What's new

Vietnam Defence Forum

Vietnam joins the club of nations that send peacekeeping soldiers abroad. Starting with a few soldiers that are capable of technical or engineering. Usually it is poor and developing nations that send their people to peacekeeping missions because they earn money, receiving dollars from the UN organization. it is not what Vietnam wants. Anyway there is a certain pressure on Vietnam to contribute something positive for the world :-)

trung_tam_RNIK.JPG
 
People may laugh at Donald Trump but not at this man, probably the second most powerful man in the White House: Steve Bannon. A close ally of Trump. Formally acting as White House chief strategist, but also he is a permanent member of US national security council, a small circle that makes decisions between peace and war. A far right winger. a Neocon representative. because of his radical thoughts on many sensitive topics he is seen a very dangerous man in the inner circle of the world's most powerful country. an extremely worrisome sign for some. For the Islam world and many others. But what has to do with Vietnam?

He is much interested of war history, especially epic battles. The war between Sparta and Athens, or the 57 day and night long decisive battle of Dien bien phu, led by Vo Nguyen Giap. The former chief commander of Vietnamese armed forces was a journalist before joining the army like Bannon. “Giap’s tenacity and ruthlessness became his trademarks as he fought two of the world’s most technologically advanced militaries,” Bannon wrote. He means America and France. We can add China to the list of losers. There are more but we let at three.

104251855-GettyImages-632575826.530x298.jpg
 
Last edited:
infowars? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA so you get your news from a crackpot and you come on here all cocky and arrogant like you're the keeper of forbidden knowledge? GTFO.

you're a waste of time.

are you of Vietnamese descent?

Canada is pretty much alike the United States and Australia. all three have something in common for our Viet kieu to thrive: big landmass, sizeable Vietnamese population, little corruption, law and order, last but not least a climate of laissez-faire. there are sizeable Vietnamese population in Europe too, but things are much complicated here, not to mention racism and resentment of domestic population.
yes
 
Vietnam and the South China Sea’s roiled waters
Shining a spotlight on Vietnam’s militarisation in the Spratlys

CARLYLE A THAYER

https://www.policyforum.net/vietnam-south-china-seas-roiled-waters/

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, NATIONAL SECURITY, SOUTH CHINA SEA | ASIA, EAST ASIA, SOUTHEAST ASIA, THE WORLD

30 JANUARY 2017

Vietnam’s military activities in the South China Sea, while not on the same scale as China’s, pre-date them considerably and are squarely aimed at maintaining a balance of power in the region, Carlyle A Thayer writes.


On 11 January US Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson sparked a media storm in China during his confirmation hearing when he responded to a question about whether he would he support a more aggressive posture toward China. Tillerson replied, “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.” Tillerson also called on US allies in the region “to show back up.”

China’s Global Times shot back, “Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories… If Trump’s diplomatic team shapes future Sino-US ties as it is doing now, the two sides had better prepare for a military clash.” Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating characterised Tillerson’s remarks as “simply ludicrous” and a “threat to involve Australia in war.”

For the past two and a half years China has embarked on a master plan to back up its claims to “indisputable sovereignty” in the South China Sea by building and fortifying seven rocks and low-tide elevations in the Spratlys. China constructed three-kilometre (km) long airfields on three features and then erected two-dozen reinforced hangars adjacent to these airfields capable of housing jet fighters, bombers, electronic warfare aircraft and aerial refuelling tankers. In the most recent development, China constructed point defences on all seven of its features, including anti-aircraft guns and missile systems.

Chinese militarisation of the Spratly Islands has received widespread attention by the world’s media, regional security specialists and academic commentators. Much less attention has been paid to Vietnam’s efforts to consolidate its control over the 21 features that it occupies.

The current government in Hanoi, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, was officially formed in 1976 after the political reunification of Vietnam. Prior to the fall of Saigon in April 1975, Vietnamese Special Forces took control of the features in the Spratlys, then occupied by the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). These features have been occupied by naval infantry and a small civilian community ever since. In 1992, Vietnam installed satellite relay receivers to bring colour television to the Spratlys. In 1994, Vietnam constructed a lighthouse on West London Reef and gradually improved facilities on all its features.

Of the 21 features Vietnam occupies in the Spratlys, nine are rocks above water at high tide, and 12 are low-tide elevations on which Vietnam has built structures. Vietnam claims that it maintains 33 garrisons in the Spratlys, with some features hosting more than one garrison.

The Pentagon claims that Vietnam maintains 48 outposts in the Spratlys; this figure likely includes 15 platforms – or what Vietnam terms “technical support service structures” – in Vanguard Bank. Vietnam does not consider Vanguard Bank part of the Spratlys. The number of military personnel on Vietnam’s 21 features is not known with certainty, and estimates range from several hundred to 1,000.

In 2007, Vietnam drew up a Maritime Strategy to 2020 designed to integrate its coastal economy with the natural resources in its 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone, including fisheries and oil and gas reserves. Between 2009 and 2015, according to the US Department of Defense, Vietnam installed communications and radar equipment on 15 features and made point-defence improvements on 18.

Between 2010 and 2012, Vietnam built administrative buildings, five multi-level military structures and a lighthouse on West London Reef. Further, between 2011 and 2015, Vietnam built helipads on six outposts.

Between August 2011 and February 2015, Vietnam made significant improvements to the infrastructure on Sandy Cay by expanding the beach by 2.1 hectares (ha), reinforcing the seawalls, building piers, a harbour, and a large complex hosting a helipad, a surveillance facility, and defensive structures (trenches, protective storage, bunkers and emplacements for two 20-millimetre artillery guns).

Between 2014 and 2015, Vietnam constructed a three-story pillbox, two docks, and buildings with solar panels, communications antenna, and satellite dishes on Cornwallis South Reef. In late 2014 and early 2015, Vietnam dredged two deep channels on the south of Cornwallis South Reef to allow access to the lagoon by larger vessels that could not navigate the smaller pre-existing natural channel. Vietnam also built up small artificial islands along the new channels and began building structures. By August 2015 Vietnam had added approximately 1.6 ha of sand to the southeastern and southwestern sides of Cornwallis South and began constructing several buildings. In December 2015, Typhoon Melor washed away 0.7 ha of new land. Vietnam promptly set about repairing the damage on the southwest.

On 7 May 2015, the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ (CSIS) Asian Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) reported that satellite imagery confirmed that Vietnam had added approximately 65,000 square metres [26,304 ha] of land to West Reef. A week later, Vietnam’s then Minister of National Defence, General Phung Quang Thanh, confirmed that Vietnam had reinforced embankments on some of its Spratly features to prevent erosion by wind and water. General Thanh noted that Vietnam also built small houses that can “accommodate a few people” and that “the scope and characteristic of our work is purely civilian.”

On 14 May 2015, Vietnam’s Ambassador to the Philippines, Truong Trieu Duong, responded to media queries about the AMTI in an email writing: “Activities conducted by Vietnam… are wholly aimed at improving the old physical facilities in order to serve the minimum daily needs of the people living in islands which are under the jurisdiction of Vietnam in the Spratlys… In fact, Vietnam has several times embellished [sic] some of the islands which are under its jurisdiction, but in a very small scale, mostly constructing ridges against shoreline erosion; building a dock and wharf; (and providing) logistics for fishing services. Our construction and embellishment do not change the status quo.”

A year later, on 17 May 2016, CSIS’ AMTI reported that it had examined all 21 islets and reefs occupied by Vietnam in the Spratlys and “found evidence of reclamation at 10 of them. The images… suggest Vietnam has created just over 120 acres [48.6 hectares] of new land in the South China Sea, mostly at Spratly Island, Southwest Cay, Sin Cowe Island, and West Reef. The majority of this work has occurred in the last two years. By comparison, China has created almost 3,000 acres [1214 ha] of new land at the seven features it occupies in the Spratly Islands. Vietnam’s work has not only been much smaller, but far less environmentally destructive, as it has not involved large-scale dredging of the reefs on which Hanoi’s outposts sit. It has also mostly (but not always) involved expanding pre-existing islets rather than creating new land at submerged features.”

Three major developments in 2016 deserve highlighting.

First, on 9 August it was reported that “in recent months” Vietnam had deployed Extended Range Artillery (EXTRA) mobile rocket launchers on five of its features in the Spratly Islands. The EXTRA system has a range of 150 km and could be used to target China’s airfields. Vietnamese spokespersons denied Vietnam had placed launchers and rockets in the Spratlys, “but reserved the right to take any such measures.”

Second, on 15 November, satellite imagery confirmed that Vietnam was extending its runway on Spratly Island (Truong Sa) from 760 metres (m) to 1.2 km and was building two large hangars. The new airfield extension would enable Vietnam to deploy PZL M28B maritime patrol and CASA C-295 transport aircraft.

Third, on 30 November, satellite imagery also confirmed that Vietnam had commenced dredging sand on Ladd Reef to open a new channel to provide access for fishing boats and supply vessels.

In recent years, China has defended its construction of artificial islands on the grounds that it is catching up and doing what other claimant states have done. Chinese activities, however, have dwarfed and proceeded further down the spectrum to full militarisation than any of the other claimant states.

This review of Vietnamese activities in the Spratlys demonstrates that Vietnam’s occupation of features in the Spratlys predates China’s recent construction activities by nearly four decades. Vietnam militarised its islands, to the extent that naval infantry constitutes militarisation, at the lower end of the spectrum, during the Cold War and long before the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) was adopted.

The DOC calls on all parties, including China, “to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others, refraining from action of inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays, and other features…”

Since 2002, Vietnam has constructed minor defensive fortifications (point defence systems and multi-story military structures), helipads, and installed military communications equipment and radar.

The major exceptions are Vietnam’s extension of the runway on Spratly Island to support maritime patrol aircraft and Vietnam’s reported placement of EXTRA launchers (but not rockets) on five features in the Spratlys. This constitutes a significant step up in militarisation but does not replicate the scale of China’s activities.

The deployment of the EXTRA launchers must be viewed as Vietnam’s response to China’s construction of forward operating posts hosting runways and hangars, capable of taking virtually all military aircraft in China’s inventory, and point defence systems hosting anti-aircraft guns and missiles.

All other Vietnamese construction appears to be civilian orientated, such as reinforcing seawalls, and building piers, wharfs and enlarging navigation channels. Vietnam’s land extension activities total 4 per cent of China’s total “land reclamation.”

Vietnam’s efforts at defence self-help go hand-in-hand with political and diplomatic efforts to seek a peaceful resolution of territorial disputes and keep the South China Sea stable. For example, Vietnam responded to the most recent US Freedom of Navigation Operational Patrol by the USS Decatur in October 2016, by declaring that “Viet Nam respects other countries to exercise their rights in the East Sea as provided for by the UNCLOS, including the rights to freedom of navigation and overflight. Maritime claims and related actions of states must conform with international law, including the UNCLOS.”

Most recently, Nguyen Phu Trong, the Secretary General of the Vietnam Communist Party, visited Beijing from 12 to 15 January where he held discussions, inter alia, on the South China Sea with his counterpart, Xi Jinping. According to the joint communiqué, “Both sides agreed to continue to fully and effectively implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the East Sea (DOC) [South China Sea], work towards the early formation of a Code of Conduct of Parties in the East Sea (COC) on the basis of consensus consultation, effectively controlling disputes at sea and avoiding actions that would further complicate or expanding disputes, while maintaining peace and stability in the East Sea.”

In sum, Vietnam’s policy towards the South China Sea’s roiled waters is to engage in a robust program of defence self-help at home (Vietnam has just taken delivery of the sixth and final Kilo-class submarine), while engaging both China and the United States (as well as other major powers – Russia, India and Japan) to maintain the balance of power in the South China Sea.
 
People may laugh at Donald Trump but not at this man, probably the second most powerful man in the White House: Steve Bannon. A close ally of Trump. Formally acting as White House chief strategist, but also he is a permanent member of US national security council, a small circle that makes decisions between peace and war. A far right winger. a Neocon representative. because of his radical thoughts on many sensitive topics he is seen a very dangerous man in the inner circle of the world's most powerful country. an extremely worrisome sign for some. For the Islam world and many others. But what has to do with Vietnam?

He is much interested of war history, especially epic battles. The war between Sparta and Athens, or the 57 day and night long decisive battle of Dien bien phu, led by Vo Nguyen Giap. The former chief commander of Vietnamese armed forces was a journalist before joining the army like Bannon. “Giap’s tenacity and ruthlessness became his trademarks as he fought two of the world’s most technologically advanced militaries,” Bannon wrote. He means America and France. We can add China to the list of losers. There are more but we let at three.

104251855-GettyImages-632575826.530x298.jpg

Where did you get that Steve Bannon is a neocon representative? Its the other way around, he opposes the neocons and visa versa.
 
Where did you get that Steve Bannon is a neocon representative? Its the other way around, he opposes the neocons and visa versa.
I may be wrong. but Steve Bannon is a militarist. he sees it legitimate in advancing political goals by military means. in this context he is much alike of classical neocon Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
 
I may be wrong. but Steve Bannon is a militarist. he sees it legitimate in advancing political goals by military means. in this context he is much alike of classical neocon Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Neocons follow a particular type of policies which are not at all related to what Steve Bannon believes in. Being militarist and being neocon are not the same thing. He is anti globalist which is at the center of neocon thinking. There are many people that believe in using military force under the right circumstances and that typically includes military men including some of the ones that Trump appointed, but that does not make them neocons. Like I said, neocons hate this guy, he opposes everything that the neocons have been doing.
 
Neocons follow a particular type of policies which are not at all related to what Steve Bannon believes in. Being militarist and being neocon are not the same thing. He is anti globalist which is at the center of neocon thinking. There are many people that believe in using military force under the right circumstances and that typically includes military men including some of the ones that Trump appointed, but that does not make them neocons. Like I said, neocons hate this guy, he opposes everything that the neocons have been doing.
Steve Bannon sees enemies everywhere, inside and outside America. he wants to eliminate all, if necessary with all means. Donald Trump´s first days in office with many decrees including Muslim ban are influenced if not written by him. how would you classify Steve Bannon if not a radical Neocon?
 
Vietnam’s Area Denial Strategy and the South China Sea Dispute
February 1, 2017
Nicolas Jouan

HCMC_USNavy-300x270.jpg



In October 2016, U.S. Admiral John Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations, advocated in a ground-breaking article the demise of A2/AD (Anti-Access/Area Denial) as a stand-alone term. According to him, the term became so widely used that it had lost any kind of empiricist accuracy. Not only have international observers become more shy in using the acronym since then, but one could also argue that A2/AD does not fit the evolving security situation in the South China Sea (SCS) anymore, where it was extensively used in the first place.

Vietnam used to be a flagship of area denial strategy in practice. With maritime claims clashing directly with China’s ones in the South China Sea, most notably in the Paracel and Spratley islands, Vietnam became a major East Asian security flashpoint over the past few years. The equation is simple, but its solution difficult: China is a bigger, richer, and more populous country, whose challenging behaviors threaten Vietnam’s interests. Consequently, Vietnam chose to balance against its neighbor. In 2013, some observers boldly announced Vietnam’s adoption of A2/AD strategy when the first of a six-strong fleet of Kilo-class attack submarines was delivered to Hanoi. Four years later, as the sixth and last submarine recently arrived at Cam Ranh harbor, what can be said of Vietnam’s conventional deterrence strategy?

From a national defense perspective, area denial should be divided into two different slices: conventional and non-conventional threats. The Vietnam People’s Navy’s capabilities were boosted by the acquisition of six Kilo submarines. The Russian-manufactured model, with its midship positioned sonars and anti-detection tiles, is designed to track and neutralize enemy-vessels. This costly $2 billion acquisition (SIPRI) is aimed at countering conventional threats at sea and, in case of conflict, compensating for at least a limited period of time the clear asymmetry between the Vietnamese and Chinese navies. In other words, Hanoi upgraded its conventional deterrence by severely raising the cost of conflict at sea for any potential opponent.

Such perspective is actually the most extreme and unlikely outcome. Military analysts are rather concerned by the emergence of more deceitful forms of warfare. The multiplication of so-called “blue-boats,” akin to militias at sea, short-circuits traditional interstate conflict management by intruding sovereign waters and harassing locals. China admittedly operates a fully-fledged fleet of blue-boats in order to, in its own words, “defend [its] sovereignty.” Blue-boats’ armament and training, though far below conventional navies, can sometimes reach significant levels, and their assumed ties to governments are frequently purposely unclear. Put more bluntly, blue-boats in the South China Sea dispute are aimed at spoiling one’s neighbor’s life by disturbing its fishing activities and shipping lines, redefining entirely the concept of conflict.

Vietnam’s answer to that threat is hidden in the details. It is only back in 2013 that Vietnam’s Marine Police was officially rebranded “Coast Guard” and started to play a bigger role in Hanoi’s security policy. An organizational overhaul, implementing regional commands, and steady investments were aimed at reinforcing Vietnam’s South China Sea monitoring capabilities and law-enforcement. Transnational threats such as piracy and smuggling conveniently justify the development of a Vietnamese coast-guard force, and broaden Hanoi’s military cooperation perspectives.

New political orientations participate in Vietnam’s balancing strategy by favoring interdependencies with regional and international partners. This issue might seem remote from area denial strategy, but both aspects are complementary. During his recent visit in Hanoi, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe agreed with his Vietnamese counterpart Nguyen Xuan Phuc on developing Japanese investments into Vietnam, increasing development aid loans, and supplying six brand-new patrol ships to the Vietnamese Coast Guard. This long-awaited delivery will help Vietnam to increase its monitoring capabilities in the South China Sea and to counter non-conventional threats.

No third country expects to change Vietnam into a buffer state against China. After all, the so-called “three-nos” policy still officially shape Vietnam’s strategy: no military alliance, no foreign bases, and no reliance on a third party. But A2/AD still makes sense in the minds of the United States, Japan, or India. Hence the recent pouring in defense cooperation agreements and arms supplies destined at reinforcing Vietnam’s territorial sovereignty. The Pentagon provides training to Vietnam through its Maritime Security Initiative, designed to increase Southeast Asian nations’ maritime awareness. India might deliver Akash sol-air missiles to Vietnam in a move openly aimed at containing China, after having agreed to trainHanoi’s fleet of Sukhoi-30s.

What lies ahead in the South China Sea dispute is still unclear. The July 2016 PCA arbitration on China’s claims in the SCS, triggered by the Philippines, was not the milestone expected by partisans of international law. The tribunal declared indeed that the Chinese claims had no legal ground, but Manila reversed its course when the pro-China Rodrigo Duterte won the presidential election in May 2016. Since then, Mr Duterte’s government has been very unclear regarding how to transform the arbitral award into political gains. Vietnamese leaders are resolutely silent about the award anyway, only mildly professing their wish to see international law respected.

The US presidential race and the victory of Donald Trump did nothing to simplify this ambiguous balance. Rex Tillerson, the hawkish secretary of state nominee, declared on January 11 that the United States will “make sure [to] defend international territories from being taken over by one country” in the South China Sea, provoking directly China’s position in the region. In contrast, Vietnam’s Communist Party Secretary General, Mr Nguyen Phu Trong, visited China on January 12-15, promising to President Xi Jinping a renewal of their bilateral relations, most notably, and strikingly, concerning the South China Sea dispute.

It is easy to accuse Vietnam to play smoke and mirrors in its maritime dispute with China. But it would be ignoring the situation’s inherent complexity. Hefty investments in naval and missile capabilities have ensured Vietnam’s A2/AD credibility. But these capabilities increasingly suffer from the same irrelevance as the term itself. With the passing of time, it becomes clear that Hanoi’s core interests reside in ensuring its fishing and shipping security, more than in preparing to counter a phantasmagoric all-out Chinese attack by sea.

The trick is, such threats to civilian activities are still emanating from state-actors, most notably China. Investing in surveillance and law-enforcement is therefore a convenient way to increase one’s presence at sea while skirting accusations of brinkmanship. It is why the future of Vietnam’s area-denial strategy is to be found in its ability to monitor and answer non-conventional threats as well as developing bilateral positive-sum relations with anyone having an interest in preserving the geopolitical balance in the South China Sea.
 
Steve Bannon sees enemies everywhere, inside and outside America. he wants to eliminate all, if necessary with all means. Donald Trump´s first days in office with many decrees including Muslim ban are influenced if not written by him. how would you classify Steve Bannon if not a radical Neocon?

Bannon is known as a leader of the alt right movement (alternative right). Again, neocons are a very particular group that have a very focused agenda. The alt right followers, including Bannon, have a very different agenda than the neocons. Alt right followers and neocons oppose each other.

For a good explanation of what a neocon is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

"Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among conservative-leaning Democrats who became disenchanted with the party's foreign policy. Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[1] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. Senior officials Vice President Dick Cheneyand Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, while not identifying as neoconservatives, listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of democracy in the Middle East.

The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist Leftto the camp of American conservatism.[2] Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[3][4] The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish monthly review magazine Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee.[5][6] They spoke out against the New Left and in that way helped define the movement.[7][8] C. Bradley Thompson, a professor at Clemson University, claims that most influential neoconservatives refer explicitly to the theoretical ideas in the philosophy of Leo Strauss (1899–1973),[9]though in doing so they may draw upon meaning that Strauss himself did not endorse."
 
Bannon is known as a leader of the alt right movement (alternative right). Again, neocons are a very particular group that have a very focused agenda. The alt right followers, including Bannon, have a very different agenda than the neocons. Alt right followers and neocons oppose each other.

For a good explanation of what a neocon is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

"Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among conservative-leaning Democrats who became disenchanted with the party's foreign policy. Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[1] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. Senior officials Vice President Dick Cheneyand Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, while not identifying as neoconservatives, listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of democracy in the Middle East.

The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist Leftto the camp of American conservatism.[2] Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and American national interest in international affairs, including by means of military force and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism.[3][4] The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish monthly review magazine Commentary, published by the American Jewish Committee.[5][6] They spoke out against the New Left and in that way helped define the movement.[7][8] C. Bradley Thompson, a professor at Clemson University, claims that most influential neoconservatives refer explicitly to the theoretical ideas in the philosophy of Leo Strauss (1899–1973),[9]though in doing so they may draw upon meaning that Strauss himself did not endorse."
Ok thanks that is the term I am looking for: alt-right movement, a place for white supremacists and racists.
 
Ok thanks that is the term I am looking for: alt-right movement, a place for white supremacists and racists. What's the difference to "Chinese dreams"?

You've been listening too much to the anti Trump propaganda spread by the mainstream media that supports the establishment (same story in Germany). Neither Bannon nor the Alt Right are a white supremacists or racist movement (that does not mean that there aren't a few of them there). If you want to learn more about Bannon without the media bias, just go to his news website, the Breitbart News Network: http://www.breitbart.com
 
you're a waste of time.


yes

And your vocabulary is very limited; likewise, your mental capacity.

You've been listening too much to the anti Trump propaganda spread by the mainstream media that supports the establishment (same story in Germany). Neither Bannon nor the Alt Right are a white supremacists or racist movement (that does not mean that there aren't a few of them there). If you want to learn more about Bannon without the media bias, just go to his news website, the Breitbart News Network: http://www.breitbart.com

It's all a charade.
 
You've been listening too much to the anti Trump propaganda spread by the mainstream media that supports the establishment (same story in Germany). Neither Bannon nor the Alt Right are a white supremacists or racist movement (that does not mean that there aren't a few of them there). If you want to learn more about Bannon without the media bias, just go to his news website, the Breitbart News Network: http://www.breitbart.com
Ok ok we can agree to disagree at this point and move on. We both are not twins impossible to agree on everything, otherwise it will become too boring :D
 
Ok ok we can agree to disagree at this point and move on. We both are not twins impossible to agree on everything, otherwise it will become too boring :D

But of course...... :enjoy:

Ok ok we can agree to disagree at this point and move on. We both are not twins impossible to agree on everything, otherwise it will become too boring :D

Talking about Steve Bannon, here is a very interesting article and very relevant to Vietnam:

Steve Bannon: 'We're going to war in the South China Sea ... no doubt'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...non-donald-trump-war-south-china-sea-no-doubt

Only months ago Donald Trump’s chief strategist predicted military involvement in east Asia and the Middle East in Breitbart radio shows

Steve Bannon: ‘We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years. There’s no doubt about that.’ Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP

Benjamin Haas in Hong Kong

Thursday 2 February 2017 03.55 GMTLast modified on Thursday 2 February 2017 05.09 GMT

The United States and China will fight a war within the next 10 years over islands in the South China Sea, and “there’s no doubt about that”. At the same time, the US will be in another “major” war in the Middle East.

Those are the views – nine months ago at least – of one of the most powerful men in Donald Trump’s administration, Steve Bannon, the former head of far-right news website Breitbart who is now chief strategist at the White House.

In the first weeks of Trump’s presidency, Bannon has emerged as a central figure. He was appointed to the “principals committee” of the National Security Council in a highly unusual move and was influential in the recent travel ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, overruling Department of Homeland Security officials who felt the order did not apply to green card holders.

While many in Trump’s team are outspoken critics of China, in radio shows Bannon hosted for Breitbart he makes plain the two largest threats to America: China and Islam.

“We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years,” he said in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”

China says nearly the entire South China Sea falls within its territory, with half a dozen other countries maintaining partially overlapping claims. China has built a series of artificial islands on reefs and rocks in attempt to bolster its position, complete with military-length airstrips and anti-aircraft weapons.

Bannon’s sentiments and his position in Trump’s inner circle add to fears of a military confrontation with China, after secretary of state Rex Tillerson said that the US would deny China access to the seven artificial islands. Experts warned any blockade would lead to war.

Bannon is clearly wary of China’s growing clout in Asia and beyond, framing the relationship as entirely adversarial, predicting a global culture clash in the coming years.

“You have an expansionist Islam and you have an expansionist China. Right? They are motivated. They’re arrogant. They’re on the march. And they think the Judeo-Christian west is on the retreat,” Bannon said during a February 2016 radio show.

On the day Trump was inaugurated, China’s military warned that war between the two countries was a real possibility.

“A ‘war within the president’s term’ or ‘war breaking out tonight’ are not just slogans, they are becoming a practical reality,” an official wrote on the website of the People’s Liberation Army.

Aside from conflict between armies, Bannon repeatedly focused on his perception that Christianity around the world is under threat.

In one radio show, used
to promote an article incorrectly claiming that a mosque had been built at the North Pole, Bannon focused heavily on China’s oppression of Christian groups.

“The one thing the Chinese fear more than America … they fear Christianity more than anything,” he said.

But China is not the only hotspot Bannon sees, and forecasts another ground war for American troops in the Middle East.

“Some of these situations may get a little unpleasant,” Bannon said in November 2015. “But you know what, we’re in a war. We’re clearly going into, I think, a major shooting war in the Middle East again.”

He also branded Islam as “the most radical” religion in the world, and moved swiftly since entering the White House to enact policies hostile to Muslims. Some have called Trump’s central doctrine a “war on Islam”.

It's all a charade.


If anything, the last 6 months have shown that the mainstream media, particularly in USA is all a big charade.
 
Back
Top Bottom