4 ms·

Endure the bubble, until you can conquer Australia and relieve the pressure

ggm 8y ago
Why conquer when you can invest? They're investing. It's working. We're happy to have chinese investment in all spaces, ag, and mining, we buy the goods and we sell the dairy produce. The real threat is Tasmania: haven't you seen the wargames maps? We need those US-Chinese troops to fight back against the daemon armies from cradle mountain.
- alexdrans 8y ago
  Investment doesn't buy you all the 'Living Space' you may want
  - ggm 8y ago
    I've taken the train across china from Hangzhou to Beijing and there is no lack of living space, or empty housing from the speculative bubble. The threat of south-irian is basically the classic yellow-peril threat model. Its a really bad argument. As long as we are happy to export tertiary education and then proffer immigration channels, there is no basis to argue the Chinese polity wants to invade: it can get people here legally, for good benefit both sides. Pleae, don't feed the racist troll. The chinese are not swamping us and they cannot cause earthquakes by jumping up and down at the same time.
    - smacktoward 8y ago
      > I've taken the train across china from Hangzhou to Beijing and there is no lack of living space, or empty housing from the speculative bubble. The point of the parent's reference isn't to a lack of actual space, it's to Germany's complaint in the 1930s of not having enough Lebensraum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum ... which was similarly spurious -- the Germans had plenty of room for their population too. Lebensraum wasn't about actual space, it was about imperalism, about the Germans feeling strong enough to grab territory from their neighbors just because they could. One could be forgiven for looking at China's military expansionism in the South China Sea, for instance, and thinking the Chinese polity is feeling the same way.
      - ggm 8y ago
        Specious though the south china sea argument feels to us, Its entirely consistent with a long held vision of China and its sphere of influence. What rankles, is the extent to which the opposition to it, the open-seas sailing policy, is being taken by actors (the US, Australia) who chose otherwise to disregard mediation and international law in matters of their own spheres of influence: East Timor for instance. This is not whataboutism, its directly relevant, contradictory behaviour. The Chinese have a long standing stated claim to the spratleys (which btw, I think is entirely bogus) but in no sense simply emerged into a state of claiming them in recent times. The laws being used to push back, are entirely a product of the post-WWII polity, were an attempt to construct a legal mechanism to mediate between states, which is being (forcefully) applied here by some states, who choose to disregard the same legal basis when applied to cases of their own. Lebensraum was a manufactured need of political expediency and an explicitly expansionist act. The South China Sea is not lebensraum, its open-fishing rights, and over-flight and sailing rights, and mineral rights. It's also a vision of a defensive ring. You know, that domino theory we used to be sold about chinese expansionist policy in S.E. Asia? its being played in reverse: they need this barrier, because we are trying to re-apply opium war logic to opening chinese capital investment markets, and land in China...
  - bryanlarsen 8y ago
    They don't need space, they're rapidly creating tons of it in China -- people who move from the country to the city use far less area.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mlthoughts2018 8y ago
Then they'll get 2 additional armies every single turn! And a territory card!
- navaati 8y ago
  What is the reference here ? Is it the same reference as neighbour comment about Tasmania and daemon armies ?
  - ggm 8y ago
    My tasmania comment is about what the US-AU army wargames used to use as the hypothetical invader. they were briefly stupid and used a map of indonesia because of jokes about west irianjaya and 'south iriyan' -and then changed to use the map of tasmania (which btw, is a euphemism for female pubic hair) upside down as the notional invader. the other reference is to turn-by-turn games of war on maps (I think)
  - ttoinou 8y ago
    RISK game
  - Chilinot 8y ago
    The board game Risk.
  - danielvf 8y ago
    The cards reference is to the game of RISK. Owning every territory in the “Australian Content” gets the player a small bonus.

ggm 8y ago

Why conquer when you can invest? They're investing. It's working. We're happy to have chinese investment in all spaces, ag, and mining, we buy the goods and we sell the dairy produce. The real threat is Tasmania: haven't you seen the wargames maps? We need those US-Chinese troops to fight back against the daemon armies from cradle mountain.

alexdrans 8y ago
Investment doesn't buy you all the 'Living Space' you may want
- ggm 8y ago
  I've taken the train across china from Hangzhou to Beijing and there is no lack of living space, or empty housing from the speculative bubble. The threat of south-irian is basically the classic yellow-peril threat model. Its a really bad argument. As long as we are happy to export tertiary education and then proffer immigration channels, there is no basis to argue the Chinese polity wants to invade: it can get people here legally, for good benefit both sides. Pleae, don't feed the racist troll. The chinese are not swamping us and they cannot cause earthquakes by jumping up and down at the same time.
  - smacktoward 8y ago
    > I've taken the train across china from Hangzhou to Beijing and there is no lack of living space, or empty housing from the speculative bubble. The point of the parent's reference isn't to a lack of actual space, it's to Germany's complaint in the 1930s of not having enough Lebensraum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum ... which was similarly spurious -- the Germans had plenty of room for their population too. Lebensraum wasn't about actual space, it was about imperalism, about the Germans feeling strong enough to grab territory from their neighbors just because they could. One could be forgiven for looking at China's military expansionism in the South China Sea, for instance, and thinking the Chinese polity is feeling the same way.
    - ggm 8y ago
      Specious though the south china sea argument feels to us, Its entirely consistent with a long held vision of China and its sphere of influence. What rankles, is the extent to which the opposition to it, the open-seas sailing policy, is being taken by actors (the US, Australia) who chose otherwise to disregard mediation and international law in matters of their own spheres of influence: East Timor for instance. This is not whataboutism, its directly relevant, contradictory behaviour. The Chinese have a long standing stated claim to the spratleys (which btw, I think is entirely bogus) but in no sense simply emerged into a state of claiming them in recent times. The laws being used to push back, are entirely a product of the post-WWII polity, were an attempt to construct a legal mechanism to mediate between states, which is being (forcefully) applied here by some states, who choose to disregard the same legal basis when applied to cases of their own. Lebensraum was a manufactured need of political expediency and an explicitly expansionist act. The South China Sea is not lebensraum, its open-fishing rights, and over-flight and sailing rights, and mineral rights. It's also a vision of a defensive ring. You know, that domino theory we used to be sold about chinese expansionist policy in S.E. Asia? its being played in reverse: they need this barrier, because we are trying to re-apply opium war logic to opening chinese capital investment markets, and land in China...
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  They don't need space, they're rapidly creating tons of it in China -- people who move from the country to the city use far less area.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

Then they'll get 2 additional armies every single turn! And a territory card!

navaati 8y ago
What is the reference here ? Is it the same reference as neighbour comment about Tasmania and daemon armies ?
- ggm 8y ago
  My tasmania comment is about what the US-AU army wargames used to use as the hypothetical invader. they were briefly stupid and used a map of indonesia because of jokes about west irianjaya and 'south iriyan' -and then changed to use the map of tasmania (which btw, is a euphemism for female pubic hair) upside down as the notional invader. the other reference is to turn-by-turn games of war on maps (I think)
- ttoinou 8y ago
  RISK game
- Chilinot 8y ago
  The board game Risk.
- danielvf 8y ago
  The cards reference is to the game of RISK. Owning every territory in the “Australian Content” gets the player a small bonus.