4 ms·

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

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.
ein0p 2y ago
Take a look at a map of US bases around China and then try to find any Chinese bases near the US, and you’ll understand who’s “militarist” and who isn’t.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  That's evidence of having more allies than China, not evidence of being more militaristic than China.
  - theaussiestew 2y ago
    US: Has a gazillion military bases around the world and encircling China. Commenter: "That's totally not evidence of being more militaristic, US just has more friends" You just contradicted yourself. Having more military bases IS being militaristic.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      So you're telling me that North Korea is an extremely non militaristic nation of peace, simply because it has no foreign bases? Your metric is flawed.
      - defrost 2y ago
        > you're telling me that North Korea is an extremely non militaristic nation of peace, simply because it has no foreign bases? No. They're not saying that. You're making an illogical argument. The mere fact you made three edits tells us that you know your "logic" just isn't.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Bases in the Phillipines as a result of invading on the back of falsely accusing the Spanish of sinking the Maine .. "allies". Bases in Japan as a result of levelling all the major cities and using two atomic weapons .. "allies". Call it what you like, the US has a habit of beachheading bases across the globe and never leaving.

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.

ein0p 2y ago

Take a look at a map of US bases around China and then try to find any Chinese bases near the US, and you’ll understand who’s “militarist” and who isn’t.

Terr_ 2y ago
That's evidence of having more allies than China, not evidence of being more militaristic than China.
- theaussiestew 2y ago
  US: Has a gazillion military bases around the world and encircling China. Commenter: "That's totally not evidence of being more militaristic, US just has more friends" You just contradicted yourself. Having more military bases IS being militaristic.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    So you're telling me that North Korea is an extremely non militaristic nation of peace, simply because it has no foreign bases? Your metric is flawed.
    - defrost 2y ago
      > you're telling me that North Korea is an extremely non militaristic nation of peace, simply because it has no foreign bases? No. They're not saying that. You're making an illogical argument. The mere fact you made three edits tells us that you know your "logic" just isn't.
- defrost 2y ago
  Bases in the Phillipines as a result of invading on the back of falsely accusing the Spanish of sinking the Maine .. "allies". Bases in Japan as a result of levelling all the major cities and using two atomic weapons .. "allies". Call it what you like, the US has a habit of beachheading bases across the globe and never leaving.