aquarius7000
Well-known member
Free Tibet!
That at a time when China is out to get more and is getting involved more intensively in territorial disputes with its neighbours - Bhutan and India.
Free Tibet!
That at a time when China is out to get more and is getting involved more intensively in territorial disputes with its neighbours - Bhutan and India.
That at a time when China is out to get more and is getting involved more intensively in territorial disputes with its neighbours - Bhutan and India.
I think Xi, as normal for a dictator, is trying to sort of continuously establish his position to his people through a 'display of power'. More territory means more power. Of course it hurts India and Bhutan, especially as they seem to be peaceful towards China, but for Xi - it is all about exerting China's dominance not only in the region, but in the world.China's dangerous. And N.Korea is now a nuclear threat under China's influence. Why is Trump poking the Dragon???
My point exactly. Would China sit idly by while India replaces it as a manufacturing giant?
I
From the perspective of just America, Trump 'prodding' China sure appears somewhat dangerous, but if I look at AppLeo's post and also the way I like to think, from a macro perspective, China needs to be 'checked', as such dominance will not only hurt India and Bhutan, but also America. Initially, I was thinking that China is trying to keep India in check due to the latter's economic success and growth, but then you look at China-Japan relations, Tibet, etc., and it is quite clear what China might be up to - re-balance or re-establishment of power - perhaps also to prove itself to the US.
What is also interesting is that Xi has not only got N. Korea 'under its wing', but is also ganging up with the Communist Party govt. of Nepal and the likes of Pakistan on the other side of India. Its political leanings seem quite reflective of what China is about and might be up to.
Economically, per my understanding, China is much stronger than India and all those it is encroaching upon put together.
India might have better relations with other countries incl. some of its peaceful neighbours, but if India were not to receive the backing of such 'friends', can it survive a real attack by China? Perhaps it could put China in its place. Or will China prevail?
There is something about Xi that is 'ominous'
I can tell that you've never even been to the Deep South!
You don't think there's racism against jews, asians, native people? But for the most part, people are tolerant and accepting, all over the world. You know who doesn't accept other faiths and other ethnic groups? They throw gay people off roofs of buildings. But all you can criticize is the U.S. Maybe you want to move to Ethiopia along with aquarius7000?
Here is the part I disagree.
China and the U.S. don't need each other in the same manner.
Any cheap manufacturer could replace China, such as India. It is much harder for China to replace U.S. technological development and natural resources.
Also China has, through economic development, corporate espionage, and currency manipulation become a competitor with the U.S. in the last two decades.
The U.S. and China are now direct competitors, so conflict is bound to occur. Not necessarily war, but on the very least diplomatic.
I don't trust anything that comes out of the mouth of career politicians, or mass media conglomerates - because they make their living through the use of politics, and manipulating public perception. I also don't trust corporations who are in bed with politicians.
Which is one of the reasons I like Trump: he is not a career politician.
Yes, I'm aware.
Yes, and that responsibility is upholding individual rights, not collective rights.
No, police are necessary. Otherwise, we'd devolve into anarchy in which the most physically powerful would rule. Even though these rulers would be at the top, their lives would be better served in a free society.
Having police is an agreement of every individual that force is monopolized and owned by everyone. This force, then, can only be in the interest of the collective. The collective of individuals.
Since force is monopolized, there is no competition or demand for force. Force stagnates and declines. Everything becomes voluntary in which only individuals can only deal with one another rationally and consensually. Anyone who uses force outside of this monopoly is considered a criminal and will lose their individual rights.
The idea behind that theory is that as long they need each other through commerce, war can only cause mutual destruction.
China is dependant on the U.S. for oil, gas, copper, vehicles, gold, etc. imports. Without them, they can't naturally produce such products.
If the chinese were to go to war with the U.S., that trade would stop, which would only hurt themselves. It goes the same way for the americans. Such possibility will, in theory, prevent the chinese from starting a war with the U.S.
The thing about the U.S. is that, although they get a benefit from trading with the chinese, they could replace China with other cheap manufacturers (such as India), or produce it themselves.
The "golden arches" theory proposed by Milton Friedman's is the idea that two countries with "McDonalds" franchises (meaning both countries accept international commerce) are unwilling or unlikely to go to war.
I don't trust anything that comes out of the mouth of career politicians, or mass media conglomerates - because they make their living through the use of politics, and manipulating public perception. I also don't trust corporations who are in bed with politicians.
Which is one of the reasons I like Trump: he is not a career politician.