FromMyColdDeadHand
02-18-23, 14:47
So, with out addressing the internal immoral and evil way that China is run internally, or even the trade system that they have taken advantage of over the past four decades- on the internationally stage, are they actually acting rationly?
In short, the Chinese developing a blue water fleet and establishing bases around the world. We see this as a threat to our control of the world trade routes. But look at even how the Republicans are demanding that we withdraw from being Global Cop, and the DEms have inherently been anti-military, and even our debt means that we may not be able to continue to ensure global trade routes. All this on a global trend away from globalization and towards regionalization. That's what Peter Ziehan thinks.
And if the US is unwilling or unable to ensure global trade routes- who has the most to lose? China- who is dependent on international trade more than any other country on both in the inbound side for food and raw materials, and outward trade to keep money flowing in and jobs filled.
In light of this, doesn't it make sense for China to be ready for when and if the US decides to get out of the global trade protection business?
I guess the real issue is if you can take this long view of global organization, and square it with the internal horrors that CHina imposes on its population, the treatment of Hong Kong and the threats on Taiwan, and the other destabilizing things that China does.
People say that we provoked Russia because we pushed NATO further east, but are we emboldening China because we (and the world) is looking more regionally than globally- and that is bad for China.
In short, the Chinese developing a blue water fleet and establishing bases around the world. We see this as a threat to our control of the world trade routes. But look at even how the Republicans are demanding that we withdraw from being Global Cop, and the DEms have inherently been anti-military, and even our debt means that we may not be able to continue to ensure global trade routes. All this on a global trend away from globalization and towards regionalization. That's what Peter Ziehan thinks.
And if the US is unwilling or unable to ensure global trade routes- who has the most to lose? China- who is dependent on international trade more than any other country on both in the inbound side for food and raw materials, and outward trade to keep money flowing in and jobs filled.
In light of this, doesn't it make sense for China to be ready for when and if the US decides to get out of the global trade protection business?
I guess the real issue is if you can take this long view of global organization, and square it with the internal horrors that CHina imposes on its population, the treatment of Hong Kong and the threats on Taiwan, and the other destabilizing things that China does.
People say that we provoked Russia because we pushed NATO further east, but are we emboldening China because we (and the world) is looking more regionally than globally- and that is bad for China.