Anything from the extensive menu!!!!
Some more balance...
Enquiring minds need to know...
Off the menu??
From the Golden Retriever (with black bean sauce)
China scares me more than Trump, Trump is just a here today gone tomorrow president.
China meanwhile, is this huge unpredictable power, who's influence will most likely become bigger and stronger world wide in the next 10 to 20 years or so.
I will worry more about China when they show signs of doing anything as catastrophic as the invasion of Iraq. Millions dead, the entire region destabilised, refugees flooding into Europe. Until then, absolutely, the US. Worries me much much more. Trump or no Trump, they are the greatest threat to global peace and stability.
They’re also the only thing preventing us from being a Chinese state already.
This is horrific
Pure fear mongering hyperbole Blowin.
But BB they already are invading everywhere, it's peaceful invasion buying up land on every continent, building islands, etc.
fitzroy why wouldn't they behave like other superpowers. Look at US investment around the world. Why is that OK but not Chinese? Given the exploitation of Africa by western nations it is hard to imagine China doing worse.
Yeah, I hadn't looked at it completely that way when you have a good think about it.
I found it disturbing the way they just built those islands in the South China Sea and ignored all the global pressure/backlash, but if you think back through history, it isn't much different to the way other wealthy nations have behaved. I guess it's the way they go about it these days that we may find confronting and the worst is the way the media want to portray it.
The South China Sea carries a huge amount of China's trade. It is surrounded by US bases in Japan, the Phillipines and South Korea. What would the US response be if their main trade routes were surrounded by Chinese bases. Yes what they did was a breach of international law, but those same laws have ever stopped the US from protecting its own interests or exerting its influence.
Could the usual apologists for China please provide an excuse, diversion or snivelling dismissal for this latest list of Chinese activities?
Edit: please ignore this post. I can see it’s been discussed in another thread.
But the fact is , BB , you are claiming that China’s motives are innocent and then you’re explicitly contradicting this by stating that their actions are literally no different from the evil doings of world powers in the past.
I’m afraid you can’t have it both ways.
Yeah, they'll play power games except with a vicious authoritarian regime, a dictator for life and a completely different take on weird things like human rights, the rule of law, free speech etc etc.
Sorry Uncle Sam invading Iraq was a monumental cock-up, but lets be honest it had very little effect here.
China flexing it's muscles and turning it's neighbours into vassal states who "offend" it at their peril, will mean an entirely different thing for Australia.
Have a listen to this sober analysis BB and tell me what you reckon.
Well no Blowin, I have never said China was innocent. I have been saying the same thing for a long time. China is a rising power and will behave like one. If you are going to condemn their behaviour then you have to condemn the behaviour of the US and it's allies which has had consequences far beyond anything Chjna has done or, in my judgement, is likely to do.
Okay , so what do you base your judgement on , seeing as how it’s not based on the irrefutable evidence before you ?
China has never been involved in the kind of catastrophic military interventionism for which the US is notorious. There is no Chinese equivalent to the invasion of Iraq and they only became involved in Vietnam when the US escalated it and threatened the destruction of their ally. For all their rhetoric about Taiwan it is 20 years since the last conflict. In that time trade has increased and many people now move to the mainland to take advantage of the opportunities there. A peaceful resolution is by far the most likely outcome. Irrefutable evidence? Only of double standards as far as I can see.
You can’t predict the future based on the past.
When I was 7 years old I was not interested in girls whatsoever, fast forward a few years and they consumed a vast portion of my time.
In the parlance, China’s balls just dropped.
It’s time you reevaluated their position based on the new evidence available.
Well like them or hate them I will tell you this that the US has the basic
foundations to live by like us and if the USA didnt uphold the basic lifestyle
of the western world we would be in a lot of trouble. Now that's a fact.
So should we all be learning Mandarin to be at an advantage in 10 to 20 years?
Does anyone actually read my posts or do they just go into Sinophobia at the sight of the word China without the word evil in its immediate vicinity. And yes Indo, if you are worried about it, learn Mandarin. It will take you mind of your irrational fears.
I definitely read all of your posts with great interest and I approach them with respect, but you have failed to put forward a single argument to give your opinion any credibility.
Just claiming that the Chinese are nice guys doesn’t cut it. Particularly when there is so much contradictory evidence.
Do you even consider our point of view or are you so wedded to your unsubstantiated beliefs ?
Blowin my last three posts all contain clear arguments.
“China has never been involved in the kind of catastrophic military interventionism for which the US is notorious. There is no Chinese equivalent to the invasion of Iraq and they only became involved in Vietnam when the US escalated it and threatened the destruction of their ally. For all their rhetoric about Taiwan it is 20 years since the last conflict.”
“China is a rising power and will behave like one. If you are going to condemn their behaviour then you have to condemn the behaviour of the US and it's allies which has had consequences far beyond anything Chjna has done or, in my judgement, is likely to do. “
“The South China Sea carries a huge amount of China's trade. It is surrounded by US bases in Japan, the Phillipines and South Korea. What would the US response be if their main trade routes were surrounded by Chinese bases. Yes what they did was a breach of international law, but those same laws have ever stopped the US from protecting its own interests or exerting its influence.”
John Garnaut's thoughts are well worth a read, coming from a close observer of the current regime
Basically, your only point is that China is behaving like the US. The US is recognised by virtually every person on the planet as being responsible for many atrocities. Does this parallel reduce the threat of China’s aggression.....no , it enhances it.
You sort of have two other arguments:
1/ China hasn’t done anything bad before .....really , BB ? Never overseen the mass deaths of millions of its own people ? Never ran people over with tanks to quell dissent ? But let’s not get waved down by the past , China has an entirely new bright and shining future of catastrophic behaviour in front of it.
2/ You think they’re nice guys . So unlike those crass Americans.
Evidence , not opinions, BB.
Try reading the first one again Blowin. China has never engaged in the reckless militarism the US demonstrated in Vietnam and Iraq. Seems like a huge difference to me. I mean destabilising an entire region, causing the deaths of millions of people, creating refugee flows that then destabilised the political stability of Europe as well. Mao did some terrible things but only within his own country and never on that scale. So in terms of global stability and the risk of nuclear war, China offers much less threat than the US.
Lots of facts there Blowin.
Interesting piece H2O not a lot that I would disagree with. I think it makes a good point at the end about the soft power aspect of China's influence but I can't see any argument there that China is a military threat.
And what if the other nations contesting the SCS usurpation hadn’t been cowed / bribed into submission ?
Mass war could have eventuate easily , did China hesitate to dominate other countries with military threat in that instance,....no.
That’s all you need to know aboutChina. They want it , they’ll lie till they’re in a position of strength and then take it. How predictable and stable would you classify that kind of behaviour?
The thing you like to ignore about the SCS invasion, isn’t that China wishes to control their trade lanes , they want to control the trade lanes for the entire region. Would you back Australian claim and militarily enforced control of the entire Pacific under the auspices of protecting our trade routes ? Of course not .
Total misread of the realpolitik, the risk of war over the SCS was always and remains, zero. Yes that's an opinion. The evidence to support it includes;
US lacking the ability to effectively combat China in that region mainly through their inability to resupply in an extended conflict.
Lack of interest beyond formal complaint, from other nations in the region.
The obvious motivation of China in seeking to protect its main trade route suggested that the move was not about regional aggression.
You’re kidding right ?
Now you’re victim blaming the nation’s who got shoe horned into a new reality by Chinese might. Duterte got bought - imagine the dollars involved ! - and that was the end of a coalition.
Don’t even try to defend China through the summation of resistance. The issue was taken to the international courts as proscribed by a rules based global order , China dismissed the result and covertly fortified their defences to a dominant position whilst placating the world with blatant lies.
There’s some real politik in there that you’re struggling to avoid, that’s for certain.
You think the Chinese military bases in Antarctica are used in defence of trade routes ? That’ll be their next “ acquisition “ and you’ll be on here justifying it. Very strange.
How do you describe what happened in Tibet Blindboy? How do you describe the treatment (Mass incarceration) of the Uighur Muslim population? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-11/china-legalises-its-secret-uighur...
Are these not concerning and at least in a similar context to heavy-handed intervention in Iraq?
If you look back yocal you will see that I have stated that China has been and will be ruthless in the pursuit of its long term goals; increasing global power, internal harmony and, I believe, global peace. In Chinesecu,true individual human rights run a distant second to the greater good of the community as interpreted by whoever happens to be in power. Very different to our views, but then again, given our history and current human rights abuses we are not in a strong position to criticise even egregious abuses by others.
Blowin would that be the same international court of justice which the US refuses to join and whose rulings it treats with complete contempt?
A question you might ask: if these people feel oppressed by their government and choose to resist and maintain their individual freedom to choose their faith, what lengths will the government take to control them?
The only options I can see are, forced assimilation, genocide or exile.
Blindboy, I think we are at the crux of where you and I strongly disagree: The Chinese view of community harmony over individual human rights as interpreted by whoever happens to be in power.
Is it true that you believe the above is a survivable, viable, long-term strategy for a Civilisation?
BB , China’s oppression of its population has nothing to do with what’s best for the people and everything to do with perpetuation of political power .
They’re a fucking dictatorship !
You’re employment of euphemism and sophistry to defend China is alarming.
Well it has worked for several millennia! The current Chinese regime has a lot in common with earlier dynasties. The link H2O provided above is good on that point.
As is your complete inability to recognise realpolitik Blowin. Reality is that China is a global power and will behave as such. No amount of push back by the west will stop that. The limits to its power will be determined by economic and political factors over which Australia has little control. In the meantime it is in our national interest to behave as successive governments have been doing for several decades which is to make our displeasure known diplomatically, prevent direct interference in domestic politics to the best if our ability and build the trading relationship which is mutually advantageous. Taking some high moral position, satisfying as it might be to some, would be totally counter-productive.
Is that a working civilisation?
"Harmony" is a particularly chilling piece of Orwellian double-speak to describe the mandatory compliance and forced suppression of dissent that is being ratcheted up under Xinping's regime.
No , mate.
Kowtowing until China has entrenched itself irreversibly into our nation is counter - productive.
We may have made the mistake of selling pig iron to the Japanese before they tried to conquer the Pacific , but at least we didn’t allow them to buy our land and essential infrastructure, we didn’t allow them to infiltrate our defence and intelligence operations and we didn’t allow them to compromise our democracy.
It’s mind blowing reading what BB has to say.
I think that out of every discussion I’ve had on Swellnet , this is the hardest one to empathise with the opposing argument.
I have made my point repeatedly and am happy to accept that most of you disagree but without withdrawing anything I have said, it is becoming tedious to say it over and over again. So why don't the rest of you come up with some concrete policy proposals instead of the usual pieties. What should Australia do? Please consider the likely responses from China before proposing policies that would most likely impoverish many working Australians.
Prevent them from owning any part of Australia or leasing essential infrastructure. Prevent them from compromising outer democracy. Reduce Chinese migration substantially.
If some Australians suffer financially, I thought you’d be the first to agree that sometimes the benefit to the collective needs to be prioritised over that of the individual.