6 ms·

Uh, and what would that mean for the United States? China hasn’t been at war with anyone for decades.

by ein0p 2y ago

daliusd 2y ago
Militarism and imperialism is not about wars only
- ein0p 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    The countries you keep invading are not your key economical partners.
  - BobbyJo 2y ago
    Confused about what point you're attempting to make here? Political conflict with a trade partner obviously leads to reduced trade, no matter the parties involved. What part of that statement are you taking issue with?
    - ein0p 2y ago
      > Looks like militarism and imperialism are not compatible at that crazy new 21th century world Your faux confusion isn't really impressing anyone. Is the US, the most militarist and imperialist nation in the world by far at the moment, "compatible" with the "crazy new 21st century world"? I've also yet to see any practical examples of Chinese militarism or imperialism. I keep hearing that it's going to start happening any day now, but then it never does. What I do see is the hegemon (the US) trying to take down a rising superpower via economic warfare, and by creating instability in the region - a typical behavior of a militarist and imperialist nation.
      - salawat 2y ago
        Hong Kong. Or the many "shadow CCP police" instances in other sovereign nations. Or did you just conveniently ignore those? Just because they don't wear uniforms and march in lines doesn't mean there isn't power projection going on.
      - luuurker 2y ago
        You've pointed out what the US is doing. That's good, but you're clearly biased, so let me tell you two things that China is doing that is contributing for that instability you've mentioned: claims in the south china sea that no country would accept if it was done to them and a major naval build up. You need two to tango and both the US and China are dancing right now. Anyone only blaming one side need to stop for a second, take their US or China tinted glasses, and look again at the problem.
        Nevermark 2y ago
        > You need two to tango [...] > Anyone only blaming one side need to stop for a second [...] When it comes to military coercion (wars, threats), and imperialism, it only takes one bad actor to cause problems. When there are two sides, or three, it just means more actors willing to push around everyone else. Albeit, they amplify each other. Their respective needs to dominate encourage each others' aggressive tendencies. And it is much easier to justify/ignore/repeat misbehaviors when there are other aggressors to point at.
        luuurker 2y ago
        The point I was trying to make (probably made a bad job at it) is that there is more than one bad actor in the Pacific and the person I replied to only blames one side. Sure, the US has their bases there (many since WW2), but we can't blame the US alone when we also have China making threats and claims that scare the heck out of other countries. The US doesn't need to move a finger to have Taiwan or Philippines on their side... these countries know what they're up against and will, for obvious reasons, want to have a "big guy" on their side. In a few years China will not only have US bases around them, but also a handful of countries that won't side with them on anything. And that's how the next version of the "Pacific NATO" will be created... the US will of course take advantage of it, but it could not exist without a China that makes overreaching claims, threats, and their huge military.

Uh, and what would that mean for the United States? China hasn’t been at war with anyone for decades.

by ein0p 2y ago

Uh, and what would that mean for the United States? China hasn’t been at war with anyone for decades.

daliusd 2y ago

Militarism and imperialism is not about wars only

ein0p 2y ago
[flagged]
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  The countries you keep invading are not your key economical partners.
- BobbyJo 2y ago
  Confused about what point you're attempting to make here? Political conflict with a trade partner obviously leads to reduced trade, no matter the parties involved. What part of that statement are you taking issue with?
  - ein0p 2y ago
    > Looks like militarism and imperialism are not compatible at that crazy new 21th century world Your faux confusion isn't really impressing anyone. Is the US, the most militarist and imperialist nation in the world by far at the moment, "compatible" with the "crazy new 21st century world"? I've also yet to see any practical examples of Chinese militarism or imperialism. I keep hearing that it's going to start happening any day now, but then it never does. What I do see is the hegemon (the US) trying to take down a rising superpower via economic warfare, and by creating instability in the region - a typical behavior of a militarist and imperialist nation.
    - salawat 2y ago
      Hong Kong. Or the many "shadow CCP police" instances in other sovereign nations. Or did you just conveniently ignore those? Just because they don't wear uniforms and march in lines doesn't mean there isn't power projection going on.
    - luuurker 2y ago
      You've pointed out what the US is doing. That's good, but you're clearly biased, so let me tell you two things that China is doing that is contributing for that instability you've mentioned: claims in the south china sea that no country would accept if it was done to them and a major naval build up. You need two to tango and both the US and China are dancing right now. Anyone only blaming one side need to stop for a second, take their US or China tinted glasses, and look again at the problem.
      - Nevermark 2y ago
        > You need two to tango [...] > Anyone only blaming one side need to stop for a second [...] When it comes to military coercion (wars, threats), and imperialism, it only takes one bad actor to cause problems. When there are two sides, or three, it just means more actors willing to push around everyone else. Albeit, they amplify each other. Their respective needs to dominate encourage each others' aggressive tendencies. And it is much easier to justify/ignore/repeat misbehaviors when there are other aggressors to point at.
        luuurker 2y ago
        The point I was trying to make (probably made a bad job at it) is that there is more than one bad actor in the Pacific and the person I replied to only blames one side. Sure, the US has their bases there (many since WW2), but we can't blame the US alone when we also have China making threats and claims that scare the heck out of other countries. The US doesn't need to move a finger to have Taiwan or Philippines on their side... these countries know what they're up against and will, for obvious reasons, want to have a "big guy" on their side. In a few years China will not only have US bases around them, but also a handful of countries that won't side with them on anything. And that's how the next version of the "Pacific NATO" will be created... the US will of course take advantage of it, but it could not exist without a China that makes overreaching claims, threats, and their huge military.