Closer Friends?

[Kathianne]

US and China?

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/04/12/trumps-tilt-to-china-spells-trouble-for-putin/

Money Quote:


..

A new partnership is likely forming between the world's two biggest economies. No doubt Vladimir Putin is very aware and this was on the Russian leader's mind when he met with Secretary of State Tillerson, also Wednesday. We don't know what precise message Rex delivered to Vladimir, but I suspect he didn't have to say much. Actions, as we all know, speak louder than words. For the first time since Nixon and Kissinger, an America president -- and presumably his secretary of State -- was using the Chinese to triangulate with the Russians. But this time America was even stronger than before, because Russia is much weaker than it was during the height of the Soviet Union. Oil is down and Putin's in trouble, no matter who is hacking whom.

...

[sear]

China has in the past been a global power.

What lowered China's international stature was isolationism.

Now that China is re-engaging the world, it's emerging as a potential for the next global power, competing with India.

Reportedly China is on schedule with its 100 year plan to assume this global leadership role.
Some may think that most ominous.
I don't.
The U.S. hasn't handled the role all that well.
It wouldn't surprise me if China handles it more skillfully.

Also worth noting:
The most successful aspects of China are the most Westernized. Compare Hong Kong's economy with the mainland Chinese economy.
It's a glaring reality that can't have escaped the notice of China's politburo.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

China has in the past been a global power.

What lowered China's international stature was isolationism.

Now that China is re-engaging the world, it's emerging as a potential for the next global power, competing with India.

Reportedly China is on schedule with its 100 year plan to assume this global leadership role.
Some may think that most ominous.
I don't.
The U.S. hasn't handled the role all that well.
It wouldn't surprise me if China handles it more skillfully.

Also worth noting:
The most successful aspects of China are the most Westernized. Compare Hong Kong's economy with the mainland Chinese economy.
It's a glaring reality that can't have escaped the notice of China's politburo.


I disagree with your view that China would be better at being the next dominant world power.
Its history, its people and their customs, and its almost zero concern for the welfare of its people (life there being considered so expendable and valueless), to me clearly points to the opposite judgment in that regards..
May be convenient for you to ignore its form of government but not so for we that clearly see the brutality and inhumanity so prevalent in that ideology.
That we see it is already leaping towards the role of being a bully against weaker nations-- example the Philippines. etc.-Tyr

[sear]

"I disagree with your view that China would be better at being the next dominant world power." TZ #3

"Better"?
I don't recall having introduced the word "better" here.
Please do not pretend to shoot down ideas I've not posted.

"Its history, its people and their customs, and its almost zero concern for the welfare of its people (life there being considered so expendable and valueless), to me clearly points to the opposite judgment in that regards.." TZ

I've never disputed it.
I've never ENDORSED it.

Instead my posted comment was:

"The most successful aspects of China are the most Westernized." s #2

China is in transition.
And such massive transitions can be clumsy.

Chairman Mao is dead.

I'll let you in on a secret.
The name "Hitler" is synonymous with "bad guy" because he killed millions.
Well guess what. Stalin, a U.S. ally in WWII to help us defeat Hitler killed more humans than Hitler did, with his totalitarian purges.
Not to be outdone, Mao killed more than either Hitler or Stalin.
BUT !!
Mao killed by the millions with his agricultural reforms, starving Chinese peasants to death.

If you take a closer look at China, you will see some very s a v v y leadership.
China went around the globe buying up mining contracts, essentially cornering the market on strategic minerals, etc.
How can the U.S. build a jet engines for our F-22 if China denies U.S. the strategic minerals needed for it? *
Territorial claim to shoals and uninhabited islands in the South China Sea have been in dispute for generations. Now China has enhanced its claim, dredging ocean bottom to add land-mass to them, and then adding installations, weather stations, military facilities, etc.
Does that not strengthen China's claim?
And it's not just the islands. It's the addition of vast new tracts of ocean and ocean floor, which China can then claim as Chinese territorial water, to fish there, to drill for oil and other minerals there, etc.

I'm not advocating politburos.
The Soviets had a politburo, and it bankrupted the Soviet Union, driving it to extinction.
But we're fooling ourselves if we pretend it's the same in China.

IT ISN'T!!

"May be convenient for you to ignore its form of government but" TZ

If I'd taken the position you imply, I might join in your ridicule.
But you persuasively ridicule a position I have not taken.

"Convenient"? For what?! A $10% $bonus? From whom? For what reason?

I express reality, because I can't be bothered with anything else.

"not so for we that clearly see the brutality and inhumanity so prevalent in that ideology." TZ

Right.
I didn't mention any of that.
It's not that I'm ignoring it.
I didn't mention it not because it isn't important, but because it isn't relevant to this topic at this point.
I perceive it as changing, and that the Chi-Comms are a waning breed.

"That see it is already leaping towards the role of being a bully against weaker nations-- example the Philippines. etc.-Tyr" TZ

Oh!
You mean a powerful bully beating up on the weak and defenseless? The way the U.S. did when we:
- ousted the duly elected Mossadegh from Iran, and replaced him with our puppet, the Shah?
- The way we punished Cuba for ten U.S. presidential administrations?
- The way we ousted Saddam's forces from Kuwait, and then went back to finish the job with the next President Bush, ousting Saddam from his own nation, and throwing him a necktie party?

You pointing your accusatory finger of self-righteous indignation at China merely calls attention to the even more severe transgressions of the United States.

* Believe it or not, during the Cold War, there were strategic minerals the U.S. needed for our military aircraft engines, minerals mined in the Soviet Union.
The Soviets sold them to U.S.
But they could have refused.

Will China impose such a restriction?
Whether or not China will, it seems China could.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

"I disagree with your view that China would be better at being the next dominant world power." TZ #3

"Better"?
I don't recall having introduced the word "better" here.
Please do not pretend to shoot down ideas I've not posted.

"Its history, its people and their customs, and its almost zero concern for the welfare of its people (life there being considered so expendable and valueless), to me clearly points to the opposite judgment in that regards.." TZ

I've never disputed it.
I've never ENDORSED it.

Instead my posted comment was:

"The most successful aspects of China are the most Westernized." s #2

China is in transition.
And such massive transitions can be clumsy.

Chairman Mao is dead.

I'll let you in on a secret.
The name "Hitler" is synonymous with "bad guy" because he killed millions.
Well guess what. Stalin, a U.S. ally in WWII to help us defeat Hitler killed more humans than Hitler did, with his totalitarian purges.
Not to be outdone, Mao killed more than either Hitler or Stalin.
BUT !!
Mao killed by the millions with his agricultural reforms, starving Chinese peasants to death.

If you take a closer look at China, you will see some very s a v v y leadership.
China went around the globe buying up mining contracts, essentially cornering the market on strategic minerals, etc.
How can the U.S. build a jet engines for our F-22 if China denies U.S. the strategic minerals needed for it? *
Territorial claim to shoals and uninhabited islands in the South China Sea have been in dispute for generations. Now China has enhanced its claim, dredging ocean bottom to add land-mass to them, and then adding installations, weather stations, military facilities, etc.
Does that not strengthen China's claim?
And it's not just the islands. It's the addition of vast new tracts of ocean and ocean floor, which China can then claim as Chinese territorial water, to fish there, to drill for oil and other minerals there, etc.

I'm not advocating politburos.
The Soviets had a politburo, and it bankrupted the Soviet Union, driving it to extinction.
But we're fooling ourselves if we pretend it's the same in China.

IT ISN'T!!

"May be convenient for you to ignore its form of government but" TZ

If I'd taken the position you imply, I might join in your ridicule.
But you persuasively ridicule a position I have not taken.

"Convenient"? For what?! A $10% $bonus? From whom? For what reason?

I express reality, because I can't be bothered with anything else.

"not so for we that clearly see the brutality and inhumanity so prevalent in that ideology." TZ

Right.
I didn't mention any of that.
It's not that I'm ignoring it.
I didn't mention it not because it isn't important, but because it isn't relevant to this topic at this point.
I perceive it as changing, and that the Chi-Comms are a waning breed.

"That see it is already leaping towards the role of being a bully against weaker nations-- example the Philippines. etc.-Tyr" TZ

Oh!
You mean a powerful bully beating up on the weak and defenseless? The way the U.S. did when we:
- ousted the duly elected Mossadegh from Iran, and replaced him with our puppet, the Shah?
- The way we punished Cuba for ten U.S. presidential administrations?
- The way we ousted Saddam's forces from Kuwait, and then went back to finish the job with the next President Bush, ousting Saddam from his own nation, and throwing him a necktie party?

You pointing your accusatory finger of self-righteous indignation at China merely calls attention to the even more severe transgressions of the United States.

* Believe it or not, during the Cold War, there were strategic minerals the U.S. needed for our military aircraft engines, minerals mined in the Soviet Union.
The Soviets sold them to U.S.
But they could have refused.

Will China impose such a restriction?
Whether or not China will, it seems China could.



"Better"?
I don't recall having introduced the word "better" here.
Please do not pretend to shoot down ideas I've not posted.


It wouldn't surprise me if China handles it more skillfully.

^^^^^ Really!?????
So what exactly does the two words- ""more skillfully"" mean--if they do not mean-""better""!???
This is why I am so reluctant to converse with you. Your thought to be clever little denials of what you have previously said, when you are called on it.
You clearly proposed that China would do a better job of it..
When I objected to that , and cited China's history and current disregard for human rights, you try a clever word game trick, like the one that Bill Clinton used,, ""what is the meaning of is"", that nuance billion shades of grey crap..

Either you meant that China would do a better job of it or else you didnt,, which is it hoss??..
Stop with the double talk, back tracking, spinning like a top bullshit.

Besides being silly as hell(IMHO), and amateurish its also irritating as hell to see when trying to actually engage it a serious and honest conversation...

Even seems like I am talking to my grandson.. Where no words seem to have a common meaning but each must be debated as to its definition..
in order for you to not answer or evade a point made. -Tyr

[sear]

"^^^^^ Really!?????" TZ #5

yep

"So what exactly does the two words- ""more skillfully"" mean--if they do not mean-""better""!???" TZ #5

They are not synonyms.
Hitler killed more skillfully than Dylan Klebold (Columbine High School massacre). Do you assert Hitler was therefore "better"?
Maybe it's just me. But I'd say Hitler was worse.

"This is why I am so reluctant to converse with you." TZ

It is painful to see you vex yourself so far out of your league.
It's probably best for you to not do so ever again.

"Your thought to be clever little denials of what you have previously said, when you are called on it." TZ

Good lord! What a dim-wit!!

"Words mean things." Rush Limbaugh

"You clearly proposed that China would do a better job of it." TZ

No!
Absolutely not!
I was deliberately clear.
The word I used was "skillful".

You see TZ:
Hitler was a megalomaniac. He wanted to conquer the planet.
The U.S. didn't seek hegemonic global domination. It fell in our lap; rather more out of intrinsic superiority than aspiration.

The problem is, over the generations, our leaders have lost sight of it.
They think they can impose U.S. will on the world with impunity.

We used to defend our principles.
Now we ignore them; water-boarding GITMO detainees instead of coopting them.

"When I objected to that , and cited China's history and current disregard for human rights, you try a clever word game trick, like the one that Bill Clinton used,, ""what is the meaning of is"", that nuance billion shades of grey crap.." TZ

I say what I mean, and mean what I say. If you can't deal with it, deal with it.

"Either you meant that China would do a better job of it or else you didnt,, which is it hoss??.." TZ

Ah!
A refreshing Dan Blocker reference?
I've been a Dan Blocker fan for half a century. You flatter me to the extreme. My thanks, though in this case I'm most unworthy.

"Stop with the double talk, back tracking, spinning like a top bull^%$#." TZ

I've got a better idea. LEARN TO READ !!

"no words seem to have a common meaning but each must be debated as to its definition..
in order for you to not answer or evade a point made. -Tyr" / TZ #5

a) It was MY point, and I made it successfully, however dissatisfied you may be with the result.

b) My standard for word definitions are the OED, and The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

If you dislike my definitions, please take it up with them.

PS
You have me wondering.
Might you be a little less irritable if you added some bran to your diet?