Romney speaks of New Cold War with China?

1. 82

   Credence2posted 5 years ago

   In an opinion piece from the Washington Post last April 23rd, Mitt Romney warned America of a growing threat posed by China, economically, politically and militarily.
   
   In all fairness, here is the Romney opinion piece as presented by the "Post".
   
   https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … story.html
   
   While, I am concerned about China's designs on the geo-political status quo, America did not achieve its global hegemony by being "nice guys". This, no more than I would have expected Great Britain to not have used its strategic advantages to promotes its own interests, during the time Brittanica rules the waves during the 19th Century.
   
   China is using the lure of economic development to entice other nations to work with them. And of course, it comes with strings, doesn't everything?  We had our "strings" imposed as a condition to being an American "ally" and part of the "free world". After watching deutcherwelle documentaries, one picks up a few things.
   
   Nuclear arsenals and rattling sabers don't cut it anymore. How can we really compete short of ineffective threats and policies?
   
   The Salon article (try to read with an open mind, Conservatives) expressed more accurately my view on this matter beyond Romney's concerns.
   
   https://www.salon.com/2020/05/17/do-we- … o_partner/
   
   Your thoughts, please?

   replyreport
   1. 85

      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That's pretty cool. You post a Salon' article and ask that it be read with an "open mind."
      
      Would you advise that same open mind to a Hannity article?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

         No law against posting a Salon article or a Hannity one, the Salon article reflected my opinion only, while I did post Romney's comments as the factual foundation from a more independent source.
         
         I have not summarily dismissed rightwing journalism without reading it particularly if a commenter used it to support his or her case.
         
         But I reserve the right to be critical, just as I give that right to my opponents. Just tell me what points in the article that you take issue with?
         
         Is it OK for you to give me credit for that?

         replyreport
         1. 85

            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Welll, okay, if I must. (and Cred replies, You must! You must!)
            ;-)
            
            GA

            replyreport
   2. 60

      CHRIS57posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      There is the saying: "What you expect that others would do reflects on your own thinking". In other words, if your own mindset is preditory, then of course all others are expected to be preditory as well.
      
      Certainly China is a predator. But of a different kind than the US. China is more a seastar, a jelly fish. If China feeds itself, it digests and absorbs everything, no matter life prey (countries to influence) or vegetarian diet (culture). If Chinese found out, that there is something beneficial about "Ramadan" they would adopt it. Same as they did with Christmas. What has Santa Claus to do with Konfucius and Taoism? Nothing, but it is good for partying, presents and illuminated cities in winter times.
      
      The US is like a wolf. Always strolling around to mark his territories (that is what the aircraft carrier groups are good for). The US as a wolf is the leader of his family, his flock (western world). But eventually this wolf gets old, sick. He starts to separate from his family, leaves the territory (drops out of WHO, out of climat change agenda, of of WTO,..)
      
      This is my interpretation of what is going on. It is not very likely that the very slow moving jelly fish is a threat to the wolf. The wolf got sick by himself (loosing industrial production base).
      The wolf in return also is no threat to the jelly fish. The wolf would have to drink a lot of water to dry out the ocean dwelling of the jelly fish (1,4 Billion people).

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Well, Chris, it appears that the jellyfish will prevail over the wolf analogy. The Chinese approach in these times is the more sophisticated
         approach, cajole not intimidate.
         
         So, to counter China or remain competitive, we are going to have to think and act in different and novel ways from the way we have been doing things.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Violence - cold, hard violence - has solved more more problems in mankind's history than anything else.
            
            That doesn't mean to bomb them back to the stone age, but it is an indication that "sophistication" is not always the most useful answer.  It would be foolish to allow China to decide what to be competitive about, write the rules and then enforce them.  We can play our own game, writing our own rules, and it doesn't mean we simply capitulate to what they want.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Go to war with China? Based on what, they have-not threatened us militarily?
               
               China has just as much right to pursue their course as we have to pursue ours.
               
               If you take sophistication off from the table then violence and war is left, do you really see that as a viable solution?

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I thought it clear I did not advocate war.
                  
                  If you aren't sophisticated war is all that's left?  Ignore them.  Make other friends.  Open new markets.  Do your own work instead of hiring China to do it FOR you.  There are lots of options that don't require playing by rules they design to suit themselves and don't require high levels of sophistication.  Although we may be using the word differently...

                  replyreport
                  1. 82

                     Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Ok, I understand your point, although I do call your suggestions a form of "sophistication".
                     
                     How much of the current situation with China is our own doing, cheap Chinese goods,  exporting jobs, etc?

                     replyreport
            2. 60

               CHRIS57posted 5 years agoin reply to this

               wilderness, violence may have been a solution in the 17th century, when a couple of British gun ships were able to block China and use Opium to dumb down the people for 2 centuries.
               
               China is learning fast and today there is no way you could reroute Medellin shipments to Shanghai.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  What was the solution to Al Qaida (sp?)?  To the takeover of Kuwait?  To terrorism in general?  The world is still replete with violence as a solution to a problem and it is not going to change any time soon no matter how hard we try to avoid it.  There are, and will remain, far too many who do not understand any other language.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     CHRIS57posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Of course you need brute force to deal with artifically created systems like Al Qaida (created with strong support from CIA to fight Soviet troups in Afghanistan) or Kuwait (all those straight border lines from the Sykes Picot agreement of 1916 are artificial, including all countries within).
                     
                     I doubt that violence is the right means to deal with natural (culturally self supporting) systems like China or Russia.

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        An "artificial" border line?  You mean like most of the borders of the US?  Or any border line - there is not a single one that Mother Earth put down and declared it to be a border between two countries?
                        
                        I doubt that violence is right for China or Russia either.  But that is no indication that more "sophisticated" means (whatever that means) is always the answer either.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           CHRIS57posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           wilderness, borderlines, if not manifested by natural rivers, oceans, mountains are always to some extent man made. But there are cultural and/or religious differences that also create borders same as natural obstacles.
                           
                           Things get tricky, if borders are drawn arbitrarily without consultation of the people living in those places. Happened in 1916, when Britain and France cut the Middle East into pieces. Until today the world has to deal with this mess. (And the world wants to deal with it, because of natural resources).
                           
                           In other words, your reference to Kuwait is also one of those artificial examples. If Sikes in 1916 hadn´t done his thing, there wouldn´t be a Kuwait. And Irak/Iran would also have a more "religious" border to separate Shiits and Sunnits.
                           
                           Master of geostrategy were the British in the 17th to 19th century. The USA stepped in after WWI. Already the British had high concerns about the big Euro-Asian landmass, that simply could not be controlled by their fleet.
                           Today, whatever China is doing now by pushing the "New Silk Road" (which ends in Netherlands/ West Germany), it will have impact on the future role of the USA.
                           Actually this is why the Ukraine was so much influenced and played with by all US administrations for the past 20 years. The Ukraine is like a road block for the Silk Road. The other possible land path goes through the Middle East and there the USA unfolds enough action to keep situation unstable.
                           
                           On the long run you don´t get China by some embargo or trade war. China will win. With this Corona chaos going on in the US, already now sympathies of multiple western European countries have shifted towards China, away from the US, recent polls show.
                           I believe this is not a good development, but the US administration allows  this to happen, sometimes even amplifies. The last guy who had some idea of geostrategy was Bolton, but he got a kick.

                           replyreport