China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jono

Junior Member
Registered Member
Time to say Adieu to Chengdu Let see what is the reaction tomorrow
The Chinese Foreign Ministry on Monday confirmed that the U.S. Consulate General in Chengdu, capital of the southwestern province of Sichuan, closed at 10:00 a.m. BJT. Let's review the past 72 hours that the consulate evacuated in this one minute video.
next:
San Francisco,
Shanghai o_O
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Those consulates are more important to the US. Where are dissidents going to go so the US can use them for propaganda? It's a laugh to charge that China's consulates are used for spying when that's a primary use of US consulates. Why would China need consulates when they charge China does it through cyberespionage? Can it only be done through a consulate? The reason why the US went after a consulate is because it's more symbolic. They can say it's a big move but it doesn't really do anything. What happened to slapping tariffs on the rest of China's exports as Trump has threatened? Because those are all US corporations outsourcing their products to China. It's a bigger hurt to the US. Closing a consulate doesn't do that. So it says something that they went after a consulate and not the rest of China's exports. They're running out of "significant" trade targets in Trump's trade War.
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
Should China take USA to the UN on this like USA does with Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjing?


US is the #FourthReich. Warmongering America is the true #Nazis in our modern world and must be taken down for the good of humanity and world peace. "A former drone operator has claimed that the U.S. military is worse than the Nazis in a recent interview during which he revealed that his superiors told him “it’s just a dog” when he killed a child in Afghanistan. The drone operator turned whistleblower, Staff Sergeant Brandon Bryant, gave an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail detailing the horrors of his job deciding who lives or dies from the comfort of bases in Nevada, New Mexico, and Iraq. Bryant described how he spent six years in the U.S. Air Force operating Predator drones where he controlled multiple camera systems and was responsible for using the targeting system while a co-pilot navigated the drone. Bryant signed up to the Air Force when he was only 19-year-old and made his first kill in 2007. From 2006 to 2011 his squadron hit 1,626 targets including women and children, according to the whistleblower. According to the Sun. Bryant killed 13 people while in service." Bryant has blown the whistle on the U.S. military’s use of the drone program, testifying before the United Nations and Germany about America’s overseas drone operations, stating, “We think about the Nuremberg Trials. All these guys that got convicted during the trials, the one thing that convicted them all was, ‘well I was just doing my job‘.” Bryan added, “they [the military] are worse than the Nazis because we should know better.” In May 2016, a Norwegian documentary filmmaker named Tonje Hessen Schei produced a film featuring Bryant’s experiences on the battlefield, called Drone – This Is No Game! In the documentary Bryant and his colleague Michael Haas were displayed as examples of how the CIA recruits video gamers and trains them to kill from a distance by remote control. Since becoming an outspoken critic of the U.S. drone program Bryant says his family has been threatened for his actions. After he spoke to a German parliamentary inquiry committee in 2015, two American Air Force officers showed up at the house of Bryant’s mother in Missoula, Montana. He said that officers told his mother that she was on an ISIS “hit list,” which Bryant’s attorney called a clear sign of whistleblower intimidation... Bryant received an award in Germany honoring his bravery as a whistleblower in 2015. There have also been other drone whistleblowers who have come forward including Matt DeHart, Senior Airman Stephen Lewis, Senior Airman Michael Haas, and one former drone program infrastructure technician, Senior Airman Cian Westmoreland. All men have denounced the U.S. drone program."
 
Last edited:

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
Try kissing your opponent mid-boxing match and tell us what happens to your face LOL. Get the US to seek better relations with China, then we'll talk.

China will stop getting into fights when other countries stop starting fights with China, no sooner, no later. As we all know, your "investment in relations" is basically giving up every interest no matter who challenges you. Therefore, you have "running away with the win" confused with just "running away."

I'm saying to win the boxing match. The winner of the boxing match is the one with more friends & the larger ecosystem & alliance system behind it. The US understands this, I am not sure China does.
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
I'm sorry to pollute this thread, but just can't resist charing another master piece from our friend, Gordon Chang in the National Interest (a mouthpiece etc).

Noticed he tries to say the US didn't start this "new cold war", China started it ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Just what's going on in his head?

Mike Pompeo Just Declared America's New China Policy: Regime Change

Gordon Chang: Many talk about the United States in recent weeks starting a “new Cold War,” but that formulation is Beijing’s narrative and is certainly inapt. There is nothing “new” about the multi-generational, across-continents struggle. China has been waging this contest since the fall of the Soviet Union. It’s just that Americans have been, for reasons that have changed over time, oblivious.


rest of the article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
I'm saying to win the boxing match. The winner of the boxing match is the one with more friends & the larger ecosystem & alliance system behind it. The US understands this, I am not sure China does.

China certainly does. But what you don't understand is USA has many years head start as the dominant force in the global political landscape. It set up powerful institutions like world bank, IMF. It bought friends, and if and when countries go against them. It regime changed them. Ie: Chile. Or it sanction the hell out of them. Look at poor Cuba, been on the sanction list for over 70 years. Look at their cars in Cuba, all over 70 years old being kept going by the ingenuity and sheer will power of its people.

So don't kid yourself, that all USA friends and allies are voluntary.

Finally, remember the words of an old wise sage: 'countries don't have friends, countries have interest'. Kissinger
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member


View attachment 62048
View attachment 62049


They don't even care anymore, their audience is so retarded that they'll Goebbel everything up.

The disinformation is too much. For example, the riots in Hong Kong and the protest in USA. Yet one gets reported as peaceful demonstration, the other as left wing radicals that hates America.

For example, this woman getting arrested by offering flowers in Portland. In front of para military with guns and full combat gear. If this was in Hong Kong, it'll be another shining example of police brutality. But as it is, it's not even worth mentioning on your 6 o'clock local news.

 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
I'm saying to win the boxing match.
LOLOLOL Most spineless person on the forum talking about "winning" by giving up every altercation and trying to kiss up to your opponent. I don't know whether to laugh or throw up...
The winner of the boxing match is the one with more friends & the larger ecosystem & alliance system behind it.
You win a boxing match by begging for better relations with the other fighter? Your post (China need a new geopolitical Doctrine ?) said better relations with the US, you know. You've clearly never seen a boxing match before. Even with other countries, you're put the cart before the horse again. You win allies by winning the match. Everyone follows strength.
The US understands this, I am not sure China does.
That's why this is happening, right?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
tqiugrpfeuykf3ckvyutzg.png

Looks like the misunderstanding's all with you... again.
 
Last edited:

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
Well Trump and his followers think they control everything hence why they thought they would win the trade war. They think that was enough to make China surrender. They didn't think they would have to go to war but since everything else has failed, there could be a war by accident because the US is arrogant. They didn't think China would defy them on a trade war because they had that much leverage, why not thinking the same with some military maneuver? If they thought they could win a war militarily, they would've done it already. Trump was too chicken to take on North Korea. Pompeo is calling for the world to gang-up against China because he knows the US can't do it alone. You think that's a country ready to take on China? Since WWII, the US has only gone against lesser militaries with lesser capabilities. Their arrogance about their military capabilities might be just like how they thought the US was number one in handling outbreaks. If they were so sure they could beat China militarily, wouldn't they have already tried? And it would be huge blow to the US if they found out their military is the same as their COVID-19 response which brings up how they start a nuclear war because they have to save face in a world where China beat them. And remember this is because China hasn't change in 50 years of diplomacy... Not that China is in a war and invading countries. Just because they thought China was going to change to their liking and it didn't happen. Where's the international law that says that was suppose to happen?


Pompeo is trying to rally other countries against China, through a combination of fear and distrust of China that other countries have, with regards to China's increasing power and influence and just how much much more powerful it could be in the future, and also through a fear of of being punished by the United States, which has much leverage over so many countries in the world and isn't afraid to punish them if they do not toe the line on China.

China will almost certainly be much more powerful than the United States ever was and can be, because of its natural and especially its quantity of human resources which are rapidly increasing qualitatively. One just has to hope that it will not be much different in terms of what it has been so far I its approach to foreign policy since Deng's reforms.

It is just this potential that makes many countries worried and even fearful of China. The motivation of the United States is partly this, but also especially since it resents that it will likely lose its status as the world's largest economy and most powerful country. The pride of the American elites is extremely hurt by this. That is why it is now doing as much as it can to prevent or at least retard that time from happening.

I have said before that China can show magnanimity in the South China Sea and give up some claims. It would have been easier before than it is now, because under confrontation from the US, a lot of face will be hurt.

But I am serious about my suggestion. The reasons as to why it should do so include the following. Firstly, it would show that China is capable of magnanimity and would hit against the false narrative of expansionism peddled mostly by the West. Secondly, one has to question the practicality of the South China Sea islets. To me their utility is great only in view of those who want to continue the paradigm of prestige of seaborne power projection and a fossil fuel dominated economy. But quite honestly there is the need and there is the wherewithal to change that paradigm and China is actually doing it presently. China has decreased the share of fossil fuels as a share of its sources of electric power generation and use of electric vehicle in China is increasing at a pace at which by 2030 there will likely be more electric vehicles and other non fossil fuel cars purchased annually in China than fossil fuel ones, and by 2040, they might even have been almost thoroughly phased out. So, the argument that China needs to have a large presence in the South China Sea because of potential oil and gas resources found there and also to protect its ships travelling through there has steadily and rapidly decreasing merit. I dare say that China should even declare to completely phase out fossil fuel power stations and fossil fuel road vehicles by 2050. Nuclear power (including thorium MSRs) and renewables can easily power China's needs. China has the technological and financial wherewithal to make that transition, and if the CPC declares it, it will happen. Unlike the US, the CPC is much much less beholden to special interest groups of the oil lobby as US politicians are. For still useful and needed hydrocarbon derived substances, China can use crude oil producing algae and other plants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top