China's Blueprint For Global Power

[PE Scott + 563]

9 hours ago, Marcin said:

Most Americans did not understand China threat before Trump. In 2001 it was time to contain China

My man, I actually agree with you on this completely. 

However, most american people don't dislike chinese people just like most chinese people don't worry about american people. We're more concerned about each others political leaders, their motives, and trade interest. 

 

 

[Marcin + 519]

1 hour ago, PE Scott said:

My man, I actually agree with you on this completely. 

However, most american people don't dislike chinese people just like most chinese people don't worry about american people. We're more concerned about each others political leaders, their motives, and trade interest. 

 

 

Very good point.

Both Chinese (1 party state, authoritarian and no elections) and Americans (only 2 parties allowed, cannot make real choice, both parties anti Chinese) do not have much control over decisions of domestic politicians concerning the other country. Recipe for some kind of disaster.

 

[frankfurter + 562]

The image below is a partial list of USA military bases, each with 'tactical' nuclear weapons.  And you say China is a 'threat' ?  Please explain. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Marcin said:

only 2 parties allowed, cannot make real choice, both parties anti Chinese

I think we need to be careful when stating ''anti Chinese''. As Scott just said, this is about government and Chinese politics, not their people as this kinda suggests. I'm sure you don't mean that either. Just sayin'

[Otis11 + 551]

16 hours ago, remake it said:

Apart from China having a credible ethnic basis for its territory - unlike the USA - China has previous dynastic territorial extents which are actually beyond its current boundaries.

10 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Anyway... Chinese territory currently covers 55 different ethnicities. Please don't try and lump all asians together. That's like saying Ethiopia has a cultural basis to take over all of Africa.

And under what dynasty? 

8 hours ago, remake it said:

You did that, as the point made related to the extent that previous dynasties had a greater footprint than China today: a claim you regarded as "bogus."

Where did I claim anything of the sort? Nowhere did I mention ethnicity for anything - much less try to group 55 SUBSTANTIALLY different ethnicities into the same category and use it as justification to invade foreign lands.

Quote

Other than these two dynasties, (each spanning about 120 years - so 240 years total) - China has been less than 1/3rd it's current size for >2700 of the 3000 years of it's history. 

It's claims to 'historical' lands are completely bogus.

To repeat myself, see above. China claiming rights to this land is like Italy claiming they have rights to re-conquer all of the Roman Empire:

But it goes further than that - because Italy would only be 'retaking' the land they had under a single empire. China is trying to take any land they had under multiple different empires.

China has never controlled all the land they currently have at any single point in history. If they want to use the historical appeal to take over new land, then they open themselves up to others using the historical appeal to reclaim land that is currently China.

 

7 hours ago, Marcin said:

Very good point.

Both Chinese (1 party state, authoritarian and no elections) and Americans (only 2 parties allowed, cannot make real choice, both parties anti Chinese) do not have much control over decisions of domestic politicians concerning the other country. Recipe for some kind of disaster.

 

First - there is no restriction on the number of parties in the US. If I'm counting right, there's actually 42 parties...https://uselections.com/parties.htm

Unfortunately because of how our voting system works, only  2 parties are (and maybe a 3rd) seriously viable for major offices, but smaller parties have gotten people elected for smaller offices:

1. Libertarian Party
2. Green Party
3. Constitution Party

Typically, on the larger state when a 3rd party candidate has more backing, they jump into the primary of the major party to make a more viable run. 

Because of this, we can make a real choice, the Two parties are significantly different, but more than that, we can chose who is nominated in the Primary process. The Primary is really where individuals get to make their voices heard.

On the specific topic you're referencing - relations with the Chinese government - I'd actually argue that both parties are historically pro-China (or at least significantly indifferent). Trump is the outlier here - and he has managed to stir up some level of minor support among both parties (although the Democrats are actively trying to undermine him at every turn. I'm not sure they care about China as much as they could go either way - as long as it either benefits them or is bad for Trump.)

 

Also, just to state this in plain writing - I have no problem with the Chinese people - I actually have quite a bit of respect for them and their history, and have a bunch of great friends who are Chinese (Many from China, and many born in the US as first generation, but maintain significant ties to the mainland. I also have a bunch of Taiwanese friends - but they don't consider themselves Chinese).

Edited October 18, 2019 by Otis11

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

I also have a bunch of Taiwanese friends - but they don't consider themselves Chinese

I'm sure Pooh would be fine with that.

Oh wait ...

[Marcin + 519]

@Otis11 The core of the issue is that none other party can have parliamentary representation and it is failed democracy by definition. And US citizens are doomed with this situation for 160 years and will be doomed for at least next 50.

Parties are backed by people to realize people agenda, toothless parties with no parlamentary representation are just toothless.

[PE Scott + 563]

7 hours ago, frankfurter said:

The image below is a partial list of USA military bases, each with 'tactical' nuclear weapons.  And you say China is a 'threat' ?  Please explain. 

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't imagine anyone is concerned that China and the USA are going to start a military type war. Using any of those nukes outside of a purely defensive stance would be political suicide if not literal suicide for any U.S. politician/party. 

The "threat" from china is that they're crafty with economics and their world influence is growing. They own tons of resources around the world and have plenty of investment capital for influence. The list goes on, but it has nothing to do with physical conflict right now.

That being said, China is building their first domestically produced aircraft carrier. In terms of aggressive potential, being able to park a battle group off the coast is a big deal to the people that pay attention to those things. At some point I think it's likely China will take a more aggressive stance on absorbing territories around the South China Sea, etc. Even then, I find it highly unlikely we ever go to war. Both side have far to much to lose.

Edited October 18, 2019 by PE Scott

[Guest]

7 hours ago, frankfurter said:

The image below is a partial list of USA military bases, each with 'tactical' nuclear weapons.  And you say China is a 'threat' ?  Please explain. 

Fake. One source. Photoshopped. Propaganda. 

Annoying isn't it? But any link or photo or anything you post must be instantly believed. Zzz. 

[Otis11 + 551]

1 minute ago, Marcin said:

@Otis11 The core of the issue is that none other party can have parliamentary representation and it is failed democracy by definition. And US citizens are doomed with this situation for 160 years and will be doomed for at least next 50.

Parties are backed by people to realize people agenda, toothless parties with no parlamentary representation are just toothless.

I more or less get your point - though I believe you're stretching some things (disadvantaged, yes, toothless, no)
 

And at least do us the courtesy of calling us a failed Republic!

 

But seriously - Doomed is a bit strong. Yes, I think it causes some problems (ok, many problems), but we've done pretty well for the past 160 years. The reason this is a problem is because the framers never intended for the Federal government to be so active in people's lives (nor so large and powerful). Personally I believe this could be fixed by 2 things -

First, change how we vote. Instead of voting for one person, put all candidates in order of preference. The highest person on you list gets your vote - if they get knocked out, it goes to the next person... and you keep knocking out the lowest vote get-er until someone has 50% of the vote. (This would make 3rd parties much more viable as - right now - people refuse to vote for them as it's seen as 'wasting your vote')

Second, limit the federal government to the tasks they are actually given. Follow the 10th amendment! 

Quote

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Then there's less to gain by having a 'friend' in office, so there would be less motive for lobbying and using the government to further your agenda.

But what do I know...

[Guest]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-06-10/china-s-master-plan-a-global-military-threat

Threat. One of hundreds of no doubt fake articles. Like the article that starts this thread.

I'm sure Ron could show you 5000 articles and 20,000 photos and you'd still say 'thanks for your stories' and ignore it all. Getting rather tedious, especially that you believe anything you post must be unconditionally believed.

#fakenews

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Guest

[Otis11 + 551]

22 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Fake. One source. Photoshopped. Propaganda. 

Annoying isn't it? But any link or photo or anything you post must be instantly believed. Zzz. 

He didn't even cite the map including our submarine fleet...

Notice the path from Alaska and Sand Diego for resupplies. There is a similar path to Guam, however it can be hard to make out in the crowd.

(Clearly not photo-shopped. This is from the Higher-Than-Top-Secret slide deck used to brief the president himself.)

Edited October 18, 2019 by Otis11

[Guest]

hahahahahahahhahaahahahhahaha fantastic

yep they are there to protect all those surrounding countries and areas in the SC Sea no doubt?  🤣

they're not a threat though  🙄  that's why HK clearly embrace their ways

jeez

Edited October 18, 2019 by Guest

[Otis11 + 551]

14 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-06-10/china-s-master-plan-a-global-military-threat

Threat. One of hundreds of no doubt fake articles. Like, er, the article that starts this thread.

Behind a paywall for me... not sure why?

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

not sure why?

Ah the odd one they want you to subscribe maybe, most of the time it's fine.

Luckily it doesn't take long to find 1000s of fake articles though. And let's face it, you evaluated the main article more than even the author did, noted that much was PRO China, and still get abuse!!  Not worth our time buddy.

#droid  #fakenews  #theorwelliantimes

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Guest

[Marcin + 519]

8 hours ago, frankfurter said:

The image below is a partial list of USA military bases, each with 'tactical' nuclear weapons.  And you say China is a 'threat' ?  Please explain. 

 

Existence of China is a threat to United States interests because:

- China is 1.4 billion people and governed by good management cadre, efficient yet ruthless meritocracy,

- China is on stable trajectory to eclipse US as global hegemonic power, nothing bar nuclear war can prevent this to happen,

- US dollar will loose reserve currency status (exorbitant privilege) and US will have more difficulty in access to natural resources,

- without reserve currency US constant fiscal and trade deficits and debt-driven consumption issues will HAVE to be sorted out,

the world will actually sort them out for US by not accepting US dollars, which will loose a lot of value,

- direct consequence will be sudden decrease in level of  consumption for most of Americans.

Man, the game is about trillions of dollars in hegemonic benefits.

[Boat + 1,324]

N Korea has the smallest nuclear arsenal but if exploded over large cities would put enough debre in the air to destroy the world. So China doesn’t scare me any more than any other nuke wielding country including a Trump led US. 
When it comes to conventional warfare I would bet on the US Air Force and missile tech. All those hundreds of billions the world spends on other weapons systems and troops are just fodder and wasted money. To me all this power talk and fear is silly. The world needs to decide between those who can follow a few simple rules or trade dropped between them and the free world. See how they get by then.

[Guest]

la la la la 

Edited October 19, 2019 by Guest

[Marcin + 519]

5 hours ago, DayTrader said:

Fake. One source. Photoshopped. Propaganda. 

Annoying isn't it? But any link or photo or anything you post must be instantly believed. Zzz. 

 

The image below is a partial list of USA military bases, each with 'tactical' nuclear weapons.  And you say China is a 'threat' ?  Please explain. 

Actually the map is true in 90%, before Philippines kicked out US military it was true in 95%.

So errors: 1. Hainan circle 2. Philippines circle. The rest is true.

United States is a warmonger but it is good for China and bad for US&rest of free world, as US has no money for education or infrastructure with 4-5% of GDP spending

[Guest]

🙄🙄🙄🙄 so it's 10% photoshopped? so not factually correct? OK   

[Marcin + 519]

5 hours ago, PE Scott said:

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't imagine anyone is concerned that China and the USA are going to start a military type war. Using any of those nukes outside of a purely defensive stance would be political suicide if not literal suicide for any U.S. politician/party. 

 

Actually the risk of nuclear war is still too high, but since 2010 it is decreasing after new Chinese ICBMs were developed. Before 2005 China effectively did not have second strike capacity after US first strike, because Chinese ICBMs were on liquid fuel, with at leat 1 hour needed to launch. So China could be crippled in 30 minutes together with nuclear silos. But in 2005 China had GDP smaller than UK, no threat to US.

Later China developed also solid fuel ICBMs including mobile road ICBMs plus submarine ICBMs. It increased a lot survivability of China nuclear weapons. But China had very small arsenal. So later also MIRVs were developed. And China has comprehensive nuclear development program.

Usage of nukes against China is totally possible and acceptable to US society and still a viable option for Pentagon hawks. US citizens just need 2-3 years of China threat propaganda in the form of "China will nuke us all tomorrow".

 

[remake it + 288]

6 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Where did I claim anything of the sort? Nowhere did I mention ethnicity for anything - much less try to group 55 SUBSTANTIALLY different ethnicities into the same category and use it as justification to invade foreign lands.

That claim was yours - see your point below for the false equivalence.

6 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Please don't try and lump all asians together. That's like saying Ethiopia has a cultural basis to take over all of Africa.

The ethnic heritage of most people in China can be traced back a thousand years or more, which is not the case for most people in the USA.

[Otis11 + 551]

6 minutes ago, remake it said:

That claim was yours - see your point below for the false equivalence.

The ethnic heritage of most people in China can be traced back a thousand years or more, which is not the case for most people in the USA.

I ask you again - where?!? Where did I claim ethnicity on anything in my argument? 

Your citation is on my response to your claim of a theoretical ethnic basis which you fail to support (why does china have rights to rule over 55 different ethnicities? Because they, at one point had jurisdiction there? For 240 years  - less than 10% - of China's 3000 year history?). 

Further, you broke my response into 2 quotes to look like 2 different posts and then used the second half of my refutation of you - taken out of context - to cite as the original source. It was posted after your post, it can't be the source!

So again, please show where I stated anything of the sort, and please refute any of my previous detailed postings. (You have supplied exactly 0 evidence to date)

[remake it + 288]

4 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Your citation is on my response to your claim of a theoretical ethnic basis which you fail to support (why does china have rights to rule over 55 different ethnicities?

Stop assuming things which are not stated as, again, the point about ethnicity is that most in China can trace it back a thousand years or more, and that China's historical territorial coverage was greater than it's boundaries today - a point you claimed as "bogus."

[Otis11 + 551]

9 minutes ago, remake it said:

Stop assuming things which are not stated as, again, the point about ethnicity is that most in China can trace it back a thousand years or more, and that China's historical territorial coverage was greater than it's boundaries today - a point you claimed as "bogus."

Please explain.

1. What am I assuming that wasn't stated?
2. How can 'most in China' trace back a thousand years or more? I've clearly shown maps (both animated and otherwise) that show China's historic range. Yes, they may have been part of China at one point in their 3000 year history, but they were part of somewhere else in that history too. Why should China get to take them against their will? (and against their 'international right to self determination) Especially when they were part of china less than 10% of China's "3000 year history" (Please explain why Italy shouldn't control their historic range during the Roman Empire)
3. Again, please dispute my points on China's historical coverage. I've made many. I'm willing to hear why I might be wrong on any of them.

And again I'll repeat - I've provided mountains of evidence supporting my claims. You've twisted and misrepresented my posts, yet provided 0 evidence.

Edited October 18, 2019 by Otis11