Some Pragmatism

[FireDragon76]

Oh, no. They fully intend on running the World in 50-200 years. Xi’s a mere “cog”, he understands that, some other megalomaniac dictator will have be World Emperor, but he’s gonna make his mark!
Have the Chinese annexed Nepal yet?

All jesting aside, the notion that China is set on world conquest is more like a projection of the American mind.

 

[FireDragon76]

And they need to have aircraft carriers because......??

Every developed country with a coastline and real navy has them.

They made artificial islands and weaponized them to control the China Sea because.....?

To protect their interests in the China Sea? I mean, it is called the China Sea, and not the American Sea, after all.

Some Americans may not be watching what China is doing but others are watching very closely. That old we are not a threat line will not work.

Paranoia. You don't know much about China (have you studied any Chinese language or history first hand?), just creating a bogieman.

 

[Pommer]

All jesting aside, the notion that China is set on world conquest is more like a projection of the American mind.

I’m not talking about military conquest, just the biggest economy feeling-its-oats will absolutely dwarf our own within 20 years.

 

[disciple Clint]

Every developed country with a coastline and real navy has them.



To protect their interests in the China Sea? I mean, it is called the China Sea, and not the American Sea, after all.



Paranoia. You don't know much about China (have you studied any Chinese language or history first hand?), just creating a bogieman.

there is part of the problem "I mean, it is called the China Sea, and not the American Sea, after all." AND so China thinks that they own it, just as they claimed Hong Kong, made and agreement and immediately violated it, we can all see how that worked out for the people who live there, and now we have flyovers of Taiwan by war airplanes from China, an overt hostile action but we should believe that China has no aspirations outside of the mainland. Did you have answers for any of the other questions that I asked?

 

[FireDragon76]

there is part of the problem "I mean, it is called the China Sea, and not the American Sea, after all." AND so China thinks that they own it, just as they claimed Hong Kong,

Hong Kong does rightfully belong to China. It was only taken from China due to a 19th century drug war instigated by Britain, and later Britain agreed that it would be returned back to China.

made and agreement and immediately violated it, we can all see how that worked out for the people who live there,

China did not violate any treaty with Hong Kong. Hong Kong has no treaties of that nature with China. Hong Kong is not, and never has been, a sovereign nation to make such treaties.

 

[disciple Clint]

Hong Kong does rightfully belong to China. It was only taken from China due to a 19th century drug war instigated by Britain, and later Britain agreed that it would be returned back to China.



China did not violate any treaty with Hong Kong. Hong Kong has no treaties of that nature with China. Hong Kong is not, and never has been, a sovereign nation to make such treaties.

Propaganda will not stand up against facts and the facts are just as I posted.
UK says China's security law is serious violation of Hong Kong treaty
LONDON (Reuters) - The United Kingdom said China’s imposition of a security law on Hong Kong was a “clear and serious” violation of the 1984 Joint Declaration and that London would offer around 3 million residents of the former colony a path to British citizenship.

 

[FireDragon76]

Propaganda will not stand up against facts and the facts are just as I posted.
UK says China's security law is serious violation of Hong Kong treaty
LONDON (Reuters) - The United Kingdom said China’s imposition of a security law on Hong Kong was a “clear and serious” violation of the 1984 Joint Declaration and that London would offer around 3 million residents of the former colony a path to British citizenship.

Do you have a problem with comprehension?

China and the UK were parties to that treaty. Hong Kong was not a party at all, as it was not a sovereignty country.

Offering refugee status to disgruntled residents of Hong Kong seems to be a pragmatic one rooted in acquiescence: it indicates a lack of will to invest a great deal of blood and treasure in an attempt to persuade the Chinese. So you are complaining about something that ultimately not even the British government takes very seriously.

 

[FireDragon76]

I’m not talking about military conquest, just the biggest economy feeling-its-oats will absolutely dwarf our own within 20 years.

And that's where the analogy to war ends. Because ideally, nobody loses from trade, it's not a zero-sum game, much less something over which we should engage in physical violence.

 

[disciple Clint]

Do you have a problem with comprehension?

China and the UK were parties to that treaty. Hong Kong was not a party at all, as it was not a sovereignty country.

Offering refugee status to disgruntled residents of Hong Kong seems to be a pragmatic one rooted in acquiescence: it indicates a lack of will to invest a great deal of blood and treasure in an attempt to persuade the Chinese. So you are complaining about something that ultimately not even the British government takes very seriously.

Do I need to explain things? I though the article did a good job of explaining that China violated the agreement but I guess not everyone can understand it. maybe this from the article will help.
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said Britain had carefully assessed China’s national security legislation since it was published late on Tuesday.

“It constitutes a clear violation of the autonomy of Hong Kong, and a direct threat to the freedoms of its people, and therefore I’m afraid to say it is a clear and serious violation of the Joint Declaration treaty between the United Kingdom and China,” Raab told Reuters and the BBC.

 

[FireDragon76]

Do I need to explain things? I though the article did a good job of explaining that China violated the agreement but I guess not everyone can understand it. maybe this from the article will help.
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said Britain had carefully assessed China’s national security legislation since it was published late on Tuesday.

“It constitutes a clear violation of the autonomy of Hong Kong, and a direct threat to the freedoms of its people, and therefore I’m afraid to say it is a clear and serious violation of the Joint Declaration treaty between the United Kingdom and China,” Raab told Reuters and the BBC.

Attacking China's integrity over such a picayune detail that the UK government isn't even willing to seriously invest in, seems petulent and vindictive. This is far from the kind of high morality that many chauvenists such as yourself would claim for the western world vs. China.

 

[disciple Clint]

Attacking China's integrity over such a picayune detail that the UK government isn't even willing to seriously invest in, seems petulent and vindictive. This is far from the kind of high morality that many chauvenists such as yourself would claim for the western world vs. China.

No one is going to buy that but it shows exactly what we can expect when China is held accountable.

 

[KCfromNC]

If you think that China had something to do with Biden being elected, you may have got it right.

Donald's policies towards China were part of his lack of popularity among voters, but probably not at the forefront of most of their minds given everything else he screwed up.

 

[disciple Clint]

Donald's policies towards China were part of his lack of popularity among voters, but probably not at the forefront of most of their minds given everything else he screwed up.

What was wrong with the Trump policies for China?

 

[KCfromNC]

What was wrong with the Trump policies for China?

His retreat and capitulation from a leadership role in Asia was one problem. The other was his dumb ideas about tariffs.

 

[FireDragon76]

Donald's policies towards China were part of his lack of popularity among voters, but probably not at the forefront of most of their minds given everything else he screwed up.

Trump's capricious trade policies meant that American manufacturers paid more for parts used in manufacturing, and American farmers suffered from retaliatory tariffs.

People that think you can dump tariffs on Chinese products without affecting the American economy are simply ignorant of how American manufacturing actually works.