US pacific century....Is the return of the USA welcome by SE Asian ?sia ?

[baldeagle]

Since the US pull out from Subic bay in the Philippine in 1992, SE
Asia people have been living in peace and prosperity for the last 20
years. The GDP of all ASEAN nations have grown many folds as a result
of trade with China...their economy has performed far better than the
USA.

If the USA did not come back ...we will continue to grow and enjoy
decade more years of peace and economic growth.

BUT the USA is back again...using the Philippines as a base to launch
attacks against China. This could turn the South China Sea into a war
zone.
Do the Filipino welcome their ex-colonial master back to this
region...to destroy our peace and prosperity ?

Obvious NOT.

Today, the Filipino demonstrated in front of the US embassy...burning
the US flags,
a huge effigy of Uncle Sam with another of Philippine President
Benigno Aquino III labelled as his “dog”. Protesters singing "USA go
home...You are not our colonial master anymore....go home...the
Killers and murderers of our people. "

The Filipino people, their Roman Catholic church, and the freedom
fighters remember how it took them almost a hundred years to drive the
USA out of the Philippines.. in the unequal war of independence, when
over ONE MILLION Filipino lost their lives.

Starting with the annexation of the Philippine in 1892, the US troops
occupied Subic Bay, committed inhuman atrocities against the
locals...including ethnic cleansing,..concentration camps (not unlike
Hitler's death camps against the Jews). Most people today just cannot
believe the USA was capable of such hideous crimes against
humanity...against the people of the Philippines. The US troops
treated the Filipino, not as human, not as colonial slaves, but as
savages to be killed for entertainment. The famous Mark Twain reported
this inhuman crime his writing.
(see Wikipedia report on the Philippine–American War for details of
such atrocities. )
The Filipino people remember their losses, their suffering under
their colonial master.
No wonder, the Filipino want the USA out of their country...and
called their president... the DOG of the USA !


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/24321/protest-against-greater-us-role-in-philippines

[asdf asdf]

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_Warhttp://globalnation.inquirer.net/24321/protest-against-greater-us-rol...

The Pinay say they need the GIs back to shore up the red lights again.

[baldeagle]

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_Warhttp://gl......

>
> The Pinay say they need the GIs back to shore up the red lights again.

Too late...the girls in Red Light area have since become maids in
Singapore, Hong Kong and the Middle East.

I checked CNN, BBC and New York times...there is a news black
out ..on the protest against the USA in Manila.
Instead, there are reports that the Manila govt official has been
summoned to Washington ...for talks on more US armed
forces to the Philippines.

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_Warhttp://globalnation.inquirer.net/24321/protest-against-greater-us-rol...

The following article is written by Dr Patrick Porter, an Australian
and a
Senior Lecturer in Defence Studies at King’s College London.

He sees US's role as an offshore balancer.
"The main challenge for offshore balancing, in trying to navigate a
mid-
point between isolation and hegemony..."
I guess the above also describes the view of most SE Asian nations.

http://offshorebalancer.wordpress.com/
----------------------
Obama’s Offshore Dominance
January 25, 2012 - Comments Off

Its a little late in coming, but I wanted to post some thoughts on
Peter Beinart’s thoughtful recent description of President Obama’s
evolving approach to US grand strategy as ‘offshore balancing.’

Stephen Walt has already responded, and there have already been some
great posts on the broader issue of what really counts as offshore
balancing, here, and here.

One of the difficulties in the endless debate over how to taxonomise
US strategic behaviour is that many folk naturally emphasise
techniques or goals (or means and ends) at the other’s expense.
Perhaps this reflects a deeper reflex in Washington foreign policy
debate, where the overriding goals of American diplomacy are debated
far less intensively than the means. Muscular liberals might agree
with Neoconservatives that the ultimate goal is American benevolent
primacy in the world, which in turn would advance American and global
security, but they disagree at times over how to get there (consensual
multilateralism and institution-building or hawkish unilateral action,
etc). At times this can lead to a certain ‘narcissism of small
differences.’ So there is a temptation to stress the ‘offshore’ aspect
and downplay ‘balancing.’ As Peter Beinart characterises it:

One way of understanding America’s shifting policy in the Middle
East is that we’re moving offshore. Instead of directly occupying
Islamic lands, we’re trying to secure our interests from the sea, the
air and by equipping our allies. That’s in large measure what the
Obama administration is trying to do in East Asia, too.The central
message of Obama’s trip last week to Australia was that the U.S.
finally is focused on restraining China’s rise in the Pacific. And how
will the U.S. do that? A token deployment of Marines in northern
Australia notwithstanding, the Obama administration’s strategy will be
to buttress America’s naval presence in the Pacific and aid those
nations on China’s periphery that fear its hegemonic ambitions.

This echoes the approach of the likes of Robert Pape, who argues
(especially in the context of how to reduce anti-American terrorism)
for a lighter footprint and a more naval-oriented military posture.
And to be sure, it is important to consider that a big part of driving
down the costs of American strategy could be moving offshore and
avoiding large-scale expeditionary land commitments.

But offshore balancing, at least as it has been formulated since the
first generation of post World War Two realists all the way to
contemporaries such as Barry Posen, Christopher Preble and Christopher
Layne, is a bigger and more demanding creature than that.

It isn’t just an alternative path to maintaining American hegemony
abroad, or to making hegemony cheaper. It proposes a substantively new
role for the U.S. in the world. As Brian C. Schmidt argues observantly
in a paper he gave a while back, it is an argument that the US abandon
the pursuit of unipolar primacy in the world. Its about ‘ends’ as well
as ‘means’, or at least, it argues that America’ security interests
are better served by accommodating what is inevitable, the return of
mulitpolarity.

Take Obama’s recent Defence Strategic Guidance, and the stance he
articulated recently, orienting the US strategically towards East Asia
while scaling back its onshore commitments, de-emphasising prolonged
counter-insurgency and nation-building missions and ramping up
investment in drones and cyber capabilities.

While it may be tempting to define this – as some of Obama’s defenders
and supporters do- as a fundamental grand strategic shift, it really
isn’t. Its an attempt to pursue the existing, inherited grand
strategic goal (the preservation of American primacy) while adjusting
the ever-shifting mix of military supremacy, deterrence, reassurance,
democratisation and liberalisation, in an apparently increasing
important part of the world where the economic weight and political
ambition is moving. (It is also, incidentally, a softly expressed but
unmistakable confirmation that America is drawing down its military
protectorate in Europe).

The title of Obama’s Defence Strategic Guidance gives the game away:
‘Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership.’ Which is a polished, euphemistic
way of saying that America is not abandoning its role as No. 1, the
guardian of world order. Offshore Balancers who go beyond tactics and
techniques and methods do not usually share this ambition. In fact,
they regard the pursuit of primacy and the vehicle to pursue it -a
vast, forward-leaning military-strategic presence, a set of permanent
formal alliances, and the attempt to remake the world in America’s
image – as pernicious, exhausting, prone to inviting ‘free riding’
from others and creating security dilemmas unintentionally, as well as
damaging American democracy at home. If America isn’t to embrace an
amoral cynicism in place of the Pax Americana, they argue that it can
better embody and repair its values at home, as an example to the
world.

The main challenge for offshore balancing, in trying to navigate a mid-
point between isolation and hegemony, is how to operationalise such a
role, and how to give it geopolitical shape. In other words, precisely
where would US forces be parked if they aren’t just to pack up and go
home, and how should the US prepare for the possibility of competitive
balancing or even bandwagoning if its onshore presence its reduced? On
that note, I’m writing a little pamphlet that will be published later
in 2012, all being well.

The suspense must be killing you.
----------------------

[baldeagle]

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_Warhttp://gl......

>
> The following article is written by Dr Patrick Porter, an Australian
> and a
> Senior Lecturer in Defence Studies at King’s College London.
>

.> He sees US's role as an offshore balancer.

Patrick Porter's point of view is confusing ....but
it is really UNIMPORTANT to us in SE Asia.

The US does not have a role to play ..to advance
the development of countries in SE Asia.

Since 1975, after the US was driven out of Vietnam,
nations in this region have achieved tremendous growth
and prosperity. There was no need for a 'protector' for
the last 40 years...there is no need for one now.
We don't need the USA to be here...there is no role
for Obama and his armed forces here.

In fact, even the Philippines, who is the most friendly
to the US, have seen demonstration only a few days
ago...against hosting a larger US forces in the Philippines.
The USA is simply NOT welcome by people in SE Asia.

Of course, Obama can try to seek hegemony by arm-
twisting leaders in SE Asia into submission...no one
can stop him. The people, like the Filipinos will not be
happy....with the US disguising itself as a self-appointed
protector....when in fact...it is a covert attempt at
hegemony. We don't need a new colonial master.

We in SE Asia would like to be friends among all
nations in Asia....helping one another in growing
our economy, growing our wealth, growing our
prosperity...giving all Asian a better tomorrow. Yes..
there are small disputes along the way...but we are
matured enough to solve them by ourselves peacefully
...for the last 40 years...without the interference
of the USA. If it takes more time to resolve difficult
problems...we will give ourselves more time...we
are patient people.

Anyway, the USA is proven to be a lousy protector..
see what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan !!!

[ltl...@hotmail.com]

I am sure many in SE Asia would see it differently as long as
US can limit its role as a offshore balancer and not asking
them to share the bulk of the cost.

Hence the emphasize of "offshore balance," a delicate
balance between isolationism and hegemony. Economic
globalization but not cultural globalization.

[rst0]

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_Warhttp://gl......

>
> The following article is written by Dr Patrick Porter,
> an Australian and a Senior Lecturer in Defence Studies
> at King’s College London.
>
> He sees US's role as an offshore balancer.
> "The main challenge for offshore balancing, in trying
> to navigate a mid-point between isolation and hegemony..."

Unlike a mechanical scale, human beings are a very poor
"balancer". We all have our "likes" and dislikes".
We all have our prejudices and racial differences of
helping one or another. The Vietnam War was a prime
example of these differences. It is not "who is right".
It is "who we like".

[Anonymous]

"ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Jan 28, 9:27=A0am, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Since the US pull out from Subic bay in the Philippine in 1992, SE

> > Asia people have been =A0living in peace and prosperity for the last 20

> > years. The GDP of all ASEAN nations have grown many folds as a result
> > of trade with China...their economy has performed far better than the
> > USA.
> >
> > If the USA did not come back ...we will continue to grow and enjoy
> > decade more years of peace and economic growth.
> >

> > BUT the USA is back again...using the Philippines as a base =A0to launch
> > attacks =A0against China. This could turn the South China Sea into a war

> > zone.
> > Do the Filipino welcome their ex-colonial master back to this
> > region...to destroy our peace and prosperity ?
> >

Dont worry. It will be a miracle if the US lasts for another 10
years. Before then, it will break up, peacefully or with a civil war,
but break up it will.

From then on, it will no longer be a factor in international politics.

[baldeagle]

On Feb 1, 1:01 am, "ltl...@hotmail.com" <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 11:08 am, baldeagle <force....@gmail.com> wrote:

>

.> > The US does not have a role to play ..to advance
.> > the development of countries in SE Asia.
>
.> I am sure many in SE Asia would see it differently as long as
.> US can limit its role as a offshore balancer and not asking
.> them to share the bulk of the cost.
>

An "offshore balancer" is every ounce as bad as
an onshore invader. A piece of shit smell as bad
in the water as a piece of shit on land.

It is NOT about cost...it is about the goals of the USA.
it is US hegemony...that Asian fear.

If the US use its naval power, commanding the Pacific
and all the seas (and sky) around Asia instead of
using boots to conquer Asia...what difference does
it make ? The end result is the same...we will suffer
war instead of enjoying peace and prosperity.

Using the excuse of China hegemony in Asia, the
USA try to spread fear among China's neighbours.
The actual evidence prove showed that China has
been a good friend to all her neighbours for the past
40 years... We have no reasons to fear China.
This solid good record of China... against US records
in Vietnam, and in the Middle East show that we are
right...US hegemony is the one that we should fear.

[Albert K. Fung]

LT Lee:

> The following article is written by Dr Patrick Porter, an Australian
> and a Senior Lecturer in Defence Studies at King’s College London.
>
> He sees US's role as an offshore balancer. "The main challenge for

> offshore balancing, in trying to navigate a mid-point between isolation

> and hegemony..."
>
> I guess the above also describes the view of most SE Asian nations.
>
> http://offshorebalancer.wordpress.com/
> ----------------------
> Obama’s Offshore Dominance

All ears of Asian countries ....

Perked right up upon hearing US President Obama's robust and
muscular enunciation, on his visit to inaugurate a US milit-
ary base in Australia, of his administration's new doctrine.
Which, will guide foreign policies of the American Empire in
the new century.

It is the USA's post modern Monroe Doctrine for the Pacific.

"The USA is a Pacific power." insisted President Obama, "And
we are here to stay." His audience is a ginormous country in
Asia. Whose saber rattlings last year, and brazen harassment
were scaring the wits out of her Asian neighbors. It was not
until after half a dozen visits by the American Empire's big
-gest and baddest irons, supercarrier based battlegroups, to
her front, center and back yards that chilled her down. And,
the Empire's powerful Pacific fleets past muster as enforcer
of the Pacific Monroe Doctrine and the post modern world ord
-er.

The cold War was over. Only a handful of country and China -
aka the Axis of Evil, posts semblance of threat to the world
order. Gone are the needs for the American Empire to prevail
in continental scale war theaters. And the US Defense Secret
-ary seek to downsize the US Army in his new budget proposal
to Congress.

Funding for the US Navy, OTOH, will be increased - ditto for
special operation battalions, drones, robots and battlefield
automation. The Obama Doctrine as enunciated in the empire's
elite war college, West Point, is beginning to be implement-
ed in earnest. It's based on the latest war technologies and
guided by the Obama vision inspired by the tested naval con-
stabulary model.

Of the British Empire ....

Regards,

Albert K. Fung
Rancho del Canto, Paso Robles, California, USA.

[rst0]

On Feb 4, 4:12 pm, "Albert K. Fung" <akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> LT Lee:
>
> > The following article is written by Dr Patrick Porter, an Australian
> > and a Senior Lecturer in Defence Studies at King’s College London.
>
> > He sees US's role as an offshore balancer. "The main challenge for
> > offshore balancing, in trying to navigate a mid-point between isolation
> > and hegemony..."
>
> > I guess the above also describes the view of most SE Asian nations.
>
> >http://offshorebalancer.wordpress.com/
> > ----------------------
> > Obama’s Offshore Dominance
>
> All ears of Asian countries ....
>
> Perked right up upon hearing US President Obama's robust and
> muscular enunciation, on his visit to inaugurate a US milit-
> ary base in Australia, of his administration's new doctrine.
> Which, will guide foreign policies of the American Empire in
> the new century.
>
> It is the USA's post modern Monroe Doctrine for the Pacific.
>
> "The USA is a Pacific power." insisted President Obama, "And
> we are here to stay."

The Pacific Ocean, ordinarily, is huge comparing to other parts of the
world, but in this case where two giants are vying for power of
dominance, the Pacific Ocean is very small indeed. Only time will
tell which one will stay, and Obama has no more magic than the other
guy facing him on the other side.

[Jesus Isa Yeshua Jewish Christ , the Human Scum who had claimed to have been THE SON of GOD < was a STRONG ANTI - TAWHID]

yes
yes
yes


ASEAN NATIONS welcome the return of USA to West pacific ,
except may be for Cambodia , BECAUSE
CAMBODIA is still taking MONEY FROM BIG BROTHER NUMBER
1 CHINA .


remember BROTHER number 1 POL POT who was China ' s
ADOPTED son .?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_Warhttp://globalnation.inquirer.net/24321/protest-against-greater-us-rol...

[baldeagle]

On Feb 5, 8:12 am, "Albert K. Fung" <akwf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> LT Lee:
>
>

You failed to see the real meaning of Pacific Century.

The last century was the AMERICAN century....Previously
it was the BRITISH century. Economic power was
behind the rise of the USA and the British.

Obama want this century to be the PACIFIC century.
Who in the Pacific area will be the top dog ...in Economic
power...in the next fifty years ?

The likely candidates in Asia are...... Korea, China,
India and ASEAN (Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia)

Of course, Obama want the USA to be the top dog in
Economic power ! Apart from the stock market (in reality
a giant casino) the USA is a hollow shell...a bankrupt
nation...living on borrowed money. The USA does not
have what it takes ....to make this century an American
century.