China’s Army posts “Preparing for war!”
Comments
-
I did check - but it depends on which media you believe, many I have read said ther was not outright support for her visit by ordinary people, who I'm sure want to avoid a possible war or live in constant fear, as they are currently.
0 -
Link to some, please. In general, Taiwan citizens do not view this as a trigger for a war. Rabble rousing from China is not new and after the disaster in Ukraine for Russia, less likely than ever.
2 -
There is at best 10% support for a return to China in Taiwan. It's really not comparable to NI and disastrous legacy of the Brexit.
3 -
If you yourself had checked you would have found many reports :-
0 -
Once again I don't agree with your equivalences. A US politician's visit to Taiwan is no military threat to China. It does bolster Taiwan's defence, because it confirms the US has a continued interest, so China must consider the US in plans for using force, which is of course a problem for them and introduces doubt.
China's rhetoric, stuff like these exercises (which unlike Pelosi's visit, from what I read, are unprecedented) is a concrete threat to Taiwan and to Japan and is meant to be read as such externally. Make Taiwan (and less so the US) think twice about other visits. Make Japan think is the danger worth getting involved, once China decide they will take Taiwan by force.
As for the displays boosting those (in the US) who argue to maintain or increase defence expenditure in Asia, of course it does. However if you look at OP (who by his past posts is a QANON believer and Trump supporter) you will see there's a small (but larger than it used to be?) US constituency who would take the opposite view and argue, why on Earth are we so involved in people's struggles and issues half the world away which have nothing to do with the US "homeland"/neighbourhood? Apart from the fact she is a Democrat I think that is also at the root of giving out about Pelosi, calling her a "warmonger", whipping things up etc.
I'm not sure you've thought through your position fully though Klaz, which surprises me as you have lived in China and know alot about Asia (far more than me probably). If the US does what you think it should, stops sticking its beak into Asia (where you perhaps feel it has no business given your incessant "both sides" posts about their hypocrisy, using situations in Asia to futher their own hegemony etc.), while China carries on increasing strength of its military what do you think will happen?
I predict there will be quite the arms race. If Japan, S. Korea (the 2 main US allies in Asia) and I suppose Australia as well think they can't really rely on the US any more they will all arm up in a big way. That's happening anyway to an extent but they are all capable of having stronger militaries than they do now, including nuclear arsenals in some cases. I don't think that will lead to a more stable situation in Asia, far from it.
2 -
Advertisement
-
Because none of the 9/11 hijackers came from North Korea, it’s less despotic than Saudi Arabia? You are actually presenting that as a coherent point?
In terms of Yemen, are you just taking despotic as a synonym for bad? If so, that’s a different conversation and not really a fair comparison. Saudi Arabia is a powerful and wealthy nation in a highly unstable region with huge scope for foreign policy projection. North Korea is far poorer and crucially is surrounded by stable, wealthy, military competent neighbours, it has essentially zero scope for foreign policy projection. Similar to looking at the history of US foreign policy compared to Chinese foreign policy, it’s not comparing like to like, one nation has an almost infinite scope to project abroad while the other is highly constrained.
The North Korean state assassinated Kim’s brother in public, in a foreign country, in a terminal of one of the busiest airports in the world, with nerve agent.
1 -
Once again I don't agree with your equivalences. A US politician's visit to Taiwan is no military threat to China. It does bolster Taiwan's defence, because it confirms the US has a continued interest, so China must consider the US in plans for using force, which is of course a problem for them and introduces doubt.
Once again, you're quoting me, then introducing and arguing points I didn't make.
I'm not sure you've thought through your position fully though Klaz, which surprises me as you have lived in China and know alot about Asia (far more than me probably). If the US does what you think it should, stops sticking its beak into Asia (where you perhaps feel it has no business given your incessant "both sides" posts about their hypocrisy, using situations in Asia to futher their own hegemony etc.), while China carries on increasing strength of its military what do you think will happen?
Where did I say that the US should stop it's involvement in either Asia? Cause I haven't. You've taken my take "on both sides", and decided to make it into something else entirely. I don't expect or want the US to withdraw it's interests from Asia, but I would like posters to recognise why they're there as opposed to buying into all the propaganda about defending democracy, and all that lark. But there's no point in repeating myself on this, as it's already been ignored or used to represent something else entirely.
0 -
I tried to understand what point you were making there and draw some more conclusions from it. It wasn't totally clear to me, other than "both are to blame here" (what you said to me in another post) and "US is deliberately manipulating this situation to provoke China e.g. Pelosi visit, so they can justify an increased military presence in Asia". Is that the jist?
So if "both are to blame" (which I disagree with), US is to blame isn't it? So how should they approach China to reduce tension?
Logically, all they can really do to calm that situation is stop the overt political support of Taiwan, so no more politicians visiting, no pesky statements made about Taiwan being democratic or Taiwanese being "free to choose their own path", no more weapons sales, and at a minimum not increase or preferably draw down current strength in Asia, move it back home (if decreasing it), because increased capability will certainly further "provoke" China and the peace-loving CCP.
Of course such policies would be fairly nuts for the US to adopt (imo) and won't make the situation more stable, but there you go.
edit: not a reponse to you, but may as well link it here as don't think it was before. Pelosi had an opinion piece a few days ago in Washington Post explaining her rationale for the visit (for what it is worth).
Post edited by fly_agaric on1 -
So if "both are to blame" (which I disagree with), US is to blame isn't it? So how should they approach China to reduce tension?
It's too late to "reduce" tension. The policies of the last decades have ensured that both major powers are direct opponents of each other. The US has never really sought to normalise relations with China, with the rhetoric in American media (by politicians and others) being openly aggressive, along with the condemnation of their influence in Asia.. And... China has been exactly the same, with the same attitudes within their own media, and government announcements. The US has continued to this day, to sail their military forces close to China's mainland territory, tweaking the noses of China, knowing full well the kind of reactions that it would receive.. because if China was to do anything similar to the American mainland, I doubt we'd be hearing cries for patience and tolerance.
It's too late to change the relationship between the US and China. That was set in stone when the US sought to contain Communism, and has been reinforced for the decades thereafter. It's been reinforced with Korea, and Vietnam. It's been reinforced with the establishment of military bases around China's borders, and the placement of military forces to counter Chinese expansionism... all the while, the one example of a foreign power attempting the same to the US, was met with the very real risk of nuclear war.
That is the situation in Asia. Nothing is going to "reduce tension" because that tension is always there, and it's going to be the chosen battleground because anything that might touch the US mainland would result in Nuclear war. Now, whether it's sensible to encourage those tensions to expand, or not.. that's another question.
There is a certain desire to... skip over the contributions of the US to the situation (both the history and the present), instead focusing entirely on China. It's unbalanced, and is one of the reasons that Asia will have its war between China, and the US (and other Asian allies). It's going to happen sooner or later. TBH I was reasonably certain it would have happened by now, if covid hadn't occurred, but the consequences of covid has seriously screwed Chinese society, and the revelations over Ukrainian resistance to a reasonably well-equipped conventional military, so I suspect we won't see an invasion of Taiwan happening any time soon. Still.. the US wants a war before China can narrow the gap in technology enough to be a true threat to them, and all these little gestures contribute towards pushing the Chinese into one. And China will likely want a war to distract their population from it's problems, and before their economy completely shatters. After all, the US has shown the value of having wars to distract the population from internal problems.
The point is to recognise the place of the US in Asia's development because they've been there in spades since WW2, and even before. That involvement bears a responsibility for how things stand today. As the world's major superpower, not just economically, but militarily too... they shouldn't be given such a free pass for how things have turned out.
The best possible outcome for the US and China (from my perspective) is a return to a cold-war stance.. and leave off with the countless gestures designed to tweak noses. There was no need for Pelosi's visit. Biden had on three different occasions previously stated to the media that the US would stand by Taiwan.. as have other presidents before him. The presence of US military personnel in Taiwan guarantees their involvement, as any attack on Taiwan would put their lives at risk, and consequently, the US administration would be obliged to support them. And that's without dealing with the business interests and American citizens living in Taiwan, and the US response to an attack on them. Pelosi's visit was another tweak of the CCP's nose, intended to get a reaction... and they have. The Chinese look stupid and aggressive once again.. but what's the value in showing that? Was anyone unaware that the CCP were aggressive towards their interests in Asia? Nope.
We're not Americans. We should be able to acknowledge the responsibility of the US for what has, and is happening in Asia.. we don't need to buy into all the propaganda that Americans are exposed to. Or that the Chinese are exposed to. We can look at the situation and recognise where/how both parties have managed to set themselves up for a future war... with the rest of Asia in the middle.
2 -
Lithuania to send delegation to Taiwan for a 5 day visit from Sunday.
"if you get on the wrong train, get off at the nearest station, the longer it takes you to get off, the more expensive the return trip will be."
0 -
Advertisement
-
Chinese orienteers operating in Taiwan pretending to be locals will fool no one. Just saying that.
Dan.
0 -
The childish Chinese have huffed and puffed and all they've managed to do was blow up a few fish with their military in response to Pelosi's visit. A pathetic nation.
0 -
A nation that has changed from a predominately agrarian society to a highly industrialised one, with one of the strongest economies in Asia, all within 40 years is pathetic? A nation that has taken a huge population that was intentionally kept uneducated and superstitious by past governments, and in the space of a few decades, introduced secondary and university education for most of them?
The nation of China isn't pathetic. The leadership is. There's a difference. It's no different than the US under Trump. All nations have their periods of ups and downs.
1 -
.
Yeah on this rare occasion I have to agree with the previous poster.
China is be no means pathetic and you have no idea how this event is being spin in the Chinese media.
The Chinese government will most likely talk it up as depite America trying to push its colonial interests in Taiwan China displayed its military might to show them they will not be pushed around.
Nothing pathetic from China both sides are playing a PR battle to their home crowds and the reality of the situation really doesn't matter much.
0 -
Maybe China should stop genociding its own people before it thinks about invading the country of Taiwan.
0 -
Why? What difference does stopping or continuing their policies have in relation to Taiwan?
Anyway they're attempting genocide on those who are not their own people. The Mongols, the Uighurs, Tibetans, Korean immigrants etc are not Chinese. They're distinctly different cultural groups.
Don't get me wrong. What they're doing is awful and shouldn't be happening, but.. how does it connect with your statement and the thread?
0 -
Is Chinas treatment of its own ethnic minorities somehow affecting its capability to conduct war in Taiwan.
Not sure why you think they are mutually exclusive.
0 -
It's too late to "reduce" tension. The policies of the last decades have ensured that both major powers are direct opponents of each other. The US has never really sought to normalise relations with China, with the rhetoric in American media (by politicians and others) being openly aggressive, along with the condemnation of their influence in Asia.. And... China has been exactly the same, with the same attitudes within their own media, and government announcements. The US has continued to this day, to sail their military forces close to China's mainland territory, tweaking the noses of China, knowing full well the kind of reactions that it would receive.. because if China was to do anything similar to the American mainland, I doubt we'd be hearing cries for patience and tolerance.
It's too late to change the relationship between the US and China. That was set in stone when the US sought to contain Communism, and has been reinforced for the decades thereafter. It's been reinforced with Korea, and Vietnam. It's been reinforced with the establishment of military bases around China's borders, and the placement of military forces to counter Chinese expansionism... all the while, the one example of a foreign power attempting the same to the US, was met with the very real risk of nuclear war.
That is the situation in Asia. Nothing is going to "reduce tension" because that tension is always there, and it's going to be the chosen battleground because anything that might touch the US mainland would result in Nuclear war. Now, whether it's sensible to encourage those tensions to expand, or not.. that's another question.
I would dispute the history somewhat. It's leaving out some more recent events. Yes they have never trusted the CCP fully, but the US did spend the post Cold war period up to leadership of Xi Jinping removing the barriers to economic and societal interaction with China and generally cosying up to it. If China offered any encouragement to improve relations (which they often did, they badly wanted access to US & Western know how and technology to develop) it was accepted. That process began with US effort to unfreeze relations with China somewhat during the 60s so as to split it from Soviet Union and weaken the US's main enemy. I'm sure you'll just dismiss all of it as hypocrisy and greed again given US (or the US companies and wealthy interests) got massive benefits out of the process at least at the start, but the 90s-10s period in particular did IMO improve US-China relations.
As regards the US influence and military presence in Asia threatening China, after the Cold war ended they became the sole remaining superpower. A country is not going to to secure a dominant position like that, claim victory, step back and leave others to it. There was no one left any more to strongly contest their influence anywhere on Earth (incl. in Asia - right up to China's own borders), or the expression of it or expansion of it for good or ill. It is a different world now of course but the existing fact of US military presence in Asia and alliances and relationships between the US and China's "tributaries" (as they see it) or "sphere of influence" developed and grown when China was weaker than today, is something they will just have to live with (and manage peacefully) unless they really wish to wage war over it to push it out.
As regards China expanding its' own influence close to the US, I believe that process is well under way. Eventually they will have some naval (or "dual use" civilian) bases in S. America/Central America, their carrier fleets sailing in international waters, which the US can't object to, will be probably regular visitors to their friends in the region. I'd give it another decade on current progress and they will be same as the US, strings of bases and safe harbours all over Earth incl. the Americas and between 10-20 large fleets of warships each with a "supercarrier" based airforce (bigger than most nation states total air power on its own) ready to scare and bully any weaker nation or pummel it to dust when someone has really annoyed them by not kowtowing to leader correctly or whatever. Unless China's power collapses the US cannot stop that process, and contrary to what you believe, I don't think they will be willing to go to war with China to prevent this (edit: I admit it may depend on how near any new Chinese base is to the US, what they have there + how much they feel it might change the balance of threat in a nuclear war - e.g. if China tries to place missiles + launch infrastructure very close, similar to Cuban crisis). Much more likely to be some events in Asia, a Chinese action, over Taiwan or elsewhere, and a US response, that spark some US-China war.
There is a certain desire to... skip over the contributions of the US to the situation (both the history and the present), instead focusing entirely on China...
We're not Americans. We should be able to acknowledge the responsibility of the US for what has, and is happening in Asia.. we don't need to buy into all the propaganda that Americans are exposed to. Or that the Chinese are exposed to. We can look at the situation and recognise where/how both parties have managed to set themselves up for a future war... with the rest of Asia in the middle.
Look, despite the lengthy bit above arguing you are leaving out some recent history + my other responses I agree with alot of your post(s) on the thread. My short posts here were challenging what some others wrote specifically about this visit (Pelosi the "warmonger" narrative) and the Chinese (over)reaction to it.
On this website/forum there is definitely not some desire to skip over the evils or mistakes of the US (!) since, in case you had not noticed, it is like the Island of Dr Moreau, crawling with weird accounts propagating their various outré political beliefs, maybe even some genuine Russian bots looking at posting patterns, odd people who gush and get all excited over a dream of Chinese "wunderwaffen" being deployed to level Taiwan + sink the US carrier fleets etc. I see no need for me to start listing out all evils and hypocrisies of US foreign policy etc. to be fair and maintain some balance that doesn't exist.
edit:
The presence of US military personnel in Taiwan guarantees their involvement, as any attack on Taiwan would put their lives at risk, and consequently, the US administration would be obliged to support them. And that's without dealing with the business interests and American citizens living in Taiwan, and the US response to an attack on them.
Yes, there is huge economic interests but I don't think there's US soldiers or bases present in Taiwan (afaik?). They occasionally sail their warships through the strait, which angers China, and they sell weapons to Taiwan but there is no US base. Something like that being created today (given proximity of Taiwan to China) probably would spark a huge Cuban Missile type crisis between US and China with US in the Soviet role.
Post edited by fly_agaric on0 -
I'm sure you'll just dismiss all of it as hypocrisy and greed again given US (or the US companies and wealthy interests) got massive benefits out of the process at least at the start, but the 90s-10s period in particular did IMO improve US-China relations.
Why the need to dismiss it as greed and the result of capitalist policies? There's no need for a dismissal of any of that. The US has always protected their interests, especially when it impacts on their economic concerns. China was the largest consumer market in the world for a long time.. and the US needed that market for the sale of their own products, just as much as they wanted the labour resources for manufacturing of low quality products to make up the shortfalls within their own industrial base. American manufacturing had been suffering for decades.
I haven't dismissed anything as being hypocritical, except for the willingness to avoid acknowledging the factors involved. The state of both the US and China in terms of economics, and their diplomatic efforts are relevant for any understanding of the current situation in Asia. It affects where countries like Japan and S.Korea stand due to how they, themselves, modernised and shifted from low quality products to high cost/quality.. and the markets they accessed.. and where US influence affected protectionism, tariffs, etc. It's all relevant.
And as I said earlier, the US has diplomatically been warm to China at times, but has always retained their military position. They've always kept those bases occupied, flown in their nuclear capable bombers stationed within reach of the Chinese mainland, or sailed their task forces near the mainland.. both aspects working at the same time. The face of being reasonable diplomatically, while also showing the stick of the most powerful military in the world.
It is a different world now of course but the existing fact of US military presence in Asia and alliances and relationships between the US and China's "tributaries" (as they see it) or "sphere of influence" developed and grown when China was weaker than today, is something they will just have to live with (and manage peacefully) unless they really wish to wage war over it to push it out.
Exactly. I've no opposition to any of that second paragraph.. in fact it supports my point regarding US shared responsibility for how Asia has turned out, along with the tensions that remain to this day.
As regards China expanding its' own influence close to the US, I believe that process is well under way. Eventually they will have some naval (or "dual use" civilian) bases in S. America/Central America, their carrier fleets sailing in international waters, which the US can't object to, will be probably regular visitors to their friends in the region.
Not going to happen. The addition of the the Olney Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine guarantees the response of the US towards any foreign power establishing themselves militarily within their sphere of influence, and represents a threat to American interests.
There is a reason that the US doesn't sign up to many of the international agreements that they pushed for others to sign, or have caveats involved for themselves. The US has a long history of ignoring international law when it disagrees with their own position.
Much more likely to be some events in Asia (a Chinese action, over Taiwan or elsewhere, and a US response) that spark some US-China war.
And back to the tweaking of noses, because then, the US can be seen not as the aggressor, but as the one defending another against Chinese aggression. Push, prod, and eventually, China will react. Oh, I'm confident that China will instigate a conflict all by themselves with their neighbours, but the US has sought to increase their own influence (and presence) within all those neighbours providing them with the excuse to join any such conflict. It's a set up.
I see no need for me to start listing out all evils and hypocrisies of US foreign policy etc. to be fair and maintain some balance that doesn't exist.
Great paragraph btw. Had me smiling.
Nor do I see the need to list all the evils and hypocrisies of US foreign policy.. we'd be here for ages with that kind of detail. As for the maintaining of a balance, you're right, there is no balance, so I'm not seeking to maintain one.
I'd like to have a mature/adult conversation on the topic (which I'm having with you), as opposed to the gibberish so present throughout the thread. I'm not expecting to change any "hearts and minds" with my posting. I post to boards because I enjoy such conversations.. not to try convert people who don't truly care about what's happening anyway.
2 -
@[Deleted User] Just responding to a few specific bits of that:
Why the need to dismiss it as greed and the result of capitalist policies? There's no need for a dismissal of any of that.
Sorry, I meant that you'd treat it cynically (which you kind of did), see it as a quid pro quo on both sides, and that it was entirely about greed and economic benefits for the US side. In other words there was no hope on the US side for a non-zero sum exchange, that maybe China would change as a result of the interaction, become more democratic (likely resulting in much improved US-China relations), that was just sugar coating or fluff perhaps? I think you would be wrong about that, I think the likes of Clinton who pushed those policies did believe the process would drive political change in China/CCP more than it did.
And as I said earlier, the US has diplomatically been warm to China at times, but has always retained their military position. They've always kept those bases occupied, flown in their nuclear capable bombers stationed within reach of the Chinese mainland, or sailed their task forces near the mainland.. both aspects working at the same time. The face of being reasonable diplomatically, while also showing the stick of the most powerful military in the world.
Can't deny that. Sensible that they held onto it in Asia, as it turned out. I find it difficult now to believe being very trusting + dismantling it as a "peace dividend" during the post Cold war period (as well as growing those economic ties with China) would have affected China/CCP positively or increased stability/chances for peace in Asia.
Not going to happen. The addition of the the Olney Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine guarantees the response of the US towards any foreign power establishing themselves militarily within their sphere of influence, and represents a threat to American interests.
There is a reason that the US doesn't sign up to many of the international agreements that they pushed for others to sign, or have caveats involved for themselves. The US has a long history of ignoring international law when it disagrees with their own position.
I think you are wrong there. That doctrine is from an age ago, and will prove to be outdated and impossible to maintain. Unless it is a situation very like Cuba + involving nuclear weapons, I expect the US will just have to tolerate + grumble about growing activities of the Chinese military in "their" hemisphere. There will be at least some countries open to it; at the moment it is Venezuela I think that is growing relations with China very quickly. The US are probably going to get much more (economically) pushy with their neighbours again over this + force some harder choices on them a bit like the Cold War (you can deal with us and our allies, or else deal with likes of the Chinese - not both of us!) if globalisation is starting to retrench a bit now, but that is not going to war.
The US don't sign up to international agreements that they believe put them at some disadvantage or limit their power to act and they are able to shape the pitch and do this (just as China and Russia can to a lesser extent) but I don't actually recall them pushing others to sign up to agreements when they outright refuse themselves (?)
There can be arguments between branches of US govt., one party has the Presidency and the other the Congress, preventing the US from acting itself on a foreign policy inititaive the Presidency is pushing (this has happened with Climate Change agreements) or else the growing polarisation between their two political parties get manifested outwardly in about-faces in (some) foreign policies after presidential elections, but that is not the same as the kind of deliberate hypocrisy you are suggesting.
edit:
And back to the tweaking of noses, because then, the US can be seen not as the aggressor, but as the one defending another against Chinese aggression. Push, prod, and eventually, China will react. Oh, I'm confident that China will instigate a conflict all by themselves with their neighbours, but the US has sought to increase their own influence (and presence) within all those neighbours providing them with the excuse to join any such conflict. It's a set up.
I don't think the visit was a "set up" anyway. Seems the President and US military were not very keen on this visit happening but I can see all kinds of political reasons why Biden might not have wanted to openly exert pressure to try and stop it. I admit I don't think it was a good time for it, given the state of the world.
This does not change fact that she has the right to go and doesn't need CCP permission, there's nothing unprecedented about it + it has no effect on US policy in reality. The Chinese threats and sabre rattling on the run up were reckless and the exercises and missile firings are an over the top reaction. Dangerous for them also, because they raise up huge expectations that in the end they can't meet without doing something very stupid + perhaps starting a war.
Great paragraph btw. Had me smiling.
Glad it gave someone a laugh!...
I'm not expecting to change any "hearts and minds" with my posting. I post to boards because I enjoy such conversations.. not to try convert people who don't truly care about what's happening anyway.
Probably a good attitude I should take on board too.
Post edited by fly_agaric on1 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry, I meant that you'd treat it cynically (which you kind of did), see it as a quid pro quo on both sides, and that it was entirely about greed and economic benefits for the US side.
Oh, I'm a hardline cynic. I developed into one from my experiences of whenever I returned to Ireland (or visited other Western nations) after living in China. The degree of indoctrination and propaganda that exists in China is staggering, but then I noticed similar levels of conditioning in western countries too. Far more subtle than China, but it's there nonetheless.. and I've gradually become very cynical as a result.
Um, no.. I don't see it entirely as being about greed or economic benefits for the US. Going to extremes on any situation is a mistake. There have been many ideologically or morally driven people in the US who did, and sought what they wanted, because of beliefs in improving the world (from their perspective). I'm confident the US has implemented polices in the hopes of creating a better world... but at the same time, those policies would have benefited the US in some way. It's like Developmental Aid given to African nations, which is great, but involves US owned contractors. Good intentions but involves selfish motivations too. It's not wrong... or bad. It is what it is.
I think you would be wrong about that, I think the likes of Clinton who pushed those policies did believe the process would drive political change in China/CCP more than it did.
Then Clinton didn't understand Chinese culture or people from the mainland. They don't want democracy. They want strong leadership, with those willing to make decisions for them. The continued indoctrination/conditioning that has been ongoing for centuries is important.. it has practical consequences for the mindset of the general population. There are reasons why Asian democratic systems are so different to Western democracy. Just look at how S.Korea is operated.. it's barely a democracy when you factor in the extent of control that both the government and corporations have over the people.
TBH I suspect Clinton was simply repeating the traditional views on American democracy. We'll give you democracy whether you want it or not.. and you'll like it.
Now, social change is different. That will happen through the exchange of Chinese university students, the sharing of business and subsequent employment, etc that causes western culture/beliefs to spread within China, and affect the beliefs of Chinese people... and it was happening. Even among the uneducated or the poor, western culture was being introduced, giving Chinese people the chance to see something different from everything they'd known before. It was working.. which is why the CCP has put so much emphasis on relearning traditional values, and such. Such social change was a good thing, and should have been encouraged, even if there were costs to doing business with China. After all, internal change is the only way that China will ever shift away from the CCP.
Can't deny that. Sensible that they held onto it in Asia, as it turned out. I find it difficult now to believe being very trusting + dismantling it as a "peace dividend" during the post Cold war period (as well as growing those economic ties with China) would have affected China/CCP positively or increased stability/chances for peace in Asia.
Nations, especially major powers, are never "trusting". There's always layers of agreements and requirements to be met before anything if finished. Anyway, China's history with the WTO (as is the American history with them) is a clear indication that these major powers will make and break agreements depending on their current situation, and their own particular needs, rather than a desire to help others.
I think you are wrong there. That doctrine is from an age ago, and will prove to be outdated and impossible to maintain. Unless it is a situation very like Cuba + involving nuclear weapons, I expect the US will just have to tolerate + grumble about growing activities of the Chinese military in "their" hemisphere.
Nuclear weapons go hand-in-hand with any major naval or military establishment. The US know this, as they've done it themselves in the past. Any establishment of a pro-Chinese government with the setting up of military installations would be a direct threat to the US mainland, subsequently affecting many of their existing safeguards.
"In Asia, the US had roughly 2,000 land-based nuclear weapons in South Korea, Japan, Okinawa and Taiwan where some 200 nuclear weapons were positioned. In addition, the US Navy had another 3,000 nuclear weapons of different types on aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates and attack submarines."
Now, the US has likely reduced many of those stationed in Asia, but they could easily return them at need. The point being when it comes to the major nuclear powers, any military installation especially those designed to service the navy or heavy air wings, would be able to house nuclear weapons. That's why the Monroe Doctrine is still relevant. Anyway, you really think anyone is going to test the US after Cuba?
The US don't sign up to international agreements that they believe put them at some disadvantage or limit their power to act and they are able to shape the pitch and do this (just as China and Russia can to a lesser extent) but I don't actually recall them pushing others to sign up to agreements when they outright refuse themselves (?)
Outright refuse? No.. but introduce clauses and stipulations, yes. Think the Geneva convention, considering they were one of the driving forces behind it's implementation, but haven't ratified a lot of it. Took them ages to ratify the Human Rights Covenant, in spite of using it as a stick previously against other countries.. there's plenty of examples to choose from.
I'm not saying that they were wrong to do so, btw. It's not a criticism, per se. It's simply to acknowledge the manner in which these kinds of nations operate, and how that impacts on the world stage.
but that is not the same as the kind of deliberate hypocrisy you are suggesting.
Ahh but you don't need to dig into the administrations or departments to talk about the hypocrisy performed by the US. That's just an excuse. The administration wasn't, possibly, maybe, aware of the CIA's plans involving the Bay of Pigs.. maybe. These are the games that the US plays,.. compartmentalisation of information to allow one group to act out plans, while the other is held to be innocent. Games.
Glad it gave someone a laugh!...
I wasn't being critical there... it was a great piece of writing that made me smile. I liked the way you phrased it.
Probably a good attitude I should take on board too.
I only learned to do it this year... there's so much trolling, insulting or snide posters around these days, so you gotta relax and not really care too much. Still, it's nice when you can have a discussion the way the site/politics forum used to be like. Without all the BS that is so common these days on boards.
So.. thanks. I appreciate the discussion as it is.
2 -
@[Deleted User] Once again just responding to a few bits of that I find debatable...
Oh, I'm a hardline cynic. I developed into one from my experiences of whenever I returned to Ireland (or visited other Western nations) after living in China. The degree of indoctrination and propaganda that exists in China is staggering, but then I noticed similar levels of conditioning in western countries too. Far more subtle than China, but it's there nonetheless.. and I've gradually become very cynical as a result.
Well everybody has their cultural conditioning and biases, nothing shocking about that. While I have one hand tied behind my back in this discussion because you have lived there, I think that comparison is very unfair. Here the state/authorities will generally leave you alone once you don't break the law, there are always multiple viewpoints & multiple sources of information. It's a strength I suppose, but also a weakness that is being turned against us now (by both China and Russia, as the internet gives them such easy access). There (as far as I understand), you have the approved source of truth, the state works very hard to lock out and also to demonise non-CCP approved views as unpatriotic & unchinese and there is a constant effort to promote this patriotism/nationalism intertwined with trusting the CCP to always know best. You're going to have to do much more thought and self-reflection to get over the barrier mentally (harder and more important than finding alternative information using VPNs or whatever and getting outside the "firewall" from inside China). Stray too far from the program and manifest this in making public criticisms of the party/leaders and their decisions, and you could risk the state coming down on the head of you and your family like a ton of bricks + crushing you. That's got to be...discouraging...of ever thinking about things, questioning what you have been told too much.
Then Clinton didn't understand Chinese culture or people from the mainland. They don't want democracy. They want strong leadership, with those willing to make decisions for them. The continued indoctrination/conditioning that has been ongoing for centuries is important.. it has practical consequences for the mindset of the general population. There are reasons why Asian democratic systems are so different to Western democracy. Just look at how S.Korea is operated.. it's barely a democracy when you factor in the extent of control that both the government and corporations have over the people.
These other Asian countries (that are democratic) are not organised in same way as we would like but they are not China. Would people living in them like being dumped into a China system with their own version of the CCP apparatus and a strong leader-for-life like Xi tomorrow? I doubt it. They are democracies, even if they are very different culturally/socially to this country.
Given that there are such Asian democracies, I am unsure if it is all about a Chinese cultural disregard for democracy/freedom vs "good"/stable strong leadership that Clinton and co. did not appreciate when they were pushing the failed policies of increasing engagement with China. I think they badly underestimated the ability of CCP to keep a very tight rein on the society and also keep the Chinese economy growing, people happy + getting richer, and the country developing too. They though the country would have to become freer to keep getting richer, that the CCP would lose some control over the wealthier/better educated middle classes who would demand more freedom + push internal change to be more like the West, but this did not come to pass. Maybe an error of too much linkage of capitalism, markets and development of a country with democracy and individual freedoms, a belief that they must go together rather than fact capitalism and markets + prosperity is compatible with many kinds of political system incl. a very brutal autocracy/dictatorship.
Now, social change is different. That will happen through the exchange of Chinese university students, the sharing of business and subsequent employment, etc that causes western culture/beliefs to spread within China, and affect the beliefs of Chinese people... and it was happening. Even among the uneducated or the poor, western culture was being introduced, giving Chinese people the chance to see something different from everything they'd known before. It was working.. which is why the CCP has put so much emphasis on relearning traditional values, and such. Such social change was a good thing, and should have been encouraged, even if there were costs to doing business with China. After all, internal change is the only way that China will ever shift away from the CCP.
Unfortunately, it was a nice idea but that doesn't seem to have worked as well as was hoped + the costs of such openness to China have also gotten high (imo). It's not just stuff like spying and IP theft etc. I think the CCP (+ Russian regime) and their trolls and influencers are having a bit more success driving some "social change" here in the West by spreading and fostering internal corruption or using the internet to hammer wedges into the fissures they can find. An awful lot come here just for what they can take from the West and its systems (a nice holiday, an education, investments etc.) - that is human nature, but they still hate us very deeply and want to ruin our societies and see us fail - that belief system is not going to be shaken by some short period of time spent here. Their behaviour is deeply parasitic basically, they provide no benefit or are a net negative. I would give alot fewer travel/study visas out to them and send some of them living here now back home, if I had that power but doesn't seem to be a popular pov.
Nations, especially major powers, are never "trusting".
I think you know what I meant. You've argued previously that die is cast in Asia, there will be war thanks to both US and China. You blame the US at least equally with China or maybe more than China for that, so perhaps some different US actions in the past could I assume have improved the situation in Asia (with a focus on the military infrastructure they have there which threatens China and was always maintained despite end of Cold War and improvment in relations) So logically another course of action would have been to have approached the Chinese, and their allies (Taiwan, Japan, S. Korea etc.) and openly said they'd like to draw down some or all of what was in Asia post Cold war and withdraw. That process is what would have required alot of trust in the CCPs bone-fides, taking it on faith (i.e. trust) they did not believe any more that political power grows from the barrel of a gun (!) and would not see the US effort at conciliation as fatal weakness.
Nuclear weapons go hand-in-hand with any major naval or military establishment. The US know this, as they've done it themselves in the past. Any establishment of a pro-Chinese government with the setting up of military installations would be a direct threat to the US mainland, subsequently affecting many of their existing safeguards...
Anyway, you really think anyone is going to test the US after Cuba?
I know this process is a threat to the US, and I know the US is going to hate it and be angry. I just can't see how they can prevent it happening forever, same as China can't end the US's existing relations with its neighbours in Asia by sabre rattling & threats of force. The US does not have the level of power/control over the world (or the Americas) it had during the Cold War let alone in the period just after the Cold War ended.
Anyway I am certain China will test this once they can get the right friend/client who is okay with taking on the risks of "tweaking the nose" (!) of the US severely in this way in exchange for whatever benefits China can give. I suppose they'd have to be large benefits given the risk, but then China has a lot of money and power now to provide these benefits.
The first stage would be political agreements and "dual use" infrastructure in such friendly countries that the Chinese visit rather than base at permanently. China are already constructing and operating lots of ports around the world. Such infrastructure with right political agreements and preparation could be put to use very quickly by the Chinese military during a crisis/at need.
On permanent nukes + missiles it is very hard to hide things these days (even in the 60s, the Soviets could not cloak their actions in Cuba + what they were trying to do there). The US will know exactly what China is up to. If/When China has a friendly port somewhere in the Americas and the US spots it trying to bring in an arsenal of nuclear weapons that can strike the US cities from there, there will be much more serious trouble over that I expect than the development/growth of Chinese military links + "friendly" ports/bases, just like with Cuba.
So.. thanks. I appreciate the discussion as it is.
You're welcome.
Post edited by fly_agaric on1 -
Well everybody has their cultural conditioning and biases, nothing shocking about that. While I have one hand tied behind my back in this discussion because you have lived there, I think that comparison is very unfair.
It's not unfair. Our media sources are biased, and pursue agendas.. often mirroring the projections by our governments. Take RTE for example, on many topics, they're completely supportive of the governments stance, and don't examine many topics, except to promote the positives. Immigration is one of the big ones. The few times politicians have questioned the status quo, even slightly, they've been demonised. It's the same with the labelling of any opposition as far right.. even when we have no real history of a far right in this nation, comparable to countries like Germany or the UK. That's propaganda.. and indoctrination. Which is reinforced by State sponsored advertising either direct or through the thousands of NGOs. Layers upon layers of reinforced exposure to a limited set of viewpoints, and little tolerance for alternative viewpoints.
The processes are different but the end results are quite similar.
Oh.. and I've never suggested that my personal knowledge of China, in any way, makes my opinion trump yours. It doesn't. We're not talking about localised culture... we're talking about aspects that are open to everyone, and we've access to the same resources.
These other Asian countries (that are democratic) are not organised in same way as we would like but they are not China. Would people living in them like being dumped into a China system with their own version of the CCP apparatus and a strong leader-for-life like Xi tomorrow? I doubt it. They are democracies, even if they are very different culturally/socially to this country.
I didn't say that these other Asian countries were the same as China. They're not. However, there is a general trend in Asian countries regarding the type of leadership they want.. which is why virtually all Asian democracies are far more autocratic than ours are supposed to be. Korea is not China. Japan is not Korea. They all have different cultures... similar to each other in certain ways, but not the same. History and culture are very important.
The point though is that Chinese people mostly want a strong government and you don't get that with democracies.. especially over extended periods. The quality of leadership tends to decline.
They though the country would have to become freer to keep getting richer, that the CCP would lose some control over the wealthier/better educated middle classes who would demand more freedom + push internal change to be more like the West, but this did not come to pass.
Probably because they didn't consider how the CCP operates in Chinese society. For the most part, they're hands-off. Except when someone crosses them. Laws are rarely properly enforced, and you can usually bribe your way out of trouble. Familial connections, and influence count for a lot on a local level. So, there's not really much scope to create conflict or unrest.. at least not without the CCP fcking things up, which they have. You can always rely on the CCP to shoot themselves in the foot. That's what America should have relied on.
In any case, China is screwed economically and socially now. They're heading fast back towards 3rd world status, considering all the corruption and fck ups that have happened over the last year or so.
You blame the US at least equally with China or maybe more than China for that, so perhaps some different US actions in the past could I assume have improved the situation in Asia (with a focus on the military infrastructure they have there which threatens China and was always maintained despite end of Cold War and improvment in relations)
Equal responsibility really. It's two adults in a relationship. I'm not going to pick it apart using hindsight. I'm aware of the policies of both nations, and how that affected the development of their relationship, along with how they both interacted with the rest of Asia. They were always going to be opponents at some point.. that's a given. Chinese and American culture demand it as major powers.
To cap it off, all America has to do is wait. China is going to implode pretty soon.. and while they might re-emerge again as a powerful country, it's going to take decades for it to happen.
1 -
It's not unfair. Our media sources are biased, and pursue agendas.. often mirroring the projections by our governments. Take RTE for example, on many topics, they're completely supportive of the governments stance, and don't examine many topics, except to promote the positives. Immigration is one of the big ones. The few times politicians have questioned the status quo, even slightly, they've been demonised. It's the same with the labelling of any opposition as far right.. even when we have no real history of a far right in this nation, comparable to countries like Germany or the UK. That's propaganda.. and indoctrination. Which is reinforced by State sponsored advertising either direct or through the thousands of NGOs. Layers upon layers of reinforced exposure to a limited set of viewpoints, and little tolerance for alternative viewpoints.
The processes are different but the end results are quite similar.
I can't deny there is orthodoxy that comes through in the state media here (esp. when reporting on domestic stuff) - am sure it is the same everywhere. They will also be loath (in any country) to attack the govt. too hard since it can make life painful for them, particularly if they go for the jugular on an issue, and make some mistake in their reporting. I can't see how that is avoidable tbh and I'd still far, far rather have the reasonably independent state media funded by a licence fee, than not have any state media at all.
I honestly have not noticed RTÉ banging on about the "far right" or labelling large groups of people as such, or pushing that demonisation of the handful of politcians that have poked their head up + gone against the status quo / govt. positions about immigration in the way you claim it does. I listen to the radio more than the TV and I'd read their website daily for both Irish and international news. There's enough others about the place in society (like our NGOs etc) to hound them - it has just not been a popular position I judge, not a vote winner. As you said, we don't really have far right politics here, at least not at a level where it has representation anywhere. There was a small bit more coverage of it on RTÉ during Covid-19 pandemic as the tiny element we have were making more noise, involved in protests in opposition to Covid restrictions/vaccinations etc.
I think perhaps you care about those issues and have opposite views to the status quo on them, so are alert to the orthodox/state view (i.e. immigration is beneficial to Ireland and the Irish - the more the merrier) and sensitive to when it is being promoted or just not being challenged. That still doesn't make what we get off our state media "propaganda", and just some mirror equivalent of what Chinese state media will put out.
Other than that, I think maybe we've beaten this to death & we're probably just going to have to disagree.
Oh.. and I've never suggested that my personal knowledge of China, in any way, makes my opinion trump yours. It doesn't. We're not talking about localised culture... we're talking about aspects that are open to everyone, and we've access to the same resources.
Yeah I know you never made an issue of it thanks, but one should be wary of disagreeing with someone who has first hand knowledge of the country.
Equal responsibility really. It's two adults in a relationship. I'm not going to pick it apart using hindsight. I'm aware of the policies of both nations, and how that affected the development of their relationship, along with how they both interacted with the rest of Asia. They were always going to be opponents at some point.. that's a given. Chinese and American culture demand it as major powers.
To cap it off, all America has to do is wait. China is going to implode pretty soon.. and while they might re-emerge again as a powerful country, it's going to take decades for it to happen.
Fair enough. I'm sure China have their problems (the US certainly does too) but I've been reading (Western) analyses of China that various policy mistakes are going to blow up disastrously in the CCPs face for a long time. Seems they've just kept on going, growing the economy, improving their technological/scientific base, increasing the power and capability of the military, even as Xi has become ever more dictatorial + they've hyped up the nationalism to fever pitch and let loose all these "wolf warriors" that seem to be great at provoking rows with other countries. I think even if Xi/CCP leaders are making some bad decisions, there's huge momentum behind Chinese development now that will keep the juggernaut going in spite of that + we have not seen the zenith of Chinese/CCP power in the world yet, so there's likely a rocky road ahead, as they butt heads with the US.
Post edited by fly_agaric on1 -
China throwing their toys out of the pram again 🤣 You'd think they would have embarrassed themselves enough a couple of weeks ago after Pelosi's trip
The fish in that area are shaking in their boots 😀
1 -
What is everyones problem on here regarding China or Russia or even the IRA. I post every so often in CA/IMHO but stay away for weeks at a time of the time as I have completely different views than the majority on here.
I don't see the same hate towards UK, America or even Israel.
0 -
dont worry, I’ve seen plenty of anti American sentiment on the site. It was especially prolific during the Bush era and the war surge, over the use of Shannon.
there’s a thread right now on page 1 or 2 criticizing Israel
and I have it on good authority people cannot shut up about the UK or Brexit but I have enough spoons without that.
Russia is invading Ukraine and kidnapping Ukrainian citizens
China is operating Muslim concentration camps and committing genocide, and as it regards this thread, threatened the start of the 3rd world war over an old lady visiting an island and they insist dominion over for the sake of a chat
but sure: let’s whatabout to the UK and its Muslim concentration camps or its expeditionary war to annex Dundalk and Monoghan …
3 -
India doing its own mutterings about China in the Taiwan Strait.
0 -
They knew for a few weeks if not months that, China's spy ship was coming to near their country.
0 -
Advertisement
-
China aren't going to war with the US any time soon. They can't afford it.
They've enough to do to keep their own house in order with the mother of all property crashes that is happening in China.
2