Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's unlike the US economy where we are sitting on a mountain of debt without the means to pay for it all.
China actually have a bigger debt problem than the USA. China has massive levels of corporate and local debt, and their household debt has surged. China is also dependent on new debt creation to sustain its growth. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...t-adviser-says
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKTwet
Biden has been a terrible President, he has failed to maintain our alliance and global leadership. You wanna fight Russia using Ukraine but you forget what's at stake.
The alliance was significantly weaker under Trump. And letting Russia take Ukraine would not be in the USAs interest at all.
The evidence speak for itself. 10 years ago European countries was actively condemning the USA for Iraq and criticizing NATO. Now, they are mainlty condemning Russia and Finland just joined NATO.
Completely disagree. We should learn from history and call out fascists that think invasion is legitimate if their country got provoked.
Except there is no invasion....yet!
What does 'calling out' mean? Didn't the US invade Iraq? Don't we have possession of a portion of Syria now? Didn't we facilitate the destruction of Libya and their leader? Are these recent events to be 'called out', and what is that to entail?
Let me clarify my statement. Obviously, Taiwan tensions and the Iraq war are different in most circumstances. The similarity I was alluding to has to deal with the attitude of the U.S. government regarding French indifference or lack of willingness to get on board with its position towards a potential rival. This isn’t new. Since the days of Charles DeGualle France has sought to retain its foreign policy sovereignty. People forget France withdrew from NATO in 1966. What spurred this decision? Well France refused to accept any collective form of control over its armed forces, essentially sacrificing foreign policy sovereignty. Like Iraq the U.S. is attempting to get Europe on its side. Just like before, the British seem to be all in (they never learn), while France is leading resistance. The French position leads to a backlash.
What does 'calling out' mean? Didn't the US invade Iraq? Don't we have possession of a portion of Syria now? Didn't we facilitate the destruction of Libya and their leader? Are these recent events to be 'called out', and what is that to entail?
The USA does not have a portion of Syria, but yes it did invade Iraq and destroyed Libya by helping them overthrow the current leader. I was against both of them.
Invading a country with the intention to annex it, is even worse and I am calling you out for thinking it is okay if your country got provoked.
Let me clarify my statement. Obviously, Taiwan tensions and the Iraq war are different in most circumstances. The similarity I was alluding to has to deal with the attitude of the U.S. government regarding French indifference or lack of willingness to get on board with its position towards a potential rival. This isn’t new. Since the days of Charles DeGualle France has sought to retain its foreign policy sovereignty. People forget France withdrew from NATO in 1966. What spurred this decision? Well France refused to accept any collective form of control over its armed forces, essentially sacrificing foreign policy sovereignty. Like Iraq the U.S. is attempting to get Europe on its side. Just like before, the British seem to be all in (they never learn), while France is leading resistance. The French position leads to a backlash.
If they are different in most circumstances, then why not compare it with an example that is more similar, which is the situation before the Ukraine war.
Before the Ukraine war, we also talked about a potential invasion. France and Germany thought they could avoid war, while the USA and UK was warning about a potential invasion. When the invasion finally happened, then France and Germany decided to back Ukraine and condemn Russia. I don't expect the outcome to be any different if China invades Taiwan.
From what I've read the US has a presence in Syria currently and has deprived the Syrian govt of the resources in that part of Syria. Happened under Trump and there has been no change under Biden. Little difference between owning the land and controlling its valuable resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
, but yes it did invade Iraq and destroyed Libya by helping them overthrow the current leader. I was against both of them.
So being 'against both' is it? That sounds like a slap on the wrist. In the case of China you are talking in terms of WWIII. Why the big difference in how the cases would be handled if you could wave a wand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
Invading a country with the intention to annex it, is even worse and I am calling you out for thinking it is okay if your country got provoked.
And the 'provokers' can just walk away without consequence. I'd say the stance is selective. 'Calling out' China while slapping US on wrist. I don't think much of the world is buying that stance any longer.
From what I've read the US has a presence in Syria currently
I heard the opposite. What areas do you believe is under US control?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ticking
So being 'against both' is it? That sounds like a slap on the wrist. In the case of China you are talking in terms of WWIII. Why the big difference in how the cases would be handled if you could wave a wand?
As I said, invading with the intention of annexing territory is worse.
Quote:
And the 'provokers' can just walk away without consequence.
Not really, there are many ways of responding that does not involve invading another country.
As I said, invading with the intention of annexing territory is worse.
.
I would not distinguish between annexing and destroying.
US gets a slap on the wrist for the destruction, suffering, and death it caused in the Middle Eastern countries. China gets the same slap on the wrist for dealing with Taiwan (Part of One China).
Having it both ways won't be acceptable to much of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
Not really, there are many ways of responding that does not involve invading another country.
The more powerful the country the more ways it can respond. In the past the US could discourage nations with its financial might. Having a large alliance has also helped. The financial might of the US is in decline and there is a counterbalance to neutralize the alliance which may also be slowly crumbling in addition.
Also worth noting in all this, is that Macron never stated, or even insinuated, that he believed that it was preferable to partner or ally with China in place of the US, or that a China-EU alliance (an EU with... let's say, French characteristics, as he has previously mused) would usher in an economic and geopolitical renaissance and lead Europe to being a "third pole." The idea of a more independent Europe is something that I've said in this forum that I'm not ideologically opposed to and would even support, in many ways.
France has broken with the US on many issues many times over the years, and under many different leaders. Ultimately, France still has had the US as its main strategic partner on geopolitical issues. It is doubtful that he would have the domestic support or even the personal wherewithal to change this. That Macron himself walked back from his comments and said he supports maintaining the "status quo" on Taiwan indicates that, after some rumination, he understands the reality that he, France, and the EU are facing.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I think some of this was personal, due to the Australian withdrawal from a French sub deal, which was economically as well as strategically significant for France, to say nothing of a welcome boost of prestige in the region. The AUKUS bloc, the combined efforts of the Five Eyes, and rapidly-surging Japanese cooperation with the US, is something that effectively cuts out France from enforcing Western interests in Asia. There is an element of French thought that, as self-critical as it may be, still views France as being more consequential than the rest of the world sees it, right or wrong; I think that there's an element of defiance towards the US, and towards other peers and partners, who it views as disregarding it.
Xi and Macron also have a convergence, where both want to be respected more on the global stage as power and peace brokers. Chinese diplomacy tanked miserably under Xi's wolf warrior period, and he's trying to claw back from that as the avenues for Chinese premacy gradually narrow. Macron is charging ahead, trying to show that he, as a leader of a country who is allied with but willing to break ways with the US, is in a unique position to broker peace agreements on Ukraine and Taiwan. Of course, this has failed miserably: Putin disregarded his overtures in advance of the invasion, and Xi openly rebuked Macron over meeting with Zelensky and made comments about no one else in the world having any business in its issues with Taiwan. The business and "cooperation" elements of his visits were less new territory, and more reiteration of existing ties. He seemed to hope that by trumpeting these and going along with the pomp and circumstance, he could score "wins" by coaxing some agreement from Xi on Ukraine. This didn't happen, and of course, China has taken this and run with it.
I've read a few European op-eds that say that although his premise about EU divergence with US policy may resonate with other European leaders, his timing and the apparent tactlessness of his words were a "blunder." Xi and Putin no doubt view him as a useful card to play; he can potentially drive a wedge between European leaders and the US, his actions deliver a distressing and confusing optic to those allies, and it's a PR coup for them, in that it looks like he's buddying up to them and even parroting their views. However, I find it extremely unlikely that France will change any policies which will benefit Putin on the Ukraine war, which is a pressing issue for Europe.
You were just talking about a tiny deconfliction zone?
"The US presence in the base was agreed upon with Russia, and is part of a 55km (34 miles) “deconfliction zone”, which US and allied forces patrol. Russia has since called on the US to withdraw from al-Tanf."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ticking
I would not distinguish between annexing and destroying.
I will, because being annexed by a hostile nation is much worse than being destroyed. Especially in this case, where Libya wasn't destroyed directly by the USA but by the civil war that followed the war. A country that is destroyed can rebuild, a country that is forcibly annexed by a hostile nation cannot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ticking
The more powerful the country the more ways it can respond.
That is true, and China has gotten pretty powerful. So the excuse that it was forced to invade Taiwan because it got provocated won't fly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
