7 ms·

Militarism and imperialism is not about wars only

by daliusd 2y ago

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.
        Nevermark 2y ago
        > it could not exist without a China that makes overreaching claims, threats, and their huge military. Good point. Year after year, China was outpacing the world economically in numbers and strategic position. Their future appeared to have no ceiling. But they self-sabotaged by reverting from quietly accumulating strength to loudly showcasing strength via consolidation & provocation. Despite no pressing need, they amplified military risk, economic & technological friction, undermined trust & provoked intense global resistance. The strategic value they destroyed is immense: Poof! The presumed “Century of China” looks very different now. More like another Cold War.
    - illiac786 2y ago
      Who is saying the US is the most imperialist and the most militarist country? They do have the highest military budget, I’ll give you that. What else?
      - ein0p 2y ago
        Approximately 1 million victims (mostly civilian) just in this century, with trillions spent on wars. Multiple continuous wars since WW2. Iraq (2x), Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti. Multiple proxy wars on top of that. Need I continue?
        illiac786 2y ago
        oh, I don’t debate the US have done quite a bite of imperialism and horrible things. I’m talking about today though.
        lenkite 2y ago
        Umm.. merrily bombing the middle east ? There are occupation bases in Syria merrily looting oil. And selling $20 billion in weapons to bomb the middle east even more. Americans seem to have blinkers the size of titanosaurs and a "I cannot see it" attitude when it comes to their military.
        illiac786 2y ago
        Merrily is a slightly biased way of putting it I would say, but ok, it does happen, one can dispute why. Looting oil in Syria, I didn’t know this, do you have a source? Now, we are comparing, right, so let’s list what china is doing, shall we? Invading multiple neighbouring countries? Check. (Isn’t that the definition of imperialism?) Exterminating populations considered hostile? Check. And I’m not even talking about Africa, where “colonialism” wouldn’t necessarily be an exaggeration. I do think that, today, China is the most imperialist. The US is far from a model, mind you and Europe also did significantly more horrible things in the past, but I’m talking about today.
    - BobbyJo 2y ago
      Its not faux. I'm genuinely asking what about the original comment you disagreed with. It didn't really have anything to do with what you're talking about, so, Im wondering what connection you're trying to make. Do you think political conflict makes trade better, and are using the US as an example? It doesn't seem like you're disagreeing with the original premise, but rather just aggressively responding with a tangent.
    - peutetre 2y ago
      > I've also yet to see any practical examples of Chinese militarism or imperialism. Taiwan: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8dy437pdno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8dy437pdno Tibet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_Peo... Xinjiang: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037 The Nine Dash Line: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line
      - glompers 2y ago
        And India: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53061476 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53061476 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/01/opinion/india-china-himalayas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/01/opinion/india-china-himal...
        n4r9 2y ago
        Africa: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/china-in-africa-the-new-imperialists https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/china-in-africa-the...

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.
        Nevermark 2y ago
        > it could not exist without a China that makes overreaching claims, threats, and their huge military. Good point. Year after year, China was outpacing the world economically in numbers and strategic position. Their future appeared to have no ceiling. But they self-sabotaged by reverting from quietly accumulating strength to loudly showcasing strength via consolidation & provocation. Despite no pressing need, they amplified military risk, economic & technological friction, undermined trust & provoked intense global resistance. The strategic value they destroyed is immense: Poof! The presumed “Century of China” looks very different now. More like another Cold War.
  - illiac786 2y ago
    Who is saying the US is the most imperialist and the most militarist country? They do have the highest military budget, I’ll give you that. What else?
    - ein0p 2y ago
      Approximately 1 million victims (mostly civilian) just in this century, with trillions spent on wars. Multiple continuous wars since WW2. Iraq (2x), Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti. Multiple proxy wars on top of that. Need I continue?
      - illiac786 2y ago
        oh, I don’t debate the US have done quite a bite of imperialism and horrible things. I’m talking about today though.
        lenkite 2y ago
        Umm.. merrily bombing the middle east ? There are occupation bases in Syria merrily looting oil. And selling $20 billion in weapons to bomb the middle east even more. Americans seem to have blinkers the size of titanosaurs and a "I cannot see it" attitude when it comes to their military.
        illiac786 2y ago
        Merrily is a slightly biased way of putting it I would say, but ok, it does happen, one can dispute why. Looting oil in Syria, I didn’t know this, do you have a source? Now, we are comparing, right, so let’s list what china is doing, shall we? Invading multiple neighbouring countries? Check. (Isn’t that the definition of imperialism?) Exterminating populations considered hostile? Check. And I’m not even talking about Africa, where “colonialism” wouldn’t necessarily be an exaggeration. I do think that, today, China is the most imperialist. The US is far from a model, mind you and Europe also did significantly more horrible things in the past, but I’m talking about today.
  - BobbyJo 2y ago
    Its not faux. I'm genuinely asking what about the original comment you disagreed with. It didn't really have anything to do with what you're talking about, so, Im wondering what connection you're trying to make. Do you think political conflict makes trade better, and are using the US as an example? It doesn't seem like you're disagreeing with the original premise, but rather just aggressively responding with a tangent.
  - peutetre 2y ago
    > I've also yet to see any practical examples of Chinese militarism or imperialism. Taiwan: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8dy437pdno https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8dy437pdno Tibet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_Peo... Xinjiang: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037 The Nine Dash Line: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line
    - glompers 2y ago
      And India: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53061476 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53061476 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/01/opinion/india-china-himalayas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/01/opinion/india-china-himal...
      - n4r9 2y ago
        Africa: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/china-in-africa-the-new-imperialists https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/china-in-africa-the...