Because neoliberal ideology is driving down quality of life and increasing inequality? That's a far greater threat to normal people in the West than whatever is happening in the south China sea.
Cold War against China?
- Thread starter VorZakone
- Start date
But nobody is arguing from a moral perspective. The argument is entirely from a hard power perspective and their imposition onto the world system.
Ironic, given that China's the worlds biggest proponent and cog in the neo-liberal world order.
So, nobody then? The difference here is that the West has control over what happens in Gaza, so Westerners are more inclined to focus on that.
The invasion and occupation by China is either justified by later international recognition in which case Israeli actions could be justified, if it gets later international recognition. Is that your argument?
Also have you dropped the point about China's borders because they are in dispute with many of their neighbours about those. Up to the point of building new Islands to increase their border claims, and you've realized that you opened a can of worms with that idea?
I'm not some defender of China. Just pointed out that China isn't necessarily accused of illegally occupying Tibet and Israel is with regards to Gaza/WB.
Like the wealthiest 10% of Americans, they own up to 93% of all stocks. Then you throw in Citizens United into the discussion, and you have an economy that is largely designed with deflections and manipulations to support their wealth. So how much of the 'news' are just fake?
Finally, you start accusing folks of things, then labelling them with the trigger words when you yourself are guilty of them—a very trumpian tactic.
You also make the majority of the population feel as though they are morally superior -- American exceptionalism with a dollop of 21st Century Destiny Manifest thrown in -- when the vast majority are gradually financially poorer by the day.
Bottom line: everyone has blood on their hands. Its just incredibily hypocritical of governments to accuse other nations of poor behaviour. And as I mentioned earlier -- there still hasnt been any accountability for the hundreds of thousands of deaths of Iraqis from a trumped up war. Yet they are the ones accusing others of poor behaviour.
Example: It always cracks me up when you hear American officials talk about human rights and forced labour when its coming from a country whose economy was built on slavery. At least the Germans have some self-awareness not to moralise others of genocide.
Ultimately, there are no good guys v bad guys. All sides think they are right when it comes to conflict—even Al Qaeda or ISIS think they are morally correct or they wouldnt have gone to fight for their cause.
The key is trying to understand the other side and what motivates them if you are trying to descalate or avoid any conflicts. Know their history, their fears and end goals. Life isnt some zero-sum game like a Risk.
I know. We are just debating the ins and outs of a terrible world.
Not ironic at all. The West exploited China for cheap labour. China never signed up for that bullshit ideology. In America, corruption and fecking the little guy is rewarded, in China, they sentence corrupt bankers to death. That isn't to say China are the good guys but to consider America and the West any better is laughable.
China's corruption and relationship between private enterprise, state banks and central government is a revolving door and makes US wall street and federal government seem functional in comparison.
Who get's fecked most of all is the little guy. Only, the little guy in China doesn't have even a semblance of state government social security.
Incredibly ignorant take here to be honest.
It seems China's globalized propaganda campaigns are working when redcafe posters in Ireland believe it.
In China, everyone is corrupt. By design. The whole system does not let you succeed without corruption because it gives central government and the politiburo an excuse to eradicate anyone they do not like under the guise of corruption.
Do you know what the largest enterprise in China was up until 2015? The Peoples Liberation Army.
That's right, the military was the largest company. It owned casino's, shopping centers, amusement marks, civilian airports, hotels, restaurants, all for the purpose of funnelling money into the top PLA commanders pockets.
The most amusing thing is when you meet mid-level provincial civil servants managing the healthcare regulations of around 1 million people, on an official salary of 8000RMB a month, driving around in Bentleys. Or when you go to a hospital in Chengdu and buy the specialist there a Rolex Datejust II and all of a sudden your waiting time went from 13 months to 3 days.
In China, everyone is corrupt. By design. The whole system does not let you succeed without corruption because it gives central government and the politiburo an excuse to eradicate anyone they do not like under the guise of corruption.
Do you know what the largest enterprise in China was up until 2015? The Peoples Liberation Army.
That's right, the military was the largest company. It owned casino's, shopping centers, amusement marks, civilian airports, hotels, restaurants, all for the purpose of funnelling money into the top PLA commanders pockets.
The most amusing thing is when you meet mid-level provincial civil servants managing the healthcare regulations of around 1 million people, on an official salary of 8000RMB a month, driving around in Bentleys. Or when you go to a hospital in Chengdu and buy the specialist there a Rolex Datejust II and all of a sudden your waiting time went from 13 months to 3 days.
Last edited:
Hold up a second, are you saying they don't sentence corrupt bankers to death?
China's corruption and relationship between private enterprise, state banks and central government is a revolving door and makes US wall street and federal government seem functional in comparison.
Who get's fecked most of all is the little guy. Only, the little guy in China doesn't have even a semblance of state government social security.
Incredibly ignorant take here to be honest.
It's hilarious how blind you are to corruption in the West if you genuinely think it's any better here (especially the US, hello legalized bribery and corruption called lobbying).
They sentence corrupt bankers to death who did something to displease the CCP, whilst ignoring every other corrupt banker (see, all of the senior leadership of BoC, ICBC and ABoC).
Yeah, it's hell of a lot better in the west.
Civil servants in the government bureaucracy aren't all rich millionaires from stealing from a civic budget. Middle management of a random department in D.C aren't all driving around in Ferrari's and Bentley's using money siphoned from the government. When someone in the UK/US wants to start a business, they don't need to bribe your local government official for a license, nor do you need a political officer as a permanent member of the board.
In the West, there is a separation between the political class and the civil service bureaucracy. In China there is not. Western corruption revolves around lobbying and the ability for senior politicians to end up being on a board member for a private company and in the case of the US, insider trading from elected officials. China's problem is much worse because it's the other way around - politicians and civil servants are directly eating from governmental budgets and private sector and government can be the one and the same. Usually in the West the route is government to private sector board. In China it's private sector to senior governmental position, through paying a fee to get that job. And there are no elections or transparency around this process.
I feel like whatever the situation is in detail in the west, it's much better than a situation where direct funding and federal budgets are being cannibalized by corruption to civil servants pockets.
So yeah, it's genuinely a lot better "here."
I dont live in Barcelona or europe and I said in this thread and many times in others that if I want anyone to win this power struggle is the US because I am in its area of influence and I greatly benefit of this. Now, that doesn't take away my empathy away of what reality is from other nations and people. And other people that I personally know.
Now, I know that you are a realpolitik guy. I assume that the job you do reinforces it and you had been part of feck up circumstances that perpetuates the west hegemony through disgusting conflicts with less tahn questionable readons and not only you agree but proud of it to maintain the hegemony of the west. And again, I can gives my opinion this way without getting my hands dirty like you
But as I have a simple life and I can give my opinion where ever I want I will keep doing it despite you telling me the piss pathetic poor version of "if you don't like it here, go to venezuela" trope like any alt right wing would say when they don't like arguments. Specially when they are way worse places than Venezuela because of US fecking them up, or via war or via capitalistic failure
US foreign policy had been the most destructive and cancerogenous than any other empire in history. No other nation had killed more foreign civilians than the US since WWII. No other nation bombed more civilians since ever with all the destruction that bombs causes. Even if we exclude just US killed civilians in WWII while maintaining the other countries all throught history, US had killed more civilians than any other. No other country sold as many arms used against civilians in other wars (and I assume they need US permission) than the US. No other country toppled ore democratic countries, no other country used more proxies to start wars than the US. Period
So the moral superiority of US and the west is a big fat farce and if it bothers you, couldn't care less
Errrrm, Do you forget which hegemonic power the US essentially replaced? Also, the Mongols directly killed 10-15% of the estimated world population at the time, not to mention countless other genocidal empires. Your comment is very out of touch with reality.
I think just the deaths due to terrible administration of supplies alone in India exceeds that of US caused deaths due to its foreign policy.
Nobody is asking you to go to Venezuela. I'm pointing out that from the perspective of the West, China is a threat. Just like from the perspective of the Venezuelans, the US is a threat.
But who here argued on the premise of morality? Nobody.
If Person X is a bully, and person Y is also a bully who threatens to bully person X - just because person X is a bully too doesn't mean that Y isn't a threat to it.
Well the Romans were pretty awful to those early Christians so China must be great. It's interesting that rather than learn anything about China many people in here just want to play moral equivalences. This isn't a thread about Gaza or Iraq or Venezuela, it's really not difficult to understand.
I didn't forget anything. US killed the most civilians in foreign conflicts. period. if we go in percentages, who know what happened between the first human tribes. And percentually, The US had killed much more civilians in foreign conflicts than any co-contemporany, it works best. You don't sent me to venezuela that is why I said " piss pathetic poor version". You know better than playing dumb, as I consider that you are way more intelligent than I
India administration supplies from Churchill had been something that I criticized before in this forum but as far as I know it was part of GB. And I had been very concise. Bombings and killings of foreign conflicts
The premise on morality starts on considering China building an army to compete with the US as a threat and not considering US existing army as a threat for China and finding what China is doing unacceptable
Agree on the last sentence, but with the caveat that China, so far has not being bullying nations as US had done...yet
Is difficult to understand if you don't understand what triggered the subplot that is based on US foreign power projection being threatened by China's power projection and the sensation that what China is doing is wrong and the US is good. So when we are talking about power projection and good and bad, if there would not be history, we would not be able to measure the consequences of both countries current power projection which includes conflicts like the ones that you mentioned. (Un)fortunately we do have history, pretty recent of the results of the US power projection, and not so much of China's power projection besides scuffles with Philippines for the China sea dominance, which are of a disgusting bully, but not much more. So based on that then yes, is not difficult to understand
If you think China's power projection only amounts to a few scuffles with the Filipino coastguard then you are wilfully ignorant and it's not the thread for you.
Like I said. Blind. Everything in the US is corruption. For feck sake, the President elect was just voted in off the back of a mass propaganda/social engineering project, orchestrated by the richest man in the world who also happened to pay out $100M to force his way into Trump's cabinet.
Please do tell me more about how every one of China's *checks notes* 10 million civil servants drive around in Ferraris and Bentleys. I'll wait.
Regarding the top comment: You're seriously arguing that Trump's campaign and election based off "fake news" or whatever, is just as bad as no democracy and a dictator for life? Or how a rich person funding election campaigns to inject preferred policy is somehow worse than....no election and policy that is entirely based off the whims of the few with unilateral power?
Did I say every single one? Stop being facetious ffs. Like I said, middle management. You run a department? You get rich very very quickly.
Like how every single one of the Politiburo are Billionaires, every single one of the provincial level department leaders have hundreds of millions.
I can't go into more detail because of classification but the Western intelligence agencies used to literally pay junior-mid level civil servants their "bribe money" to get promoted and then repeat the cycle every few years until a significant amount of the middle-upper echelons of the CCP were basically bought out by the CIA.
Hell, there's very strong evidence to suggest that Bo Xi Lai, the guy in jail for corruption and the other touted candidate to succeed Hu aside from Xi, was actually an MI6 asset. Neil Heywood, an MI6 asset, was in charge of arranging everything from Bo's kids education in the UK, to buying property in the UK and organizing the families foreign assets before he was murdered. Things started to unravel and the house of cards began to fall so Bo's wife arranged for Chongqing's head of police to murder Neil Heywood.
These kind of operations don't exist without there being insane levels of corruption in the system. This could never happen in the West, where systemic civil servants and politicians are all foreign assets - despite what the media shouts about Putin and Trump.
You keep saying you are wrong you are wroung but you provide 0 information. Now. Put me anything in comparison that china had been doing compared with the US?
Since my original post, a few pages have gone by and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what is china doing in terms of foreign policy that is worse than a genocide. I guess I'll keep waiting.
Why does it have to be in comparison with the US?
We are talking, from the perspective of the West, how China is a threat to it. How is comparing things here relevant in any capacity?
If you don't think China is a threat to you, living in country X, brilliant.
I, in country Y, believe China is a threat to me. Regardless of what USA does or does not do.
Because it's a stupid question.
Being a geopolitical threat is not a question of morality. USA are not going to support the genocide of British people nor Ukrainian people so they are not a threat to me.
I guess you have to see it as a stupid question, it's a nice coping mechanism.
Your last sentence says a lot about the way you think. I guess you fit in well as part of the military complex.
Well, yes, it is stupid.
Deciphering foreign threat levels is not based on the historical actions of nation states.
Using your logic, you can easily argue, "Tell me, what has Nazi Germany done in 1936 that is anywhere close to what the British have done in their colonial empire? They are not a threat."
Absolutely asinine logic.
I love how a literal fecking genocide, one of the worst crimes possible, is so often portrayed by american defenders as a oopsie. Sorry, stupid bad acts.
I guess if you don't give two fecks about the lives of fellow human beings that way of thinking makes sense. I'd also love to be a sociopath, life would be much easier.
That's the third person you've called a sociopath who have disagreed with you.
Get a grip ffs.
My god, you don't even build very good strawmen, it's just a bunch of loose hay.
I have mentioned china is a threat and a disgusting regime.
But being lectured about values by defenders of a genocidal regime? Yeah, sorry, no.
No, I've called them sociopaths because they say they don't care about a genocide as long as they are safe.
Because when i interjected it when you asked rethorically: "why china is building this army if not to threaten the US (west)".obviously paraphrasing. And i interjected. "Maybe China wants to disuade the US building a at pair army in case it attacks taiwan".parprhasing again. Which seems that for you, this chinese army is for bad reasons and US not
So if chinese army vs chinese army triggered my interjection, i dont undertand why you dont understand why i want to keep going with china and US. Also the subject of this thread i think it implies a cold war betweeb china and US, not China cold war vs burkina faso
I believe china is a threat to me as i believe that US is a thread provoking so many displaced to europe from middle east. Also i believe that is postive that there is competition in power and not an all supreme bully
Also i believe that the supreme power needa to be called out for as many possible actors, even as little as me for its BS and its moral siperiority while at the same time calljng the emerging bully for its multiple disgusting actions.
I simply dont like the double standards
But nobody is doing that! People are saying what values they prefer to live under, nobody is forcing you to accept that.
This whole turn into moral relativism is insane.
Imagine going in football, "Who is the bigger threat to Man Utd in a game of football, Juventus or current Liverpool?"
"Well, actually you know, Juventus have historically done some pretty bad things like corruption scandals whereas Liverpool are far more above board so yeah, Juve are a far bigger threat"
Just a pointless boring nonsensical argument that keeps getting parroted.
I'm not being rude but can you edit this and reword it maybe? I'm struggling a little to understand this post. I understand English isn't your first language
Why do you keep talking about history? I am talking about the present.
Right now, december 15 of the year of the lord of 2024, american foreign policy causes much more harm, suffering and human misery than china's.
There's no relativism here, only in your mind. Again, coping mechanism.
Funny thing that UK and otger powers were quite on board on many aspects of the nazi point of view (will not start on black rights in US). They were not much on board when the stablish GB imperial power felt threatened.
Another thing is that they sold us that it was good vs evil (not disputing soldier ideology but kings and MPs back then), but it was a power struggle like US vs USSR and now US vs China. And they are trying to sell the same trope of good vs evil while US is helping first hand commiting a genocide
Your analogies are poor. You love realpolitiks, others like holding accoubtable countries BS
It's like a strategy video game for some folks. Quite disturbing view of the world.
Okay, this is like trying to argue Man City is a bigger threat right now than Liverpool because of what Man City is currently doing.
It's so boring and so unrelated to geopolitics.
It's entirely relativism.
It's a boring, pointless, stupid necessitiation on a concept that has never existed, in history, when assessing threat levels.