5 ms·

generally speaking when a country is #1 in the world order and another country is hellbent on claiming that spot, the latter is a threat to the former. china ha

by _bin_ 2y ago

generally speaking when a country is #1 in the world order and another country is hellbent on claiming that spot, the latter is a threat to the former. china has repeatedly pushed us militarily, economically, and diplomatically. we must regard with animosity any nation with conflicting values and a desire to outstrip us in power and influence. America is not safe until the current regime is deposed and the strength of china is crippled.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
Oh good, more international interventions on the horizon. Because those have worked out so bloody well the past... I dunno, 12 times or so? And good fucking luck "crippling" the strength of a nation who's population comprises 17% of the world's population, and who is basically a stand-in for "overseas manufacturing" due the sheer ubiquity of it.
- _bin_ 2y ago
  do you honestly expect Americans to do well in a world where we aren't the preeminent military and economic power? we wouldn't. it's therefore the moral responsibility of the US federal government to ensure that world doesn't come to pass by any means necessary. the point of overseas interventions isn't usually to win, it's to make the other guy lose or spend more. our military is finally moving in the direction of attritability - it took those last 12 interventions to learn, i guess - but we should be able to more effectively bleed china dry. she can have as large a population as she wants, she can be the world's factor for cheap garbage, the concern is ensuring she can't have an advanced economy. i'm not saying this will come without some level of pain for America. the nineties clinton "end of history" types were buffoons to think china was anything but a malignancy on the international order and should have cut her out from the start. but it's too late for that now, the cancer has spread and this means global economic chemo. it will hurt, but it's massively less bad than what our people would experience in the alternative situation.
  - saturn8601 2y ago
    >do you honestly expect Americans to do well in a world where we aren't the preeminent military and economic power? we wouldn't. it's therefore the moral responsibility of the US federal government to ensure that world doesn't come to pass by any means necessary. You do raise an interesting thought experiment. A word that has passed the US by. It is so difficult to fathom. The Chinese people seem to be producing wonders as evidenced by this recent interview with Asianomoetry[1]: https://youtu.be/pE3KKUKXcTM?t=2019 https://youtu.be/pE3KKUKXcTM?t=2019 They took an old node and managed to squeeze more out of it than any of the western firms could do. This is some serious talent and skill. Its also making me think the sanctions are backfiring in some regard. However the Chinese system is on shaky ground. Their demographics are horrendous and immigration to plug the gaps is not likely. Furthermore can their system really tolerate failure and embarrassment? This is one aspect where the USSR really fell short and the US shines. Accepting Failure is tolerated, its part of the US culture whereas the USSR was obsessed with saving face. China seems to really understand rapid iteration well though. They studied and learned from the mistakes of the USSR. >i'm not saying this will come without some level of pain for America. the nineties clinton "end of history" types were buffoons to think china was anything but a malignancy on the international order and should have cut her out from the start. but it's too late for that now, the cancer has spread and this means global economic chemo. it will hurt, but it's massively less bad than what our people would experience in the alternative situation. Is it really even possible to keep the 17.7% of the world population from aspiring to be at the top while trying to preserve the wealth of 4% of the worlds population? That dam was going to break regardless of whatever the neoliberals did in the 90s. Hell the global south are the majority and they are kept from reaching to the top quintile. Its just seems inevitable.
    - _bin_ 2y ago
      you're right, the system is on somewhat shaky ground. many semi- or fully-developed nations face demographic challenges but china is in a much worse position to handle them than we are. but that doesn't mean it's the time to get complacent. now is the time to push harder, knock out a few more legs out from under the chinese system, do that every year until it falls over. they can aspire all they want. the issue is when they attempt to do so to the detriment of Americans. there are some scarce resources that will only ever be enjoyed by the people in that top quintile. it is both the practical and moral obligation of the U.S. government to ensure we, not they, remain in that top quintile and secure scarce resources for our own people before any others. the global south may contain the majority of sets of hands, but the west continues to control the lion's share of human capital, wealth, and military equipment. we ought to continue using those to maintain them. there's no issue with the wealth of everyone growing as the world improves. but we must continue to secure those critical scarce resources for our own first, and that requires that even if the south grows in wealth, we exert all available power and influence to ensure we grow faster. second place sucks. since there will always be a second place, it's our job to avoid it at all costs.
melbourne_mat 2y ago
I'm not a cheerleader of China by any means but the attitude you have towards China is scary. Why does the US have to control the world in order to be safe?
- _bin_ 2y ago
  because if we do not, we are falling on the mercy of foreigners who cannot be trusted. China's value system is basically contradictory to ours - most nations' are - so the world will not go our way unless we, or one of a few close allies, are the foremost power.
  - i_love_retros 2y ago
    So america has good values and can be trusted? Ha! How many civilians have been killed in the last 50 years by the american military vs the Chinese?
    - _bin_ 2y ago
      America has better values than most countries. And Americans should generally trust America more than foreign countries and certainly more than the chinese government. here are some civilian deaths within china: - land reform killed 1-4.7 million - campaign to suppress counterrevolutionaries killed 712k-2mm - three-anti and five-anti campaigns killed at least 100k - sufan movement killed ~53k - anti-rightist campaign killed 550k-2mm - '59 tibetan uprising killed 87k - violence in the great chinese famine killed 2.5mm - socialist education movement killed 77k - guanxi massacre killed 100-150k - inner mongolia incident killed 15-100k - yangjiang massacre killed 3.5k - daoxian massacre killed 9k - ruijin massacre killed 1k - zhao jianmin spy case killed 17k - shadian incident killed 1.6k - tiananmen square protests & massacre killed 200-10k that's just a sample. this doesn't show the ongoing genocides, the economic colonization of SE asia and africa, the abuses of chinese-supported states (DPRK, burmese junta, naval intervention in libya, etc.) objectively the American system seems to work out much better and is based on vastly superior principles. all that aside, I am an American and place the interests of my people ahead of those of foreigners. as such, I will support a world order led by the government most likely to maximize our welfare and very nearly any means needed to preserve that.

by _bin_ 2y ago

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

Oh good, more international interventions on the horizon. Because those have worked out so bloody well the past... I dunno, 12 times or so? And good fucking luck "crippling" the strength of a nation who's population comprises 17% of the world's population, and who is basically a stand-in for "overseas manufacturing" due the sheer ubiquity of it.

_bin_ 2y ago
do you honestly expect Americans to do well in a world where we aren't the preeminent military and economic power? we wouldn't. it's therefore the moral responsibility of the US federal government to ensure that world doesn't come to pass by any means necessary. the point of overseas interventions isn't usually to win, it's to make the other guy lose or spend more. our military is finally moving in the direction of attritability - it took those last 12 interventions to learn, i guess - but we should be able to more effectively bleed china dry. she can have as large a population as she wants, she can be the world's factor for cheap garbage, the concern is ensuring she can't have an advanced economy. i'm not saying this will come without some level of pain for America. the nineties clinton "end of history" types were buffoons to think china was anything but a malignancy on the international order and should have cut her out from the start. but it's too late for that now, the cancer has spread and this means global economic chemo. it will hurt, but it's massively less bad than what our people would experience in the alternative situation.
- saturn8601 2y ago
  >do you honestly expect Americans to do well in a world where we aren't the preeminent military and economic power? we wouldn't. it's therefore the moral responsibility of the US federal government to ensure that world doesn't come to pass by any means necessary. You do raise an interesting thought experiment. A word that has passed the US by. It is so difficult to fathom. The Chinese people seem to be producing wonders as evidenced by this recent interview with Asianomoetry[1]: https://youtu.be/pE3KKUKXcTM?t=2019 https://youtu.be/pE3KKUKXcTM?t=2019 They took an old node and managed to squeeze more out of it than any of the western firms could do. This is some serious talent and skill. Its also making me think the sanctions are backfiring in some regard. However the Chinese system is on shaky ground. Their demographics are horrendous and immigration to plug the gaps is not likely. Furthermore can their system really tolerate failure and embarrassment? This is one aspect where the USSR really fell short and the US shines. Accepting Failure is tolerated, its part of the US culture whereas the USSR was obsessed with saving face. China seems to really understand rapid iteration well though. They studied and learned from the mistakes of the USSR. >i'm not saying this will come without some level of pain for America. the nineties clinton "end of history" types were buffoons to think china was anything but a malignancy on the international order and should have cut her out from the start. but it's too late for that now, the cancer has spread and this means global economic chemo. it will hurt, but it's massively less bad than what our people would experience in the alternative situation. Is it really even possible to keep the 17.7% of the world population from aspiring to be at the top while trying to preserve the wealth of 4% of the worlds population? That dam was going to break regardless of whatever the neoliberals did in the 90s. Hell the global south are the majority and they are kept from reaching to the top quintile. Its just seems inevitable.
  - _bin_ 2y ago
    you're right, the system is on somewhat shaky ground. many semi- or fully-developed nations face demographic challenges but china is in a much worse position to handle them than we are. but that doesn't mean it's the time to get complacent. now is the time to push harder, knock out a few more legs out from under the chinese system, do that every year until it falls over. they can aspire all they want. the issue is when they attempt to do so to the detriment of Americans. there are some scarce resources that will only ever be enjoyed by the people in that top quintile. it is both the practical and moral obligation of the U.S. government to ensure we, not they, remain in that top quintile and secure scarce resources for our own people before any others. the global south may contain the majority of sets of hands, but the west continues to control the lion's share of human capital, wealth, and military equipment. we ought to continue using those to maintain them. there's no issue with the wealth of everyone growing as the world improves. but we must continue to secure those critical scarce resources for our own first, and that requires that even if the south grows in wealth, we exert all available power and influence to ensure we grow faster. second place sucks. since there will always be a second place, it's our job to avoid it at all costs.

melbourne_mat 2y ago

I'm not a cheerleader of China by any means but the attitude you have towards China is scary. Why does the US have to control the world in order to be safe?

_bin_ 2y ago
because if we do not, we are falling on the mercy of foreigners who cannot be trusted. China's value system is basically contradictory to ours - most nations' are - so the world will not go our way unless we, or one of a few close allies, are the foremost power.
- i_love_retros 2y ago
  So america has good values and can be trusted? Ha! How many civilians have been killed in the last 50 years by the american military vs the Chinese?
  - _bin_ 2y ago
    America has better values than most countries. And Americans should generally trust America more than foreign countries and certainly more than the chinese government. here are some civilian deaths within china: - land reform killed 1-4.7 million - campaign to suppress counterrevolutionaries killed 712k-2mm - three-anti and five-anti campaigns killed at least 100k - sufan movement killed ~53k - anti-rightist campaign killed 550k-2mm - '59 tibetan uprising killed 87k - violence in the great chinese famine killed 2.5mm - socialist education movement killed 77k - guanxi massacre killed 100-150k - inner mongolia incident killed 15-100k - yangjiang massacre killed 3.5k - daoxian massacre killed 9k - ruijin massacre killed 1k - zhao jianmin spy case killed 17k - shadian incident killed 1.6k - tiananmen square protests & massacre killed 200-10k that's just a sample. this doesn't show the ongoing genocides, the economic colonization of SE asia and africa, the abuses of chinese-supported states (DPRK, burmese junta, naval intervention in libya, etc.) objectively the American system seems to work out much better and is based on vastly superior principles. all that aside, I am an American and place the interests of my people ahead of those of foreigners. as such, I will support a world order led by the government most likely to maximize our welfare and very nearly any means needed to preserve that.