China's Blueprint For Global Power

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, remake it said:

which is not the case for most people in the USA.

@Tom Kirkman   there it is 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

I've provided mountains of evidence supporting my claims. You've twisted and misrepresented my posts, yet provided 0 evidence.

That's what he does. Constantly. Has he said you're diverting yet?

[remake it + 288]

 

On 10/15/2019 at 5:34 AM, Otis11 said:

Justification for current Chinese expansion into HK, Tibet, Xinjiang, South China Sea, etc - are all that it's 'Historically China' and part of 'One, indisputable and inseparable Chinese Nation'.

Unfortunately, you have to take a very loose interpretation of history and squint awfully hard (or, like most westerners, just be completely ignorant of Asian history) for that to be even slightly true.

The maps you presented earlier showed dynastic coverage going back up to a few thousand years, which clearly showed territorial extents greater than China today at various points in time, including occasionally for hundreds of years, but you believe it is "bogus" that history should be a basis for national boundaries.

[Otis11 + 551]

17 minutes ago, remake it said:

 

The maps you presented earlier showed dynastic coverage going back up to a few thousand years, which clearly showed territorial extents greater than China today at various points in time, including occasionally for hundreds of years, but you believe it is "bogus" that history should be a basis for national boundaries.

It goes back to 1000 years BCE - so over3000 years. (Sorry, I couldn't find a gif that went back further. How far would you like to go back in history?)
If not dynastic, what coverage would you prefer to use?

Where did it show coverage past current day China? Ok, Taiwan, Parts of Russian, Mongolia, and just a hair more territory in a few small SE Asian nations - but never at the same time.

Why can China claim it all of these now at the same point in time when they have never had both Hanoi and Taiwan at the same time? Why do these countries  (which were ruled by China for less than 10% of the last 3000 years) not have their own say in how they want to be governed? It only had Xinjiang during the Qing and Tang Dynasties - Why does China get to claim the Uygur people when they clearly would rather not be claimed?

And yet again - Why can China do this, but Italy can't claim all of the historic Roman Empire?

You've again failed to answer a single question I've posed, and again, have provided 0 evidence.

Edited October 18, 2019 by Otis11

[PE Scott + 563]

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

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".

 

First two paragraphs I believe to be more or less accurate and I agree with. 

The third paragraph, not as much. U.S. citizens aren't a bunch of uneducated cave dwellers smoking reefer and dancing around fires. An overwhelming majority of americans understand nuclear warfare would be the end of the world, at least as we know it. There are no winners in that scenario. I think you misinterpret the willingness for war of most americans. Just look at our own media for examples, there are always a large number of people in the U.S. that speak out against ANY kind of military aggression. 

Is it possible? Sure, anything's possible. Is it probable? I find it highly highly unlikely.

As I said before, American citizens don't hold any animosity towards Chinese citizens. If they disagree with the chinese government it's often because of some virtuous ideas about helping the average chinese people. Americans, as a whole, are a very compassionate and well meaning culture. The narrative is usually to spread democracy to spread FREEDOM. If they suffer from something it's a big ego. Americans believe their ideals reflect the best interest of everyone. 

That being said, as a result of previous wars with oppressive governments, the U.S. are very defensive of their ideals of freedom and thus have endorsed the ample military spending as "The best defense is a good offense." I really don't think the average american citizen ever wants war though. They just don't like to lose either.

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, Otis11 said:

Why can China claim it all of these now at the same point in time when they have never had both Hanoi and Taiwan at the same time? Why do these countries  (which were ruled by China for less than 10% of the last 3000 years) not have their own say in how they want to be governed? It only had Xinjiang during the Qing and Tang Dynasties - Why does China get to claim the Uygur people when they clearly would rather not be claimed?

And yet again - Why can China do this, but Italy can't claim all of the historic Roman Empire?

Most of modern day China was part of the Xing dynasty that ruled from the mid-1700s until the Republic of China was formed from 1912 until its fall to Communist China in 1949, so when you focus on a continuation of its most recent history the territorial claims it makes are far from "bogus."

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

17 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."

What is hilarious is that the Qing(prior 300 years before the Communists) were ruled by the Manchus who are NOT Chinese.  Manchus effectively died out because their population was spent governing China so their home base, Manchuria became depopulated and required immigrants to farm their land.  Han immigrants moved in.  Then there was the Japan Annexation etc so the Manchus effectively vanishing gets ignored while blaming Japan all the while PRETENDING the QING dynasty was actually China as we know it today. 

Last time China RULED itself by HAN people was in the 1600's....  MING dynasty.  Let that settle into everyone's minds...  China has not been a self ruling country for over 300 years until the Communists took over.  It is not a century of humiliation.  It is 3+ centuries of humiliation, but of course the Chinese text books do not bring this little fact up....f

Before the MING, it was ruled by the Mongols(Yuan).  So, for the last 1000 years, the Han people have only ruled themselves for approx~~~ a couple hundred years and before this it was warring states. 

So, in effect, China's entire "claim" to ANYTHING is a complete bogus lie.  This is like France demanding territory of Spain because they one day up and decide to self proclaim themselves the true inheritors of the Roman Empire. 

[remake it + 288]

2 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

What is hilarious is that the Qing(prior 300 years before the Communists) were ruled by the Manchus who are NOT Chinese......

So, in effect, China's entire "claim" to ANYTHING is a complete bogus lie.  This is like France demanding territory of Spain because they one day up and decide to self proclaim themselves the true inheritors of the Roman Empire. 

The sequence of events leading to what is today CHINA is very much a continuation of what transpired from the Qing dynasty which encompassed many ethnicities, whereas Italy's claim to the Roman Empire has been extinguished many times since. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

The sequence of events leading to what is today CHINA is very much a continuation of what transpired from the Qing dynasty which encompassed many ethnicities, whereas Italy's claim to the Roman Empire has been extinguished many times since. 

For shits sake.  Read a history book once in your life.  The MANCHUS were the rulers of the Qing Dynasty.  The Manchus ruled over many ethnicities including the Chinese, Cantonese, Yuba, etc.  No ethnic Chinese person has ruled in China before the Communists/Nationalist civil war for 300+ years. 

Open a damned book. 

[remake it + 288]

27 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

For shits sake.  Read a history book once in your life.  The MANCHUS were the rulers of the Qing Dynasty.  The Manchus ruled over many ethnicities including the Chinese, Cantonese, Yuba, etc.  No ethnic Chinese person has ruled in China before the Communists/Nationalist civil war for 300+ years. 

Open a damned book. 

There is no such thing as ethnic Chinese.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

35 minutes ago, remake it said:

There is no such thing as ethnic Chinese.

Thx for the laugh.  Try that line on anyone from Shanghai or Beijing.

Good luck....

...... Technically, the "Han" are at best 60% Han as the Mongols murdered all the men and raped all the women.......

[remake it + 288]

4 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Thx for the laugh.  Try that line on anyone from Shanghai or Beijing.

Good luck....

...... Technically, the "Han" are at best 60% Han as the Mongols murdered all the men and raped all the women.......

This is what you and others do when you are shown to have erred - pretend it never happened - and then divert the topic to something irrelevant like "the Mongols murdered all the men and raped all the women" which means these data would show up in Chinese censuses, and they do not.

Edited October 19, 2019 by remake it
data being plural

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

17 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. 

Just how could you know where tactical nukes are located? I seriously doubt that this information is in the public domain.

Try to use some common sense when posting!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

29 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Thx for the laugh.  Try that line on anyone from Shanghai or Beijing.

Good luck....

...... Technically, the "Han" are at best 60% Han as the Mongols murdered all the men and raped all the women.......

Give it up footeab....debating with remake it is...

wait for it....wait for it...

HOPELESS 😂

[Guest]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

pretend it never happened - and then divert the topic to something irrelevant like "the Mongols murdered

There it is ...  didn't think it would take long ...

Hopeless IV - The Revenge

Edited October 19, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Try to use some common sense

Would be a bonus.

I prefer Otis' version of it anyway. And it's just as accurate. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

11 hours ago, remake it said:

This is what you and others do when you are shown to have erred - pretend it never happened - and then divert the topic to something irrelevant 

Perhaps you should try looking in a mirror.

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Perhaps you should try looking in a mirror.

Present an argument and not dross.

[Guest]

Hopeless V - OilPrice does Dallas

[Marcin + 519]

19 hours ago, PE Scott said:

First two paragraphs I believe to be more or less accurate and I agree with. 

The third paragraph, not as much. U.S. citizens aren't a bunch of uneducated cave dwellers smoking reefer and dancing around fires. An overwhelming majority of americans understand nuclear warfare would be the end of the world, at least as we know it. There are no winners in that scenario. I think you misinterpret the willingness for war of most americans. Just look at our own media for examples, there are always a large number of people in the U.S. that speak out against ANY kind of military aggression. 

Is it possible? Sure, anything's possible. Is it probable? I find it highly highly unlikely.

As I said before, American citizens don't hold any animosity towards Chinese citizens. If they disagree with the chinese government it's often because of some virtuous ideas about helping the average chinese people. Americans, as a whole, are a very compassionate and well meaning culture. The narrative is usually to spread democracy to spread FREEDOM. If they suffer from something it's a big ego. Americans believe their ideals reflect the best interest of everyone. 

That being said, as a result of previous wars with oppressive governments, the U.S. are very defensive of their ideals of freedom and thus have endorsed the ample military spending as "The best defense is a good offense." I really don't think the average american citizen ever wants war though. They just don't like to lose either.

US bombed Libya and Syria back to the stone age, backed Saudi Arabian/UAE/Jordanian operations: training/arming terrorists to fight with Assad, only to spread FREEDOM, nothing else (For the first time in 50 years 20%-50% of Syrian children were not going to schools for 3-6 years). But this was freedom for only 30 million people in total.

Bringing FREEDOM to 1400 million people certainly justifies usage of nuclear weapons.

There is one major cause of willingness of American society to conduct wars. American citizens do not remember what suffering for civilians is the war, cause last one on US territory was American Civil War. US conducts offensive wars in foreign countries. Trump won presidency on anti-war agenda, as districts with high military casualties (Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) switched to Trump. Steve Bannon likes to brag about the fact.

 

[PE Scott + 563]

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

US bombed Libya and Syria back to the stone age, backed Saudi Arabian/UAE/Jordanian operations: training/arming terrorists to fight with Assad, only to spread FREEDOM, nothing else (For the first time in 50 years 20%-50% of Syrian children were not going to schools for 3-6 years). But this was freedom for only 30 million people in total.

Bringing FREEDOM to 1400 million people certainly justifies usage of nuclear weapons.

There is one major cause of willingness of American society to conduct wars. American citizens do not remember what suffering for civilians is the war, cause last one on US territory was American Civil War. US conducts offensive wars in foreign countries. Trump won presidency on anti-war agenda, as districts with high military casualties (Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) switched to Trump. Steve Bannon likes to brag about the fact.

 

Just because the government does something doesn't always mean it has the backing of the entirety, or even the majority, of the american people. Regardless, you are making some pretty wild assertions about a whole group people.  What did I say?

20 hours ago, PE Scott said:

The narrative is usually to spread democracy to spread FREEDOM

 

 

Note, I didnt say ALWAYS. You can distort anything to suit your position. So can anyone else. Certainly the CIA has conducted some pretty crazy operations to stop the spread of "communism". Who know what kind of things any number of governments are involved in around the globe. I'm certain there is a lot more going on than what the MSM is notified of.

Still, none of this has anything to do with a typical american citizen. Where do you get this idea that everyone in America is ready and willing to drop a nuclear bomb, much less go to war?

Most modern day Americans give absolutely 0 f*cks about any of the rest of the world as long as they stay in their lane and don't interfere with American's day to day lives. Start attacking civilians, especially with chemical or biological agents, then yeah, they'll take notice. They might even encourage the strategic bombing of those perceived threats. They would not, however, encourage the use of nuclear weapons. That's just ludicrous. We have dropped 2 nuclear bombs before people had any idea what nuclear bombs even were. Since then, 0 nuclear bombs have been used to bomb any civilization by anyone. At the end of the day, everyone understand it would be the end of the world. The only reason for them, as you've noted with the development of Chinese technologies, is as a deterrent to asure no one else uses them.

The U.S. can't even build a 0 carbon footprint nuclear reactor anymore because people are so anti-nuclear anything.

The fact that there hasn't been a war to spill into the U.S. since the civil war is a good indication that U.S. military spending and policies this far have been at least somewhat effective. Now, instead, the MSM broadcast the aftermath of that stuff into our living rooms nightly; A MSM that is almost always adamantly opposed to military aggression and does it's best to cast it in the worst light possible and condemn those who pursue policies that encourage it. I just don't know where you get the notion that Americans citizens are so blood thirsty.

 

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

blood thirsty.

My favourite bit was the 'freedom to 1400 million'.

My definition of freedom clearly differs from some people. 

[Marcin + 519]

42 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

 I just don't know where you get the notion that Americans citizens are so blood thirsty.

 

From invasion and occupation of sovereign countries: Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, Libya.

List any other country that invaded so many sovereign countries in 21 century ?

Sounds like a proof (but only to non Americans)

So, Americans are the most bloodthirsty nation in the world in 21 century.

Second place comes to Russia for occupation of parts of Ukraine.

[Marcin + 519]

17 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

My favourite bit was the 'freedom to 1400 million'.

My definition of freedom clearly differs from some people. 

It is called sarcasm. Freedom buy bombing Syria and Libya was also sarcasm.

I can signal sarcasm in future posts for your convenience.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Marcin said:

It is called sarcasm

Ah I see, yep you may need to point it out for me. It gets lost among the anti US stuff so I switch off hahah 

4 hours ago, PE Scott said:

I just don't know where you get the notion that Americans citizens are so blood thirsty.

While we're at the whole explaining thing, maybe Scott can explain ''citizens'' to you.

3 hours ago, Marcin said:

Americans are the most bloodthirsty nation

Yes. The citizens thirst for blood. Literally. They have focused on little else for a century now, while avoiding sunlight. 

*sarcastic vampire reference

Edited October 20, 2019 by Guest