I'm sorry but with what example particularly did you disprove my logic? Because if I was able to understand your counter thesis (I mean if you logic made sense) I would be more than happily reply you to support my argument.
If I might need to educate you, Henry Kissinger's foreign policy during the Cold War was based on isolating the Soviet Union from it's allies. If you look at the Soviet Sphere of Influence back in 1950's -the start of the competition between Eastern and Western Blocks- you can see that most of the Asian Nations were covered by that. Soviets were allies with China and had extremely close relations with India which is the result of, I should admit, an extremely clever and beutifully crafted foreign policy.
In Khrushchev era, Soviet Union and China started to have problems. Mostly about the Culture Revolution and the Great Leap Forward policies. Khrushchev was so eager to be consulted about these policies whereas Mao wasn't a fan of taking ideas from Khrushchev. After the huge disasters resulting from the Great Leap Forward, Khrushchev publicly denounced the policies of Mao. This started the process of Sino-Soviet Split. After a decade long bitter relations between China and USSR, Henry Kissinger believed that China might actually appreciate US help to completely seperate it's policies from USSR and emerge as a "third power" of Cold War which would be the loss of a major ally and further isolation for USSR.
In this period, China had reformed it's economic policies, opened it's economy to rest of the World. Started to walk in a path that would transform it's socialist economy into a free market economy and played a counter-balance role in USSR policies regarding East and South Asia. One of the resulting acts about this is Chinese Intervention of Vietnam-Cambodian (favoring Cambodia) war and India-Pakistan (favoring Pakistan) conflicts.
In return China had made itself into UN -Taiwan kicked out-, and "One China Policy" was recognized by USA. In this era -70's and 80's- China was favored by the mainstream Western Media because US foreign policy was friendly towards China. It's the issue of carrot and stick. If China aligns itself with Western policies it receives the carrot, if it tried to revision Western status quo, China receives the stick.
I was talking with another member on how western media has always disrepected China while Taiwan does not receive that level of disrespect.
You jumped in and made the conclusion that it simply
"proves" that the US/west sees China as an adversary and Taiwan as an entity that can be influenced.
Why can't you see my counter-examples? The US was on friendly terms with China during 1970-90, and perceived China as a potential partner to counter Soviet policies in Asia (as you have rightly argued), yet mainstream western media was disrepectful towards China, and the Chinese people in general during that same period.
According to your logic, China should have been given respect by mainstream western media during that time period, but it wasn't the case. Your assertion that China was favoured by mainstream western media is not true. If you had said China was favoured in the diplomatic and academic literature during that period, I would have agreed, but certainly not in
mainstream western media. And that form of disrespects in mainstream media continues until this day. One of the main factor for this attitude in mainstream western media is its "racism."
And about the NZ issue. Are you kidding? New Zealend is a major non-Nato US ally. NZ can publicly critisize US. This would not change their status. Germany also publicly critisized US for it's ME campaign. Even some senior decision makers in USA critisized USA's ME campaign. Let's talk about steadiness of the long term relations. Not small DISAGREEMENTS between ALLIES.
This is
false. NZ is not an ally of the US. They have already broken off their alliance, which was stipulated in the ANZUS treaty, back in 1984. NZ had refused entry for any US military vessels that carries or is powered by nuke. The US then suspended its ally obligations to NZ as a response. NZ further hardened and made it a law to make NZ a nuke-free zone. Ronald Reagan then publically announced that NZ is no longer a US ally.
Up until this day, NZ and the US still have not reinstated their alliance. The US banned port entry for NZ navy vessels right up to 2012. Saying that NZ is a non-NATO US major ally is a lie. NZ have refused, and even criticised, to participate in fighting against Iraq (when Saddam was still alive). It never gave up its nuke-free policy, even when pressured by the US. Simply, NZ is not a country that the US can just simply influence or push around. Yet, NZ haven't generally received any disrespect from mainstream western media (hint: NZ is Anglo-Saxon majority).
NZ is an example that disprove your simple logic about "disrespect = you are perceived as an adversary" ... "no disrespect = you can be influenced" (a pawn).
Do the Vietcong here realize these ships are much more likely to sink the Vietnamese navy trying to assert their new "historical" claims on Chinese territory and there is little chance for them to ever engage a vessel from the mainland? They will do their best to avoid confrontation then, while they would immediately beat Vietnamese junk navy to a pulp if they get aggressive. Why so cheerful?
Another uninformed guy with a weak attempt at trolling.
These small FACs (Tuo Jiang class) does not have the range or endurance to go all the way to the Spratlys or VN to confront the Viet navy. These small boats are designed to operate around the Taiwanese coast.
Please get some knowledge first before you try to troll.
