[B0ycey]

"Cold War rhetoric between China and the United States is threatening to freeze relations between the world’s two leading economies, triggering the risk of a military conflict.

You need not worry. If Trumps words haven't caused conflict now, they never will. China, and I suspect the whole world actually, are simply waiting till November to see what happens and perhaps will ignore the partisan politics till then. The only way to escalate tensions to "Cold War" levels before then is for Trump to act on his rhetoric, which he never does as it is clearly an election stunt to rile up nationalistic support. Kind of like the wall that never got built.

[foxdemon]

Long time ago I was a member of Amnesty International. I'm currently a member of the ACLU.

Do you support reality. (Please note the lack of a question mark, it's a rhetorical question, kinda know the answer)

I interpreted your answer to mean that you support human rights in the same manner as you support #metoo. Only when it is convenient.

You are stating in your rhetorical question, that you are being a realist. So idealistic notions, like human rights, are only of value for deceiving people then?

As with the response to the Creepy Joe sexual assault allegations, this is just another example of the DNC’s unprincipled opportunism.

Let’s face it. The establishment you represent wants to marginalise the traditional US workforce (now deplorable and irredeemable Trump supporters), exploit cheap illegal immigrant labour and exploit cheap Chinese labour. The profit margin needed to extract just a little bit more wealth for the privileged few is more important to you than idealistic notions such as human rights.

But keep going along to the ACLU. I am sure you will be in good company with fellow worldly people, seeking to impress others and gain approval with their displays of ritualised virtue.

The balance point is keeping enough pressure on to get China to play nice while at the same time allow it a growing influence through Soft Power, through economic and diplomatic agreements.

Ah, ok. The strategy that has been failing for the last 20 years. Why do you expect a differ outcome in future?

[late]

I interpreted your answer to mean that you support human rights in the same manner as you support #metoo. Only when it is convenient.

You are stating in your rhetorical question, that you are being a realist. So idealistic notions, like human rights, are only of value for deceiving people then?

As with the response to the Creepy Joe sexual assault allegations, this is just another example of the DNC’s unprincipled opportunism.

Let’s face it. The establishment you represent wants to marginalise the traditional US workforce (now deplorable and irredeemable Trump supporters), exploit cheap illegal immigrant labour and exploit cheap Chinese labour. The profit margin needed to extract just a little bit more wealth for the privileged few is more important to you than idealistic notions such as human rights.

But keep going along to the ACLU. I am sure you will be in good company with fellow worldly people, seeking to impress others and gain approval with their displays of ritualised virtue.

I want you to know I appreciate well written BS.

It's still the vapid hypocritical nonsense we always see here, but it's well written.

If you want to discuss the specifics of your fantasy...

[SolarCross]

@late
Are you invested in China? I mean have shares in a company or something? Are you worried for your pension? Is that why you are shilling for totalitarianism now? You seem very ready to be critical of Russia but China always gets a free pass. I do not know Russia is as bad as China if we are being objective, but if you are not invested in Russia but you are in China well that tips the scales of justice does it not?

[late]

Are you invested in China?

"Enough already. It is time to stop debating whether the United States stands at the threshold of a “new Cold War” with China. The question has become an obsession among China watchers and foreign policy analysts. But the debate’s poorly defined nature sheds little light on the excruciating choices policymakers face when dealing with Beijing.

Let’s start by examining why the controversy amounts to geopolitical empty calories — energizing but lacking in the substance needed to prescribe policy.

Paradoxically, despite their differing assessments about the nature of the problem, the two schools largely agree on the major elements for how Washington should deal with Beijing: strengthen U.S. alliances, maintain an effective military deterrent, uphold democratic values, foster domestic renewal, and seek out pragmatic cooperation with China. When it comes to implementing those broad strokes, however, a number of difficult questions arise. How U.S. policymakers answer such questions will shape Sino-American relations much more than generalized observations on Cold Wars or lack thereof.

Crafting responses to these vexing dilemmas will determine where the proverbial rubber hits the road on US-China relations. Notably, most of those tradeoffs are just as agonizing whether or not one believes Washington and Beijing are locked in a new Cold War—which should tell us something about the value of that discussion overall. Let’s put the whole debate to bed and get down to discussing the harder but more consequential tradeoffs that will shape US-China relations in the decades to come."



https://thediplomat.com/2020/02/who-car ... ith-china/

[SolarCross]

Another canned response. I guess the joke is on me for engaging in conversation with a bot. lol.