BF2S Forums Australian politics thread.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Uzique wrote:

china has been one of the least bellicose and aggressive nations in modern geopolitical history.

This is completely false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Tibet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Sovi … r_conflict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

i was talking more in terms of giant wars, but fair enough if you want to cite the invasion of tibet as a sign that china is a global menace.

i didn't know about the sino-indian war. thanks for the link.

how many people died in the invasion of tibet? most of the ‘wars’ macbeth linked had combatant numbers and casualties in the hundreds and thousands, and took place during the relatively ‘hot’ cold war.

now what would happen if china tried to invade japan, even with the modest military it has been allowed to have?

are you really comparing a medieval feudal kingdom in the high himalayas with one of the world’s most economically developed countries? aren’t buddhists pacifists, furthermore? what sort of opposition did they mount? i’m sure the japanese will be just as much of a pushover.

i can’t believe this has to be pointed out to you. china took tibet in the same way that russia annexed crimea: because they simply calculated there would be almost zero serious resistance, other than loud protestations. that logic doesn’t extend to world conquest of militarily developed nations, dilderp.

Last edited by uziq (2020-04-23 04:50:18)

uziq wrote:

how many people died in the invasion of tibet? most of the ‘wars’ macbeth linked had combatant numbers and casualties in the hundreds and thousands, and took place during the relatively ‘hot’ cold war.

now what would happen if china tried to invade japan, even with the modest military it has been allowed to have?

are you really comparing a medieval feudal kingdom in the high himalayas with one of the world’s most economically developed countries? aren’t buddhists pacifists, furthermore? what sort of opposition did they mount? i’m sure the japanese will be just as much of a pushover.

i can’t believe this has to be pointed out to you. china took tibet in the same way that russia annexed crimea: because they simply calculated there would be almost zero serious resistance, other than loud protestations. that logic doesn’t extend to world conquest of militarily developed nations, dilderp.

The Taiwanese probably can't put up more than token resistance against the PLA, I suppose that makes it OK.

China did also fight and/or support long term actual large scale wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Now that China actually has a modern, nuclear armed military its a wholly different situation, according to your argument no nearby nation can put up more than a few days token resistance so it is in fact quite likely they'll go ahead.

Well in the case of Hong Kong, it already is officially part of China. Nothing anyone can or will do. In the case of Taiwan, it's complicated but ultimately also not an issue any other power would want to be involved in militarily.

However you have to second guess your assumption that it will be militarily taken. What's the political goal here? Would an occupation be sustainable? Would it help or hinder China's global and economic positioning? If you ask me they already have enough regions with less than satisfied populations. Violently adding that island full of inhabitants hostile to the new rule does not read like a proper strategic plan. Much less the idea to then somehow dominate the rest of the region. This isn't the age of empire anymore Dilbert, the course of history has demonstrated these pursuits are not sustainable or very fruitful. We had superpowers eclipsing China lose colonies against far less advanced adversaries than say the Taiwanese. There's no real argument to assume things would now play out differently.

What annoys me most and this is recurring in all your statements: there is no argument. It's only a list of conclusions.

'The Chinese are evil bent on dominating the planet'
'They will start by annexing Taiwan to impose central rule'

Do you peer into a crystal ball, look at the stars and read horoscopes to come up with this? I don't think it's acceptable in your own engineering field to make assumptions without reasoned mathematical arguments, so why skip that attention to detail in everything else....

Last edited by Larssen (2020-04-23 05:45:53)

well why aren't you alarmed about the US? look at US foreign policy from 1949--present. china's geopolitics were influenced by the cold war, as were america's. all of the wars that macbeth linked (one of which i have to admit i hadn't before heard of) were to do with border disagreements and cold war maneuvering. has china invaded several completely innocent nations in that time for reasons that have nothing to do with border disputes? where's china's iraq-afghanistan? where's china's fake-concocted stories about having to depose foreign leaders because of WMDs? where's china's litany of strong-men and useful dictators, installed across latin america or africa? compared to the former colonial-european powers and the neo-colonial pax americana, china's geopolitical influence and ambition has been slight and marginal.

america is aggressively promoting a strategy of containment in the south china sea and around the pacific. it has about as many air and naval bases as there are volcanic islands in the pacific rim. again, why wouldn't china try to ensure safe access to the sea? it's the same strategic importance that has seen it build new ports in pakistan and nurture close ties with the junta in burma (no different from the US in panama/guadalcanal and the UK in suez, both of which featured military invasions, and in the former case deposed leaders, lots of dead civilians and military atrocities).

why doesn't the west give you as much alarm and cause for grief? aren't we just as likely to take the world to the brink of global immolation? could it possibly be that you're afraid of the chinaman because he speaks a different language and eats a different cuisine to you?

Last edited by uziq (2020-04-23 06:26:51)

once again, the chances of a power invading another advanced nation in the 21st century are almost nil. military tech means that a total war would quickly escalate to catastrophic proportions. the global community wouldn't stand by and watch such a thing happen -- including its nuclear superpowers.

furthermore, we are all more or less playing from the global capitalism hymn sheet now. the market is our true binding leader, regardless of nationalist protestations and grandstanding. why would china want to destroy the global economy? it is reliant upon it for its trade and import/export. why would it want to go down the hugely costly route of invading a sovereign power to attain minerals, when it can very easily trade at a massive advantage for the very same end? china would become a pariah state, shunned and embargo'd by the world, if it were to invade australia.

it's complete fucking claptrap and paranoiac-hysteria of the highest order.

Last edited by uziq (2020-04-23 06:33:20)

as i've been alluding to, it's clear that dilbert sees things primarily in terms of essentialist racial/ethnic categories, therefore 'the chinese' is a universal and ahistorical essence, not a historically contingent phenomenon with a political history with nuance, context and development. really his glissando reasoning of '1949 and the present day' is probably a stand-in because he hasn't ever read much of anything on pre-communist china.

it's another instance of where his prophetic powers of 'always being right eventually' are all so damnably wrong.

i don't think race has anything to do with it, which is why i criticize dilbert. i have no desire to 'defend' the chinese race just as i have no desire to 'criticise' the white race. can you stop being so obsequious to white people, again? it's your least appealing habit.

how does china want to overthrow western civilization? i just don't see it. outcompeting someone at their own game is hardly overthrowing their civilization. it's not china's fault that america's economy is on the wane and all they have left is fake numbers on wall street.

Last edited by uziq (2020-04-23 07:51:26)

You may roll your eyes at me when I defend western civilization. But western civilization is the one I am a part of as were my ancestors. You guys defend Islam and China when they want nothing more from you then your money and death. And the inability of liberals to separate criticism of those civilizations and the treatment of domestic minorities does a disservice to all involved.

Uzique just because you nailed (allegedly) some Chinese woman doesn't mean your experience with them is representative of how they feel about the west. And like I said, Chinese living in the west are not Chinese people in China. You still seem unable to separate the two.

Historical data and analysis of Chinese news, culture, and history? What are you basing your knowledge on? An imaginary girlfriend?

uziq wrote:

i didn't know about the sino-indian war. thanks for the link.

I mean you literally didn't even know Chinese foreign relations and yet somehow I am the misinformed one.

Uzique wrote:

chinese people want mostly the same things your average western person wants.

Your average American wants to see China weak, poor, and defeated. If the average Chinese person and the average American aren't so different then the feeling is mutual.

The Chinese government is literally telling their people that the United States related COVID into their country on purpose. Their government rightfully sees the U.S. as their only rival. The people there are told that this is their century and the only thing in their way is the United States. Meanwhile naive liberals argue #NotAllChinese while Wall Street people send western manufacturing overseas since they are too shortsighted to see that the Chinese don't care about their international finance order.