3 ms·
> because they know that "Western" powers would wage war if necessary. Why do you feel the need go single out "the west"? I mean, where do you think the contai
by motorest 1y ago
> because they know that "Western" powers would wage war if necessary.
Why do you feel the need go single out "the west"? I mean, where do you think the container ships crossing the Suez go to and come from? Do you think that the likes of China would be totally ok with their main trade routes being severed and instead having to go all the way around Africa?
You're framing things as if there's still a British empire syphoning the economies of their colonies all the way from Great Britain, with no one else involved or committed to any trade whatsoever.
- gpvos 1y agoMaybe not so much the Brits, but the French still have exploitative relations with their African ex-colonies; look up the CFA franc.
- motorest 1y ago> (...) the CFA franc Why do you think this is relevant in discussions over who would respond to shutting down the Suez canal? I mean, do you have a map?
- gpvos 1y agoThat's only one of the topics in this thread, it's about western (colonial) involvement elsewhere in general. Just have a look at the line of parents of this comment; you were the only one who reduced it to the Brits. I was directly replying to "as if there's still a British empire syphoning the economies of their colonies all the way from Great Britain", and the French are another, similar, Western power that's still doing that; they are also being talked about in sibling threads. Finally, questions like yours derail the discourse much more than comments like mine.
- RobotToaster 1y agoChina wouldn't wage war to do so though, at least not openly, it's not their style. Hell they're explicitly exploring using the northeast passage to bypass the Suez.