Well we haven't had war to date. Diplomacy has been the best approach. Not pushing China's buttons over Taiwan would be sensible perhaps.
China taking over the World
- Thread starter Present Not Past
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jul 5, 2013
- 3,327
- 4,816
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Taiwan #1.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 31,587
- 48,048
- AFL Club
- West Coast
America has been doing it for 50 years and is still doing it; who do you suggest should push back against them?
I guess thats a bit of what China's doing. A massive country, 1.5billion people. Its natural they would want a bit of respect & some say in their patch. I mean the Japanese had a fair piece of them last century. They were torn to bits by colonialism before that. So they may see it as asserting their natural rights.
Russia too has a very defensive nature to its sovereignty. The pain & destruction of WW2 would affect the national psyche. I think understanding that would make some of their behaviors understandable, if not totally acceptable.
No! bullying others just because you were bullied is not acceptable, and is a real issue, and nations are no different.
Theven best way to perpetuate suffering and injustice is to use sins of the father as a justification.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 31,587
- 48,048
- AFL Club
- West Coast
If by historical standards, you mean Dark Ages, sure. But if you're a brown country, 'saint' is not the word I would use.
Syria has become at least the 14th country in the Islamic world that U.S. forces have invaded or occupied or bombed, and in which American soldiers have killed or been killed. And that’s just since 1980. Let’s tick them off: Iran (1980, 1987-1988), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014-), Somalia (1992-1993, 2007-), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan (1998, 2001-), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-), Pakistan (2004-) and now Syria. Whew.
No country has caused more death and destruction on a global scale since World War II than the Americans. China did far more damage to itself.
But they are good to us.
Of course they are causing the majority of international death and destruction, because they're the global superpower.
I didn't say they were saints, I said they were saints by historical comparison. Because they haven't annexed territories, ethnically cleansed, enslaved, massacred, plundered, etc. either at all, or nowhere near the same level of the superpowers before it.
Your list tells a tale of atrocities, but that pales in comparison to those that came before it, from Britain to Rome.
China is not a superpower, and they have already built up a lot of experiance. the world would be a miserable place under Chinese rule; not just for us in the west, but for everyone.
Comparable saints. Which you are well aware of, hence your failure to answer the question.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 31,587
- 48,048
- AFL Club
- West Coast
America has invaded countries and overthrown democratically elected governments. What they did to countries like Iraq, Libya and Syria certainly compares with many a past atrocity (removed governments, created a power vacuum and allowed for the rise of terrorist groups that caused their own atrocities). They may not be as overt as Rome or Colonial Britain (as I stated at the very beginning of my post, comparable to historic periods, they might not seem as bad), but there is a history of death and destruction that is beyond anything achieved by any other modern country. In fact, I see no reason to assume China would be any better or worse other than pre-existing bias.
If you think that the US has been comparable to past empires, then fair enough. fair enough to if you think China couldn't be any worse.
I guess we'll have to agree to consider each other extremely naive.
Betty Noir
Club Legend
Not sure what history tells you about the Chinese, but I must be listening to a different channel. LOL.
I would have thought that if they were into world domination as you state, in very simplistic terms, I think it's surprising that they haven't integrated Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan in a more aggressive manner... s**t, Taiwan even has their own president... and a sheila to boot. (Trump just found that out...LOL).
The Chinese are extremely pragmatic. They succeed because of their flexibility. They merge and mix. Have done forever.
The Chinese want to sell tv's and make money. They are not into global militaristic domination. Or so I've heard...
Betty Noir
Club Legend
Trump talking to Tsai was a blunder. Yet again someone is pushing the buttons. Whether it's the club, the Chinese themselves, the Taiwanese (unlikely), or eastern agents.
Trump is being utilized.
Trump says he wants 450 ships, USN have 390 something ATM. About 410 provides the desired conflict capability - prosecuting two major aggressors in two arenas simultaneously. (Consider Russia and Iran, etc.... I don't think they've factored in China and India. LOL. throw in North Korea just for shits and giggles.)
Trump will need 1000 ships. All the while his good mate Vlad comes in the back door. 3rd man up.
He's a serious security risk. LOL.
Trump is being utilized.
Trump says he wants 450 ships, USN have 390 something ATM. About 410 provides the desired conflict capability - prosecuting two major aggressors in two arenas simultaneously. (Consider Russia and Iran, etc.... I don't think they've factored in China and India. LOL. throw in North Korea just for shits and giggles.)
Trump will need 1000 ships. All the while his good mate Vlad comes in the back door. 3rd man up.
He's a serious security risk. LOL.
Betty Noir
Club Legend
China will not engage in armed intercontinental conflict. The only war they would win is a war of attrition. They understand this. No-one (other than the usual religious zealots) are that stupid.
Betty Noir
Club Legend
http://index.heritage.org/military/2016/assessments/us-military-power/us-navy/
"...Ship modernization programs as they currently stand are problematic because they do not “keep pace to deal with high-end adversary weapons systems by 2020.”43 The CBO reported in 2015 that to reach its procurement goals, the Navy would need to increase spending on shipbuilding by one-third over what it has spent per year during the past 30 years.44 It is worth noting that this assessment was for the Navy’s goal of a 306-ship Navy, which is lower than the previous determination of 313 ships and lower than the current requirement of 308; it is also well below this Index’s prescribed fleet size of 346 ships."
http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-regional-contingency-military-for-21-century
"...How much military force does a global superpower require? Answering this question has challenged U.S. leaders and defense planners for more than 20 years. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the United States found itself the world’s sole superpower, but one without a significant adversary against which to measure the adequacy of its military capabilities. In the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War, U.S. leaders decided to use the requirement to conduct two major regional conventional contingencies (MRCs) at the same time as the basis for sizing the U.S. military. Every subsequent review of U.S. defense policy and programs has reaffirmed the two-war standard. In fact, every Administration for the past two decades found that a force sized to fight two wars was essential for meeting the ongoing demands for forward presence, crisis response, regional deterrence, humanitarian assistance, building partnership capacity, homeland defense, and support to civil authorities.".
Yeah, instead of 308 and 346, I inadvertently typed 390 and 410. (Can't remember my source, but may have included an air-wing or 2??)...
(I said they were approximate numbers, 'cos like I said, I never do any research).
But if you read the above quotes you might see that I am correct. I don't know though, because I haven't actually read them...
And as for Trump wanting 350 ships, (I typed 450... CRAFT), >>>
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-navy-shipbuilding-idUSKBN13T0U3
This is not brain surgery.
LOL
Deciding who'd be worse is a bit pointless. The USA have their skeletons in the closet all over the world. They are the only nation to use nuclear weapons, they are the world biggest arms exporter.
The worry is the US operate in the short term. Their attention to issues vacillates from one election cycle to the next, if not tweet to tweet
China are pushing their way onto the world stage. Their size & economic position & associated ego, demand it.
China operates on the longer term. The long game.
However China has huge internal problems in controlling its own economy, environment, politics & population.
They have the same problem all corrupt one party states have. How to control everything & maintain domination.
Both USA & China use internal 'nationalism' & patriotism. But for how long?
Our best position is to not pick sides. We need to understand China & show some respect.
The USA are becoming a lose cannon.
We're best to follow our own interests a bit closer.
Betty Noir
Club Legend
I agree mostly... and to this end, trade is critical.
I also believe that while it's ideal to embrace, it's not proper to accept bad s**t. An example being, (although I might be wrong because I don't do any research), Australia actively engaging the SLORC in Burma under Downer (FM?)... very few countries were in there, but Downer said "active engagement" was preferable to democratize... (it's also a way of investing...and so become diffuse).
(The skeletons are relative, and I think they have a fairly determined long view, but anyway.)
When determining who is better suited to rule the world we might need an ethicist's opinion. LOL.
What's worse, executing someone after 15 years on death row, or putting a bullet in their head in the afternoon after the trial?)
****ed if I know... result is the same... LOL
At least the 15 year wait provides the basis for an industry. That enables establishment cronies who own the business to milk the few poor sods who still pay tax in the USA.
Similar threads
