Read 17008 times

  • Chester Jim
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1082

    • March 05, 2015, 02:17:12 pm
    • Arkansas
    more
Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #80 on: December 16, 2015, 08:13:39 pm »
I think the question that none of us are asking is why is the United States, NATO, Gladio, etc. are insisting that Assad has to step down if he was elected democratically?

Allegedly, he has been killing his people indiscriminately, but I remember that it was as if there were CIA agents hired to destroy his country from within in order to get him to leave.

Is the world on the verge of an all out war because they are wanting him to leave and he is refusing?

But, what right does America have to insist that he leave? He was, after all, elected democratically by the majority of his countrymen.

This just reminds me of Mossadeq of Iran when he, too, was elected by his people democratically, but because he wanted to nationalize his country's oil, the CIA came in and pretty much took him down.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup

History repeating itself when it comes to Western hegemony.
Yes no one seems to remember the main cause of the Syrian war.     Some boys were spraypainting offensive comments about the government, so the the police beat them near death and raped them.  Then the Syrian people protested and were shot by the police.   Americans think that if a government fails to be responsible and act in the interest of the people, then the people can legitimately overthrow the government.   Crazy idea.

Russians on the other hand get very scared when an autocratic government gets overthrown.    Wonder why?
Bonzai!


  • zola
  • The Legend

    • 2791

    • September 30, 2012, 06:56:11 am
    • Korea
Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #81 on: December 16, 2015, 08:40:53 pm »
Exactly.
America is awful and has done awful things. I don't think anyone who has actually studied 20th century history would deny that.
But look at the alternatives. Like the above said, Russia and China. Just take a quick look at how they treat their own people let alone other countries. Look at what the Soviet Union got up to during the cold war. Ask the people of Prague in 1968 or Hungary in 1956 how fair Soviet/Russian foreign policy was. Or the Tibetans/Uighur about Chinese policy towards anyone suggesting autonomy.

There has always been a preeminent powers. Usually regional, but with the advent of technology, we now have global superpowers. Before the US it was Britain and France, before them, Spain, Turks, Mongols, Chinese etc. back through the depths of time. That's just the way it is. A state, ethnicity, whatever, gets powerful and wants to have it's interests taken care of. It also wants security. They, whoever that is, will do it what they see fit. Invasion, colonisation, genocide, embargo etc.

If the US disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow do you really think we are all going to be holding hands and singing in peace and harmony. Obviously the power vacuum would cause chaos, but once things had settled, the next rising power, China, maybe Russia would step in and I shudder to think what they would get up to. Equally as bad and probably much much worse then the Americans.

It is history. And it is human nature.

I never got a sense that Russia and China are hegemonic like the US and UK are/were.
Then you have no understanding of history in any way shape or form.

They are what they are at the moment because that is what their current reality dictates. China is just now (in historical terms) pulling itself out of the isolation it chose for itself into from the Qing dynasty, through the colonial period, Sino-Japanese war, revolution, turmoil and development. Those 200 some years not withstanding, China (as far as the concept of nation statehood can be applied pre 1800) was the hegemon in this part of the world. Save a few intervening periods, like Mongol rule.

As for Russia, what exactly do you think the whole cold war thingee was about? Just fun and games to pass the time? Ask the Baltics, Kazaks, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Georgians, Aremenians, Azerbijanis etc etc if they enjoyed being part of the USSR. Or the myriad other countries (Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Mozambique etc etc) who were used by them as proxies. Or the entire Eastern bloc of Europe whether they feel that Russians were in any way hegemonic. That's what the cold war was. The battle of two hegemons. It's just that Russia ran itself into the ground trying to keep up with American military expenditure while at the same time supporting it's extended family of basket case economies like North Korea.

Read a history book for God's sake.
Kpip! - Martin 2018


Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #82 on: December 16, 2015, 09:38:20 pm »
I don't have your perspective on history. And, even now, I would still say that America's vast expanse of military around the world is more hegemonic than all of what Russia and China have done or tried to achieve.

China does invest a lot of business in Africa. It's the difference between America and China. America goes into countries with military power. China goes in with business acumen.



  • zola
  • The Legend

    • 2791

    • September 30, 2012, 06:56:11 am
    • Korea
Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #83 on: December 16, 2015, 10:32:33 pm »
I don't have your perspective on history. And, even now, I would still say that America's vast expanse of military around the world is more hegemonic than all of what Russia and China have done or tried to achieve.

China does invest a lot of business in Africa. It's the difference between America and China. America goes into countries with military power. China goes in with business acumen.
You are looking at the last 25 years and saying well from what I've seen the US is the only hegemonic power. So thats that. After I've just told you that Russia was just as much as a hegemon as the US.

It was only limited by it's own economic stagnation. It annexed all of the nations that bordered it in the 1910s and 1920s. It  started trying to ferment Socialist revolution in other countries throughout the 1920s and 30s. It supported the Mongolian revolution with troops and Mongolia was more or less part of the Soviet union until 90s. The confrences held in Yalta and Potsdam basically divided the world into spheres of influence.If that's not hegemonic, what us?. They supported the Norks in the Korean war and Mao in China. As well as countless insurgencies throughout Asia. They had almost total control over half of Europe. Children in East Germany or Poland were forced to learn Russian. They tried to put nuclear missiles in Cuba (another client state) but backed down. They had client states all over the world. Russian weapons, trainers and advisers could be found in almost any war zone on earth. Even countries you dont associate with Soviet domination like Egypt had most of their officer class trained in Moscow. They tried to set up a puppet regime in Afghanistan, failed, invaded and occupied for almost a decade. Again, they limited themselves because there was the counter balance of the US doing equally shadyshit at the same time and the fact that their economy was slowly but surely being run into the ground. All the while trying to keep any notion of independence in check in their client states.
 If Russia had "won" the Cold War and America was the one that split apart into individual little states with shitty economies, do you truly believe Russia wouldnt be doing at least the same level as what the US is doing now? Going by history I tend to think they would be a whole lot worse.

China has been in no position to do anything. It was, and still is in large swathes of the country, a third world developing country where tens of millions were dying of starvation until relatively recently. They still found time to annex Tibet and meddle in the affairs of Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia. In the last 30 years it has seen itself with the ability to actually have some relevance on the international stage. They still have massive internal problems so the idea of them doing anything particularly rash, like bombing the Philippines is highly unlikely, again they are only limited by their position. Like someone said, look at their actions in the South China Sea. Hardly magnanimous. They don't go into Africa with military because why would they? And how could they? They are not in a position to challenge American hegemony at this time so sending military into Nigeria for example would just be idiocy. But rest assured the business investment in Africa is not some benevolent gesture. It is laying the ground work in a very smart way.

Do you think America is doing what is doing because Americans are inately arrogant or imperialistic? They are doing it because they can. No other country is even close to have the ability to do that.  When the US falls, and it will, someone else will step in to fill their shoes. And on and on it will go.

I'm not defending the US. Everyone is aware of what they do. Maybe the one thing we could point to as unique to them is their concept of "American Exceptionalism" and what some American leaders have thought that meant , but beyond that they are the ones with crown right at this moment. The same crown worn by so many before. Its just now with supreme military technology, global communication and dissemination of information their position seems so much more stark.
Kpip! - Martin 2018


  • kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • 5272

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #84 on: December 17, 2015, 10:37:12 am »
I don't have your perspective on history. ...
You are looking at the last 25 years and saying...
I wouldn't take her too seriously: if one looks back to earlier posts in this thread, one can see that she quotes Zionist-world-domination-conspiracy researchers. :rolleyes:

For example:
It has nothing to do with Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc. but has everything to do with this:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815
Once you learn about this, then you realize this has been in the making way before many of us have been born.
That source, by the way, is from a "research centre" that is generally considered to be a joke.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2015, 10:42:58 am by kyndo »


  • waygo0k
  • The Legend

    • 3938

    • September 27, 2011, 11:51:01 am
    • Chungnam
Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #85 on: December 17, 2015, 10:50:22 am »
I don't have your perspective on history. And, even now, I would still say that America's vast expanse of military around the world is more hegemonic than all of what Russia and China have done or tried to achieve.

China does invest a lot of business in Africa. It's the difference between America and China. America goes into countries with military power. China goes in with business acumen.

As the saying goes, beware of those that come bearing gifts.

China isn't investing in Africa, it is bribing corrupt leaders in exchange for a percentage of their country's resources. China's expenditure on the continent is a tiny fraction compared to what it gets in return.

Africans are starting to wise up to China's motive and have started to resent its presence on the continent. If this "partnership" continues, it would only be a matter of time before China resorts to western tactics of politically destabilising African regions and sponsoring coups.


Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #86 on: December 17, 2015, 12:23:25 pm »
I don't have your perspective on history. ...
You are looking at the last 25 years and saying...
I wouldn't take her too seriously: if one looks back to earlier posts in this thread, one can see that she quotes Zionist-world-domination-conspiracy researchers. :rolleyes:

Really? I don't support the Zionist agenda...I shared the Odid Yinon Plan so people can get a perspective on what the Zionist agenda was in the Syrian region. Then, they can see how ISIS is pretty much a front for Israel and how Israel is using NATO, America, etc. to further it's agenda. Sorry you read that incorrectly.

For example:
It has nothing to do with Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc. but has everything to do with this:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815
Once you learn about this, then you realize this has been in the making way before many of us have been born.
That source, by the way, is from a "research centre" that is generally considered to be a joke.
[/quote]

Who would you bring into this discussion? I'm nowhere near saying I have the correct or superior perspective on the geopolitical implications of all the attacks which are taking place now, just trying to make some sense of what's going on in the world.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2015, 12:30:46 pm by nespeaker »


  • englishrose
  • Expert Waygook

    • 662

    • June 24, 2013, 07:27:22 am
    • South Korea
Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #87 on: December 17, 2015, 01:18:47 pm »
I don't have your perspective on history. And, even now, I would still say that America's vast expanse of military around the world is more hegemonic than all of what Russia and China have done or tried to achieve.

China does invest a lot of business in Africa. It's the difference between America and China. America goes into countries with military power. China goes in with business acumen.

As the saying goes, beware of those that come bearing gifts.

China isn't investing in Africa, it is bribing corrupt leaders in exchange for a percentage of their country's resources. China's expenditure on the continent is a tiny fraction compared to what it gets in return.

Africans are starting to wise up to China's motive and have started to resent its presence on the continent. If this "partnership" continues, it would only be a matter of time before China resorts to western tactics of politically destabilizing African regions and sponsoring coups.

Would like to pile in on this. I really hate this China is a wonderful soft power idea. I've lived in China. This is not a culture you want as the most powerful country in the world. The only reason that things have not got hot yet is that the Chinese are phenomenally crap at warfare and they are not culturally prone to boldness/bravery. That China is going to need a harsh slapping in this century is a certainty. Pray the US will be able to deliver it or that the EU gets a grip and builds up a decent military capacity.

For those of you who think business expansionism is all cute and cuddly remember that most of the British Empire started off as private initiatives. India was a corporate fief until the mutiny of 1857. Cecil Rhodes seized a vast territory completely of his own volition. Read about the Hudson Bay company.  Money is power but it's also something worth protecting.


Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #88 on: December 17, 2015, 01:49:21 pm »
The geopolitical implications are so complicated.

Europe will have to negotiate  in  bilateral arrangements with multiple countries in order to find a solution to stop future attacks in Europe. They will have to work with Russia, Iran, and Saudia Arabia. Europe and America has to go to the source of the problems by working more closely with governments with in the Middle East.

The region is too splintered due to religion, ethnic majorities and minorities differences.   One country to lead them won't work unless they get help from outside. (sadly)

 If Europe negotiates with certain countries to use special forces equivalents to push out ISIS, then that country will have to have the same religion sect in power(controlling office). They will target ISIS's ability to make money, and use armies to hold swathes of land once they defeat ISIS.




  • kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • 5272

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #89 on: December 17, 2015, 02:41:58 pm »
Who would you bring into this discussion? I'm nowhere near saying I have the correct or superior perspective on the geopolitical implications of all the attacks which are taking place now, just trying to make some sense of what's going on in the world.
Fair enough.
Looking for points of view aside from the Western one is a great idea, but I would recommend using somewhat more reputable sources. One such that you might want to consider regarding the events surrounding ISIL would be Al Jazeera, which is a news agency based in Qatar.
While they have biases just like any other agency, they're not necessarily the same ones one would expect from a Canadian or American source.  :smiley:


  • Archeon
  • Expert Waygook

    • 773

    • August 21, 2012, 02:36:28 pm
    • Ulsan
Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #90 on: December 17, 2015, 02:50:35 pm »

Europe will have to negotiate  in  bilateral arrangements with multiple countries in order to find a solution to stop future attacks in Europe.

I think this is part of the crux of the problem.  There will always be "another" attack.

There is no country you can point to and say "stop doing that". 

It is literally an ideology that has been around for hundreds of years with no borders.

If you pay off one group, another gets mad, if you pay them all off, someone somewhere will newly spring up and want a piece of the pie.

Whenever a nutjob with a gun gets some fundamentalist worldview ingrained deep enough in his mind, he'll act on it to the dismay of the populace.

There are over 7 billion people on this planet, even if only .1% of them were crazy nutjobs that is still a staggering amount of people capable of doing something rash and absurd for some crazy ideal. 
I will tolerate your existence only so far as it doesn't infringe on science.


Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #91 on: December 17, 2015, 03:21:13 pm »
Who would you bring into this discussion? I'm nowhere near saying I have the correct or superior perspective on the geopolitical implications of all the attacks which are taking place now, just trying to make some sense of what's going on in the world.
Fair enough.
Looking for points of view aside from the Western one is a great idea, but I would recommend using somewhat more reputable sources. One such that you might want to consider regarding the events surrounding ISIL would be Al Jazeera, which is a news agency based in Qatar.
While they have biases just like any other agency, they're not necessarily the same ones one would expect from a Canadian or American source.  :smiley:

I enjoy Al Jazeera's journalistic integrity. However, on Syria, they faltered. I noticed that after the reports in Egypt of Arab Spring, the General Manager at the time ended up stepping down and the Crown Prince of Qatar stepped in. Something was amiss regarding the reporting that was coming in regarding Syrian rebels fighting against Assad's presidency.

Many of their journalists quit. Same thing happened during the coverage of Egypt's Arab Spring.

Somewhere along the line, maybe around when Al Jazeera bought out Al Gore's Current TV to make an Al Jazeera America, the coverage seemed to have lost its luster of what made it outstanding as compared to all the propaganda in America.

Unfortunately, now, Al Jazeera is run by one of the members of the royal family, there were/are some ties to deposing Assad and the station unfortunately has lost some of its objectivity in that realm.

Still, I do agree with you that Al Jazeera is a worthy resource. However, we shouldn't insist it's the ONLY one.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2015, 03:29:31 pm by nespeaker »


  • khalavala
  • Expert Waygook

    • 505

    • July 31, 2014, 06:13:40 am
    • Toronto
    more
Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #92 on: December 17, 2015, 03:24:34 pm »
Who would you bring into this discussion? I'm nowhere near saying I have the correct or superior perspective on the geopolitical implications of all the attacks which are taking place now, just trying to make some sense of what's going on in the world.
Fair enough.
Looking for points of view aside from the Western one is a great idea, but I would recommend using somewhat more reputable sources. One such that you might want to consider regarding the events surrounding ISIL would be Al Jazeera, which is a news agency based in Qatar.
While they have biases just like any other agency, they're not necessarily the same ones one would expect from a Canadian or American source.  :smiley:

I enjoy Al Jazeera's journalistic integrity. However, on Syria, they faltered. I noticed that after the reports in Egypt of Arab Spring, the General Manager at the time ended up stepping down and the Crown Prince of Qatar stepped in. Something was amiss regarding the reporting that was coming in regarding Syrian rebels fighting against Assad's presidency.

Many of their journalists quit. Same thing happened during the coverage of Egypt's Arab Spring.

Somewhere along the line, maybe around when Al Jazeera bought out Al Gore's Current TV to make an Al Jazeera America, the coverage seemed to have lost its luster of what made it outstanding as compared to all the propaganda in America.

Unfortunately, now, Qatar is run by one of the members of the royal family, there were/are some ties to deposing Assad and the station unfortunately has lost some of its objectivity in that realm.

Still, I do agree with you that Al Jazeera is a worthy resource. However, we shouldn't insist it's the ONLY one.

I'll give Russia Today a watch a few times a week to see the Russian effort in Syria and their criticism of American gov. I dropped Al Jazeera a while ago for the reasons you mentioned.


Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #93 on: December 17, 2015, 07:14:24 pm »
I don't have your perspective on history. And, even now, I would still say that America's vast expanse of military around the world is more hegemonic than all of what Russia and China have done or tried to achieve.

China does invest a lot of business in Africa. It's the difference between America and China. America goes into countries with military power. China goes in with business acumen.

As the saying goes, beware of those that come bearing gifts.

China isn't investing in Africa, it is bribing corrupt leaders in exchange for a percentage of their country's resources. China's expenditure on the continent is a tiny fraction compared to what it gets in return.

Africans are starting to wise up to China's motive and have started to resent its presence on the continent. If this "partnership" continues, it would only be a matter of time before China resorts to western tactics of politically destabilizing African regions and sponsoring coups.

Would like to pile in on this. I really hate this China is a wonderful soft power idea. I've lived in China. This is not a culture you want as the most powerful country in the world. The only reason that things have not got hot yet is that the Chinese are phenomenally crap at warfare and they are not culturally prone to boldness/bravery. That China is going to need a harsh slapping in this century is a certainty. Pray the US will be able to deliver it or that the EU gets a grip and builds up a decent military capacity.

For those of you who think business expansionism is all cute and cuddly remember that most of the British Empire started off as private initiatives. India was a corporate fief until the mutiny of 1857. Cecil Rhodes seized a vast territory completely of his own volition. Read about the Hudson Bay company.  Money is power but it's also something worth protecting.

So, why does China deserve this slap? And, why not your country do the slapping rather than getting the Americans to do it?

Who is to say that China's turn at Empire will look similar to how your beloved country's was?

The point I was making between China vs. America in Africa is that China went about it more intelligently through economic incentives. America went about it with military might and offering religion and English. Between the 2, which reigns supreme? You're right...money is power.






  • waygo0k
  • The Legend

    • 3938

    • September 27, 2011, 11:51:01 am
    • Chungnam
Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #94 on: December 17, 2015, 08:43:10 pm »
America didn't go into Africa with religion and English...that was Europe.

America inherited most of the remnants of European colonial rule in Africa by default after WW2, and further cemented its grip via the CIA, IMF and UN.

China's economic incentives isn't for the average African though, rather it's for the elite that are willing to collect a quick bribe. There is even evidence of China meddling in domestic political landscapes in African countries by threatening to cut ties if favourable leaders aren't "elected".

Not to mention the fact that most Chinese projects in Africa have majority work forces that comprise of workers brought in from China, rather than local Africans. The Africans who do get hired are often mistreated and underpaid by their employers.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2015, 08:45:14 pm by waygo0k »


Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #95 on: December 17, 2015, 11:32:57 pm »
America didn't go into Africa with religion and English...that was Europe.

America inherited most of the remnants of European colonial rule in Africa by default after WW2, and further cemented its grip via the CIA, IMF and UN.

China's economic incentives isn't for the average African though, rather it's for the elite that are willing to collect a quick bribe. There is even evidence of China meddling in domestic political landscapes in African countries by threatening to cut ties if favourable leaders aren't "elected".

Not to mention the fact that most Chinese projects in Africa have majority work forces that comprise of workers brought in from China, rather than local Africans. The Africans who do get hired are often mistreated and underpaid by their employers.

China dealing with African political outcomes sounds a lot like America dealing with Syria and pretty much north Africa and the Middle East!


  • waygo0k
  • The Legend

    • 3938

    • September 27, 2011, 11:51:01 am
    • Chungnam
Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #96 on: December 18, 2015, 12:35:18 am »
Not quite yet.

China has not reached the levels the US and EU are/were when it comes to securing favourable governments/leaders for their interests.

Coups, civil wars, out right wars, assassinations, debt, sanctions and intimidation are some of the tactics western nations have used in the aforementioned regions...right now, China is still in its "let's bribe them and slightly twist their arm" phase...if African countries aren't careful, the next set of proxy wars will be between China and the west for Africa's resources


  • englishrose
  • Expert Waygook

    • 662

    • June 24, 2013, 07:27:22 am
    • South Korea
Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #97 on: December 18, 2015, 07:47:32 am »
I don't have your perspective on history. And, even now, I would still say that America's vast expanse of military around the world is more hegemonic than all of what Russia and China have done or tried to achieve.

China does invest a lot of business in Africa. It's the difference between America and China. America goes into countries with military power. China goes in with business acumen.

As the saying goes, beware of those that come bearing gifts.

China isn't investing in Africa, it is bribing corrupt leaders in exchange for a percentage of their country's resources. China's expenditure on the continent is a tiny fraction compared to what it gets in return.

Africans are starting to wise up to China's motive and have started to resent its presence on the continent. If this "partnership" continues, it would only be a matter of time before China resorts to western tactics of politically destabilizing African regions and sponsoring coups.

Would like to pile in on this. I really hate this China is a wonderful soft power idea. I've lived in China. This is not a culture you want as the most powerful country in the world. The only reason that things have not got hot yet is that the Chinese are phenomenally crap at warfare and they are not culturally prone to boldness/bravery. That China is going to need a harsh slapping in this century is a certainty. Pray the US will be able to deliver it or that the EU gets a grip and builds up a decent military capacity.

For those of you who think business expansionism is all cute and cuddly remember that most of the British Empire started off as private initiatives. India was a corporate fief until the mutiny of 1857. Cecil Rhodes seized a vast territory completely of his own volition. Read about the Hudson Bay company.  Money is power but it's also something worth protecting.

So, why does China deserve this slap? And, why not your country do the slapping rather than getting the Americans to do it?

Who is to say that China's turn at Empire will look similar to how your beloved country's was?

The point I was making between China vs. America in Africa is that China went about it more intelligently through economic incentives. America went about it with military might and offering religion and English. Between the 2, which reigns supreme? You're right...money is power.

Aaaaah? Geopolitical questions over morning coffee? I think I might be in love. Let's get to it.

So, why does China deserve this slap? I said China will need a slap. Will. Although even now I could mention probing cyber attacks, market and currency manipulation, large scale IP theft and general petulant behavior diplomatically. The real danger is int he South China Sea that China considers its own based on nothing more than old maps saying it was.

Fun factoid: The Chinese Emperors were considered master of all under the heavens so by Chinese Logic the whole world is theirs.

The Chinese are using Salami tactics with a bit of Israeli style creation of facts on the ground. They are going to keep pushing until someone pushes back. My money is on the nation that nobody should ever f**k with; Vietnam. The Viets like a fight and have already given China a bloody nose in the past. If provoked enough they will didimao the Chinese. Someone will have to allow the Chinese to save face by presenting them with overwhelming force and therefore an excuse to back down.


And, why not your country do the slapping rather than getting the Americans to do it?
To put it bluntly, my country can't. Don't get me wrong, should British squaddies face the segway riding, back flipping, brick smashing poseurs of the PLA then it will be a question of hoping the lads have enough ammo. However, China will be fought on the seas and in the air. We won't have a carrier until 2017 at the unlikely earliest and won't have planes for it untill 2020 (sadly actual policy and not a bad joke). As for the RAF they haven't shot anything down since the second world war.

I'm afraid the British Armed forces are designed for other tasks like patrolling Belfast, wrecking pubs in Aldershot or teaching Argentinians geography and maritime law.

Who is to say that China's turn at Empire will look similar to how your beloved country's was?
Who says I love my country? I think patriotism is rather crass and somewhat beneath me. I leave that to the more primitive peoples of the globe.
Jokes aside, the Chinese Empire is starting just like the British Empire did. Essentially it's mercantilism and expansionism. You are right that it will be very different. It will be much much worse. You will get all the ruthlessness, all the greed, all the sense of superiority, twice of he racism but, and this is the key point, none of the humanism or theological or philosophical universalism. There is no Chinese Thomas More, no Chinese Hobbes or no Chinese Locke. There will never be a Chinese Wilberforce of a Conrad or even a Kipling or a Lawrence.


The point I was making between China vs. America in Africa is that China went about it more intelligently through economic incentives. America went about it with military might and offering religion and English. Between the 2, which reigns supreme? You're right...money is power.


WaygoOk has already pointed it out you have mixed up history. It's a fair point about Latin America but not for Africa. There are many sins that can be laid to America's door like the Monroe Doctrine, the Trail of Tears, the Domino theory, Chicago School economics and Taylor Swift. However, the scramble for Africa and the horrendous results are like driving cars with proper transmission, entrenched antisemitism, anachronistic heads of state or splendid architectural heritage; it's rather European.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2015, 08:02:39 am by englishrose »


Re: The Geopolitical Implications of the Paris Attacks. (NO RELIGION)
« Reply #98 on: December 18, 2015, 08:02:42 am »
Thank you all for the lessons this early morning! I enjoy hearing other perspectives on geopolitical issues.

Have a great day!