Falklands? Genocide? :confused: …l?

I suggest we get off this stupid topic.
no one can win this argument.

and btw,

I caution bringing up things like Xinjiang and Tibet trying to counter chinese arguments is bit problematic because one can not honestly disconnect their history with the Great Game and the strive for supremacy in central asia during late 19th- early 20th century between the powers, which britain had a rather dirty hand in, especially in formenting independence amongst local rulers and cultivating clients.

want to talk history, sure, but don’t think it will help anything.

so I suggest we get off this stupid topic once for all and stay within past 60 years.

For those in the UK, does anyone remember that great TV show; ‘Goodness Gracious Me’?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNt63Pj2qV4

lol.

Very true TR1. They should bury the hatchet and co-operate on Afghanistan. US-Russia co-operation should be one of the pillars that Americas future China policy be based on.

😉

skeet skeet.

Which is what makes these “questions” from Japan and the US hypocritical and laughable to basically every third world nation in the world.

No one outside of the whites and their allies like the Japanese can possibly believe that it is okay for one party to have 11 carriers and it is not okay for the second party to have even one.

And to top it off, Japan and the West already had a history of invading Chinese territory and killing Chinese civilians.

It is like Germany lecturing Israel to decrease the size and capability of its military. Stupid, racist and insensitive to the extreme.

calm down man,

The problem is not with your lines of argument, there is nothing wrong with reason.

people will not admit to these lines of argument because their interests are conflicting with the reasoning. you assume rational arguments will work, it wouldn’t.

some think they are stand to lose (from a position of near absolute domination of critical sea lanes) as china starting to project its own naval power. So they must find other ostensible reasons to justify the unjustifiable and ask these question like “why does china needs aircraft carriers”. so to groupthink its way into “ok for them to dominate but not ok for china to hold its own destiny in its hand”.
as soon as you make a rational argument that they can not justify with the groupthink, they go on to these idiotic rants like “commies” and “welfare for poor”.
I have seen this too many times, almost a mental disease. same as people couldn’t live up to some deficiencies in their lives so they sidetrack and ignore. you almost had to hold an intervention. like with a druggie. but in this case I guess the drug is power.

Disaster relief won’t be the carriers’ main objectives, but probably one of the secondary functions. However, the main objectives couldn’t be implemented until the PLAN developed its own carrier doctrine. Even though others might disagree, I do see these carriers serve to protect the Chinese trades especially in the time of crisis. The PLA is very sensitive to the blockade and the cut off of energy supplies. It has implemented multiple strategies to preemptive the threat. The oil pipelines that run through various countries indicate the seriousness of PLA’s perceptions toward this issue.

and
If the mere presence of a robust PLAN carrier battle group is enough to persuade some not to miscalculate and interfere with china’s commercial shipping in time of a crisis; or prevent others to miscalculate and militarily escalating a crisis; or even dissuade a crisis from happening in first place by its very presence, then the carrier has served its purpose.

If US navy can say it prevents wars by being world’s police man, and it keeps the peace by having 11 CVs around the world. than China can certainly has plenty grounds to be able solve its own crisis by similar methods.

ultimately these weapons are basically built to prevent wars, isn’t that the entire raison d’etre for the mighty and dominating US navy?

did all 4 attempt a touch and go? Sounds like more of a ceremonial thing if not.
Any idea if they were carrier aircraft (J-15, JL-9J) or naval flankers or even J-10s? 😮

donno. didn’t say. should just be a lowlevel pass.

But…
They did mention the flight is from this regiment “海空雄鹰团”

which a simple baidu tells me it is 4th Naval Aviation Division, 10th Regiment.
flys Su-30MK2s

also, apparently Rivet Joints and Ares were out snooping. Su-27s and J-11 units out on the Shandong peninsula had a busy weekend.

from pure rumor mill on chinese internet.

1) a 4 planes formation from a PLAN naval aviation regiment did a low pass during the trial.
some said they did a touch and go.

2) AEW Ka-31 landed. may be Z-8.

Xinhua news reporter was on the ship twitting out last moment before ship got underway.
so we know a news crew was on board.
so we should have pictures. I hope.

@Teer/

I will not oblige your requests to “quote” properly because I do not think your rather intellectually hollow answers deserves my time.

sorry bud, right now you are just widening the debate out of the scope of what we initially started off on,… a behavior which I have seen you repeat multiple times in this forum and frankly is rather disruptive, we will do much better by just ignoring behavior as such. a mature person knows how to keep a discussion with in its original bounds.

If you have something better to say, go ahead. If not, you will be ignored. thank you.

and here I must quote golden dragon’s line, ill-properly :

“Shut up about politics and just concentrate on news and picture of the hardware and we’ll be fine.”