-
The View From the Other Side
May 17, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Cyprus Uber Alles
May 10, 2013 | 9 comments
-
After Hugo
May 3, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Theory and Practice of Terrorism
April 26, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Border Security Games
April 19, 2013 | 26 comments
At Large
Admiral Wu Steams Full Ahead
China has a big PLAN in mind.
In 2001 the hulk of an old Soviet aircraft carrier arrived in Dalian, China. Having been towed from the Black Sea through the Bosphorus Strait halfway around the world, the engine-less warship is now nearing complete modernization. The Chinese have arrived at the point where they will soon launch their first operational aircraft carrier and will have taken their first step in creating a worldwide naval presence.
This aim was made quite clear last week at the 60th anniversary of the establishment of China’s communist naval force. The Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is the actual translation of the name of the Chinese navy and it was through an official invitation from this organization that the United States had an honored place in the ceremony. Recognizing the importance of the occasion, the U.S. was represented by the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead. Pointedly there was no Japanese naval representative; they hadn’t been invited.
When the Chinese carrier is launched, it will have waiting for it a complete battle group of guided missile destroyers and escort frigates, as well as nuclear and conventional submarines along with support ships. One of Taiwan’s principal defense think tanks has already projected 2015 as the date when Chinese naval power will be physically capable of challenging the U.S. Navy in the Taiwan Straits. But even before then the PLAN expect to have a blue water naval strength operating to protect its sea lanes.
It is estimated that approximately 80% of all imported crude and refined oil products destined for China passes through the Malacca Strait that currently is being patrolled by the U.S. 7th Fleet. China seeks to have a major role in the future in policing its own strategic economic routes, and projecting force throughout Asian seas is a top priority. It is not merely a matter of pride, although that is part of it.
China has felt exceedingly vulnerable at sea ever since the shiny new modern navy of the Qing Dynasty was destroyed by the Japanese Imperial Navy in 1894. It’s a long time to wait for naval “social” acceptance and the newly rich PRC has no intention of waiting a moment longer. China already has ships operating in the western Indian Ocean and Gulf of Aden, participating in international anti-pirate operations.
Recent challenges to and harassment of an American intelligence surveillance vessel in the South China Sea was a signal that the PRC has no intention of allowing U.S. naval patrols free access to this region, which Beijing contends is within PRC territorial limits.
The United States of course insists this area is strictly in international waters and countered with claims that the Chinese were building a new advanced nuclear-armed submarine that was being hidden from world view.
None of these contretemps prevented Admiral Roughead from being the guest of the commander-in-chief of the PLAN, Admiral Wu Shengli. After all, just a little more than a year ago CINCPAC, Admiral Tim Keating, declared in a high level military meeting in Beijing that an “honest and true friendship” had been created with his Chinese Communist counterparts. Not too long afterward the harassment in the South China Sea occurred.
Diplomatic niceties aside, Beijing intends to challenge the American dominance of the Pacific that has existed since the end of World War II. The PRC is making an investment in its international status as an economic power by building a naval arm that it counts on to become an influential force in its own right. All of this is merely a reflection of China’s ambition to join the United States and Russia by mid-century as a military superpower.
The PRC is very conscious of its financial leverage internationally as well as its obvious role as the United States’ principal banker. The interest its earn annually on the U.S. Treasury paper it owns can easily be translated into the expense of modernizing Beijing’s naval ability. The PLAN is a major beneficiary of the changed international financial scene.
There will be many more mao-tai toasts exchanged in the future between admirals of the U.S. Navy and their PLAN counterparts — of that one can be sure. It is equally sure that the Peoples Liberation Army Navy will grow speedily into a more modern and powerful force. The days of American dominance in the Pacific have been challenged. It is no longer if but when Beijing will reach its naval ambition of equality. Is the U.S. contemplating anything in response?
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
Pingback| 5.1.09 @ 7:59AM
China’s Nava Might: Future Dawning Quickly « Peace and Freedom Promises links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ed| 5.1.09 @ 8:25AM
Look at a globe , or a world map, and you can see that China is as vulnerable to maritime interdiction as is Great Britain and Japan. The PLAN should be worried. The thing to watch for is Chinese naval and air bases in the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia region. On the bright side, our nuclear submarine fleet is very, very good at what they do.
NavyBrat| 5.1.09 @ 10:46AM
Ed. While I agree that it'd be easy to interdict China's ocean going imports, I think that the gutting of the military by Obama will make things MUCH harder. While we certainly have more carriers than them, we've shelved the new carrier class that we were rolling out to replace the Nimitz class. The Navy needs new planes, & the F-35 project has been cut. The battlewagons are in mothballs & museum status (stupid decision in my opinion). The same school of thought that was prevelant after WWI that battleships were obsolete now pervades many aspects of the military. Hopefully, they're still teaching good ship to ship gunnery at Annapolis these days, because if the Chinese get frisky in the Taiwan Strait, we'll need that know-how.
Dean Vander Linde| 5.1.09 @ 11:44AM
One may be able to draw parallels between the current Chinese navy and the Imperial German Navy and, more recently, the Soviet Navy. Despite the huge investments in ships and technology, neither land-oriented power fully grasped the nature and potential of sea power. Alfred Thayer Mahan noted the cultural factors that determine the success of a nation as a naval power. Great Britain and the United States were seafaring nations that used naval power effectively in both peace and war. Germany and the Soviet Union did not have that background and consequently never maximized the potential of their huge fleets. I suspect that China is creating another "luxury fleet."
BPT (Australia) | 5.2.09 @ 8:46AM
Wow it looks like someone likes to post Japanese adverts on your site.
Speaking of which, although China is clearly building up her navy, I’m happy that the Japanese are also becoming more hawkish, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Japan is a relatively good ally.
Richard Baker| 5.2.09 @ 6:11PM
The Chinese military buildup occurs because, with their enormous population, they are needing lebensraum. If I were her neighbors, and that includes Japan and India, I'd be worried as the Chinese are breeding themselves out of room in their home. Being Communist, they would look at the loss of a few hundred million citizens as the cost of doing business and the Communist leadership will be well fed and protected. Their economy is nothing but a source of funds to arm themselves and do what Communists have always done.
Big Ben| 5.2.09 @ 7:41PM
Because of geography, Germany and Russia are both natural land powers whereas the UK and Japan are examples seafaring nations. China, like the US, can be both a land power and a sea power. Remember, during periods of imperial China (such as the Song dynasty), it was an active naval power in its known world. China under the Ming dynasty had the world’s most powerful navy during the 15th century. Her naval capabilities at the time were a few centuries ahead of Europe. All the important trading ports in the Indian Ocean basin and the Asia Pacific Ocean - from Korea and Japan throughout the Southeast Asian Malay Archipelago and India to the east African coast - were nominally under Chinese shadow or at least acknowledged the suzerainty of the dragon throne. It was only after the 15th century when it went into centuries long self imposed isolation policy that eventually led to China’s decline in the 19th century. It is important to understand that today’s Chinese leaders and its think tanks clearly realize that mistake came back to haunt them. China’s naval strategies increasingly resemble more of its pre-15th century outward looking policies than the 15th to 20th centuries of isolation. While China still has awhile to go before it can match the power of the US navy, but it is a mistake to underestimate Chinese ambitions and capabilities. One of the single biggest mistakes that most analysts in the West have with understanding China and East Asia is the failure to understand their past. There is a tendency to only look at Asia over the last 200 years (only when the West became involved), but that region has been around and was relatively well developed for a long time.
Pingback| 5.3.09 @ 7:31AM
Admiral Wu Steams Full Ahead links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Paul Crowley| 5.3.09 @ 10:15PM
=>“Speaking of which, although China is clearly building up her navy, I’m happy that the Japanese are also becoming more hawkish, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Japan is a relatively good ally.” [BPT (Australia)| 5.2.09 @ 8:46AM]
Yeah. Aussies always have needed someone else to protect them (and I see that some Aussies are still good at sucking up to whatever new country has transparently beome their new protector).
30 years ago in Singapore, I remember a few Aussie soldiers running their mouths repeating a variation of the British (Pommie) Imperialist polemic from the 1950s: Worred that Americans had “Just Lost The Will.” Some Aussie squids could be arrogant asses also (Big Mouths; TINY navy).
It’s Japan, America and Indonesia that currently provide the bulk of the naval and air forces patroling the western Pacific; America and India in the Indian Ocean.
When is Australia going to FINALLY begin to pull its own weight?
“The World Wonders. . .”
Paul Crowley| 5.3.09 @ 10:35PM
=>“It is important to understand that today’s Chinese leaders and its think tanks clearly realize that mistake came back to haunt them. . . . While China still has awhile to go before it can match the power of the US navy, but it is a mistake to underestimate Chinese ambitions and capabilities. One of the single biggest mistakes that most analysts in the West have with understanding China and East Asia is the failure to understand their past. There is a tendency to only look at Asia over the last 200 years (only when the West became involved), but that region has been around and was relatively well developed for a long time.” [Big Ben|
5.2.09 @ 7:41PM]
And if wishes were horses, then beggers would ride.
This rubbish posted under the pseudonym, Big Ben, is pure nonsense.
There’s NOTHING important to be found here.
No analysts are making mistakes such as those mentioned here (since this mostly garbage). 200 years? Try about 409 years since the Dutch and English got involved.
The mistakes being made are to not look at what constitutes American naval and air power, not to look at the alliance of 3 of 5 of the great powers, and their satellites, to not look at Russian double-dealing, and to not to look closer at Britain (i.e. at the Hindu Raj: India). It's Inja that one should look at, old boy.
The Chinese can have all of the ambitions they want.
The real question is capabilities.
The question is, how is the People’s Republic of China (PRC) going to accomplish this more than Hurculean task of catching up?
Paul Crowley| 5.3.09 @ 10:50PM
=>“The days of American dominance in the Pacific have been challenged. It is no longer if but when Beijing will reach its naval ambition of equality. Is the U.S. contemplating anything in response?” [Admiral Wu Steams Full Ahead By George H. Wittman on
5.1.09 @ 6:07AM]
This is a fantasy.
Beijing (A.K.A. The People’s Republic of China) does not have the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell of reaching naval equality with the U.S.A., in the Pacific, or otherwise.
No consideration should be made of American military strength without considering the alliances with Britain, France, Japan, the Dutch, Korea, Taiwan and the SEATO countries.
The United States of America (U.S.A.) is in alliance with Britain, Japan, the Dutch, the French and Indonesia: Japan, south Korea, Taiwan and the SEATO countries (as well as Persian Gulf countries and Egypt).
The U.S.A. provides command and control via the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) unified commands (in this instance: U.S. Pacific, U.S. Central, U.S. Africa and U.S. European commands) and global satellite and submarine cabal communications.
America dominates the eastern and central Pacific (it’s secure).
This means air and naval dominance, of the majority of both the Pacific and the Indian oceans, and the critical straits between them (Malacca, Sunda, Lombok, the passage between Timor and Darwin and the Makassar strait).
The alliance now controls the bulk of petroleum reserves in the Western Pacific and Persian Gulf; the shipping lanes from the Strait of Hormuz to Suez, going west, to Malacca, going east, to the Sunda, Lombok, the passage between Timor and Darwin and the Makassar straits, going south and east, and to the Cape of Good Hope, going south and west. Asian shipping expertise is unequaled and the British have dominance in maritime transport management.
Japan patrols the northwestern Pacific, in a more than 1,000 mile arc, north to south, east to west: North from Barents sea south past the Formosa Strait, from the coast-line of the continent of Asia out to the Republic of the Philippines, Republic of the Mariana Islands, and the Bonin and volcano islands (about the region dominated by the Japanese Imperial Navy in 1940). Japan has formally assumed responsibility for the Formosa Strait.
The Japanese air and naval forces grew steadily, 1971-89, joined American air and naval forces, and have taken primary responsibility for air and naval patrols, especially anti-submarine for the past 16 years (of the post-Cold War era).
Taiwan patrols the Formosa Strait.
(including recent reinforcement with the ex American Kidd-class DDGs, modernized & transferred during the Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations: Equal capabilities and greater fire power than A. Burke-class Aegis DDGs).
Thailand patrols the Gulf of Thailand.
Vietnam patrols the Gulf of Thailand and Gulf of Tonkin.
Indonesia patrols the Sunda, Lombok, and Makassar straits.
The Indian navy patrols from the the Bay of Bengal to the Malacca Strait (expanding west toward Gulf the North Arabian Sea and Gulf of Aden, and south).
The Indian and Thai navies have aircraft carrier operations experience. The Japanese have coordinated air and naval operations experience and senior Japanese naval officers have aircraft carrier operations and combined fleet operations experience.
The Indian, SEATO and Japanese air and naval forces routinely train and operate together, and have under modern command and control for the past 18 years.
The Indian and Vietnamese (SEATO member) air and naval forces routinely train and operate together.
The Indian and Pakistani navies have routinely trained and operated with the American navy since the British withdrew their military and naval garrisons from East of Suez in 1971.
Japan has established intricate trade alliances throughout the western Pacific by 1971.
Japan and the ‘little tigers’ (South Korea, Taiwan and South Korea) were all heavily intertwined by 1971.
Japan increased its materials and industrial trade alliances advance into the Indian Ocean basin, 1971 onward.
Japan is self-sufficient in its process and manufacturing industries and has trade alliances for its materials with the British Commonwealth countries (especially Australia, Malaysia and India), the SEATO countries (especially Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam), with and with the Persian Gulf countries (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Oman. . .).
Japan is self-sufficient in manufacturing production and supports of its own armed forces, land, sea and now air (land and naval by 1989 and air forces since).
Japan designed and developed its own battle tank, equivalent to the M-1 Abrams, and builds its own modified Aegis-equipped warships (by licensing the technology), all by 1989. It’s now developed its own fighter warplane (recently tested in Australia).
Japan provides process & industrial production (fuels, chemicals, systems, parts. . . ) and Advanced Bases (naval and air, logistics, homeporting, and maintenance & repair) that provide logistics support to American air and naval forces in the western pacific and Indian oceans, and American air, naval and ground forces in south-central Asia.
Japan went into its economic slump, 1990-2007, during which time government public works spending modernized its Lines of Communications infrastructure.
Japan has developed a space program, advanced domestic aviation industry capabilities, has an advanced nuclear power capability and more than has the capability to develop a nuclear weapons program, should it be decided that it should do so.
India is self-sufficient in most of its process industries (chemical and petroleum refining by 1998, and becoming so in steel production, which is expanding rapidly), and is becoming self-sufficient in manufacturing.
India has purchased modern weapons from the U.S.A., Israel and Russia.
India’s policy for the past six years has been to now construct its own naval forces.
India has more than 30 years experience operating aircraft carriers, and more than 40 years experience in complex, combined, fleet operations.
Anybody care to bet that India will be taking over the naval and air patrols of the majority of the Indian ocean (probably taking over Diego Garcia), in the near future?
This is only touching on some of the major alliances, Advanced Bases and materials, processing, manufacturing and logistics capabilities, all developed in the course of the past 63 years (since 1946), and especially the past 38 years (since 1971). . . .
Consider the world-wide missile battery being developed, and move into the Atlantic basin and American-Anglo-French dominance, especially of minerals, petroleum reserve (all but 10% of petroleum imported by the U.S.A. comes from the western hemisphere, and the bulk of American petroleum is till shut in), processing and manufacturing, Advanced Bases, logistics and lines of communication is supreme, with the other two great powers, Russia and China, not even remote threats.
As to a ground war on the continent of Asia, then I don’t believe that American ground forces will play a major role in the event of a general war. They are useful at the moment for expeditionary duty and development of lines of communications and logistics. For the first time in history, a general war on the continent of Asia is coming near to being possible.
How is the PRC going to "catch up" with all of this?
It is fantasy that the People’s Republic of China has even the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell of reaching naval equality (or air or ground) with the U.S.A. (American-Anglo-French bloc), in the Pacific, or otherwise.
Paul Crowley| 5.3.09 @ 11:16PM
=>“The PRC is very conscious of its financial leverage internationally as well as its obvious role as the United States' principal banker. The interest its earn annually on the U.S. Treasury paper it owns can easily be translated into the expense of modernizing Beijing's naval ability. The PLAN is a major beneficiary of the changed international financial scene.” [Admiral Wu Steams Full Ahead By George H. Wittman on 5.1.09 @ 6:07AM]
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) owns “U.S. Treasury paper.” [i.e. U.S. Treasury electronic currency].
The U.S.A., Japan, Britain, France, Germany, the Dutch, Saudi Arabia. . . own REAL PROPERTY in the U.S.A., Japan, western Europe, the British Commonwealth and associated American, British, French and Dutch satellites: Business, Industry and Finance (A.K.A. Business).
The PRC does not own real property in the U.S.A., Japan or western Europe.
The PRC currently depends upon exports to the U.S.A. and Europe.
Indian exports to the U.S.A. have been steadily displacing PRC exports in recent years (just look at the shelves in Walmart and stickers on automobiles showing parts makeup).
The PRC is worried about inflation of the dollar (for good reason).
Bottom line: When it comes to Real Property versus electronic currency, then the PRC is more heavily dependent upon the American-Anglo-French bloc, or just the U.S.A., then the American-Anglo-French bloc is upon the PRC. America and Europe could be inconvenienced. The PRC could be strangled.
Russia is a variable. Russia has been playing both ends for the past eight years (American advance into south-central Asia would be impossible without Russian support, due to logistics).
Again, even given the Finance angle:
It is fantasy that the People’s Republic of China has even the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell of reaching naval equality (or air or ground) with the U.S.A. (American-Anglo-French bloc), in the Pacific, or otherwise.
Fantasy.
Paul Crowley| 5.3.09 @ 11:54PM
=>“The Chinese military buildup occurs because, with their enormous population, they are needing lebensraum. If I were her neighbors, and that includes Japan and India, I'd be worried as the Chinese are breeding themselves out of room in their home. . . . Their economy is nothing but a source of funds to arm themselves and do what Communists have always done.” [Richard Baker| 5.2.09 @ 6:11PM]
lebensraum?
The Chinese?
Richard must be another Marxist-formed conservative (or maybe he's British?).
The PRC has a population control policy (one it may wish to reconsider).
But as to population, and neighbors being worried:
Then India’s population is small?
LOL!
A massive population, industrial growth fueled by military development, financed by American-Japanese-western European Finance and government policies, wide-scale urbanization in the past ten years. . . And, this is India that we’re talking about.
And the American armed forces are trooping about in Afghanistan and now the Punjab!
And what is the American economy?
An allocation of resources to conduct the largest military arms buildup of the past 63 years. The funds have been procured and more are being poured in. Gates has cut nothing. He's just not spending the moneys procured in the past two years at this time (Hoover's naval works began in 1930 with funds procurred in the 1916 Naval Act).
It’s the American-Anglo-French bloc engaging in aggression against the PRC (not the least is the steady stream of misinformation propaganda such as this political essay).
Be worried. But be worried that it’s out own crooked-as-a-dog’s-hind-leg government (National Security Council, via departments of Defense & State) that is responsible for a massive arms buildup, mobilization of peoples, development of India, and that is leading us toward a general war.
Pingback| 5.4.09 @ 8:31AM
Henderson, Texas » Blog Archive » Königsberg class light cruiser (1905) links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Thomas| 5.4.09 @ 12:12PM
Mr. Crowley makes some good points concerning the future dominance of the PRC as a Pacific naval power. Then he wanders off into the the "good communists being mercilessly oppressed by the evil Western capitalist" mantra. This is an argument that is almost totally devoid of any objectivity.
The point of the PRC's development of a blue watter naval force in the Pacific is to directly challenge US dominance in the region. The PRC has been engaged in a military build-up and development program unequaled since the that of post-WWI Germany. As she has virtually no threats to her national sovereignty and no foreign military treaty obligations the current military build-up is only explainable if the PRC is intent upon a projection of military force in the region.
In order to accomplish a viable military force projection, the PRC has to challenge the dominant naval force in the Pacific, the United States Navy. Where problems arise is in the nature of the US Naval response to provocative challenges. And the subsequent responses of the PLAN. In recent years, the PRC has regularly engaged in provocative acts against US aircraft and vessels in international waters. As their perceived naval power increases, the PRC will increase the acts of provocation against US military assets in the Far East. Somewhere along the line, the US will respond and that response could spark a significant armed conflict in the region.
Trackback| 5.5.09 @ 2:48AM
セックス メル友 巨乳, on 静岡のセフレ, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Paul Crowley| 5.5.09 @ 5:55PM
=>“Then he wanders off into the the ‘good communists being mercilessly oppressed by the evil Western capitalist’ mantra. This is an argument that is almost totally devoid of any objectivity.” [Thomas| 5.4.09 @ 12:12PM]
Hi Thomas:
Objective is precisely what I’ve been.
It’s probably why you ignored all of the objective points that I listed.
->“good communists being mercilessly oppressed by the evil Western capitalist’ mantra.”
I don’t know who you’re quoting here.
“good communists being mercilessly oppressed by the evil Western capitalist.”
Who are you quoting here?
Who formulated this statement that you call a mantra?
->Thomas’ “Good Communists”
Personally, I don’t know what a good communist would be.
I know of no example of such a thing, 1820-present.
For myself, then “a good communist” is an oxymoron.
As to “a good communists” then that’s the kind of thing one hears from present-day reformed American and British Marxist-&-libertarian-formed conservatives.”
Paul Crowley| 5.5.09 @ 5:59PM
=>“Mr. Crowley makes some good points concerning the future dominance of the PRC as a Pacific naval power.” [Thomas| 5.4.09 @ 12:12PM]
Hi Thomas:
To be clear.
I made good points regarding the ABSURDITY of "the future dominance of the PRC as a Pacific naval power.”
In fact, the ABSURDITY of the future dominance of the PRC as a Pacific naval or air power.
Paul Crowley| 5.5.09 @ 6:08PM
=>“The PRC has been engaged in a military build-up and development program unequaled since the that of post-WWI Germany.” [Thomas| 5.4.09 @ 12:12PM]
Hi Thomas:
Really?
Unequaled to the American-Japanese-Thai-Taiwanese-Indonesian-Indian air and naval forces buildup, 1971-present (especially post-Cold War, 1989-present); all tied together by command and control of the Joint Chiefs of Staff unified commands and satellite and submarine cable communications.
No way.
Unequaled to the American-Japanese-Thai-Taiwanese-Indonesian-Indian military-industrial complex of 1993-present?
No way.
Unequaled to the Indian industrial-military complex buildup, 1993-present?
Unequaled to the Indian military buildup of the past ten years?
No way.
Unequaled to the potential in the American naval and air bills passed by Congress and enacted law by the executive of the past two years? These appropriate funds that total more than 3/4 trillion dollars (These are the acts beyond the annual budget and the supplementary acts for Iraq and Afghanistan)?
All builds up upon the current American military.
No way.
Unequaled to the industrial-military build-up of the Soviet Union, 1957-79?
Unequaled to the Soviet blue-water navy and naval and air forces, 1971-89?
Unequaled to the Soviet global satellite communications, naval brigades and allies, 1971-89?
Not even close in comparison.
And the soviets weren’t even close in comparison to the American-Anglo-French bloc of that period, never mind the present.
Post-1971 India and Thailand have decades of experience in aircraft carrier operations.
The Indians, Pakistanis, Thais and Japanese have decades of experience in combined naval and air operations and complex combined fleet operations.
The Japanese, Indians, Pakistanis, Thais, Koreans, Taiwanese, and Americans have decades of experience in combined naval and air operations and complex combined fleet operations under central command and control provided by the Joint Chiefs of Staff unified commands (U.S. Pacific; U.S. European; U.S. Central; and now U.S. Africa) and satellite and submarine cable communications.
Developed, 1971-present (2009).
It made sense and was defensive during the Cold War (1946-89).
It is anything but defensive, post-Cold War, 1989-present.
***
“Post-WWI Germany” is a strange choice, especially where the Pacific and Indian oceans and air and naval forces are concerned.
“Post-WWI Germany” was irrelevant to the Pacific and Indian oceans and did a lousy job in building up its military where control of the sea lanes in the Atlantic. The Russians perfected, 1971-89, what the Germans pioneered in WWI and attempted so poorly in WWII.
NAZI Germany did launch ONE aircraft carrier which it subsequently never completed).
The PRC hasn’t accomplished that much yet.
In this example, the Pacific, then one would have thought that 1880s-1922 Japan.
Or, 1936-41 Japan (if one prefers “post-WWI”) would have been the more pertinent example.
Except that 1902-22 Japan would be a bad example, since the PRC has no equivalent to the Anglo-Japanese mutual defense treaty.
There are other examples of military buildups, post-WWI that literally DWARF the PRC’s current military buildup.
Paul Crowley| 5.5.09 @ 6:17PM
=>“The point of the PRC's development of a blue watter naval force in the Pacific is to directly challenge US dominance in the region. . . . . As she has virtually no threats to her national sovereignty and no foreign military treaty obligations the current military build-up is only explainable if the PRC is intent upon a projection of military force in the region.” [Thomas| 5.4.09 @ 12:12PM]
Hi Thomas:
I’m glad that you qualified the threats to the PRC’s sovereignty with “virtually no threats.. .,” rather than clearly stating that the PRC has no threats to its national sovereignty.
But even "virtually" is quite wrong.
Of course “the current military build-up is” explainable by the PRC’s intent to develop “a projection of military force in the region.” (as in Pacific and Indian oceans).
The PRC is late-comer to the Free Market game.
The PRC only became established, as an exporter of manufactured goods in the post Cold War period, primarily when its exports soared 1993-2001.
The PRC’s development of a blue-water navy makes sense as a prudent defensive measure on its part to protect its national sovereignty and its new trade interests (i.e. to ensure Free Trade). For that it will need a blue-water navy.
The PRC has been a petroleum importing, rather than a petroleum exporting, country since 1993.
The PRC is dependent upon imports of specific raw materials for its industries which it lacks internally and has been obtaining through trade agreements in Africa and South America and Russia.
The PRC’s modernization of its air and ground forces in a defensive posture, protecting its national borders is a prudent measure.
Particularly since many of the borders and maritime possessions remain in dispute, due to British and French demarcations, the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), and disputes in international courts arising out of these by new countries established since on China's borders: From southwest Asia, across south-central Asia to southeast Asia, in the South China Sea, through to Northeast Asia.
The PRC’s development of a blue-water navy is a prudent measure to protect territorial sovereignty, resist aggression through strong defense, and protect the trade interests that it’s developed since 1993 (i.e. to defend and maintain Free Trade).
The same policies of the U.S.A. during the Cold War (1946-89), but increasingly abandoned by the U.S.A. in the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama admnistrations of the post-Cold War (1989-present).
Paul Crowley| 5.5.09 @ 6:40PM
=>“Where problems arise is in the nature of the US Naval response to provocative challenges. And the subsequent responses of the PLAN. In recent years, the PRC has regularly engaged in provocative acts against US aircraft and vessels in international waters.” [Thomas| 5.4.09 @ 12:12PM]
Hi Thomas:
The problem at the moment is change in American foreign and military policies in the last 20 years, and especially the last six, and provocative challenges by members of the American-Anglo-French bloc, including the U.S. navy (2001-09).
->Pre-Emptive War.
23 years ago, 1986, the departments of State and Defense public debate (Crowe versus Weinberger), was whether American naval forces in the Gulf of Sidra should be able to fire upon Libyan air and/or naval forces that appeared to be approaching them in a hostile manner. These were Libyan air and naval forces armed with supersonic air-to-air guided missiles and anti-ship surface-to-surface guided missiles. Libya was a country whose leader had publicly declared that the Gulf of Sidra would become the new "Red Sea" due to the blood of Americans if we so much as crossed the “Line of Death” he declared (the parallel across the Gulf of Sidra). Libya left no questions regarding belligerence.
Pre-emptive war was not even discussed. This was the United of America (U.S.A.) back then, not the Soviet Union or Red China.
Contrary to the implication of John Kerry’s statement in the 2004 Presidential elections debates, the U.S.A. has NEVER had a policy of pre-emptive war, prior to 2002. This has been completely new to the U.S.A.
Pre-emptive war was the policy of the likes of NAZI Germany (against Communist Russia in 1941), and Imperial Japan (against Imperial China in 1894; against Imperial Russia in 1904 and against the U.S.A. in 1941). It was English and Imperial British policy about 1578 through to the end of World War One, in varying degrees (English/British heydays were 1697-1774 and 1791-1914).
Pre-emptive war has placed the U.S.A. in bad company. It was never an American policy until 2002.
Iraq is the first country that the U.S.A. has EVER attacked, conquered, occupied and imposed our government’s will upon without ANY provocation, whatsoever: It did not attack us, did not take part in attacks against us and did not threaten to do so.
->Provocative challenges by the U.S. navy.
A. American spy planes and spy ships with long-range surveillance equipment, probing hundreds of miles into Chinese territory and air space, while operating from their positions in international waters (i.e. 12-50 miles off of the Chinese coast).
All data is then uplinked (transmitted) to the global satellite communications network, processed by super-computers and highly centralized command here and in other American-Anglo-French bloc countries, and the processed data then distributed world-wide via satellite and submarine cable communications, available to every American and allied warship, warplane, and (since 1988) ground forces, world-wide.
B. American spy planes and spy ships have the capability of electronic mis-direction (such as feeding false signals into opposing search and fire-control radars so that operators see false contacts). This was battle tested in Libya in 1986 in SAM suppression and employed against Iraq in 1991 to give complete United Nations organization (UN) air and naval dominance when evicting Iraq from Kuwait.
--Example of Russian Siberia, 25-30 years ago
30-35 years ago it was the hybrid analog-digital Naval Tactical Data System that allowed American warships and carrier groups to operate 200 miles off of the coast of Russian Siberia undetected.
23-30 years ago the U.S. Navy possessed the capability of electronic mis-direction of Soviet radars.
During that time (the Cold War, 1946-89) American carrier groups were configured with an emphasis on anti-submarine warfare (ASW) so as to maintain Freedom of Navigation of the world’s sea lanes.
Had we re-configured our carrier groups as attack carriers, as they have been since the end of the Cold War, especially 1993 onward, and massed them 200 miles off of the coast of Siberia, then a surprise attack could have been waged upon Russian air and naval bases in Siberia that would have overwhelmed the Soviets and destroyed their bases (of course that would only have been the first strike of a hopeless war for either power: It probably would have been the last thing we ever did. It was a never a question anway: Pre-emptive war was never an American policy until 2002).
This capability was not due to magic. The carrier groups could operate off of the coast undetected and capable of planning and carrying out an attack, with current information, due to:
1. The carrier group(s) operating in complete electronic emissions silence (this was 1975-1985, not 1943: Not just radio silence, but all electronic emissions including no NTDS uplinks (transmissions) to satellites. NTDS downlinks (reception) would not give away the position: Information from the global satellite system could be received, but not transmitted).
2. American naval spy planes (P3 Orions) operating out of Atsugi Naval Air Station in Japan in international waters off of the coast of Russian Siberia (transmitting the data to NTDS: i.e. the global satellite system of that time).
3. American warships and warplanes (such as the Hawkeyes) operating openly in international waters in the Sea of Japan and off of the coast of Russian Siberia (transmitting the data to NTDS: i.e. the global satellite system of that time).
4. American spy satellites.
5. USAF AWACS planes, bases, and command and control, were fully capable of compete integration, and were used for this purpose in the Persian Gulf Expedition, 1979-88.
There’s no “inter-service rivalry” here: It’s the principle of Division of Labor: The Navy developed the global positioning system. SAC developed the targeting. The first major battle tests of the preliminary system was 1972 (Operations Linebacker I & II).
Development began in 1957, and accelerated 1969-72, and then 1973-85.
Used by all branches of the American military, 1986 onward.
***
This is the foundation.
Today’s capabilities are far superior.
This is the command and control of the Joint Chiefs of Staff unified commands and satellite and submarine cable communications.
These capabilities are now held by the combined American-Japanese-Korean-Taiwanese-Thai-Indonesian-Indian-Pakistani-Israeli naval and air units operating in the Pacific and Indian oceans.
None of this is secret.
It certainly isn’t unknown to the Chinese.
It’s mostly the general population of Americans, including the majority of operators in the American military, who don’t have a clue about the extent of these capabilities.
The problem at the moment is change in American foreign and military policies and provocative challenges by American, Anglo, French bloc countries, including American naval and air forces: Spy planes (2001), 5-carrier task force (A.K.A. Battle Force) operations in the Pacific, and spy ships (2009).
Paul Crowley| 5.5.09 @ 6:52PM
=>American Aggression against the PRC, 2001-present (2009).
On the foundation of:
The American-Anglo-French military-industrial alliance, in place by (which I’ve addressed above and that you ignore).
Especially the air and naval forces of America-Japan-Korea-Taiwan-Thailand-Indonesia-Vietnam-India.
Command and control provided by the Joint Chiefs of Staff unified commands and global satellite and submarine communications.
The post-Cold War re-configuration of American aircraft carrier groups (from sea-lane protection to attack configuration).
U.S. navy LHAs can be reconfigured as small vertical takeoff aircraft carriers, such as the British, Thai, and Indian navies have expertise in operating (among other navies in the American-Anglo-French bloc).
The waging of punitive expeditions under departments of Defense and State department in Europe, north Africa, southwest Asia and now south-central Asia since 1991: Somalia, Balkan peninsula, the Persian Gulf, north Africa, east to west, fghanistan and now the Bitish Commonwealth country of Pakistan and into Anglo-French-Dutch sub-Saharan Africa.
The G.W. Bush administration declaration of a right to wage pre-emptive war, for the FIRST TIME in American history.
The invasion of conquest of a country that did not attack us or take part in attacks against us, for the FIRST TIME in American history: Iraq.
Increase in American belligerence against the PRC since 2001 (spy planes and now spy ships immediately off of China’s coastline, whose long-range sensors are capable of penetrating Chinese territory and airspace hundreds of miles inland and 5-carrier task force operatons in the Pacific: "Locations unknown").
Development of a global anti-missile battery.
An American nuclear weapons stockpile at least 7.5 times greater than the PRCs.
An American-Anglo-French bloc (U.S.A., Britain, France, India, Pakistan, and maybe Israel) nuclear weapons stockpile at least 10 times greater than the PRCs.
Indian military planning for non-nuclear war warefare against nuclear powers, 2000 onward.
Only the American-Anglo-French military-industrial alliance has the capability at present to wage a crippling pre-emptive attack upon the PRC.
The PRC has no such capability to do the same to any of our countries, and no such capability to develop an even equivalent capability anytime soon.
Paul Crowley| 5.5.09 @ 7:08PM
=>“As their perceived naval power increases, the PRC will increase the acts of provocation against US military assets in the Far East. Somewhere along the line, the US will respond and that response could spark a significant armed conflict in the region.” [Thomas| 5.4.09 @ 12:12PM]
Hi Thomas:
Or, the PRC is pressured into a retaliatory act (which, given the geo-political sqeeze being applied and available technology, could be quite easy to do).
“Significant armed conflict in the region,” with “the region” being Central and South Asia, is quite possible.
A land war on the continent of Asia is becoming possible for the first time in history (due to development of modern Lines of Communication, in the military meaning of the word, across the entire continent that will facilitate rapid movement maneuvers of modern armies).
Modern Asian armies have been developed across the continent of Asia since 1948.
Border disputes abound, southwest Asia to Northeast Asia.
The status of Taiwan, post-1 January 1979, is a confusing mess and the American position a logical contradiction, made all the worse by the Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations.
The UN-North Korean War is still under cease fire status, 1953-present, and further confused American government actions during the Clinton-G.W. Bush administrations over the past 15 years.
Provocative American, Anglo, French, German, Indian, Japanese acts and propaganda have intensified in the past ten years.
Anti-PRC American, Anglo, French, German, Indian, . . . propaganda has intensified in the past few years.
The American military is pressuring the PRC.
The American global missile battery may be developing sufficiently to make attack on the PRC an acceptable calculated risk. . . (how many dead and dying Americans that means, I don't know).
As I said:
It's not the PRC or the PLAN that Americans should be worried about.
It’s our own government that is responsible for a massive arms buildup, mobilization of peoples, world-wide, development of the Indian military-industrial machine, the continued development of a global anti-missile battery, Post Cold War, 1989-present. .
All this and the previous points I listed sum to to military-industrial capabilities that the PRC cannot hope to reach, never mind equal. . .
It’s also why it's our own crooked-as-a-dog’s-hind-leg government (National Security Council, via departments of Defense & State) that Americans should be concerned about and that may well be leading us toward a general war.
You simply describe one means of potentially pressing the Chinese into making it look like they started it.
Paul Crowley| 5.5.09 @ 7:31PM
=>“Mr. Crowley makes some good points concerning the future dominance of the PRC as a Pacific naval power.” [Thomas| 5.4.09 @ 12:12PM]
[In reference to comments on 3 Mary: Paul Crowley| 5.3.09 @ 10:15PM; Paul Crowley|5.3.09 @ 10:35PM; Paul Crowley| 5.3.09 @ 10:50PM; Paul Crowley| 5.3.09 @ 11:16PM and Paul Crowley| 5.3.09 @ 11:54PM].
Hi Thomas:
To be clear.
I made good points regarding the ABSURDITY of "the future dominance of the PRC as a Pacific naval power.”
In fact, the ABSURDITY of the future dominance of the PRC as a Pacific naval or air power.
Made via objective consideration of the Indian and Pacific basins, the major straits between the two, the military-industrial capabilities developed 1971-present, in existence, and being further developed (especially the British Commonwealth country: India), the integrated air and naval patrols of the U.S.A., Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand, India and the other SEATO countries (one can also include ground forces of these countries: which are much more substantial than American ground forces), and the relative status of international finance and China's place in it.
In fact, the ABSURDITY of the future dominance of
I also pointed out Russia's playing both sides (without elaborating very far on it).
Today’s comments [5 May: Paul Crowley| 5.5.09 @ 5:55PM through Paul Crowley| 5.5.09 @ 7:08PM] only add further reasons that a "future dominance of the PRC as a Pacific naval power” is a fantasy and that it is equally a fantasy that it is the PRC that is the belligerent or what Americans should worry about.
It is our own government (the National Security Council, via the departments of Defense and State) that Americans should be concerned about.
Trackback| 5.6.09 @ 12:45AM
メル友 近所 巨乳, on 岡山のセフレ, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Thomas| 5.6.09 @ 11:32AM
Paul,
Thank you for making my points clear, though I don't think was exactly what you had in mind. Wading through your voluminous posts, it becomes clear that the PRC is intent upon wresting control of what it sees as being control of the Pacific region from the United States. Now, when was the last time the US acted with aggression toward the PRC? When was the last time that the US Navy, or it's surrogates, harassed PLAN vessels [or any other vessels for that matter] on the high seas? Yet, the PTC has been doing just that to US Naval shipping and aircraft for years.
Now as to your proposition the a future dominance of the PRC as a naval power is a fantasy may well be true. But, dominance is not the problem. What is the problem is that the PRC may well believe that they can be a dominant military power in the Pacific. And to accomplish this, they would have to cow or defeat the current naval power there, the United States and her allies. Look at the activities of the PRC, both militarily, economically and foreign policy wise in the last few years. As I pointed out before, there has been a totally unnecessary build up of PLAN ground, air and naval forces. Military development has included cyber warfare and the ability to destroy satellites in space. Hardly useful against anyone other than the United States, as you so cleverly pointed out. Economically and foreign policy wise, the PRC has actively sought to limit economic and political allies of the United States as well as to establish some control of the US government through debt acquisition and outright bribery.
Paul, I am sorry to say that all indicators point to the PRC gearing up for a conflict with the US. Not only are they increasing their defensive capabilities, but their actions indicate that they fully intend to become more aggressive in the future. Some where there is a tipping point, a line in the sand if you like, that will trigger a large US response. When that happens, it will be very bad for the world.
Thomas| 5.6.09 @ 11:38AM
Paul,
I fear that you are mistaken concerning the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was simply the continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. You remember that one, right. Where Iraq invaded and occupied the sovereign nation of Kuwait. Well following the withdrawal of Iraqi forces, Saddam Hussein signed a cease fire, not an armistice, in which he agreed to do certain things in exchange for the allied nations not to continue prosecuting the war. He, of course, immediately began violating that agreement. Being a member of the Coalition, the United States had every right to continue to prosecute the Gulf War, which it did.
Just a little footnote.
Pingback| 5.6.09 @ 9:22PM
Kurunta » List of United States Coast Guard four-star admirals links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Paul Crowley| 5.7.09 @ 12:01AM
=>“I fear that you are mistaken concerning the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was simply the continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. You remember that one, right. Where Iraq invaded and occupied the sovereign nation of Kuwait. ” [Thomas| 5.6.09 @ 11:38AM]
Hi Thomas:
This is the only new point you raise, the rest I’ve addressed.
You’re wrong.
The invasion of Iraq cannot be justified with the rationalization you attempt to make here on the basis of the eviction of Iraq from Kuwait in 1991.
To be clear:
I pointed out that:
1. The declaration of a right to wage pre-emptive war was made by our government for the FIRST TIME in American history, during the G.W. Bush administration.
2. Pre-emptive was never an American policy until 2002.
(I’ll add to this that the policy was not made public by our government and publicized until late December 2003 into 2004).
3. Iraq is the first country that the U.S.A. has EVER attacked, conquered, occupied and imposed our government’s will upon without ANY provocation, whatsoever: It did not attack us, did not take part in attacks against us and did not threaten to do so. [Paul
Crowley| 5.5.09 @ 6:40PM]
****
Of course I remember Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait, 1990-91.
I Mentioned it explicitly when addressing point B (of A & B) of “Provocative challenges by the U.S. navy” above:
“B. American spy planes and spy ships have the capability of electronic mis-direction (such as feeding false signals into opposing search and fire-control radars so that operators and systems see false contacts). This was battle tested in Libya in 1986 in SAM suppression and employed against Iraq in 1991 to give complete United Nations organization (UN) air and naval dominance when evicting Iraq from Kuwait.” [Paul Crowley| 5.5.09 @ 6:40PM]
Eviction of Iraq from Kuwait done under the authority of the UN.
The military forces assembled, and the military action undertaken to evict Iraq from Kuwait, was all done under the authority of the UN Security Council.
The subsequent enforcement of what were dubbed no-fly zones in southern and northern Iraq, 1991-2003, was also under authority of the UN Security Council. American and allied naval and air forces served on behalf of the UN.
When violations were alleged, they were reviewed and the UN Security Council authorized retaliations each time (of which there numerous).
The UN Security Council specifically disapproved the invasion and conquest of Iraq in 2002-03. Three of the five powers with permanent veto status, declined to give approval.
So, no, the U.S.A. did not have “every right to continue to prosecute the Gulf War” of 1991.
Hence the U.S.A. and Britain leading the invasion by themselves (an act of raw, naked aggression: To have the ability to do something is not the same thing as having the right to do it).
The invasion cannot be justified on the basis of the UN eviction of Iraq from Kuwait in 1991.
Paul Crowley| 5.7.09 @ 12:08AM
=>”Where Iraq invaded and occupied the sovereign nation of Kuwait. ” [Thomas| 5.6.09 @ 11:38AM]
Hi Thomas:
I pointed out that declaration of a right to wage pre-emptive war and engaging in acts of raw, naked, aggression such the conquest of Iraq puts the U.S.A. in BAD Company.
The examples I gave were:
“Pre-emptive war was the policy of the likes of NAZI Germany (against Communist Russia in 1941), and Imperial Japan (against Imperial China in 1894; against Imperial Russia in 1904 and against the U.S.A. in 1941). It was English and Imperial British policy about 1578 through to the end of World War One, in varying degrees (English/British heydays were 1697-1774 and 1791-1914).” [Paul Crowley| 5.5.09 @ 6:40PM]
I didn’t mention it, but since you bring it up, “Pre-emptive war was also the policy of:
1. The Soviet Union, via North Korea (against South Korea in 1950).
2. The People’s Republic of China (against South Korea in 1950-53).
3. Iraq (against Kuwait in 1990-91).
The major and developing communist powers of the Cold War (1946-89) and two of the three countries designated as an “axis of evil” by President Bush in his State of the Union address in January 2002.
As I said, America has now joined VERY bad company by adopting the principle of a right to wage pre-emptive war and engaging in acts of naked aggression.
Where this applies to the PRC, then, as I’ve addressed, which points you ignore, the American-Anglo-French bloc is increasingly reaching the point that it has the capability to do so against the PRC, while “The PRC has no such capability to do the same to any of our countries, and no such capability to develop an even equivalent capability. . .” [Paul
Crowley| 5.5.09 @ 6:52PM]
American-Anglo-French bloc military-industrial alliance in the Pacific and Indian Oceans:
The United States of America (U.S.A.) in alliance with Britain, Japan, the Dutch, the French and Indonesia: Japan, Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the SEATO countries, including Vietnam, British commonwealth countries (especially India), Israel, NATO countries, Persian Gulf countries and Egypt.
Paul Crowley| 5.7.09 @ 12:22AM
=>"2. The People’s Republic of China (against South Korea in 1950-53)."
I'll concede that this example is debateable since the PRC never invaded, or attempted to invade, South Korea, and claimed its role as defensive of its borders, and aid to North Korea only, following the UN Command advance into North Korea, September-December 1950.
However, the other two are not debateable:
The Soviet Union, via North Korea (against South Korea in 1950).
Iraq (against Kuwait in 1990-91).
The U.S.A. has joined BAD company.
Paul Crowley| 5.7.09 @ 3:33AM
=>“All indicators point to the PRC gearing up for a conflict with the US” [Thomas| 5.6.09 @ 11:38AM]
Hi Thomas:
The indicators point to the People's Republic of China (PRC) making defensive preparation in response to aggression against it.
Numerous indicators point to what I’ve referred to as the American, Anglo, French bloc gearing up for a conflict with the PRC.
Especially the rapid development of the British Commonwealth country India.
It's India and China who are the natural competitors for dominance in central and southern Asia.
I noted that:
“The American global missile battery may be developing sufficiently to make attack on the PRC an acceptable calculated risk. . . (how many dead and dying Americans that means, I don't know).” [Paul Crowley| 5.5.09 @ 7:08PM]
To be clear:
How many dead and dying Americans, from a preliminary exchange of nuclear weapons, is an acceptable part of a calculated risk to our government, then, I don't know.
You are right.
If we're being into a general war by our government National security council via departments of State and Defense), the if "that happens, it will be very bad for the world."
Paul Crowley| 5.7.09 @ 4:12AM
=>“Be worried. But be worried that it’s out own crooked-as-a-dog’s-hind-leg government (National Security Council, via departments of Defense & State) that is responsible for a massive arms buildup, mobilization of peoples, development of India, and that is leading us toward a general war.” [Paul Crowley| 5.3.09 @ 11:54PM]
Hi Thomas:
I’ll rephrase my last comment.
It was poorly phrased in that I didn't mean to appear to be putting words in your mouth:
If there is what you call "a large US response," then, "it will be very bad for the world."
It will also be inexcusable.
Richard Baker| 5.9.09 @ 11:33AM
Love it when liberals all tell us that any US response would be bad. Somehow these misguided souls seem to think that dictators and tyrants are amenable to persuasion and compromise. The fundamental nature of thugs is one of the absolutes in mankind throughout history.
Conflict resolution tactics have no effect on such people. WWII occurred because too many of the SMART people couldn't believe that a weird little Bohemian corporal really meant all those crazy things he was saying. The Imperial Japanese really didn't believe in the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere, now did they?
How many people have to die and be enslaved before these clowns understand that dictators believe in what Mao said, "Power comes from the end of a gun". Finally, Burke said , paraphrasing, that for evil to triumph, good men must do nothing. Reality is sometimes very messy, now isn't it?
Trackback| 5.12.09 @ 3:52AM
メル友 巨乳 近所/メル友 巨乳 近所, on 大阪のセフレ, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 5.14.09 @ 1:36PM
近所 メル友 巨乳, on 長野のセフレ, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
شات | 6.4.09 @ 6:56PM
Thank you for this article, we need to always read the Mahristit us in this world love to collect such writings to be the archive of the events pass us by the United States are the masters of this age, but no media attention is directed to the world to see what is happening at all, especially in the Third World, we contacted for information as soon as they occur It is difficult to search for the source, we hope that there are channels of information in several languages, not just English is not everyone can speak, therefore suffering from the translation of these articles ... Thank you, my dear, the article
Trackback| 6.7.09 @ 8:57PM
メル友 巨乳 近所, on 福島のセフレ, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lingerie | 9.12.09 @ 11:12PM
sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie
Trackback| 2.14.10 @ 4:19PM
Asian Women Info, on Asian Women Info, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
شات مكتوب | 12.25.10 @ 3:28PM
thanks thomas waiting for your new points