Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
not arming a direct neighbour of your enemy that they are in active conflict it's "being pushed around", now it's also not "pushing them around", but the US mot pushing Russia around doesn't mean that Russia isn't pushing the US around.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSkycobra; You have a very simplistic view of international politics if you think Obama is going for appeasement. Sometimes the solution is not an easy one to even see, let alone implement. It's debatable, even, that the US has the authority either in reality or morally to unilaterally take action in any of these things. Except for the copyright thing, but copyright on the global scale is a very complicated thing, even more so than just within one country. It's debatable, also, that something as vague as "taking action" would result in anything other than more bloodshed.
We can complain all we like that "something" should be done, but that's not helpful at all to any of these very complicated international situations. (Frankly I think Europe ought to be helping out Ukraine more, considering that they're Ukraine's much more direct neighbors.)
Do you honestly think Putin will be satisfied with Crimea? Or that the Chinese would be satisfied with the South China Sea?
Where does it end?
Call it simplistic if you want, but at some point you will have to say Enough's, enough. If you don't, then who will?
edited 26th Sep '15 12:07:50 PM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.In terms of territory, China will be satisfied with just the South China sea and Taiwan. But in terms of influence, it won't rest until the US is pushed out of Asia and all of it's neighbors are subject to Beijing's writ, ether through puppet governments, or just being terrified of offending the regional hegeimon. The US, China and Russia are like planets in this regard, they must clear the area around them of major powers.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.And nether Russia or China can clear the area around them of the US or are being allowed to. Putin traded the entire of Ukraine for Crimea and the east of Ukraine, it was a pretty shitty trade when it comes down to it. Everyone looks at Ukraine and goes "wow Putin got Crimea", no, Putin lost all of Ukraine apart from Crimea and the east, while the US/NATO/the EU gained all of Ukraine apart from Crimea and the east, we've kinda come out ahead.
Oh and Putin rather has to be satisfied with Crimea, he can't take Ukraine as a whole by force, he already has Belarus and he can't push into the Baltics without starting WW3.
Likewise China might well want to expand its influence but it can't, the US is still arming Taiwan, it's still protecting Japan, it's building a relationship with Vietnam for gods sake.
edited 26th Sep '15 12:48:25 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranChina's historical memory is such that they would be loathe to bring other countries under puppet governments.
Their ambitions are not imperial, another part of China's cultural history where they have a certain conceit which means that they don't *want* to rule over others. They want to prevent others from ruling over them, which means keeping historically Chinese territory free and clear of outside interference.
In this line, the only country that has anything to worry about is Mongolia. China did try to take them over around 1920, but the White Russians helped push them out.
![]()
I highly doubt the US would go to war to defend Taiwan. And with the growing power of the PLA, I doubt we could even win a war with China in Asia, especially with the US public's low tolerance for bloodshed. Also the current Kiev government is unstable, and I am going to guess one more friendly to Russian interests will ascend soon. Plus the war in the East is apparently unpopular.
Historical memory means little. The US for years prided itself on isolationism, hell it's why other powers were so eager to sell us territory. Plus China is hardly a democracy, so the opinion of the average citizen doesn't exactly matter much. Also, as for country's needing to fear Chinese annexation, I think you need to look no further than Taiwan.
edited 26th Sep '15 12:57:52 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.Sure, but none of that is true and is purely the creation of your personal paranoid fantasies that ignore all facts and evidence.
In short, yes you believe all of that, and your wrong, so the problem is with you refusing to change your views despite many people who know a lot of about these situations taking plenty of time to repeatedly explain to you how massively wrong you are.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
For every one of our Carrier's China can field thousands of hypersonic missile's to sink them. And that doesn't even get into their submarine fleet, nor the potential for a war to go nuclear, or for China to mount an effective propaganda campaign to ether delegitamize Taiwan, or make the American people terrified of nuclear Armageddon if we don't back down. The American people may indeed have a higher propensity towards violence than say the Europeans, but we do not have the will to see even one of our cities reduced to ash for the sake of an island most of us cannot find on a map. And unlike China, we actually do need public support to conduct a war.
Edit: Oh and did I forget to mention their extensive hacking capabilities that would almost certainly be turned against us, sabotaging infrastructure and the like. Or the fact that our corporations are so ass deep in the Chinese market that they will lobby their hardest to keep us from getting on China's bad side.
edited 26th Sep '15 1:09:09 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.Jack myself and others have disproved all those points before, we can go to the military thread and do it again if you like, but if we do will you please for god's sake drop this "China is coming to defeat us!" bullshit? I know you're not malicious but it's really tiring to have to pick apart the same bullshit time and time again.
edited 26th Sep '15 1:13:51 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWith the Super PAC news again - Stewart/Colbert DID "ordinate" with theirs while barely avoiding coordination
. Whether or not they were subject to as much scrutiny is up in the air, but still.
All it really takes is to make sure the information given to the Super PAC is publicly available - if that's accomplished, then the PAC is just capitalizing on an opportunity that their selected candidate has presented publicly.
edited 26th Sep '15 1:41:36 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"The treaty isn't there to stop China, it's there to make China look like an even bigger asshole when it continues, thus giving the US the moral high ground to impose sanctions with the backing of everyone because China was an asshole that broke a treaty. It's there to make the US look good when it retaliates, because it "gave peace a chance" and the Chinese fucked with that chance.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranBecause it gives them a short time period without the sanctions, as the other option was to be put under the sanctions now.
And no the world won't swallow it, once again Jack you're being paranoid and overblown about China's influence and power compared to that of the US.
Also "they are rich as shit", you do know that the US is vastly more rich then China right? With a GDP (both nominally and per capita) well above that of China.
edited 26th Sep '15 1:46:05 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

We never send guns to the Crimea or the Ukrainian Army.
"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des Ursins