9 ms·

Unlike Japan, the Chinese economy is bigger and will be self sustaining enough that a war with the US is unnecessary for that reason.

throw_this_one 6y ago
Yup. And although I understand the Obama plan to build a consensus to take on their subversion... it's tough to let this continue on for much longer. Basically if China wants to be a world leader equal to or above the US, we need some guarantees that they aren't going to plunder the world for their own nationalism. If not, then they need to feel pain until they do.
- buran77 6y ago
  > if China wants to be a world leader equal to or above the US, we need some guarantees that they aren't going to plunder the world for their own nationalism. While I'm personally incompatible with many (most?) of the Chinese values as seen from the west, I'm sure most Chinese appreciate them as they came attached to personal prosperity like their parents never dreamed. You believe US values are or should be generally accepted by the world as "the gold standard" for everyone. Did you have to handwave anything and say "yeah, except that, and that, and..."? Or "but what about what they do?" This is a very self-centric view of the world. Chinese nationalism doesn't agree with me, but neither does yours. The difference between the 2 is that I'm on your nationalism's good (less bad?) side, so it suits me today. Most of the world is on their bad side and do not share your enthusiasm about your values. Many other Western countries are already distancing themselves from the US with regards to many actions (take as an example the Iran sanctions) because it turns out in the end it shares the same "plunder the world" principles. Perhaps a bit more carrot, less stick than the Chinese one. Even citizens are showing less and less appreciation for it in the streets. I applaud the fact that they are free to do it, not that they're fearing just less retaliation than the average Chinese would in the same position. I can't unsee that so many condemnation-worthy violations piggy-back on these real values, in the end making the whole thing a "chocolate-poop-cake". It has chocolate, everyone likes chocolate. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of assuming your personal world views and nationalism happen to be universally above the rest and the fix is for everyone else to "feel the pain" of our nationalism until they accept it. If that didn't sound a bit off then you would have used you regular account.
  - throw_this_one 6y ago
    Basically our system is, we want every country to be able to elect their government through some sort of democracy. China's system is, we have a cabal of secretive elites that run the show and they can't be elected or unelected by the people. Which one should be the world standard?
    - eirini1 6y ago
      >Basically our system is, we want every country to be able to elect their government through some sort of democracy. you are leaving aside the fact that your system also involves an armed invasion by the USA if a certain country does something the USA doesn't like.
      - throw_this_one 6y ago
        You're basically saying that we should be non-interventionalist. So if a country gets taken over by a dictator, no big. If they kick out our companies and take our tech, no big. If they develop nukes so that they can hold us at ransom, no big. Naive view of the world to think what happens outside your neighborhood is of no concern for you.
        buran77 6y ago
        > Naive view of the world The irony is blinding here. The kind of entitled opinion that can only be supported by strong ignorance and is only remedied by education. Every one of your arguments can be refuted in half a line just like in all of your other comments. And you'd reject every one of your arguments if they were used against you. Are Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, etc. better off now than they were before being bombed to shit to "fix their dictator or terrorist problem"? Is Iran better off after making a deal with the US and sticking to it? Central America after all the "fight the communists" regime changes? When a country gets taken over by a leader undemocratically elected with a minority of votes should there be a military intervention to fix it? How about when you spy (with every advantage that entails, economic, political, or military) on every other country and citizen on the planet? When you blackmail entire countries to get your economic interests? When your citizens are illegally shot on the streets and abused by corporations but their voice means next to nothing? In the meantime China has seen the biggest economic boom any developed country has ever managed to maintain ever so the US feels threatened and ups the "dictator-like" measures against the world. There's a reason you use a throwaway account. Your opinions aren't controversial, they're embarrassingly immature, uneducated, ignorant of the realities of the world we live in and you don't want that to rub of on you actual account. I guess you're not at risk of being shot in the back by police (or ever reading a book instead of an Alex Jones podcast) so you are still free to maintain this happy view of your "we're definitely not acting like the dictator of the world" system.
buran77 6y ago
Sure, China's position today is nothing like Japan's 80 years ago. But look at China's or Russia's actions and you see war and retaliatory actions today are also not the same as they were then. Pushing your enemy into taking expensive steps (plenty of options there, from proxy wars, to giving up nuclear facilities, to alienating foreign investment in an attempt to take retaliatory actions against US economic interests) is a result that has been achieved in the past following the exact same script. I personally don't believe these sanctions have "the right reasons" behind them because the US selectively allies with countries with a similar legal and moral track record as China. If the action is not taken on justice, fairness, or moral grounds I think my implication above is pretty fair.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  > I personally don't believe these sanctions have "the right reasons" behind them because the US selectively allies with countries with a similar legal and moral track record as China. What countries does the US ally with that have a similar track record as China does in Xinjiang? The only thing recently comparable that comes to mind is Myanmar, with the Rohingya. But I'm not sure to what degree the US allies with Myanmar.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

throw_this_one 6y ago

Yup. And although I understand the Obama plan to build a consensus to take on their subversion... it's tough to let this continue on for much longer. Basically if China wants to be a world leader equal to or above the US, we need some guarantees that they aren't going to plunder the world for their own nationalism. If not, then they need to feel pain until they do.

buran77 6y ago
> if China wants to be a world leader equal to or above the US, we need some guarantees that they aren't going to plunder the world for their own nationalism. While I'm personally incompatible with many (most?) of the Chinese values as seen from the west, I'm sure most Chinese appreciate them as they came attached to personal prosperity like their parents never dreamed. You believe US values are or should be generally accepted by the world as "the gold standard" for everyone. Did you have to handwave anything and say "yeah, except that, and that, and..."? Or "but what about what they do?" This is a very self-centric view of the world. Chinese nationalism doesn't agree with me, but neither does yours. The difference between the 2 is that I'm on your nationalism's good (less bad?) side, so it suits me today. Most of the world is on their bad side and do not share your enthusiasm about your values. Many other Western countries are already distancing themselves from the US with regards to many actions (take as an example the Iran sanctions) because it turns out in the end it shares the same "plunder the world" principles. Perhaps a bit more carrot, less stick than the Chinese one. Even citizens are showing less and less appreciation for it in the streets. I applaud the fact that they are free to do it, not that they're fearing just less retaliation than the average Chinese would in the same position. I can't unsee that so many condemnation-worthy violations piggy-back on these real values, in the end making the whole thing a "chocolate-poop-cake". It has chocolate, everyone likes chocolate. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of assuming your personal world views and nationalism happen to be universally above the rest and the fix is for everyone else to "feel the pain" of our nationalism until they accept it. If that didn't sound a bit off then you would have used you regular account.
- throw_this_one 6y ago
  Basically our system is, we want every country to be able to elect their government through some sort of democracy. China's system is, we have a cabal of secretive elites that run the show and they can't be elected or unelected by the people. Which one should be the world standard?
  - eirini1 6y ago
    >Basically our system is, we want every country to be able to elect their government through some sort of democracy. you are leaving aside the fact that your system also involves an armed invasion by the USA if a certain country does something the USA doesn't like.
    - throw_this_one 6y ago
      You're basically saying that we should be non-interventionalist. So if a country gets taken over by a dictator, no big. If they kick out our companies and take our tech, no big. If they develop nukes so that they can hold us at ransom, no big. Naive view of the world to think what happens outside your neighborhood is of no concern for you.
      - buran77 6y ago
        > Naive view of the world The irony is blinding here. The kind of entitled opinion that can only be supported by strong ignorance and is only remedied by education. Every one of your arguments can be refuted in half a line just like in all of your other comments. And you'd reject every one of your arguments if they were used against you. Are Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, etc. better off now than they were before being bombed to shit to "fix their dictator or terrorist problem"? Is Iran better off after making a deal with the US and sticking to it? Central America after all the "fight the communists" regime changes? When a country gets taken over by a leader undemocratically elected with a minority of votes should there be a military intervention to fix it? How about when you spy (with every advantage that entails, economic, political, or military) on every other country and citizen on the planet? When you blackmail entire countries to get your economic interests? When your citizens are illegally shot on the streets and abused by corporations but their voice means next to nothing? In the meantime China has seen the biggest economic boom any developed country has ever managed to maintain ever so the US feels threatened and ups the "dictator-like" measures against the world. There's a reason you use a throwaway account. Your opinions aren't controversial, they're embarrassingly immature, uneducated, ignorant of the realities of the world we live in and you don't want that to rub of on you actual account. I guess you're not at risk of being shot in the back by police (or ever reading a book instead of an Alex Jones podcast) so you are still free to maintain this happy view of your "we're definitely not acting like the dictator of the world" system.

buran77 6y ago

Sure, China's position today is nothing like Japan's 80 years ago. But look at China's or Russia's actions and you see war and retaliatory actions today are also not the same as they were then. Pushing your enemy into taking expensive steps (plenty of options there, from proxy wars, to giving up nuclear facilities, to alienating foreign investment in an attempt to take retaliatory actions against US economic interests) is a result that has been achieved in the past following the exact same script. I personally don't believe these sanctions have "the right reasons" behind them because the US selectively allies with countries with a similar legal and moral track record as China. If the action is not taken on justice, fairness, or moral grounds I think my implication above is pretty fair.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
> I personally don't believe these sanctions have "the right reasons" behind them because the US selectively allies with countries with a similar legal and moral track record as China. What countries does the US ally with that have a similar track record as China does in Xinjiang? The only thing recently comparable that comes to mind is Myanmar, with the Rohingya. But I'm not sure to what degree the US allies with Myanmar.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]