Cold War against China?
- Thread starter VorZakone
- Start date
Sorry, are you saying that China is not a geopolitical threat?
Does this mean you agree with the overtures of this ridiculous analysis/comedy piece?
Which, in itself, you know, is a huge act of aggression. An existential threat.
"If you dare protect your interests we'll threaten your very existence and sovereignty."
Yeah wonderful statecraft.
They are a geopolitical force, labeling them a threat is where the N Korea comment is relevant and accurate as it's a singular perspective.
That comedy piece is right. China is Australia's largest trading partner by a distance.
A quarter of all their trade.
Was this not US policy regarding South America 40-50 years ago?
So wait, militarising an entire sea that breaks three different maritime laws, breaking mutual agreements with the US on militarization of the SCS, threatening constant invasion of Taiwan and building up the largest naval force in the world is not a threatening posture? Building naval bases in the Pacific and Africa, threatening to shoot US Speakers of the house.
Not a threat and a singular perspective.
Since Monroe really. More than150 years and counting.
Yeah and I'm pretty sure the South American governments had a pretty legitimate reason to treat the US as a geopolitical threat.
Yeah but the US are pretty clearly top dogs geopolitically so it obviously works, hence why China are now doing the same thing
The whole problem for Aus isn't that they need to protect their trade routes from China despite trading heavily with China.
The problem is that China are slowly (or, not that slowly in military expansion terms), gobbling up regions around Australia and moving military installations closer and closer to them.
Right but nobody is arguing from a perspective of
"China is doing things that no country in history has done, and this is unprecented evil."
This is from a, "Why China is a massive geopolitical threat to the West and what can we do to contain them."
I assume China has seen that you can change the status quo and eventually everyone will tolerate it.
Russia will likely get away with Crimea's annexation as many argue that Ukraine needs to forget about it and concede it during negotiations.
Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory and increasingly looking like formally annexing the WB at the very least, and no one stops them (including the West).
Why would China not draw the conclusion that they can use their newly gained military power to redraw some territory expecting that it'll be tolerated after a while?
Russia will likely get away with Crimea's annexation as many argue that Ukraine needs to forget about it and concede it during negotiations.
Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory and increasingly looking like formally annexing the WB at the very least, and no one stops them (including the West).
Why would China not draw the conclusion that they can use their newly gained military power to redraw some territory expecting that it'll be tolerated after a while?
I'm not expressing an opinion either way but it's possible that China sees the US as a threat also.
That's going to happen regardless. China are not a threat to Australia. It's more likely that they invade the moon. I'm not even joking.
Such an insane take
Every one of those countries are sovereign US territory, treatised military bases with countries who want/need them, or leases from sovereign countries who agreed to them.
A complete, complete different situation to SCS. How many countries where those military bases are, don't want the US to have a base there?
A threat doesn't mean invasion.
A threat can literally just mean exert so much hard power you lose your sovereignity as a nation or unable to secure key strategic interests that are vital for the people.
Yeah hence the West's 2010's decade of geopolitical inertia is going to cost them so much.
This is what China will say if/when they do the same. See the Solomon Islands.
Yeah and that's a threat but I'm not laying out Solomon islands in my post did I? Solomon islands is indeed a huge geopolitical threat to Australia but it's hardly invasive as the SCS is.
I was referring to the SCS.
It's a dictatorship which makes threats against its neighbours, suppresses minority populations, intimidates its nationals in other countries, depletes global fishing stocks, and steals intellectual property. It's a threat.
What an odd response. Why is it insane to suggest that the US has militarised the area? Those are military bases. There was no other take other than that.Such an insane take
Every one of those countries are sovereign US territory, treatised military bases with countries who want/need them, or leases from sovereign countries who agreed to them.
A complete, complete different situation to SCS. How many countries where those military bases are, don't want the US to have a base there?
Edit. Given your view, I assume you would find it acceptable for Mexico to invite China to have a military base.
The " " sentence is what US or any superior empire had been doing all the time. Is exacty what US had been doing since the end of the WWII and what the USSR and the US had been doing to each other during the cold war and the reason of the title of this thread
The US has its massive army to project and control its interest. China seems that doesnt want to play ball anymore and is challanging the US. The US has all the right (in the law of the jungle as the strongest) to retaliate as it sees fit. But is nothing more than the existing bully defenfing itself from the emerging bully.
Painting it as the good guy stoping the bad guy with his evil growing army doesnt make sense to me.the only difference betwwen both is that different nations on their respective spheres of influence will thrive or suffer
It occurs to me that there's a few more differences between a (very) flawed but mostly stable 250 years old democracy and a 75 years old single party dictatorship whose leader can stay in his position until his death. But hey, to each his own.
Surely US had been stable 250 years and had been good for its partners, but tell that to the multiple dictatorships that they supported, democratic government that had toppled and all the middle east clusterfeck that they support among others shit shows. And sure, China is just getting their shit together just lately, and sure it is fecked up what they are doing at some part of its own population and sure and it remains to see what happens if they are the dominant force (nothing good, I suspect).
And don't get me wrong. I want US to succeed, because I am in the US sphere of influence and I benefit of it. But lets not kid ourselves that US is the good guy. Is the bad guy, our bad guy and china, if changes the game, will be the next bad guy but others bad guy and others will benefit of it and others will suffer it
This is just an escalation for dominance, not good vs evil
Stable democracy when a huge chunk of the population were second class citizens up until 1965?
I would be much more sympathetic to the USA defenders in this thread if they actually had any moral superiority when it comes to foreign policy.
They don't and thus the need for scapegoating & redirection
Yes. Opposed to the alternative that has second class citizens right now.
What you call defending USA is just stating the very obvious differences between democracies and dictatorships. You can try and make that kind of post while living in a state controlled dictatorship and then tells us how did it go.
Or many can tell you from US backed up dictatorships like noriega, pinochet, videla saddam and many others. US foreign policy is evil. I dont even get how is even defendable
You can tell someone is reaching when they unironically go back 60 years, in order compare that time to something that is happening today. And then say it just shows their all as bad as each other.
Is not going back 60 years. Is correcting 250 years as being a democracy as trying to establish a sustained in time moral superiority
1965 was (virtually) 60 years ago. That’s all I was saying.
And he was saying the 1965 is not 250 years of democracy
Yes, you’re explaining something I know.
At least less obvious than 1965 (60 years)
I would love to say that that made sense, fella.
If you reread my post, you will notice an important detail, I specifically mentioned foreign policy.
I see zero moral superiority from the US when it comes to this. Do you see any?
You're actually right, it's a bad comparison. What the US supports today is much worse than it was 60 years ago. And you're right again in the second sentence, right now the US is worse than china when it comes to foreign policy.
I think that’s quite extreme, and I disagree. I’m under no illusions about US foreign policy but I don’t think you’re right.