Talk:Blue Team (U.S. politics)

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

lingo

Some context is needed to make sense of this. Is this State Dept. lingo? Who invented this "team"? Wetman 14:20, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The name is what these people use to describe themselves. Roadrunner 14:24, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rename

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is a proper noun, like the Democratic Party, even if the members fluctuate and are scattered.--Esprit15d 20:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

done. SchmuckyTheCat 22:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bias

This article has a very strong Western, American, anti-Bush and ironically anti-Clinton bias. While it name drops publications throughout, the article isn't substantiated with even one reference of the actual information within the article. The tone also isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article, for example, the statement "Most worrisome in 2005 was a sudden increase in China's military spending and the passing of the Taiwan anti-secession law at the same session of China's national legislature." Worrisome to whom? The Chinese who are reading this article? This article needs real attention. --Esprit15d 20:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it reads like a Washington Times report. SchmuckyTheCat 22:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I've removed a paragraph that is complete speculations with no support whatsoever. Besides, it reeks of POV.

There were more warning signs of impending conflict from China that supported the Blue Team view. There was China's continued unwillingness to resolve the North Korea nuclear weapons crisis, which many pundits feel was secretly initiated by China as a means to force the US to make concessions on military deployments in the region (such as when North Korea suggested that the US disarm its nuclear weapons in order for North Korea to reciprocate). There were also suspicions that China secretly supplied Iran and Pakistan with nuclear material, which could potentially fall in the hands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who would use them against the US.

Might cleanup more. Cheers.

-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 01:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few changes to the article, should read more NPOV now, I hope. Will remove the POV tag if nobody objects. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 19:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about the use of the term hegemony? Hegemony implies that (the U.S.) wants to somehow rule China and East Asia. This article goes on to explain the U.S. hegemony stance as being pro-democracy? How is being pro-democracy hegemonic? There is something illogical in saying the U.S. wants to spread hegemony, and then saying that the U.S. wants to spread democracy? Which is it? 71.63.11.219 19:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)confused[reply]

Added few more articles in reference section. Inclusion of Congressman Dana Rohrabacher is definitely not unreasonable: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=China+policy+Blue+Team+Rohrabacher Bobby Fletcher 16:27, 25 January (PST)

Blue team fails to view...

the economy of both nations. If China falls, US will be surely fall right along. With economic output increasing by 12% annually, China is the economic powerhouse in Asia, supplying Western power with abundant equipments and supplies. The supporter of the Blue Team is giving a wrong point of view all focused into the politics and democratic propaganda, or recommission of McCarthyism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.163.111 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 March 2006.

Extensive trade between nations is no hurdle to those nations going to war with one another. For example: the War of 1812 (British/American trade) and the German attack of Russia (German/Russian trade) in 1941. The simple fact is that China is investing extensively in modernizing its ground forces and creating a blue water navy capable of power projection. While China is certainly entitled as a sovereign state to do this, it does undoubtedly pose a threat to American power in Asia. Imagine for example if china were able to put a carrier fleet in the Indian Ocean to counter American influence in the Middle east. How would Iran react? How about India?, China's main competitor in Asia. The balance of power is changing and not in a way that is favorable for the United States.

That's why the US need to lay the beat down before it become too weak to do so right? 24.89.245.62 22:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed

The neocons and other blue team folks have a painfully limited notion of the economics of the situation; they call for a "hard line" with China, then go and support trade policies that have us sporting a 200 billion dollar trade deficit with the PRC. Will someone less lazy than me elaborate on the groups hypocrisy in the criticism section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.137.105.68 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 26 March 2006.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in fantasyland. --JakeLM 09:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke.Jlittlet 00:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide View?

Blue Team is a group within the United States. It's neither a global NGO nor a widely adopted term. Do we really need a worldwide view on it? I seriously propose removing the template! Thanks. 199.111.230.195 22:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and since nobody has provided a satisfactory reasoning for having it, I'm removing the tag. --JerryOrr 12:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Shouldn't notes be expanded with year/and or publication? "Rice" seems to me as an exeptionally poor reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.167.214 (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Blue Team (U.S. politics)

Blue Team → Blue Team (US politics) — This is not the most prominent usage of "Blue Team", that would be military. This should be renamed. This allows for a dab page. — 70.51.9.118 (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Uhh

It's a little awkward to see that the entire article does not make a single reference to Sinophobia. It's obviously a related topic, but I'm not sure where it'd be appropriate to add it. Can someone find a place to fit it in? Thanks. 68.149.159.247 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh

This isn't even the PRIMARYTOPIC of Blue Team (US politics). That would be the Democratic Party. Keep trying. — LlywelynII 13:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]