China

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[Mr_Bramboy]

We the peoples of the United Nations determined

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

and for these ends

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security,and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

Have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

So much for that. "Never again", but meanwhile the most powerful country on earth is a genocidal dictatorship.

[n0el]

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/7/20902700/ ... -hong-kong

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[occamslightsaber]

“We too love money more than freedom and democracy.”

If you really want to lose brain cells, check out r/sino.

[Kawapasaka]

china brooken

[Riotcoke]

I like how someone cancelling their wow subscription on Reddit got 52k upvotes, people honestly won't care about this in two weeks

[fightinfrenchman]

I like how someone cancelling their wow subscription on Reddit got 52k upvotes, people honestly won't care about this in two weeks

It doesn't sound like you actually like it. In fact, it seems like you dislike it

[Riotcoke]

Yes it's funny how much it shows that internet points mean nothing

[fightinfrenchman]

Yes it's funny how much it shows that internet points mean nothing

Like my peeling foot posts "or else"

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[fightinfrenchman]

I like how someone cancelling their wow subscription on Reddit got 52k upvotes, people honestly won't care about this in two weeks

It's kind of funny I guess.

China has been throwing people in detainment centers left and right, forcing abortions on minorities, mass rape, list goes on. Yet this is getting way more attention.

Yeah that shit is all hilarious

[Dolan]

I'm so furious, how can companies act so unethically, omagosh. How can they choose money over doing the right thing!

That's it, I'm cancelling my Blizzard account. It's a small step, but if we all did this, we would change the world and cut carbon emissions too.

PS

Thanks for the karma, guys. Don't forget to subscribe to my channel, my twitter, my instagram, my patreon, my twitch and my blog.

[fightinfrenchman]

I hate women and minorities

How does this relate to the topic at hand exactly?

[Dolan]

It shows my hearthfelt indignation.

[Amsel_]

I'm glad people are getting more and more aware of all the bad things China does, but Western leaders approach the topic with such naivety. None of them talk about China as an "axis of evil," "enemy of freedom" the way they do with Russia and some countries in the Middle-East. Despite the fact that China is the only real threat to Western hegemony, and should they succeed in becoming the world power - a threat to all of humanity. It's funny because during the Cold War, McCarthy lost a lot of reputation over accusations that communist agents were infiltrating universities, the media, the government, the military, the state department, etc. But here we are in 2019 with China doing those things openly, and people are too blissfully unaware to even recognize the Chinese as a rival.

[Amsel_]

[n0el]

I'm glad people are getting more and more aware of all the bad things China does, but Western leaders approach the topic with such naivety. None of them talk about China as an "axis of evil," "enemy of freedom" the way they do with Russia and some countries in the Middle-East. Despite the fact that China is the only real threat to Western hegemony, and should they succeed in becoming the world power - a threat to all of humanity. It's funny because during the Cold War, McCarthy lost a lot of reputation over accusations that communist agents were infiltrating universities, the media, the government, the military, the state department, etc. But here we are in 2019 with China doing those things openly, and people are too blissfully unaware to even recognize the Chinese as a rival.

Why do you think that is? My personal opinion is because there's drastically more global business interests than those other countries you mentioned.

[Amsel_]

I'm glad people are getting more and more aware of all the bad things China does, but Western leaders approach the topic with such naivety. None of them talk about China as an "axis of evil," "enemy of freedom" the way they do with Russia and some countries in the Middle-East. Despite the fact that China is the only real threat to Western hegemony, and should they succeed in becoming the world power - a threat to all of humanity. It's funny because during the Cold War, McCarthy lost a lot of reputation over accusations that communist agents were infiltrating universities, the media, the government, the military, the state department, etc. But here we are in 2019 with China doing those things openly, and people are too blissfully unaware to even recognize the Chinese as a rival.

Why do you think that is? My personal opinion is because there's drastically more global business interests than those other countries you mentioned.

Business interests are definitely a part of it. China has a lot of people. In terms of disposable income, it also has a respectably sized middle-class. So companies try to cozy up to China in order to gain access to Chinese markets to sell their goods. When people talk about the success of movies, for instance, they are increasingly talking about how well it did in China. These companies that cozy up to China do it through both PR and economic benefits. They won't say bad things about China, they'll use Chinese approved lingo (especially in regards to Taiwan), and they'll even refuse to associate with people who contradict the CCP. Many major companies, including social media websites, hotels, etc do this. They also give economic benefits, such as access to Western intellectual property; and they will outsource company sites to China. Many people falsely assume that companies outsource to China for cheaper labor, but this is not the case. They do it to get access to Chinese consumers.

But I don't think business interests are the main reason. I think the reason the West is so reluctant to confront China seriously is the nature of fourth generation warfare. It takes immense amounts of discipline for a country to wage this sort of warfare, because it is inherently totalitarian. It involves subordinating every sector of society to the advancement of national interest. To its credit, the West has taken some steps in the economic sphere to curtail China. The United States, for instance, can veto the Chinese acquisition of American companies, if it is deemed a threat to national security. However, we do very little to stop other forms of influence, such as in the mass media. And attempting to stamp out the Chinese from the press, from the universities, from the private sector, etc begins to raise serious existential questions about liberal democracy in the 21st century.

Meanwhile, you have Russia and the Shia-Muslims. These countries are declining, they are weak. If we went to war, we could easily overwhelm them in every facet, be it quantity of troops, quality of troops, equipment, international support, domestic approval, lawfare, cyber-war, etc. By focusing on these countries, the West is able to continue using anachronistic methods of warfare. It prefers these "pointless wars" to the real war that must inevitably settle whether the Pacific will be dominated by its Eastern or Western shores. And it is understandable why the West has embraced faux-pacifism. The U.S. has consistently failed to maintain a single prolonged engagement since the end of the second world war. It has consistently found itself unable to devote the necessary resources to actually close these wars due to leftist sabotage and defeatism ruining the public moral; its rightist elements were then forced by political necessity to embrace isolationism, and these anti-war rightists introduce economic arguments against war. These patterns have played out multiple times, Korea, Vietnam, and the War on Terror. It has done immense damage to the Western psyche, and limits us, forcibly, to confrontations which span only a few months - rather than the decades successful containment takes.

By continuing to focus on minor Eurasian threats, the West is able to maintain its aloofness. It is able to pretend that all is well, and it simply has to pretend that China doesn't exist; or at least not hold China to the same standards as any other country. You can't hold the Chinese accountable for something that would be an act of war if done by another country, because a serious struggle with the Chinese would be too costly. Unfortunately, if the West continues to waste precious time, and fails to reinvigorate its fighting spirit to the extent necessary to actually fight for its own survival, we may find the fate of humanity dictated, not by righteousness and enlightenment, but by the Politburo.

[Dolan]

B-but with empathy, flowers in hand, and a show of goodwill, I'm sure China will simply start doing the right thing.

They're humans, after all, just like us, just like everyone! *sniffle sniffle*

[occamslightsaber]

It's funny because during the Cold War, McCarthy lost a lot of reputation over accusations that communist agents were infiltrating universities, the media, the government, the military, the state department, etc. But here we are in 2019 with China doing those things openly, and people are too blissfully unaware to even recognize the Chinese as a rival.

McCarthy was a moron and an opportunist who took advantage of the Red Scare in the early 1950s for his own political gains. Yes, communists had infiltrated many corners of American society including Hollywood, the State Department and even the Manhattan Project. American people were rightfully concerned about Soviet espionage activities, but McCarthy turned a legitimate counterintelligence effort into a witch hunt. He fucked up when he publicly accused the Army of having been infiltrated by communists without evidence. If anything, McCarthyism was a setback since it allowed actual communist infiltrators to cry "witch hunt" whenever the FBI came knocking.

But I don't think business interests are the main reason. I think the reason the West is so reluctant to confront China seriously is the nature of fourth generation warfare. It takes immense amounts of discipline for a country to wage this sort of warfare, because it is inherently totalitarian. It involves subordinating every sector of society to the advancement of national interest. To its credit, the West has taken some steps in the economic sphere to curtail China. The United States, for instance, can veto the Chinese acquisition of American companies, if it is deemed a threat to national security. However, we do very little to stop other forms of influence, such as in the mass media. And attempting to stamp out the Chinese from the press, from the universities, from the private sector, etc begins to raise serious existential questions about liberal democracy in the 21st century.

Fourth generation warfare is a fancy term for insurgency and it doesn't reflect the kind of war China will wage. Should a Sino-American conflict break out, it would almost entirely be a naval war with some cyber warfare in the background. It would be suicide for the US to try fight a land war against China. Also, by "the West", it will really just be the United States and some Asian allies. America's European allies can't even tend their own gardens against resurgent Russia or stop the refugee flows from its neighboring Middle East, so it would be unreasonable to expect them to project power far enough to fight in the Pacific. It's even possible that Europeans will not directly involve themselves in a Sino-American war aside from providing moral and material support to the US. After all, European countries no longer have colonies in Asia like they did in World War II and even if the Chinese should prevail, Europe will still have the US between it and China.

Meanwhile, you have Russia and the Shia-Muslims. These countries are declining, they are weak. If we went to war, we could easily overwhelm them in every facet, be it quantity of troops, quality of troops, equipment, international support, domestic approval, lawfare, cyber-war, etc. By focusing on these countries, the West is able to continue using anachronistic methods of warfare. It prefers these "pointless wars" to the real war that must inevitably settle whether the Pacific will be dominated by its Eastern or Western shores. And it is understandable why the West has embraced faux-pacifism. The U.S. has consistently failed to maintain a single prolonged engagement since the end of the second world war. It has consistently found itself unable to devote the necessary resources to actually close these wars due to leftist sabotage and defeatism ruining the public moral; its rightist elements were then forced by political necessity to embrace isolationism, and these anti-war rightists introduce economic arguments against war. These patterns have played out multiple times, Korea, Vietnam, and the War on Terror. It has done immense damage to the Western psyche, and limits us, forcibly, to confrontations which span only a few months - rather than the decades successful containment takes.

By continuing to focus on minor Eurasian threats, the West is able to maintain its aloofness. It is able to pretend that all is well, and it simply has to pretend that China doesn't exist; or at least not hold China to the same standards as any other country. You can't hold the Chinese accountable for something that would be an act of war if done by another country, because a serious struggle with the Chinese would be too costly. Unfortunately, if the West continues to waste precious time, and fails to reinvigorate its fighting spirit to the extent necessary to actually fight for its own survival, we may find the fate of humanity dictated, not by righteousness and enlightenment, but by the Politburo.

On the contrary, US strategists have been preparing for a potential war with China at least since the 1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis and they redeployed America's Cold War assets from Europe accordingly. At the same time, however, the US sought to integrate China (and Russia) into its post-Cold War order and turn them into responsible stakeholders to avoid armed conflicts in the future. Of course, that didn't work out because the Chinese and Russian leaders came to the conclusion that no matter how much they cooperated with the West, their authoritarian regimes will always be fundamentally at odds with and threatened by Western liberal democracies. China and Russia also view themselves as great powers and don't want to be treated as equals to other plebs under the US-led world order.

I wouldn't say Korea, Vietnam and the War on Terror were all pointless. The first two were necessary to demonstrate US commitment to defend its allies in the context of the Cold War, because if the US was prepared to sacrifice 50,000+ troops just to defend a backwater country in Asia, it would surely defend Europe (the real battlefield of the Cold War) from a Soviet invasion. The War on Terror did distract the US from China's rise, but the 9/11 attacks somewhat forced the US to take action and China also largely cooperated with the War on Terror, which prompted some to prematurely conclude that China had indeed become a responsible stakeholder in the US-led world order. China and Russia didn't choose their current overbearing foreign policy until after the West had been weakened by the global financial crisis.

[Amsel_]

It's funny because during the Cold War, McCarthy lost a lot of reputation over accusations that communist agents were infiltrating universities, the media, the government, the military, the state department, etc. But here we are in 2019 with China doing those things openly, and people are too blissfully unaware to even recognize the Chinese as a rival.

McCarthy was a moron and an opportunist who took advantage of the Red Scare in the early 1950s for his own political gains. Yes, communists had infiltrated many corners of American society including Hollywood, the State Department and even the Manhattan Project. American people were rightfully concerned about Soviet espionage activities, but McCarthy turned a legitimate counterintelligence effort into a witch hunt. He fucked up when he publicly accused the Army of having been infiltrated by communists without evidence. If anything, McCarthyism was a setback since it allowed actual communist infiltrators to cry "witch hunt" whenever the FBI came knocking.

I brought McCarthy up because it shows the sharp contrast in attitudes. You have the 1950's where rumor-mongering over even alleged communist subversion makes the front pages. Meanwhile, those same rumors are 100% undeniable fact right now, and no one cares. McCarthy's mistakes are completely irrelevant to the discussion and my overall thesis.

But I don't think business interests are the main reason. I think the reason the West is so reluctant to confront China seriously is the nature of fourth generation warfare. It takes immense amounts of discipline for a country to wage this sort of warfare, because it is inherently totalitarian. It involves subordinating every sector of society to the advancement of national interest. To its credit, the West has taken some steps in the economic sphere to curtail China. The United States, for instance, can veto the Chinese acquisition of American companies, if it is deemed a threat to national security. However, we do very little to stop other forms of influence, such as in the mass media. And attempting to stamp out the Chinese from the press, from the universities, from the private sector, etc begins to raise serious existential questions about liberal democracy in the 21st century.

Fourth generation warfare is a fancy term for insurgency and it doesn't reflect the kind of war China will wage. Should a Sino-American conflict break out, it would almost entirely be a naval war with some cyber warfare in the background. It would be suicide for the US to try fight a land war against China. Also, by "the West", it will really just be the United States and some Asian allies. America's European allies can't even tend their own gardens against resurgent Russia or stop the refugee flows from its neighboring Middle East, so it would be unreasonable to expect them to project power far enough to fight in the Pacific. It's even possible that Europeans will not directly involve themselves in a Sino-American war aside from providing moral and material support to the US. After all, European countries no longer have colonies in Asia like they did in World War II and even if the Chinese should prevail, Europe will still have the US between it and China.

I think the fourth gen is applicable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_warfare Though I can also see why you'd argue against it. But this doesn't matter at all. I can say unrestricted war instead, if you'd like. The book by that name, which I posted earlier in this thread, is something I'd recommend to you. It's a lot more than just fighting a naval war. It's two countries leveraging the entirety of their weight against the other, until one breaks. It's containment. This is how we won the Cold War without having to station marines in Moscow.

On the contrary, US strategists have been preparing for a potential war with China at least since the 1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis and they redeployed America's Cold War assets from Europe accordingly. At the same time, however, the US sought to integrate China (and Russia) into its post-Cold War order and turn them into responsible stakeholders to avoid armed conflicts in the future. Of course, that didn't work out because the Chinese and Russian leaders came to the conclusion that no matter how much they cooperated with the West, their authoritarian regimes will always be fundamentally at odds with and threatened by Western liberal democracies. China and Russia also view themselves as great powers and don't want to be treated as equals to other plebs under the US-led world order.

I wouldn't say Korea, Vietnam and the War on Terror were all pointless. The first two were necessary to demonstrate US commitment to defend its allies in the context of the Cold War, because if the US was prepared to sacrifice 50,000+ troops just to defend a backwater country in Asia, it would surely defend Europe (the real battlefield of the Cold War) from a Soviet invasion. The War on Terror did distract the US from China's rise, but the 9/11 attacks somewhat forced the US to take action and China also largely cooperated with the War on Terror, which prompted some in the US to prematurely conclude that China had indeed become a responsible stakeholder in the US-led world order. China and Russia didn't choose their current overbearing foreign policy until after the West had been weakened by the global financial crisis.

Yes, we moved troops to Asia. We also "pivoted to Asia." And we are even fighting them economically. I admitted in my post that we have been taking at least basic steps against China. But that is not my point. The overall point I was trying to get across was that the West does not have the willpower necessary to fight the sort of totalist cold war that China is already fighting. You need to see the bigger picture, and think in terms greater than a naval base in the Philippines.

And I put quotes around the term "pointless wars" because that's how the general public often refers to America's recent interventionist escapades. The counter-insurgency and the current Shia-Sunni issue, for instance. The initial invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were only retroactively lumped in with "useless wars." The public see us fighting, but don't really see anything to gain in these fights. A question I was trying to answer was "Why are we willing to fight wars we think are pointless, yet completely ignore our real existential threat?" It wasn't my intention to actually say that Korea, Vietnam, and the War on Terror were pointless. In fact, I was even critical of America's unwillingness to fight these wars even harder.

[occamslightsaber]

It's a lot more than just fighting a naval war. It's two countries leveraging the entirety of their weight against the other, until one breaks. It's containment. This is how we won the Cold War without having to station marines in Moscow.

Yes, we moved troops to Asia. We also "pivoted to Asia." And we are even fighting them economically. I admitted in my post that we have been taking at least basic steps against China. But that is not my point. The overall point I was trying to get across was that the West does not have the willpower necessary to fight the sort of totalist cold war that China is already fighting. You need to see the bigger picture, and think in terms greater than a naval base in the Philippines.

And I put quotes around the term "pointless wars" because that's how the general public often refers to America's recent interventionist escapades. The counter-insurgency and the current Shia-Sunni issue, for instance. The initial invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were only retroactively lumped in with "useless wars." The public see us fighting, but don't really see anything to gain in these fights. A question I was trying to answer was "Why are we willing to fight wars we think are pointless, yet completely ignore our real existential threat?" It wasn't my intention to actually say that Korea, Vietnam, and the War on Terror were pointless. In fact, I was even critical of America's unwillingness to fight these wars even harder.

I don’t think you quite understand what containment is. Containment is not a total war strategy and China isn’t waging a “totalist cold war” against the West either. George Kennan, who created the policy of containment, said that the US should only check Soviet expansionism in four countries/regions that he identified as centers of industrial power to prevent the Soviets from becoming too powerful. He did not believe that the US should overextend itself in other places that had no strategic value. Kennan actually feared that overextending or overreacting to the Soviet threat could undermine America’s institutions (as McCarthyism once did) and destroy the US from within. If anything, containment was a defensive, minimalist strategy that stressed the importance of preserving America’s liberal institutions and only advocated war to defend the centers of industrial power. Kennan believed that after enough time, the internal contradictions in the Soviet system would cause it to collapse under its weight (which turned out to be true).

My point was that the US has been taking more than just basic steps and it certainly hasn't been ignoring "our real existential threat" for the last two decades. So far, China's hardline foreign policy has been limited to its maritime periphery such as South China Sea and North China Sea. In response, the US is trying to contain China's military power (which is really just naval power since it's the only one that matters in the Asia-Pacific) within the first island chain. Everything else that China does (such as spying, corporate espionage, etc...) are things that have been going on for decades or things that pretty much every country does. The threat of rising China is serious, but you shouldn't blow it out of proportion and call for a total war approach that could instead harm Western liberal institutions and lead to an unnecessary war as Kennan once feared.

[Kaiserklein]

Well, South Park OP, as usual. And china doing china things

[fightinfrenchman]

Nice