5 ms·

About 6 months ago I was telling my friend that US is moving towards war with Iran in 2 years and China in ten. Clearly, for whatever reason, that schedule has

About 6 months ago I was telling my friend that US is moving towards war with Iran in 2 years and China in ten. Clearly, for whatever reason, that schedule has been accelerated. The comparisons to cold war seem apt and given that US president was recently asked about what he talked about with Putin ( and the response, among others, was borders ). That sent a chill down my spine. How was this question not followed up is beyond me. We have been moving towards a confrontation for a while now and this move will not make it less likely. I am not trying to defend China's moves, but realistically, what are the odds China will surrender to international pressure campaign?

macspoofing 6y ago
>I was telling my friend that US is moving towards war with Iran in 2 years and China in ten It takes two tango. Is Iran and/or China doing anything on their part to move us closer to war?
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  It really only takes one interested party to start a war.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Poland circa 1939 would beg to differ. I am not trying to be difficult, but your statement is easily countered. edited: changed refuted to countered; seems more accurate
  - myth_drannon 6y ago
    Poland was not so innocent, it was an aggressive state actor. Together with Germany, it invaded Czechoslovakia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie#Part_of_Poland_(1938%E2%80%931939) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie#Part_of_Poland_(1938%E...
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      I do not want to respond too harshly, but the question was whether it takes one to tango. And it does. Germany did not need Poland's permission to invade. All Germany needed is a moment it considered favorable. Everything else is an excuse used for public consumption ( and if you look at Iraq and Iran, the parallels become obvious ). As for the aggressive actor part, I will leave it for now ( it does not add to conversation and since I am not a historian, I can't authoritatively say that comparatively speaking Poland was the nice guy on the block ).
      - thejynxed 6y ago
        They also left out the part that Poland invaded and took exactly back that which Czechoslovakia had invaded Poland and taken only a few years before during WWI.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    So China and Iran are Poland circa 1939 and USA is Nazi Germany? Do you want to go with that analogy?
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      You are missing the point. Argument: War takes two. Counter: No. It only takes one. See Germany invades Poland. Counter to counter: Your analogy can be extended to look ridiculous. I know it can be, but all analogies can be.
      - macspoofing 6y ago
        >You are missing the point. No. I got your point. Your original comment implied that it is America that is solely moving towards war. I asked you if you thought Iran and/or China were also responsible for moving us towards war and you choose to be pedantic about a metaphor and wasted mine and your time doing so. So to answer you directly: who cares about the metaphor.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
        I do not think it was a waste. All metaphors are largely useless. They may help with getting a point a across, but they are just a crutch to help with understanding an issue. If I am pedantic, it is because I do not want my metaphor ( if that is the right word here ) to be misinterpreted. But you do have a point. What if instead of what I think, we turn to the wisdom the global crowd ( [1],[2],[3] ), who, when recently polled, indicated that US is greater threat than China or Russia. So the world populace thinks US is moving towards war; moreso than China or Russia. It is possible that I overstated my case. You do have a point here, but are you trying to tell me Iran is THE threat to that will pull this world into the abyss?
        macspoofing 6y ago
        You're still not answering the question. Do you think Iran and China have a responsibility for the part they played in moving us towards war? >So the world populace thinks US is moving towards war; moreso than China or Russia. Not surprised. There is so much negativity around anything to do with America because America is what defines the current world order. The subtext is that if not for America we would be living in global utopia with no war and nations cooperating diplomatically to solve common goals - a state of things that has NEVER been true in all of human history. The only times of peace humanity have ever enjoyed were within the borders of some empire. >You do have a point here, but are you trying to tell me Iran is THE threat to that will pull this world into the abyss? No. Not into the abyss. Iran is a fascist nation that is a regional nuisance. They could join the community of nations if they abandoned their regional ambitions and stop funding terrorist groups. But their actions are leading to a war, either with America or Saudi Arabia. Just to be clear, I'm not claiming America doesn't have a part in the state of things (America is run by humans, and humans make mistakes), I just don't see any evidence that Iran is an innocent party in this. They played their part and made their bed through the actions of their government over decades. They began existence by breaking global norms by storming the American embassy and taking diplomats hostage, and have been a terrible regional presence.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Yes, "Iran tankers sailing to Venezuela in effort to undermine US sanctions": https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-tankers-sailing-to-venezuela-in-effort-to-undermine-us-sanctions https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-tankers-sailing-to-venezu... This HK takeover by China is significant and the social media taunting that China is doing is not exactly peaceful: https://twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1265498343947542530?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1265498343947542530%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Flandmark-decision-pompeo-tells-congress-hong-kong-no-longer-independent-china https://twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1265498343947542530?re...
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    So this brings an interesting question. Do you think US sanctions apply everywhere? I am not talking legal part of it or the justifications used. I am more curious about your perception of sanctions. edit: added not. gotta slow down
  - av_engr 6y ago
    I read the tweet you posted about HuXiJin (chief of CCP-backed media), and I LOL'ed very hard on how he responded. (Seems like Xi's 'Wolf Warrior' Diplomacy is true) To be honest, China really sees itself as a world power. This is only because of the economic affluence it had on every country on Earth. Military wise, they do spend a lot of money but the equipment and training are not quite on par with the top dogs in the game. CCP also has no regards for its people so worst case is to sacrifice a few million population in case of an international conflict. The problem with China is like a professional boxer fighting on a street with thugs. Your opponent is not afraid of getting down dirty on moves, they are not gonna abide any rules, nor do they have anything to lose.
    - nix23 6y ago
      >Your opponent is not afraid of getting down dirty on moves Hear hear, the US just pay some privately-own'd armys for the 'dirty' stuff, to stay with your analogy, they just pay another thug that was probably a professional boxer in his former life ;)
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> what are the odds China will surrender to international pressure campaign? China was given special consideration in the 90s on certain assumptions. Those assumptions have not borne out. This action is one of those special considerations being rolled back. Nothing more.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I am worried that we are talking about two different things. I was talking about current tactic of supporting HK autonomy as a way to limit Chinese influence as opposed to a seeming strategic goal of turning China into a model international citizen US would want it to be ages ago. I also find the third sentence a very simplistic way of understanding international relations. I do not want to go on a rant here, but US does not really have a problem with lack of autonomy. The problem for US is that China is not easily bullied. That is the reason the considerations are being rolled back.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    Considerations are being rolled back because the previous thesis of “as China grows economically, it will become more democratic” is becoming increasingly false.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > US does not really have a problem with lack of autonomy The Secretary of State is literally required by law to report to Congress on Hong Kong's autonomy [1][2]. The beginning and end of this issue is Hong Kong's autonomy (and how that relates to its special trade status). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Hong_Kong_Policy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Hong_Kong_Policy... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Human_Rights_and_Democracy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Human_Rights_and_Dem...
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      I think the relevant questions here revolve around simple "and? so? what?". The mere fact that they were certified before with ample indications the autonomy was stripped away suggests that the decision is largely political as opposed to the noble goal of preventing human rights violations. Just to add to this ( I don't want to spend too much time on this ), note that Iran was for the longest time certified to be compliant ( until suddenly it was not ). In other words, I am not sure what you are arguing here. You are absolutely right, but you do not advance your point as far I can tell.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
War over what? This is undisputed Chinese soil. Nobody lifted a finger over Crimea. Nothing will be done about HK politics.
- hopfscotch 6y ago
  This is just the lowest hanging fruit of a zillion things China thinks it owns. Today it's Hong Kong. Tomorrow, Taiwan. Then the East Philippine Sea. It's hard to see where it ends.
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    This is just the lowest hanging fruit of a zillion things The United States thinks it owns. Today it's the Republic of Texas. Tomorrow, Hawaii. Then the East Philippine Sea. It's hard to see where it ends.
    - hopfscotch 6y ago
      Won’t even explain why this is a bad comparison because you already know.
lostapathy 6y ago
I've been hearing for almost 20 years now that "we're going to war with Iran <soon>". What's different now?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Umm. We barely avoided war with Iran when Suleimani was killed. Thankfully, Trump saw no benefit in it ( for better or worse, he does seem responsive to his base, that is not super thrilled about dying there ). But if you do not see the steady push of the drums of war, or worse, choose to actively ignore it, it is difficult for me to say anything that would change your mind. To me it seems apparent. It certainly should have been apparent after Iraq.
  - lostapathy 6y ago
    Again, though, what's different about the current situation than the last 20 years? There's constantly been a "steady push of the drums of war" over that time.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      In a sense, it hard not to agree with you. The trajectory was set a good while ago. The destination did not change in any real way. From that perspective, you are right. It has been the case for 20 years and US did not attack Iran. There is a difference though. For example, with Vietnam, the press was largely careful not ruffle administration's feathers. With Iraq, there was some mild questioning, but few of the established media questioned the narrative pushed by the administration. Now look at the response of the press to even a possibility of another full out war in ME ( at best divided along partisan lines ). That was one of the few times, I actually agreed with Tucker. The change you are thinking of is that the war of Iran did not happen yet ( and it likely would have based on the publicly available information [1],[2]). If left to Washington alone, I am willing to bet good money, it would have happened already. [1]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/concerns-trump-administration-laying-legal-groundwork-military-action/story?id=62360052 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/concerns-trump-administratio... [2]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20989/pompeos-12-demands-for-iran-read-more-like-a-declaration-of-war-than-a-path-to-peace https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20989/pompeos-12-deman...

macspoofing 6y ago

>I was telling my friend that US is moving towards war with Iran in 2 years and China in ten It takes two tango. Is Iran and/or China doing anything on their part to move us closer to war?

BurningFrog 6y ago
It really only takes one interested party to start a war.
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
Poland circa 1939 would beg to differ. I am not trying to be difficult, but your statement is easily countered. edited: changed refuted to countered; seems more accurate
- myth_drannon 6y ago
  Poland was not so innocent, it was an aggressive state actor. Together with Germany, it invaded Czechoslovakia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie#Part_of_Poland_(1938%E2%80%931939) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie#Part_of_Poland_(1938%E...
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    I do not want to respond too harshly, but the question was whether it takes one to tango. And it does. Germany did not need Poland's permission to invade. All Germany needed is a moment it considered favorable. Everything else is an excuse used for public consumption ( and if you look at Iraq and Iran, the parallels become obvious ). As for the aggressive actor part, I will leave it for now ( it does not add to conversation and since I am not a historian, I can't authoritatively say that comparatively speaking Poland was the nice guy on the block ).
    - thejynxed 6y ago
      They also left out the part that Poland invaded and took exactly back that which Czechoslovakia had invaded Poland and taken only a few years before during WWI.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  So China and Iran are Poland circa 1939 and USA is Nazi Germany? Do you want to go with that analogy?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    You are missing the point. Argument: War takes two. Counter: No. It only takes one. See Germany invades Poland. Counter to counter: Your analogy can be extended to look ridiculous. I know it can be, but all analogies can be.
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      >You are missing the point. No. I got your point. Your original comment implied that it is America that is solely moving towards war. I asked you if you thought Iran and/or China were also responsible for moving us towards war and you choose to be pedantic about a metaphor and wasted mine and your time doing so. So to answer you directly: who cares about the metaphor.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
        I do not think it was a waste. All metaphors are largely useless. They may help with getting a point a across, but they are just a crutch to help with understanding an issue. If I am pedantic, it is because I do not want my metaphor ( if that is the right word here ) to be misinterpreted. But you do have a point. What if instead of what I think, we turn to the wisdom the global crowd ( [1],[2],[3] ), who, when recently polled, indicated that US is greater threat than China or Russia. So the world populace thinks US is moving towards war; moreso than China or Russia. It is possible that I overstated my case. You do have a point here, but are you trying to tell me Iran is THE threat to that will pull this world into the abyss?
        macspoofing 6y ago
        You're still not answering the question. Do you think Iran and China have a responsibility for the part they played in moving us towards war? >So the world populace thinks US is moving towards war; moreso than China or Russia. Not surprised. There is so much negativity around anything to do with America because America is what defines the current world order. The subtext is that if not for America we would be living in global utopia with no war and nations cooperating diplomatically to solve common goals - a state of things that has NEVER been true in all of human history. The only times of peace humanity have ever enjoyed were within the borders of some empire. >You do have a point here, but are you trying to tell me Iran is THE threat to that will pull this world into the abyss? No. Not into the abyss. Iran is a fascist nation that is a regional nuisance. They could join the community of nations if they abandoned their regional ambitions and stop funding terrorist groups. But their actions are leading to a war, either with America or Saudi Arabia. Just to be clear, I'm not claiming America doesn't have a part in the state of things (America is run by humans, and humans make mistakes), I just don't see any evidence that Iran is an innocent party in this. They played their part and made their bed through the actions of their government over decades. They began existence by breaking global norms by storming the American embassy and taking diplomats hostage, and have been a terrible regional presence.
chrisco255 6y ago
Yes, "Iran tankers sailing to Venezuela in effort to undermine US sanctions": https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-tankers-sailing-to-venezuela-in-effort-to-undermine-us-sanctions https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-tankers-sailing-to-venezu... This HK takeover by China is significant and the social media taunting that China is doing is not exactly peaceful: https://twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1265498343947542530?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1265498343947542530%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Flandmark-decision-pompeo-tells-congress-hong-kong-no-longer-independent-china https://twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1265498343947542530?re...
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  So this brings an interesting question. Do you think US sanctions apply everywhere? I am not talking legal part of it or the justifications used. I am more curious about your perception of sanctions. edit: added not. gotta slow down
- av_engr 6y ago
  I read the tweet you posted about HuXiJin (chief of CCP-backed media), and I LOL'ed very hard on how he responded. (Seems like Xi's 'Wolf Warrior' Diplomacy is true) To be honest, China really sees itself as a world power. This is only because of the economic affluence it had on every country on Earth. Military wise, they do spend a lot of money but the equipment and training are not quite on par with the top dogs in the game. CCP also has no regards for its people so worst case is to sacrifice a few million population in case of an international conflict. The problem with China is like a professional boxer fighting on a street with thugs. Your opponent is not afraid of getting down dirty on moves, they are not gonna abide any rules, nor do they have anything to lose.
  - nix23 6y ago
    >Your opponent is not afraid of getting down dirty on moves Hear hear, the US just pay some privately-own'd armys for the 'dirty' stuff, to stay with your analogy, they just pay another thug that was probably a professional boxer in his former life ;)

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> what are the odds China will surrender to international pressure campaign? China was given special consideration in the 90s on certain assumptions. Those assumptions have not borne out. This action is one of those special considerations being rolled back. Nothing more.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
I am worried that we are talking about two different things. I was talking about current tactic of supporting HK autonomy as a way to limit Chinese influence as opposed to a seeming strategic goal of turning China into a model international citizen US would want it to be ages ago. I also find the third sentence a very simplistic way of understanding international relations. I do not want to go on a rant here, but US does not really have a problem with lack of autonomy. The problem for US is that China is not easily bullied. That is the reason the considerations are being rolled back.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  Considerations are being rolled back because the previous thesis of “as China grows economically, it will become more democratic” is becoming increasingly false.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > US does not really have a problem with lack of autonomy The Secretary of State is literally required by law to report to Congress on Hong Kong's autonomy [1][2]. The beginning and end of this issue is Hong Kong's autonomy (and how that relates to its special trade status). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Hong_Kong_Policy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Hong_Kong_Policy... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Human_Rights_and_Democracy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Human_Rights_and_Dem...
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    I think the relevant questions here revolve around simple "and? so? what?". The mere fact that they were certified before with ample indications the autonomy was stripped away suggests that the decision is largely political as opposed to the noble goal of preventing human rights violations. Just to add to this ( I don't want to spend too much time on this ), note that Iran was for the longest time certified to be compliant ( until suddenly it was not ). In other words, I am not sure what you are arguing here. You are absolutely right, but you do not advance your point as far I can tell.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

War over what? This is undisputed Chinese soil. Nobody lifted a finger over Crimea. Nothing will be done about HK politics.

hopfscotch 6y ago
This is just the lowest hanging fruit of a zillion things China thinks it owns. Today it's Hong Kong. Tomorrow, Taiwan. Then the East Philippine Sea. It's hard to see where it ends.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  This is just the lowest hanging fruit of a zillion things The United States thinks it owns. Today it's the Republic of Texas. Tomorrow, Hawaii. Then the East Philippine Sea. It's hard to see where it ends.
  - hopfscotch 6y ago
    Won’t even explain why this is a bad comparison because you already know.

lostapathy 6y ago

I've been hearing for almost 20 years now that "we're going to war with Iran <soon>". What's different now?

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
Umm. We barely avoided war with Iran when Suleimani was killed. Thankfully, Trump saw no benefit in it ( for better or worse, he does seem responsive to his base, that is not super thrilled about dying there ). But if you do not see the steady push of the drums of war, or worse, choose to actively ignore it, it is difficult for me to say anything that would change your mind. To me it seems apparent. It certainly should have been apparent after Iraq.
- lostapathy 6y ago
  Again, though, what's different about the current situation than the last 20 years? There's constantly been a "steady push of the drums of war" over that time.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    In a sense, it hard not to agree with you. The trajectory was set a good while ago. The destination did not change in any real way. From that perspective, you are right. It has been the case for 20 years and US did not attack Iran. There is a difference though. For example, with Vietnam, the press was largely careful not ruffle administration's feathers. With Iraq, there was some mild questioning, but few of the established media questioned the narrative pushed by the administration. Now look at the response of the press to even a possibility of another full out war in ME ( at best divided along partisan lines ). That was one of the few times, I actually agreed with Tucker. The change you are thinking of is that the war of Iran did not happen yet ( and it likely would have based on the publicly available information [1],[2]). If left to Washington alone, I am willing to bet good money, it would have happened already. [1]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/concerns-trump-administration-laying-legal-groundwork-military-action/story?id=62360052 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/concerns-trump-administratio... [2]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20989/pompeos-12-demands-for-iran-read-more-like-a-declaration-of-war-than-a-path-to-peace https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20989/pompeos-12-deman...