposed to speak out for those in service or about to enter service who are unable to speak for themselves, when I read this Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by this Democrat congresswoman Elaine Luria, I am forced to think that we are dealing with a hysterical dangerous lunatic with her infernal (irritating and tiresome) screeching about China, which nation happens to be a debt-holder of the considerable debt this nation has amassed, as well as being a trade partner.
According to CNN Money, China, Canada and Mexico are the country’s largest trading partners, accounting for nearly $1.9 trillion worth of imports and exports.
According to the website of the United States Trade Representative, and my goodness, you would think a real hot-shot Democrat like House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Vice-Chair Elaine Luria would be right on top of this, we have as follows:
The top five purchasers of U.S. goods exports in 2019 were: Canada ($292.6 billion), Mexico ($256.6 billion), China ($106.4 billion), Japan ($74.4 billion), and the United Kingdom ($69.1 billion).
end quotes
According to the World Bank website, we have:
In 2017, United States major trading partner countries for exports were Canada, Mexico, China, Japan and United Kingdom and for imports they were China, Mexico, Canada, Japan and Germany.
end quotes
And in answer to the question “Who is China’s biggest trade partner?” we have as follows:
Rank Importer Exports from China (US$)
1. United States $452,576,771,000
end quotes
Now, that is what I am seeing with respect to China, because that is what there is to see, and I think any high school student here in the United States of America who was not being taught to be stupid, but instead was taught to engage in critical thinking would see the same, given we are dealing with official government figures here, so when House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Vice-Chair Elaine Luria writes in her Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal that what the Pentagon “says” about Beijing does not match what the current budget request “does,” what exactly is it that the Pentagon, which is supposed to be answerable to the AMERICAN PEOPLE, is saying about China?
And where pray tell, are they getting their information from?
Are they making things up like was the case with Viet Nam, telling us outright lies about the “threat” Viet Nam, some 8,987 miles across an ocean from Washington, D.C., posed to our “national security,” which was a joke and a BIG LIE, as was pointed out to me in 1969 by some real pissed-off ARVNS who made it quite clear to me that they wanted us gone from THEIR country, and out of their lives with the war we were imposing on them, against their will.
In response to that U.S. charge about the Vietnamese being a threat to the mainland U.S., one of the ARVNs swept his arm around, and asked me what I saw, which was ox carts with wooden wheels and water buffalo pulling plows made of a tree trunk with a root still attached to serve as a plow, and he asked me, “HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET THERE,” referring to the Vietnamese invading the U.S., which was an absurd and ridiculous proposition, given the Vietnamese had no shipping or aircraft capable of moving an invading army across the ocean so they could invade the U.S.
And now we are hearing that same sort of nonsensical BULL**** from this Democrat Elaine Luria, who tells us, to wit:
“Military leaders identify China as our number one challenge, often calling Beijing ‘an increasingly capable strategic competitor,’ as Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley has warned, or a ‘pacing’ threat.
end quotes
Oh, really?
And when these “military leaders” identify China as our number one challenge, often calling Beijing “an increasingly capable strategic competitor,” which is exactly what we, the American People, have made them, what exactly do they mean by the term “capable strategic competitor?”
The American People, to whom the Pentagon answers to, would like to know.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 14, 2021 AT 9:45 AM
Paul Plante says:
Is this where we are all supposed to come in and cheer and praise Congresswoman Luria?
As to the Pentagon taking China seriously or otherwise, ANYBODY who does their homework on a daily basis and keeps up with current events while engaging in critical thinking would have come across an article by Kris Osborn, the defense editor for the National Interest who previously served at the Pentagon with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology, on a website called The National Interest on March 3, 2021 entitled “U.S. Air Force Declares ‘We’re Outnumbered’ By China’s Military” wherein we who do bother to follow the developments in the world on a daily basis were appraised of operational reality in the real world outside of the dreamland of Washington, D.C., as follows:
“We’re outnumbered” … is the way Air Force Chief of Staff Charles Brown described the evolving global threat circumstance, making the point that China will have a much greater number of war platforms than the U.S. in coming years.
Brown, a former Pacific Air Force commander, told an audience at the 2021 Air Force Association Symposium that he often tells his force about the fast-growing threat presented by China.
“You know, as the PACAF commander, one of the things I would show was a slide that showed the comparison between the number of platforms China would have in 2025, the number of platforms the U.S. and our allies and partners in the region would have by 2025.”
“We’re outnumbered.”
“But it’s not about the platforms.”
“It’s about the capabilities,” Brown said, according to a transcript text of his remarks.
China’s Navy is already larger than the U.S. Navy, a circumstance which of course informs the current Navy plan to massively expand its fleet.
end quotes
Doesn’t that seem to run counter to what the congresswoman is harping about in her OpEd?
Moving right along, the article continues:
China is building its third and fourth aircraft carriers, doubling its number of destroyers in coming years and quickly adding large numbers of new amphibious assault ships and nuclear-armed submarines.
Interestingly, the GlobalFirepower 2021 rankings show large rises in Chinese air, land and sea forces.
While the U.S.’ total number of fighter aircraft, according to the assets, is 1,958 compared to China’s 1,200, this balance of power in the air may not exist for much longer.
On the ground and in the ocean, however, China far already far outnumbers the U.S. in sheer size.
GlobalFirepower lists China as now having more than 2,185,000 active duty personnel, nearly double the U.S. number at 1.4 million.
At Sea, China is also reported to nearly double the U.S. in terms of overall numbers.
Their Naval forces are listed as having 777 platforms, compared with 490 for the U.S.
As part of these growing Pentagon concerns, in coming years the size-margin between the U.S. and Chinese military overall, to include its Air Force, Navy and Army is expected to further widen.
For example, China is adding new VT-5 light tanks, Z-10 attack helicopters and several new 5th-Gen stealth aircraft variants to include a carrier-launched J-31, upgraded two-seat J-20s and a new stealthy Gongi-11 armed attack drone.
As of just last year, China began to add new 6X6 PCL-181 wheeled artillery vehicles to increase 155mm attack mobility.
end quotes
Hmmmm, sounds like China is preparing itself for a real good shooting war with the U.S. on its home territories after the previous contest with the U.S. in Korea ended somewhat inconclusively.
Getting back to the article, whose author sounds much more informed than does the congresswoman, we have:
This circumstance, according to Brown’s thinking, drives a compelling need for several key things such as an extensive intelligence gathering such as new knowledge of Chinese systems, technologies and platforms as well as accelerated U.S. Air Force innovation and modernization.
end quotes
And to realize that modernization, we would have to borrow money from China to make it happen, since China and Japan are where we have to go beg for money to keep our massively-indebted national government operating.
Getting back to the article:
“The key aspect for us is we’ve got to be thinking ahead of where Russia and China may be going, so we can put things in place to allow us a better chance to compete, versus being reactive after it’s already happened, and then figuring out what we’re going to do, because they’ve already moved on to the next event.”
“We’ve got to stay one step ahead of them,” Brown said.
The intention here is clearly to develop technologically superior weapons and platforms so as to mitigate a force size deficit, an approach will likely prioritizes new innovations in the area of AI, stealth and, perhaps of greatest significance, range.
Should U.S. weapons and sensors have the technological capacity to “out range” Chinese systems, then attacking forces can achieve a massive impact with fewer numbers of platforms.
This is part of why the U.S. Air Force is so heavily focused upon Joint All Domain Command and Control as a way to extend the battlefield through multi-node, cross-domain information sharing and targeting.
While Brown made a point to mention both Russia and China, as both are considered major power rivals, many Pentagon leaders such as Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin refer to China as the primary “pacing threat.”
China is also known to possess long-range, precision-guided land-fired missiles, anti-satellite weapons and evolving methods of cyberattack, not to mention ongoing testing of numerous hypersonic weapons and longer-range JL-3 nuclear-armed sub-launched ballistic missiles.
Also of great relevance, China appears to be mirroring U.S. coordinated, multi-service air-ground cross-domain tactics and techniques, maneuvers which likely heighten Pentagon concerns about emerging Chinese concepts of operation.
end quotes
And that, people, is the news.
So, who wants to go to war with China?
And if we do, then where oh where will you get your new Apple I-Phone from?
And if we do go to war with China, I would like to see congresswoman Luria leading from out front, going in with the first wave, sword in hand to keep their morale up for them, because with a Democrat congresswoman leading the charge, what could possibly go wrong?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Paul Plante says:
Is this where we are all supposed to come in and cheer and praise Congresswoman Luria?
As to the Pentagon taking China seriously or otherwise, ANYBODY who does their homework on a daily basis and keeps up with current events while engaging in critical thinking would have come across an article by Kris Osborn, the defense editor for the National Interest who previously served at the Pentagon with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology, on a website called The National Interest on March 3, 2021 entitled “U.S. Air Force Declares ‘We’re Outnumbered’ By China’s Military” wherein we who do bother to follow the developments in the world on a daily basis were appraised of operational reality in the real world outside of the dreamland of Washington, D.C., as follows:
“We’re outnumbered” … is the way Air Force Chief of Staff Charles Brown described the evolving global threat circumstance, making the point that China will have a much greater number of war platforms than the U.S. in coming years.
Brown, a former Pacific Air Force commander, told an audience at the 2021 Air Force Association Symposium that he often tells his force about the fast-growing threat presented by China.
“You know, as the PACAF commander, one of the things I would show was a slide that showed the comparison between the number of platforms China would have in 2025, the number of platforms the U.S. and our allies and partners in the region would have by 2025.”
“We’re outnumbered.”
“But it’s not about the platforms.”
“It’s about the capabilities,” Brown said, according to a transcript text of his remarks.
China’s Navy is already larger than the U.S. Navy, a circumstance which of course informs the current Navy plan to massively expand its fleet.
end quotes
Doesn’t that seem to run counter to what the congresswoman is harping about in her OpEd?
Moving right along, the article continues:
China is building its third and fourth aircraft carriers, doubling its number of destroyers in coming years and quickly adding large numbers of new amphibious assault ships and nuclear-armed submarines.
Interestingly, the GlobalFirepower 2021 rankings show large rises in Chinese air, land and sea forces.
While the U.S.’ total number of fighter aircraft, according to the assets, is 1,958 compared to China’s 1,200, this balance of power in the air may not exist for much longer.
On the ground and in the ocean, however, China far already far outnumbers the U.S. in sheer size.
GlobalFirepower lists China as now having more than 2,185,000 active duty personnel, nearly double the U.S. number at 1.4 million.
At Sea, China is also reported to nearly double the U.S. in terms of overall numbers.
Their Naval forces are listed as having 777 platforms, compared with 490 for the U.S.
As part of these growing Pentagon concerns, in coming years the size-margin between the U.S. and Chinese military overall, to include its Air Force, Navy and Army is expected to further widen.
For example, China is adding new VT-5 light tanks, Z-10 attack helicopters and several new 5th-Gen stealth aircraft variants to include a carrier-launched J-31, upgraded two-seat J-20s and a new stealthy Gongi-11 armed attack drone.
As of just last year, China began to add new 6X6 PCL-181 wheeled artillery vehicles to increase 155mm attack mobility.
end quotes
Hmmmm, sounds like China is preparing itself for a real good shooting war with the U.S. on its home territories after the previous contest with the U.S. in Korea ended somewhat inconclusively.
Getting back to the article, whose author sounds much more informed than does the congresswoman, we have:
This circumstance, according to Brown’s thinking, drives a compelling need for several key things such as an extensive intelligence gathering such as new knowledge of Chinese systems, technologies and platforms as well as accelerated U.S. Air Force innovation and modernization.
end quotes
And to realize that modernization, we would have to borrow money from China to make it happen, since China and Japan are where we have to go beg for money to keep our massively-indebted national government operating.
Getting back to the article:
“The key aspect for us is we’ve got to be thinking ahead of where Russia and China may be going, so we can put things in place to allow us a better chance to compete, versus being reactive after it’s already happened, and then figuring out what we’re going to do, because they’ve already moved on to the next event.”
“We’ve got to stay one step ahead of them,” Brown said.
The intention here is clearly to develop technologically superior weapons and platforms so as to mitigate a force size deficit, an approach will likely prioritizes new innovations in the area of AI, stealth and, perhaps of greatest significance, range.
Should U.S. weapons and sensors have the technological capacity to “out range” Chinese systems, then attacking forces can achieve a massive impact with fewer numbers of platforms.
This is part of why the U.S. Air Force is so heavily focused upon Joint All Domain Command and Control as a way to extend the battlefield through multi-node, cross-domain information sharing and targeting.
While Brown made a point to mention both Russia and China, as both are considered major power rivals, many Pentagon leaders such as Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin refer to China as the primary “pacing threat.”
China is also known to possess long-range, precision-guided land-fired missiles, anti-satellite weapons and evolving methods of cyberattack, not to mention ongoing testing of numerous hypersonic weapons and longer-range JL-3 nuclear-armed sub-launched ballistic missiles.
Also of great relevance, China appears to be mirroring U.S. coordinated, multi-service air-ground cross-domain tactics and techniques, maneuvers which likely heighten Pentagon concerns about emerging Chinese concepts of operation.
end quotes
And that, people, is the news.
So, who wants to go to war with China?
And if we do, then where oh where will you get your new Apple I-Phone from?
And if we do go to war with China, I would like to see congresswoman Luria leading from out front, going in with the first wave, sword in hand to keep their morale up for them, because with a Democrat congresswoman leading the charge, what could possibly go wrong?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 14, 2021 AT 10:06 PM
Paul Plante says:
And speaking of going to war with China, like we did with Viet Nam, which required a manufactured “incident” as an excuse to get the war going, do we have some modern-day Tonkin Gulf action going on here, with the U.S. Navy seemingly trying to provoke a military confrontation with China in the South China Sea?
And here I am referring to a Newsweek article entitled “U.S. Navy Dismisses Claim China Drove Away Warship From Disputed Paracel Islands” by Anders Anglesey on 12 July 2021, where we have as follows:
U.S. Navy officials dismissed claims China drove away one of its warships that passed through the disputed Paracel Islands on Monday, saying Beijing’s statement is “false.”
The USS Benfold carried out a maneuver near the small archipelago earlier today, located east of Vietnam and south of China, which the U.S. Navy said was “consistent with international law.”
end quotes
But is it really?
If international law includes treaties, which are law of the land in the US, supposedly, anyway, might that statement be considered questionable?
And here I am referring to the Treaty of San Francisco at the end of WWII, and the San Francisco Peace Conference to which neither the Republic of China nor the People’s Republic of China were invited, which leads us to what is known as the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan, also called the Theory of the Undetermined Sovereignty of Taiwan, which is one of the theories which describe the island of Taiwan’s present legal status.
The theory originated from United States President Harry S. Truman’s statement on June 27, 1950, regarding the Korean War, which had broken out two days earlier.
In his statement, Truman said that it would be a direct threat to the United States’ security in the western Pacific area if the Communist forces occupied Taiwan; thus, he ordered the 7th Fleet to enter the Taiwan Strait to prevent any attack on the island.
Truman stated: “The determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.”
Because of the statement, the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan came into existence.
Although Japan concluded the Treaty of San Francisco with the Allied Powers after World War II in 1951, in the treaty it merely “renounced” all right, title and claim to Taiwan and the Pescadores without explicitly stating the sovereignty status of the two territories.
Therefore, the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan is still supported by some politicians and jurists to this day.
Which is to say it is unclear as to who actually owns what in the South China Sea today.
As to the Treaty of San Francisco, which is law of the land here in the US if our Constitution still means anything, which is more and more doubtful by the day now that the Democrats essentially own our national government, it started out thusly:
TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN
WHEREAS the Allied Powers and Japan are resolved that henceforth their relations shall be those of nations which, as sovereign equals, cooperate in friendly association to promote their common welfare and to maintain international peace and security, and are therefore desirous of concluding a Treaty of Peace which will settle questions still outstanding as a result of the existence of a state of war between them;
end quotes
And from there, it went to here, to wit:
CHAPTER II
TERRITORY
Article 2
(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.
(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.
(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of 2 April 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.
(e) Japan renounces all claim to any right or title to or interest in connection with any part of the Antarctic area, whether deriving from the activities of Japanese nationals or otherwise.
(f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.
end quotes
So, who did Japan really renounce those rights, titles and claims to?
The United States?
If so, then in truth, it is we who own all those islands, not the Chinese, which thought is inconsistent with history, to wit:
The First Taiwan Strait Crisis (also the Formosa Crisis, the 1954–1955 Taiwan Strait Crisis, the Offshore Islands Crisis, the Quemoy-Matsu Crisis, and the 1955 Taiwan Strait Crisis) was a brief armed conflict between the Communist People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Nationalist Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan.
The conflict focused on several groups of islands in the Taiwan Strait that were held by the ROC but were located only a few miles from mainland China.
The crisis began when the PRC shelled the ROC-held island of Kinmen (Quemoy).
Later, the PRC seized the Yijiangshan Islands from the ROC.
Under pressure by the PRC, the ROC then abandoned the Tachen Islands (Dachen Islands), which were evacuated by the navies of the ROC and the US.
In 1949, the Chinese Civil War ended with the victory of the Communist People’s Republic of China (PRC).
The government of the Republic of China (ROC), controlled by Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang (KMT), and 1.3 million anti-Communist Chinese supporters fled from mainland China.
The ROC government relocated to the island of Taiwan.
The territory under ROC control was reduced to Taiwan, Hainan, the Pescadores Islands (Penghu), and several island groups along the south-east coast of China.
In April 1950, the PRC captured Hainan.
ROC forces there evacuated to Taiwan in May 1950.
And here is where it gets a bit murky, to wit:
While the United States recognized Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist (Kuomintang) government as the sole legitimate government for all of China, U.S. President Harry S. Truman announced on 5 January 1950 that the United States would not engage in any intervention in the Taiwan Strait disputes, and that he would not intervene in the event of an attack by the PRC.
end quotes
Now, as Joe Biden and Elaine Luria as his surrogate seem to be very hot to get a war with China going, we today need to carefully consider whatever precedent Democrat Harry S. Truman might have established on 5 January 1950 when he as president announced to the nation and the world that the United States would not engage in any intervention in the Taiwan Strait disputes, and that he would not intervene in the event of an attack by the PRC.
However, that was to change after the outbreak of the Korean War on 25 June 1950 when Truman declared that the “neutralization of the Straits of Formosa” was in the best interest of the United States, and he sent the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait to prevent any conflict between the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China, effectively putting Taiwan under American protection, which move was also intended to deter ROC attacks against the Chinese Mainland.
So, in 1950, did the United States under Harry Truman assert a claim of American ownership of the Taiwan Straits?
Getting back to the history, President Truman later ordered John Foster Dulles, a Foreign Policy Advisor to U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson, to carry out his decision on “neutralizing” Taiwan in drafting the Treaty of San Francisco of 1951 (the peace treaty with Japan), which excluded the participation of both the ROC and the PRC.
Each self-claimed legitimate government of China was excluded from the treaty because the question of China’s legitimate government remained unresolved after World War II and the Chinese Civil War, and this was considered an intractable sticking point in otherwise comprehensive and multilaterally beneficial peace negotiations.
Japan ceded control of Taiwan in the treaty but did not specify a recipient for Taiwan’s sovereignty.
The Nationalist China Government (now based in Taiwan) maintained as its goal the recovery of control of mainland China, and this required a resumption of the military confrontation with the Red Chinese.
Truman and his advisors regarded that goal as unrealizable, but regret over losing China to international communism was quite prominent in public opinion at the time, and the Truman Administration was criticized by anticommunists for preventing any attempt by Chiang Kai-shek’s forces to liberate mainland China.
Truman, a member of the Democratic Party, did not run for reelection in the presidential election of 1952, even though he was eligible to do so.
This election was won by the Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, a General from World War II.
On 2 February 1953, the new President lifted the Seventh Fleet’s blockade in order to fulfill demands by anticommunists to “unleash Chiang Kai-shek” on mainland China, hence the Kuomintang regime strengthened its Closed Port Policy of the aerial and naval blockade on foreign vessels on Chinese coast and the high seas.
In August 1954, the Nationalists placed 58,000 troops on Kinmen and 15,000 troops on Matsu.
The ROC began building defensive structures and the PRC began shelling ROC installations on Kinmen.
Zhou Enlai, Premier of the People’s Republic of China responded with a declaration on 11 August 1954, that Taiwan must be “liberated.”
He dispatched the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to the area, and it began shelling both Kinmen and the Matsu Islands.
Despite warnings from the U.S. against any attacks on the Republic of China; five days before the signing of the Manila pact, the PLA unleashed a heavy artillery bombardment of Kinmen on September 3, during which two American military advisers were killed.
In November, the PLA bombed the Tachen Islands.
This renewed Cold War fears of Communist expansion in Asia at a time when the PRC was not recognized by the United States Department of State.
Chiang Kai-shek’s government was supported by the United States because the ROC was part of the United States policy of containment of communism which stretched from a devastated South Korea to an increasingly divided Southeast Asia.
On 12 September, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended the use of nuclear weapons against mainland China.
President Eisenhower, however, resisted pressure to use nuclear weapons or involve American troops in the conflict.
However, on 2 December 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland.
This treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate on 9 February 1955.
The PLA seized the Yijiangshan Islands on 18 January 1955.
Fighting continued in nearby islands off the coast of Zhejiang, as well as around Kinmen and the Matsu Islands in Fujian.
On 29 January 1955, the Formosa Resolution was approved by both houses of the U.S. Congress authorizing Eisenhower to use U.S. forces to defend the ROC and its possessions in the Taiwan Strait against armed attack.
The U.S. Navy then assisted the Nationalists in evacuating their forces from the Tachen Islands.
In February, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill warned the U.S. against using nuclear weapons, but in March, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles stated publicly that the U.S. was seriously considering a nuclear strike.
In response, the NATO foreign ministers warned at a meeting of the alliance against such action.
In late March, U.S. Admiral Robert B. Carney said that Eisenhower is planning “to destroy Red China’s military potential.”
On 1 May the PLA temporarily ceased shelling Kinmen and Matsu.
The fundamental issues of the conflict remained unresolved, however, and both sides subsequently built up their military forces on their respective sides of the Taiwan Strait leading to a new crisis three years later.
There are strong indications that Mao used the crisis in order to provoke the United States into making nuclear threats, which would give him home support to pour money into research and production of Chinese nuclear weapons and missile technology.
After American nuclear threats during the First Taiwan Strait Crisis, the Politburo gave the green light in 1955 to pursue nuclear weapon and missile research.
The first of China’s nuclear weapons tests took place in 1964 and its first successful hydrogen bomb test occurred in 1967.
end quotes
So there is some necessary background to this mess in the South China Sea we are getting sucked into with this talk of going to war with China.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Paul Plante says:
And speaking of going to war with China, like we did with Viet Nam, which required a manufactured “incident” as an excuse to get the war going, do we have some modern-day Tonkin Gulf action going on here, with the U.S. Navy seemingly trying to provoke a military confrontation with China in the South China Sea?
And here I am referring to a Newsweek article entitled “U.S. Navy Dismisses Claim China Drove Away Warship From Disputed Paracel Islands” by Anders Anglesey on 12 July 2021, where we have as follows:
U.S. Navy officials dismissed claims China drove away one of its warships that passed through the disputed Paracel Islands on Monday, saying Beijing’s statement is “false.”
The USS Benfold carried out a maneuver near the small archipelago earlier today, located east of Vietnam and south of China, which the U.S. Navy said was “consistent with international law.”
end quotes
But is it really?
If international law includes treaties, which are law of the land in the US, supposedly, anyway, might that statement be considered questionable?
And here I am referring to the Treaty of San Francisco at the end of WWII, and the San Francisco Peace Conference to which neither the Republic of China nor the People’s Republic of China were invited, which leads us to what is known as the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan, also called the Theory of the Undetermined Sovereignty of Taiwan, which is one of the theories which describe the island of Taiwan’s present legal status.
The theory originated from United States President Harry S. Truman’s statement on June 27, 1950, regarding the Korean War, which had broken out two days earlier.
In his statement, Truman said that it would be a direct threat to the United States’ security in the western Pacific area if the Communist forces occupied Taiwan; thus, he ordered the 7th Fleet to enter the Taiwan Strait to prevent any attack on the island.
Truman stated: “The determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.”
Because of the statement, the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan came into existence.
Although Japan concluded the Treaty of San Francisco with the Allied Powers after World War II in 1951, in the treaty it merely “renounced” all right, title and claim to Taiwan and the Pescadores without explicitly stating the sovereignty status of the two territories.
Therefore, the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan is still supported by some politicians and jurists to this day.
Which is to say it is unclear as to who actually owns what in the South China Sea today.
As to the Treaty of San Francisco, which is law of the land here in the US if our Constitution still means anything, which is more and more doubtful by the day now that the Democrats essentially own our national government, it started out thusly:
TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN
WHEREAS the Allied Powers and Japan are resolved that henceforth their relations shall be those of nations which, as sovereign equals, cooperate in friendly association to promote their common welfare and to maintain international peace and security, and are therefore desirous of concluding a Treaty of Peace which will settle questions still outstanding as a result of the existence of a state of war between them;
end quotes
And from there, it went to here, to wit:
CHAPTER II
TERRITORY
Article 2
(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.
(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.
(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of 2 April 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.
(e) Japan renounces all claim to any right or title to or interest in connection with any part of the Antarctic area, whether deriving from the activities of Japanese nationals or otherwise.
(f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.
end quotes
So, who did Japan really renounce those rights, titles and claims to?
The United States?
If so, then in truth, it is we who own all those islands, not the Chinese, which thought is inconsistent with history, to wit:
The First Taiwan Strait Crisis (also the Formosa Crisis, the 1954–1955 Taiwan Strait Crisis, the Offshore Islands Crisis, the Quemoy-Matsu Crisis, and the 1955 Taiwan Strait Crisis) was a brief armed conflict between the Communist People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Nationalist Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan.
The conflict focused on several groups of islands in the Taiwan Strait that were held by the ROC but were located only a few miles from mainland China.
The crisis began when the PRC shelled the ROC-held island of Kinmen (Quemoy).
Later, the PRC seized the Yijiangshan Islands from the ROC.
Under pressure by the PRC, the ROC then abandoned the Tachen Islands (Dachen Islands), which were evacuated by the navies of the ROC and the US.
In 1949, the Chinese Civil War ended with the victory of the Communist People’s Republic of China (PRC).
The government of the Republic of China (ROC), controlled by Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang (KMT), and 1.3 million anti-Communist Chinese supporters fled from mainland China.
The ROC government relocated to the island of Taiwan.
The territory under ROC control was reduced to Taiwan, Hainan, the Pescadores Islands (Penghu), and several island groups along the south-east coast of China.
In April 1950, the PRC captured Hainan.
ROC forces there evacuated to Taiwan in May 1950.
And here is where it gets a bit murky, to wit:
While the United States recognized Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist (Kuomintang) government as the sole legitimate government for all of China, U.S. President Harry S. Truman announced on 5 January 1950 that the United States would not engage in any intervention in the Taiwan Strait disputes, and that he would not intervene in the event of an attack by the PRC.
end quotes
Now, as Joe Biden and Elaine Luria as his surrogate seem to be very hot to get a war with China going, we today need to carefully consider whatever precedent Democrat Harry S. Truman might have established on 5 January 1950 when he as president announced to the nation and the world that the United States would not engage in any intervention in the Taiwan Strait disputes, and that he would not intervene in the event of an attack by the PRC.
However, that was to change after the outbreak of the Korean War on 25 June 1950 when Truman declared that the “neutralization of the Straits of Formosa” was in the best interest of the United States, and he sent the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait to prevent any conflict between the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China, effectively putting Taiwan under American protection, which move was also intended to deter ROC attacks against the Chinese Mainland.
So, in 1950, did the United States under Harry Truman assert a claim of American ownership of the Taiwan Straits?
Getting back to the history, President Truman later ordered John Foster Dulles, a Foreign Policy Advisor to U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson, to carry out his decision on “neutralizing” Taiwan in drafting the Treaty of San Francisco of 1951 (the peace treaty with Japan), which excluded the participation of both the ROC and the PRC.
Each self-claimed legitimate government of China was excluded from the treaty because the question of China’s legitimate government remained unresolved after World War II and the Chinese Civil War, and this was considered an intractable sticking point in otherwise comprehensive and multilaterally beneficial peace negotiations.
Japan ceded control of Taiwan in the treaty but did not specify a recipient for Taiwan’s sovereignty.
The Nationalist China Government (now based in Taiwan) maintained as its goal the recovery of control of mainland China, and this required a resumption of the military confrontation with the Red Chinese.
Truman and his advisors regarded that goal as unrealizable, but regret over losing China to international communism was quite prominent in public opinion at the time, and the Truman Administration was criticized by anticommunists for preventing any attempt by Chiang Kai-shek’s forces to liberate mainland China.
Truman, a member of the Democratic Party, did not run for reelection in the presidential election of 1952, even though he was eligible to do so.
This election was won by the Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, a General from World War II.
On 2 February 1953, the new President lifted the Seventh Fleet’s blockade in order to fulfill demands by anticommunists to “unleash Chiang Kai-shek” on mainland China, hence the Kuomintang regime strengthened its Closed Port Policy of the aerial and naval blockade on foreign vessels on Chinese coast and the high seas.
In August 1954, the Nationalists placed 58,000 troops on Kinmen and 15,000 troops on Matsu.
The ROC began building defensive structures and the PRC began shelling ROC installations on Kinmen.
Zhou Enlai, Premier of the People’s Republic of China responded with a declaration on 11 August 1954, that Taiwan must be “liberated.”
He dispatched the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to the area, and it began shelling both Kinmen and the Matsu Islands.
Despite warnings from the U.S. against any attacks on the Republic of China; five days before the signing of the Manila pact, the PLA unleashed a heavy artillery bombardment of Kinmen on September 3, during which two American military advisers were killed.
In November, the PLA bombed the Tachen Islands.
This renewed Cold War fears of Communist expansion in Asia at a time when the PRC was not recognized by the United States Department of State.
Chiang Kai-shek’s government was supported by the United States because the ROC was part of the United States policy of containment of communism which stretched from a devastated South Korea to an increasingly divided Southeast Asia.
On 12 September, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended the use of nuclear weapons against mainland China.
President Eisenhower, however, resisted pressure to use nuclear weapons or involve American troops in the conflict.
However, on 2 December 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland.
This treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate on 9 February 1955.
The PLA seized the Yijiangshan Islands on 18 January 1955.
Fighting continued in nearby islands off the coast of Zhejiang, as well as around Kinmen and the Matsu Islands in Fujian.
On 29 January 1955, the Formosa Resolution was approved by both houses of the U.S. Congress authorizing Eisenhower to use U.S. forces to defend the ROC and its possessions in the Taiwan Strait against armed attack.
The U.S. Navy then assisted the Nationalists in evacuating their forces from the Tachen Islands.
In February, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill warned the U.S. against using nuclear weapons, but in March, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles stated publicly that the U.S. was seriously considering a nuclear strike.
In response, the NATO foreign ministers warned at a meeting of the alliance against such action.
In late March, U.S. Admiral Robert B. Carney said that Eisenhower is planning “to destroy Red China’s military potential.”
On 1 May the PLA temporarily ceased shelling Kinmen and Matsu.
The fundamental issues of the conflict remained unresolved, however, and both sides subsequently built up their military forces on their respective sides of the Taiwan Strait leading to a new crisis three years later.
There are strong indications that Mao used the crisis in order to provoke the United States into making nuclear threats, which would give him home support to pour money into research and production of Chinese nuclear weapons and missile technology.
After American nuclear threats during the First Taiwan Strait Crisis, the Politburo gave the green light in 1955 to pursue nuclear weapon and missile research.
The first of China’s nuclear weapons tests took place in 1964 and its first successful hydrogen bomb test occurred in 1967.
end quotes
So there is some necessary background to this mess in the South China Sea we are getting sucked into with this talk of going to war with China.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 17, 2021 AT 10:10 AM
Paul Plante says:
To untangle this tangled web we are being presented with here with this talk, crazy talk to me, of our going to war with China, although at the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised if we provoke an “episode” with China that Joe Biden and Elaine Luria will then seize upon as their Tonkin Gulf Crisis, which will require Joe and Elaine to retaliate against China with superior force, all over who owns what in the South China Sea, it is necessary to go back in time to May 18, 1844, and the Treaty Of Wangxia (Treaty Of Wang-Hsia), the first agreement between the United States of America and the Qing Empire, which started out as follows:
Desiring to establish firm, lasting, and sincere friendship between the two nations, have resolved to fix, in a manner clear and positive, by means of a Treaty or general convention of peace, amity, and commerce, the rules which shall in future be mutually observed in the intercourse of their respective countries; for which most desirable object the President of the United States has conferred full powers on their commissioner, Caleb Cushing, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States to China, and the August Sovereign of the Ta-Tsing Empire, on his Minister and Commissioner Extraordinary, Kiyeng, of the Imperial House, a Vice-Guardian of the Heir Apparent, Governor-General of the Two Kwangs, and Superintendent-General of the Trade and Foreign Intercourse of the Five Ports:
And the said Commissioners, after having exchanged their said full powers and duly considered the premises, have agreed to the following Articles:
end quotes
Now, the question arises – who exactly were the Qing that we were making this treaty with one hundred seventy-seven (177) years ago in 1844, and where do they and that treaty fit into the picture today?
And more importantly, what territory did the Qing control in 1844 at the time the U.S. made this treaty with them?
Was Formosa (Taiwan) a part of the Qing Empire?
And that answer, according to the maps of Qing territory at the time of the treaty, is in the affirmative.
So at the time we signed this treaty, which would be law of the land here in the U.S., Taiwan was part of the Qing Empire.
As to who the Qing were, they were not Chinese, which is to say, they were not Han people, so the treaty of 1844 was not a treaty with the Chinese people, it was a treaty with their conquerors and oppressors.
So that we can see who it was we were dealing with back in 1844, let’s go to an article on the Alpha History site entitled “THE MANCHU AND THE QING DYNASTY” where we are informed thusly about the Qing, or Manchus, who were the Qing, to wit:
The Qing dynasty was the last of China’s royal dynasties, ruling from 1644 until the abdication of their last emperor, the infant Puyi, in February 1912.
Its founders were not ethnic Han Chinese but Manchu invaders from the north.
end quotes
In understanding the end of the Qing, which is where this belligerence between China and the U.S. begins, it is important to understand that indeed, the Manchus were not only invaders, but conquerors, who subjugated the Han people and humiliated them by making them wear the queue hairstyle as a sign of subservience, as we see from this history of China, to wit:
The Chinese empire was conquered by about 120,000 Manchus.
They had the strengths of discipline, unity, military readiness and brilliant strategy, but the decline of the Ming dynasty was just as important to their success.
The Ming’s glory had diminished to near collapse in the space of a few decades, and at the beginning of the seventeenth century the dynasty faced threats from barbarians on all sides, political in-fighting, rebellion throughout the country, and low levels of morale and loyalty in the military.
In 1644, the Manchus took advantage of the rebellion and chaos in the Chinese empire and moved south.
Forming an alliance with a Ming loyalist general, they entered Beijing in June and almost immediately took power for themselves.
A combination of military campaigns and diplomacy enabled them to wipe out the remains of Ming resistance, and they soon won the all-important support of the Yangzi valley gentry.
By 1673 they had completed their conquest of China, though they continued to expand well into the next century, bringing Xinjiang and Taiwan into the motherland.
end quotes
So by the time we were making the 1844 treaty with the Manchus, or Qing, that empire was in a state of decline and by the late 1800s, the Qing had been challenged and undermined by a number of factors including the high population, food shortages, excessive taxation, government corruption, domestic rebellions and the incursion of foreign imperialists., which takes us back to Chinese history, to wit:
The Qing period was one of rapid and profound change in China.
Qing emperors were confronted by numerous challenges, including the arrival of foreigners and Christian missionaries, internal unrest and rebellions and the weakening of their centralised power.
By the 19th century, China was being threatened and bullied by Western imperial powers, particularly Britain, which defeated the Qing in two Opium Wars.
Unable to defend the nation from foreign imperialists, the Qing was condemned for being too weak, too corrupt and too unwilling to embrace change and modernisation.
The origins of the Chinese Revolution can be found in this declining respect for the Qing regime.
end quotes
And it is in that decline and the subsequent revolution by the Chinese people, i.e., the Han, who are not Manchus, that the roots of the present controversy involving Joe Biden, who was featured in a France 24 article with a headline of “Biden says US must invest because China ‘eating our lunch'” on 06/05/2021 wherein we were told, “President Joe Biden warned Thursday that Congress needs to adopt his multi-trillion dollar spending plans to renew the US economy because China is ‘eating our lunch,'” and Elaine Luria on the one side, the righteous side, of course, and China, on the other side, are to be found.
So, is it because the big bully China is eating our lunch that Joe Biden and Elaine Luria are going to take us to war against China, to make them stop eating our lunch, or is it to punish them for having eaten our lunch, or is it a combination of both?
Stay tuned!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Paul Plante says:
To untangle this tangled web we are being presented with here with this talk, crazy talk to me, of our going to war with China, although at the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised if we provoke an “episode” with China that Joe Biden and Elaine Luria will then seize upon as their Tonkin Gulf Crisis, which will require Joe and Elaine to retaliate against China with superior force, all over who owns what in the South China Sea, it is necessary to go back in time to May 18, 1844, and the Treaty Of Wangxia (Treaty Of Wang-Hsia), the first agreement between the United States of America and the Qing Empire, which started out as follows:
Desiring to establish firm, lasting, and sincere friendship between the two nations, have resolved to fix, in a manner clear and positive, by means of a Treaty or general convention of peace, amity, and commerce, the rules which shall in future be mutually observed in the intercourse of their respective countries; for which most desirable object the President of the United States has conferred full powers on their commissioner, Caleb Cushing, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States to China, and the August Sovereign of the Ta-Tsing Empire, on his Minister and Commissioner Extraordinary, Kiyeng, of the Imperial House, a Vice-Guardian of the Heir Apparent, Governor-General of the Two Kwangs, and Superintendent-General of the Trade and Foreign Intercourse of the Five Ports:
And the said Commissioners, after having exchanged their said full powers and duly considered the premises, have agreed to the following Articles:
end quotes
Now, the question arises – who exactly were the Qing that we were making this treaty with one hundred seventy-seven (177) years ago in 1844, and where do they and that treaty fit into the picture today?
And more importantly, what territory did the Qing control in 1844 at the time the U.S. made this treaty with them?
Was Formosa (Taiwan) a part of the Qing Empire?
And that answer, according to the maps of Qing territory at the time of the treaty, is in the affirmative.
So at the time we signed this treaty, which would be law of the land here in the U.S., Taiwan was part of the Qing Empire.
As to who the Qing were, they were not Chinese, which is to say, they were not Han people, so the treaty of 1844 was not a treaty with the Chinese people, it was a treaty with their conquerors and oppressors.
So that we can see who it was we were dealing with back in 1844, let’s go to an article on the Alpha History site entitled “THE MANCHU AND THE QING DYNASTY” where we are informed thusly about the Qing, or Manchus, who were the Qing, to wit:
The Qing dynasty was the last of China’s royal dynasties, ruling from 1644 until the abdication of their last emperor, the infant Puyi, in February 1912.
Its founders were not ethnic Han Chinese but Manchu invaders from the north.
end quotes
In understanding the end of the Qing, which is where this belligerence between China and the U.S. begins, it is important to understand that indeed, the Manchus were not only invaders, but conquerors, who subjugated the Han people and humiliated them by making them wear the queue hairstyle as a sign of subservience, as we see from this history of China, to wit:
The Chinese empire was conquered by about 120,000 Manchus.
They had the strengths of discipline, unity, military readiness and brilliant strategy, but the decline of the Ming dynasty was just as important to their success.
The Ming’s glory had diminished to near collapse in the space of a few decades, and at the beginning of the seventeenth century the dynasty faced threats from barbarians on all sides, political in-fighting, rebellion throughout the country, and low levels of morale and loyalty in the military.
In 1644, the Manchus took advantage of the rebellion and chaos in the Chinese empire and moved south.
Forming an alliance with a Ming loyalist general, they entered Beijing in June and almost immediately took power for themselves.
A combination of military campaigns and diplomacy enabled them to wipe out the remains of Ming resistance, and they soon won the all-important support of the Yangzi valley gentry.
By 1673 they had completed their conquest of China, though they continued to expand well into the next century, bringing Xinjiang and Taiwan into the motherland.
end quotes
So by the time we were making the 1844 treaty with the Manchus, or Qing, that empire was in a state of decline and by the late 1800s, the Qing had been challenged and undermined by a number of factors including the high population, food shortages, excessive taxation, government corruption, domestic rebellions and the incursion of foreign imperialists., which takes us back to Chinese history, to wit:
The Qing period was one of rapid and profound change in China.
Qing emperors were confronted by numerous challenges, including the arrival of foreigners and Christian missionaries, internal unrest and rebellions and the weakening of their centralised power.
By the 19th century, China was being threatened and bullied by Western imperial powers, particularly Britain, which defeated the Qing in two Opium Wars.
Unable to defend the nation from foreign imperialists, the Qing was condemned for being too weak, too corrupt and too unwilling to embrace change and modernisation.
The origins of the Chinese Revolution can be found in this declining respect for the Qing regime.
end quotes
And it is in that decline and the subsequent revolution by the Chinese people, i.e., the Han, who are not Manchus, that the roots of the present controversy involving Joe Biden, who was featured in a France 24 article with a headline of “Biden says US must invest because China ‘eating our lunch'” on 06/05/2021 wherein we were told, “President Joe Biden warned Thursday that Congress needs to adopt his multi-trillion dollar spending plans to renew the US economy because China is ‘eating our lunch,'” and Elaine Luria on the one side, the righteous side, of course, and China, on the other side, are to be found.
So, is it because the big bully China is eating our lunch that Joe Biden and Elaine Luria are going to take us to war against China, to make them stop eating our lunch, or is it to punish them for having eaten our lunch, or is it a combination of both?
Stay tuned!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 17, 2021 AT 8:34 PM
Paul Plante says:
Is our Joe Biden goofy?
Or is the dude simply out of touch with the reality in which the rest of us who are not Joe Biden occupy, and here I am referring to a CNN article entitled “Biden says Cuba is a ‘failed state’ and calls communism ‘a universally failed system'” by Maegan Vazquez on July 16, 2021, where we have goofy old Joe saying as follows, to wit:
When asked about his views on communism, the President added: “Communism is a failed system — a universally failed system.”
“And I don’t see socialism as a very useful substitute.”
“But that’s another story.”
end quotes
But that’s another story, people?
Not hardly!
That is the story as Joe imposes on us the MOTHER of all socialist systems that is turning us into the world’s largest socialist welfare state where you now make money off the government based on how many children you have, and the more children you have, the more free money the government hands you.
Who is Joe trying to kid here?
If in fact Joe in his wisdom doesn’t see socialism as a useful alternative to communism, where proponents of socialism believe that it leads to a more equal distribution of goods and services and a more equitable society, which is exactly what Joe Biden is pushing on us here in America as our AUTOCRAT, the “more equitable society,” then why is Joe Biden pushing a socialist agenda?
Is it a case where he doesn’t know that he is?
Consider free college, for example.
Where have we heard that before?
How about “Resistance Rising: Socialist Strategy in the Age of Political Revolution – A summary of Democratic Socialists of America’s Strategy Document – June 2016” on June 25, 2016, as follows:
2016 was a game changing year for leftists and progressives.
We are finally reemerging as a vital and powerful force after an extended period of stagnation and demoralization, and we face a political landscape more favorable than perhaps at any time since the 1960s.
Despite these challenges, once in a generation opportunities currently exist for taking the offensive and launching an assertive anti-capitalist politics in the United States.
The most difficult — and most important — question that remains, is how, specifically, to make democratic socialist politics a force to be reckoned with in rural communities, towns, cities and states across the country in the coming years.
History has shown time and again that societies fall short of their full potential for human emancipation without radical trailblazers working ceaselessly to pull mainstream political discourse to the Left and thereby expand the “politics of the possible.”
Democratic Socialism as Radical Democracy
DSA believes that the fight for democratic socialism is one and the same as the fight for radical democracy, which we understand as the freedom of all people to determine all aspects of their lives to the greatest extent possible.
Our vision entails nothing less than the radical democratization of all areas of life, not least of which is the economy.
Under capitalism we are supposed to take for granted that a small, largely unaccountable group of corporate executives should make all fundamental decisions about the management of a company comprised of thousands of people.
This group has the power to determine how most of us spend the lion’s share of our waking hours, as well as the right to fire anyone for basically any reason, no matter how arbitrary.
Under democratic socialism, this authoritarian system would be replaced with economic democracy.
This simply means that democracy would be expanded beyond the election of political officials to include the democratic management of all businesses by the workers who comprise them and by the communities in which they operate.
Very large, strategically important sectors of the economy — such as housing, utilities and heavy industry — would be subject to democratic planning outside the market, while a market sector consisting of worker-owned and -operated firms would be developed for the production and distribution of many consumer goods.
In this society, large-scale investments in new technologies and enterprises would be made on the basis of maximizing the public good, rather than shareholder value.
A democratic socialist society would also guarantee a wide range of social rights in order to ensure equality of citizenship for all.
Vital services such as health care, child care, education (from pre-K through higher education), shelter and transportation would be publicly provided to everyone on demand, free of charge.
Further, in order to ensure that the enjoyment of full citizenship was not tied to ups and downs in the labor market, everyone would also receive a universal basic income — that is, a base salary for every member of society, regardless of the person’s employment status.
Solidarity among all working people who are ensnared in the capitalist system may be a prerequisite for a strong socialist movement, but socialism as radical democracy is much more than the emancipation of a single economic class.
The democratic socialist project also entails addressing a wide range of oppressions in law, culture and society that limit people’s capacity for self-determination.
To give a few examples, the work of caregiving, which under capitalism falls disproportionately on women — particularly women of color and migrant women — would be publicly supported through universal daycare, eldercare and paid family leave.
Democratic socialism, that is, will not be the utopia that many socialists of old imagined.
Yet the achievement of a democratic socialist society would nevertheless mark one of the greatest advances in human history.
Instead of war, there would be peace; instead of competition, cooperation; instead of exploitation, equality; instead of pollution, sustainability and instead of domination, freedom.
With this vision in place, we turn finally to an overview of DSA’s strategy for moving the needle of emancipation closer to democratic socialism over the coming years and decades.
We believe democratic socialism is the only humane and democratic alternative to capitalism, but considering our limited resources at present we must think carefully about how to translate our socialist ideals and values into a viable political strategy.
Given the magnitude and scope of the challenges we face, as well as the democratic and decentralized nature of our organization, there is no strategic silver bullet, or single, all-encompassing campaign to which we can devote all of our organizational resources.
Rather, our strategy — based on the preceding analysis of current political and economic conditions — consists of fighting on a number of interconnected fronts in the short-term, leveraging gains made in these struggles into more structural, offensively-oriented changes in the medium-term and ultimately employing the strength of a mass socialist party or coalition of leftist and progressive parties to win political power and begin the process of socialist transformation.
Below is a summary of the most important struggles in which DSA will participate over the coming years (this list is by no means exhaustive of all the activities undertaken by DSA chapters; details of additional lines of work can be found in DSA’s strategy document).
Organizing in Higher Education
Free public higher education is a key example of what we might call a “transformative” reform that helps to popularize the idea of socialism and to make further, more dramatic reforms possible in the future.
Free public higher education would mean taking what should be a universal public good out of the marketplace, putting it under democratic control and guaranteeing it as a right to all citizens — and funding it by a truly progressive tax system that makes the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share of government revenue.
Beyond its inherent benefits, such a campaign would also show people that socialist policies are both desirable and achievable.
Gaining free public higher education could serve as a crucial step in making democratic socialist politics more attractive to a wider cross-section of the U.S. public.
end quotes
So, people, if according to Joe Biden, socialism is a poor substitute for communism, why is Joe Biden cleaving to the agenda of the Democratic Socialists who are definitely pushing a socialist agenda, and who have gained considerable political clout in this last presidential election?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-384904
Paul Plante says:
Is our Joe Biden goofy?
Or is the dude simply out of touch with the reality in which the rest of us who are not Joe Biden occupy, and here I am referring to a CNN article entitled “Biden says Cuba is a ‘failed state’ and calls communism ‘a universally failed system'” by Maegan Vazquez on July 16, 2021, where we have goofy old Joe saying as follows, to wit:
When asked about his views on communism, the President added: “Communism is a failed system — a universally failed system.”
“And I don’t see socialism as a very useful substitute.”
“But that’s another story.”
end quotes
But that’s another story, people?
Not hardly!
That is the story as Joe imposes on us the MOTHER of all socialist systems that is turning us into the world’s largest socialist welfare state where you now make money off the government based on how many children you have, and the more children you have, the more free money the government hands you.
Who is Joe trying to kid here?
If in fact Joe in his wisdom doesn’t see socialism as a useful alternative to communism, where proponents of socialism believe that it leads to a more equal distribution of goods and services and a more equitable society, which is exactly what Joe Biden is pushing on us here in America as our AUTOCRAT, the “more equitable society,” then why is Joe Biden pushing a socialist agenda?
Is it a case where he doesn’t know that he is?
Consider free college, for example.
Where have we heard that before?
How about “Resistance Rising: Socialist Strategy in the Age of Political Revolution – A summary of Democratic Socialists of America’s Strategy Document – June 2016” on June 25, 2016, as follows:
2016 was a game changing year for leftists and progressives.
We are finally reemerging as a vital and powerful force after an extended period of stagnation and demoralization, and we face a political landscape more favorable than perhaps at any time since the 1960s.
Despite these challenges, once in a generation opportunities currently exist for taking the offensive and launching an assertive anti-capitalist politics in the United States.
The most difficult — and most important — question that remains, is how, specifically, to make democratic socialist politics a force to be reckoned with in rural communities, towns, cities and states across the country in the coming years.
History has shown time and again that societies fall short of their full potential for human emancipation without radical trailblazers working ceaselessly to pull mainstream political discourse to the Left and thereby expand the “politics of the possible.”
Democratic Socialism as Radical Democracy
DSA believes that the fight for democratic socialism is one and the same as the fight for radical democracy, which we understand as the freedom of all people to determine all aspects of their lives to the greatest extent possible.
Our vision entails nothing less than the radical democratization of all areas of life, not least of which is the economy.
Under capitalism we are supposed to take for granted that a small, largely unaccountable group of corporate executives should make all fundamental decisions about the management of a company comprised of thousands of people.
This group has the power to determine how most of us spend the lion’s share of our waking hours, as well as the right to fire anyone for basically any reason, no matter how arbitrary.
Under democratic socialism, this authoritarian system would be replaced with economic democracy.
This simply means that democracy would be expanded beyond the election of political officials to include the democratic management of all businesses by the workers who comprise them and by the communities in which they operate.
Very large, strategically important sectors of the economy — such as housing, utilities and heavy industry — would be subject to democratic planning outside the market, while a market sector consisting of worker-owned and -operated firms would be developed for the production and distribution of many consumer goods.
In this society, large-scale investments in new technologies and enterprises would be made on the basis of maximizing the public good, rather than shareholder value.
A democratic socialist society would also guarantee a wide range of social rights in order to ensure equality of citizenship for all.
Vital services such as health care, child care, education (from pre-K through higher education), shelter and transportation would be publicly provided to everyone on demand, free of charge.
Further, in order to ensure that the enjoyment of full citizenship was not tied to ups and downs in the labor market, everyone would also receive a universal basic income — that is, a base salary for every member of society, regardless of the person’s employment status.
Solidarity among all working people who are ensnared in the capitalist system may be a prerequisite for a strong socialist movement, but socialism as radical democracy is much more than the emancipation of a single economic class.
The democratic socialist project also entails addressing a wide range of oppressions in law, culture and society that limit people’s capacity for self-determination.
To give a few examples, the work of caregiving, which under capitalism falls disproportionately on women — particularly women of color and migrant women — would be publicly supported through universal daycare, eldercare and paid family leave.
Democratic socialism, that is, will not be the utopia that many socialists of old imagined.
Yet the achievement of a democratic socialist society would nevertheless mark one of the greatest advances in human history.
Instead of war, there would be peace; instead of competition, cooperation; instead of exploitation, equality; instead of pollution, sustainability and instead of domination, freedom.
With this vision in place, we turn finally to an overview of DSA’s strategy for moving the needle of emancipation closer to democratic socialism over the coming years and decades.
We believe democratic socialism is the only humane and democratic alternative to capitalism, but considering our limited resources at present we must think carefully about how to translate our socialist ideals and values into a viable political strategy.
Given the magnitude and scope of the challenges we face, as well as the democratic and decentralized nature of our organization, there is no strategic silver bullet, or single, all-encompassing campaign to which we can devote all of our organizational resources.
Rather, our strategy — based on the preceding analysis of current political and economic conditions — consists of fighting on a number of interconnected fronts in the short-term, leveraging gains made in these struggles into more structural, offensively-oriented changes in the medium-term and ultimately employing the strength of a mass socialist party or coalition of leftist and progressive parties to win political power and begin the process of socialist transformation.
Below is a summary of the most important struggles in which DSA will participate over the coming years (this list is by no means exhaustive of all the activities undertaken by DSA chapters; details of additional lines of work can be found in DSA’s strategy document).
Organizing in Higher Education
Free public higher education is a key example of what we might call a “transformative” reform that helps to popularize the idea of socialism and to make further, more dramatic reforms possible in the future.
Free public higher education would mean taking what should be a universal public good out of the marketplace, putting it under democratic control and guaranteeing it as a right to all citizens — and funding it by a truly progressive tax system that makes the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share of government revenue.
Beyond its inherent benefits, such a campaign would also show people that socialist policies are both desirable and achievable.
Gaining free public higher education could serve as a crucial step in making democratic socialist politics more attractive to a wider cross-section of the U.S. public.
end quotes
So, people, if according to Joe Biden, socialism is a poor substitute for communism, why is Joe Biden cleaving to the agenda of the Democratic Socialists who are definitely pushing a socialist agenda, and who have gained considerable political clout in this last presidential election?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-384904
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
CNN
"US warns China it stands behind South China Sea ruling and is committed to Philippine defense"
By Jennifer Hansler and Brad Lendon, CNN
Updated 2:49 AM ET, Mon July 12, 2021
Washington(CNN) - United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken has reaffirmed the US' commitment to defend the Philippines' armed forces from attack in the South China Sea, under a 70-year-old mutual defense treaty.
Blinken made the comments Sunday, in a statement marking the fifth anniversary of a ruling by an independent arbitration tribunal rejecting China's expansive territorial claims over the waterway, siding with the Philippines.
Tensions in the South China Sea, which is also contested by Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam have ratcheted up this year, with Manila accusing Beijing of trying to intimidate its coast guard vessels, as well as sending its so called "maritime militia" to crowd out Philippine fishing boats.
The US' top diplomat said the US could invoke the US-Philippine mutual defense pact in the event of any Chinese military action against Philippine assets in the region.
"We also reaffirm that an armed attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the South China Sea would invoke US mutual defense commitments under Article IV of the 1951 US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty," Blinken said.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
Blinken also called on the Chinese government to "abide by its obligations under international law (and) cease its provocative behavior" in the South China Sea.
The 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague dismissed China's claims to the South China Sea outright, while making clear that China was infringing on Philippine sovereignty through activities such as island-building in Manila's exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Beijing has disavowed the tribunal ruling and continued to build up and militarily reinforce its positions in the South China Sea.
It claims the US and other countries are increasing tensions in the region by sending their warships there in violation of its sovereignty.
Washington counters that its naval presence in the South China Sea supports freedom of navigation under international maritime law.
Underscoring the US stance, the guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold performed a freedom on navigation operation (FONOP) near the Paracel Islands in the northwestern part of the South China Sea on Monday, the US Navy's 7th Fleet said in a statement.
This islands, referred to as the Xisha chain in China, are also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan, but China has controlled them since the 1970s.
US Navy spokesperson Lt. Mark Langford said Monday's operation challenged the claims by all three parties.
"This freedom of navigation operation ... upheld the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea recognized in international law by challenging the unlawful restrictions on innocent passage imposed by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam and also by challenging China's claim to strait baselines enclosing the Paracel Islands," Langford said.
China said it put forces in place to "warn and drive away" the US destroyer, which it said violated its sovereignty.
The US last challenged claims in the Paracels in May.
"This is another ironclad evidence of the US' aggressive navigational hegemony and militarization of the South China Sea," PLA Air Force Col. Tian Junli, spokesperson for the PLA's Southern Theater Command, said in a statement after Monday's US FONOP.
"Facts show that the United States is an out-and-out 'South China Sea security risk maker,'" Tian said.
In his statement Sunday, Blinken called on China to "take steps to reassure the international community that it is committed to the rules-based maritime order that respects the rights of all countries, big and small."
"Nowhere is the rules-based maritime order under greater threat than in the South China Sea."
"The People's Republic of China (PRC) continues to coerce and intimidate Southeast Asian coastal states, threatening freedom of navigation in this critical global throughway," the US secretary of state said, referring to China by its official name.
He called on China to "take steps to reassure the international community that it is committed to the rules-based maritime order that respects the rights of all countries, big and small."
Blinken said the US stands behind the 2016 ruling against China, as reiterated last year by then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who said at the time that "Beijing's claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them."
In response to Pompeo's comments, the Chinese Embassy in Washington accused the US of "distorting" international law and "exaggerating" the situation in order to "sow discord."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/12/asia/us- ... index.html
"US warns China it stands behind South China Sea ruling and is committed to Philippine defense"
By Jennifer Hansler and Brad Lendon, CNN
Updated 2:49 AM ET, Mon July 12, 2021
Washington(CNN) - United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken has reaffirmed the US' commitment to defend the Philippines' armed forces from attack in the South China Sea, under a 70-year-old mutual defense treaty.
Blinken made the comments Sunday, in a statement marking the fifth anniversary of a ruling by an independent arbitration tribunal rejecting China's expansive territorial claims over the waterway, siding with the Philippines.
Tensions in the South China Sea, which is also contested by Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam have ratcheted up this year, with Manila accusing Beijing of trying to intimidate its coast guard vessels, as well as sending its so called "maritime militia" to crowd out Philippine fishing boats.
The US' top diplomat said the US could invoke the US-Philippine mutual defense pact in the event of any Chinese military action against Philippine assets in the region.
"We also reaffirm that an armed attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the South China Sea would invoke US mutual defense commitments under Article IV of the 1951 US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty," Blinken said.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
Blinken also called on the Chinese government to "abide by its obligations under international law (and) cease its provocative behavior" in the South China Sea.
The 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague dismissed China's claims to the South China Sea outright, while making clear that China was infringing on Philippine sovereignty through activities such as island-building in Manila's exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
Beijing has disavowed the tribunal ruling and continued to build up and militarily reinforce its positions in the South China Sea.
It claims the US and other countries are increasing tensions in the region by sending their warships there in violation of its sovereignty.
Washington counters that its naval presence in the South China Sea supports freedom of navigation under international maritime law.
Underscoring the US stance, the guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold performed a freedom on navigation operation (FONOP) near the Paracel Islands in the northwestern part of the South China Sea on Monday, the US Navy's 7th Fleet said in a statement.
This islands, referred to as the Xisha chain in China, are also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan, but China has controlled them since the 1970s.
US Navy spokesperson Lt. Mark Langford said Monday's operation challenged the claims by all three parties.
"This freedom of navigation operation ... upheld the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea recognized in international law by challenging the unlawful restrictions on innocent passage imposed by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam and also by challenging China's claim to strait baselines enclosing the Paracel Islands," Langford said.
China said it put forces in place to "warn and drive away" the US destroyer, which it said violated its sovereignty.
The US last challenged claims in the Paracels in May.
"This is another ironclad evidence of the US' aggressive navigational hegemony and militarization of the South China Sea," PLA Air Force Col. Tian Junli, spokesperson for the PLA's Southern Theater Command, said in a statement after Monday's US FONOP.
"Facts show that the United States is an out-and-out 'South China Sea security risk maker,'" Tian said.
In his statement Sunday, Blinken called on China to "take steps to reassure the international community that it is committed to the rules-based maritime order that respects the rights of all countries, big and small."
"Nowhere is the rules-based maritime order under greater threat than in the South China Sea."
"The People's Republic of China (PRC) continues to coerce and intimidate Southeast Asian coastal states, threatening freedom of navigation in this critical global throughway," the US secretary of state said, referring to China by its official name.
He called on China to "take steps to reassure the international community that it is committed to the rules-based maritime order that respects the rights of all countries, big and small."
Blinken said the US stands behind the 2016 ruling against China, as reiterated last year by then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who said at the time that "Beijing's claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them."
In response to Pompeo's comments, the Chinese Embassy in Washington accused the US of "distorting" international law and "exaggerating" the situation in order to "sow discord."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/12/asia/us- ... index.html
Re: AMERICA'S FIGHTING BULLDOG JOE BIDEN
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 18, 2021 AT 8:45 PM
Paul Plante says:
As I read this, with respect to a new “maritime strategy” to restore our place in history, two things come to mind as to what congresswoman Luria is thinking of here, as she and Joe Biden try to make America great again – gunboat diplomacy and the Great White Fleet, and my goodness, people, who among us can forget either!
And it is not at all surprising that a sea dog as salty and crusty as Elaine Luria, who spent her 20 years in the Navy out at sea before the mast on real warships, not as some pogue back on shore sitting on their *** pecking at keys on a typewriter, would want to restore the glory of the United States by bringing back both.
Think about it, people – a brand new Great White Fleet!
That would show them COMMIES over there in China a thing or two, would it not!
For those of you too young to remember, and those without salt water in their veins like congresswoman Luria who do not follow nautical history, the Great White Fleet, consisting of 14,000 sailors on 16 battleships and accompanying vessels, was sent around the world for fourteen months by President Roosevelt, with the fleet’s journey starting on December 16, 1907, and concluding on February 22, 1909.
Called the Great White Fleet because the ships were painted white instead of modern gray, the fleet covered 43,000 miles and made twenty port calls on six different continents.
The fleet first deployed from Hampton Roads, Virginia, and sailed to Trinidad, British West Indies, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Mexico, and made port back in the United States at San Francisco.
The fleet’s journey stopped briefly when they made port call at San Francisco on May 6, 1908, because some ships left the fleet for other duties while others joined the fleet for the next leg of its journey.
The command also changed from Rear Admiral Robley D. Evans to Rear Admiral Charles S. Sperry.
The Great White Fleet sailed again on July 7, 1908, and traveled to Hawaii, New Zealand, three ports in Australia, the Philippines, Japan, Ceylon, and Egypt.
They stopped in Egypt on January 3, 1909.
Learning that an earthquake had struck Sicily, the Great White Fleet sailed to help with the wreckage and recovery work.
After their assistance, they traveled on to Naples, Italy, and from there to Gibraltar and on to Hampton Roads, Virginia, where the fleet’s journey concluded.
Of great importance to this thread, and the American people, and maybe even to the future of the world itself, besides making America great again (MAGA) on Joe Biden’s watch, which is what this is all about, the Great White Fleet was an important show of America’s naval power to the rest of the world, and by God, people, it should be restored so it can be that again, and the world will be able to see that under Joe Biden, America is back!
And just as the Great White Fleet was an important event in the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, with the Great White Fleet’s successful return and completion of its mission adding luster to Roosevelt’s presidential career, so too, a new Great White Fleet as proposed by congresswoman Luria would add some much needed luster to the presidential career of Joe Biden, who needs all the help he can get when it comes to adding any luster to his presidential career so far.
And hey, people, nothing would say America is back like the restoration of gunboat diplomacy, especially with respect to those COMMIES down there in Cuba who need Joe Biden to give them some good “what-for” as he takes them out behind the barn so to speak to put some serious “whup-ass” on them to show them who’s the boss and who is not.
Talk about making America great again (MAGA), the restoration of gunboat diplomacy is the only way to go!
For those of you unfamiliar with this chapter of our American history that congresswoman Luria wants to take us back to to restore us to our rightful place in the grand scheme of things as the nation with the most powerful navy on the face of the planet, in international politics, which is what congresswoman Luria is talking about, the term gunboat diplomacy refers to the pursuit of foreign policy objectives with the aid of conspicuous displays of naval power, implying or constituting a direct threat of warfare should terms not be agreeable to the superior force.
That would make America great again, alright, as well as showing the candid world that Joe Biden is not somebody you **** with, if you care about your tomarrows.
The term “gunboat diplomacy” comes to us today from the nineteenth-century period of imperialism, when Western powers – the United States, back when it was great before it wasn’t great, anymore – would intimidate other, less powerful states into granting concessions through a demonstration of their superior military capabilities, usually depicted by their naval assets, so that a country negotiating with the United States would notice that a warship or fleet of ships had appeared off its coast, and the mere sight of such power almost always had a considerable effect, and it was rarely necessary for such boats to use other measures, such as demonstrations of firepower.
According to Wikipedia, the effectiveness of such simple demonstrations of a nation’s projection of force capabilities meant that nations with naval power and command of the sea could establish military bases (for example, Diego Garcia) and arrange economically advantageous relationships around the world, and aside from military conquest, gunboat diplomacy was the dominant way to establish new trade partners, colonial outposts, and expansion of empire.
Those lacking the resources and technological advancements of Western empires found that their own peaceable relationships were readily dismantled in the face of such pressures, and they therefore came to depend on the imperialist nations for access to raw materials and overseas markets.
Diplomat and naval thinker James Cable spelled out the nature of gunboat diplomacy in a series of works published between 1971 and 1993.
In these, he defined the phenomenon as “the use or threat of limited naval force, otherwise than as an act of war, in order to secure advantage or to avert loss, either in the furtherance of an international dispute or else against foreign nationals within the territory or the jurisdiction of their own state.”
He further broke down the concept into four key areas:
Definitive Force: the use of gunboat diplomacy to create or remove a fait accompli.
Purposeful Force: application of naval force to change the policy or character of the target government or group.
Catalytic Force: a mechanism designed to buy a breathing space or present policy makers with an increased range of options.
Expressive Force: use of navies to send a political message.
end quotes
So no wonder congresswoman Luria is seeking to restore America’s lost glory by restoring the Great White Fleet and gunboat diplomacy as the way for her to make America great again (MAGA), and since we all want America to be great again, we as a people should give her our firm support and firm backing, because afterall, she is not only doing this for Joe Biden, she is doing it for all of us!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... y/#respond
Paul Plante says:
As I read this, with respect to a new “maritime strategy” to restore our place in history, two things come to mind as to what congresswoman Luria is thinking of here, as she and Joe Biden try to make America great again – gunboat diplomacy and the Great White Fleet, and my goodness, people, who among us can forget either!
And it is not at all surprising that a sea dog as salty and crusty as Elaine Luria, who spent her 20 years in the Navy out at sea before the mast on real warships, not as some pogue back on shore sitting on their *** pecking at keys on a typewriter, would want to restore the glory of the United States by bringing back both.
Think about it, people – a brand new Great White Fleet!
That would show them COMMIES over there in China a thing or two, would it not!
For those of you too young to remember, and those without salt water in their veins like congresswoman Luria who do not follow nautical history, the Great White Fleet, consisting of 14,000 sailors on 16 battleships and accompanying vessels, was sent around the world for fourteen months by President Roosevelt, with the fleet’s journey starting on December 16, 1907, and concluding on February 22, 1909.
Called the Great White Fleet because the ships were painted white instead of modern gray, the fleet covered 43,000 miles and made twenty port calls on six different continents.
The fleet first deployed from Hampton Roads, Virginia, and sailed to Trinidad, British West Indies, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Mexico, and made port back in the United States at San Francisco.
The fleet’s journey stopped briefly when they made port call at San Francisco on May 6, 1908, because some ships left the fleet for other duties while others joined the fleet for the next leg of its journey.
The command also changed from Rear Admiral Robley D. Evans to Rear Admiral Charles S. Sperry.
The Great White Fleet sailed again on July 7, 1908, and traveled to Hawaii, New Zealand, three ports in Australia, the Philippines, Japan, Ceylon, and Egypt.
They stopped in Egypt on January 3, 1909.
Learning that an earthquake had struck Sicily, the Great White Fleet sailed to help with the wreckage and recovery work.
After their assistance, they traveled on to Naples, Italy, and from there to Gibraltar and on to Hampton Roads, Virginia, where the fleet’s journey concluded.
Of great importance to this thread, and the American people, and maybe even to the future of the world itself, besides making America great again (MAGA) on Joe Biden’s watch, which is what this is all about, the Great White Fleet was an important show of America’s naval power to the rest of the world, and by God, people, it should be restored so it can be that again, and the world will be able to see that under Joe Biden, America is back!
And just as the Great White Fleet was an important event in the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, with the Great White Fleet’s successful return and completion of its mission adding luster to Roosevelt’s presidential career, so too, a new Great White Fleet as proposed by congresswoman Luria would add some much needed luster to the presidential career of Joe Biden, who needs all the help he can get when it comes to adding any luster to his presidential career so far.
And hey, people, nothing would say America is back like the restoration of gunboat diplomacy, especially with respect to those COMMIES down there in Cuba who need Joe Biden to give them some good “what-for” as he takes them out behind the barn so to speak to put some serious “whup-ass” on them to show them who’s the boss and who is not.
Talk about making America great again (MAGA), the restoration of gunboat diplomacy is the only way to go!
For those of you unfamiliar with this chapter of our American history that congresswoman Luria wants to take us back to to restore us to our rightful place in the grand scheme of things as the nation with the most powerful navy on the face of the planet, in international politics, which is what congresswoman Luria is talking about, the term gunboat diplomacy refers to the pursuit of foreign policy objectives with the aid of conspicuous displays of naval power, implying or constituting a direct threat of warfare should terms not be agreeable to the superior force.
That would make America great again, alright, as well as showing the candid world that Joe Biden is not somebody you **** with, if you care about your tomarrows.
The term “gunboat diplomacy” comes to us today from the nineteenth-century period of imperialism, when Western powers – the United States, back when it was great before it wasn’t great, anymore – would intimidate other, less powerful states into granting concessions through a demonstration of their superior military capabilities, usually depicted by their naval assets, so that a country negotiating with the United States would notice that a warship or fleet of ships had appeared off its coast, and the mere sight of such power almost always had a considerable effect, and it was rarely necessary for such boats to use other measures, such as demonstrations of firepower.
According to Wikipedia, the effectiveness of such simple demonstrations of a nation’s projection of force capabilities meant that nations with naval power and command of the sea could establish military bases (for example, Diego Garcia) and arrange economically advantageous relationships around the world, and aside from military conquest, gunboat diplomacy was the dominant way to establish new trade partners, colonial outposts, and expansion of empire.
Those lacking the resources and technological advancements of Western empires found that their own peaceable relationships were readily dismantled in the face of such pressures, and they therefore came to depend on the imperialist nations for access to raw materials and overseas markets.
Diplomat and naval thinker James Cable spelled out the nature of gunboat diplomacy in a series of works published between 1971 and 1993.
In these, he defined the phenomenon as “the use or threat of limited naval force, otherwise than as an act of war, in order to secure advantage or to avert loss, either in the furtherance of an international dispute or else against foreign nationals within the territory or the jurisdiction of their own state.”
He further broke down the concept into four key areas:
Definitive Force: the use of gunboat diplomacy to create or remove a fait accompli.
Purposeful Force: application of naval force to change the policy or character of the target government or group.
Catalytic Force: a mechanism designed to buy a breathing space or present policy makers with an increased range of options.
Expressive Force: use of navies to send a political message.
end quotes
So no wonder congresswoman Luria is seeking to restore America’s lost glory by restoring the Great White Fleet and gunboat diplomacy as the way for her to make America great again (MAGA), and since we all want America to be great again, we as a people should give her our firm support and firm backing, because afterall, she is not only doing this for Joe Biden, she is doing it for all of us!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... y/#respond