[anarchist23]

A top Chinese general said China had the right to deploy troops and weapons "on its own territory".
Earlier US Defence Secretary James Mattis said Beijing's actions called into question its broader goals.
Six countries have competing claims in the sea, but China has backed its own with island-building and patrols.
Gen Mattis had made his critical comments at a security summit in Singapore.
Speaking at the same conference, China's Lt Gen He Lei said: "Any irresponsible comments from other countries cannot be accepted."
Gen He said Beijing's deployments were part of a policy of "national defence", adding: "They are for the purpose of avoiding being invaded by others.
"As long as it is on your own territory you can deploy the army and you can deploy weapons."
Gen He added: "We see any other country that tries to make noise about this as interfering in our internal affairs."
Gen Mattis said Beijing had deployed military hardware, including anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missiles and electronic jammers to locations across the South China Sea.
"Despite China's claims to the contrary, the placement of these weapon systems is tied directly to military use for the purposes of intimidation and coercion," he said.
"China's policy in the South China Sea stands in stark contrast to the openness that our strategy promotes, it calls into question China's broader goals."
Despite his criticism, Gen Mattis added that the US would "continue to pursue a constructive, results-oriented relationship with China" with "co-operation whenever possible".
Last month China said it had for the first time landed bombers on Woody Island in the Paracel Islands, prompting US warnings that it was destabilising the region.
Woody Island, which China calls Yongxing, is also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan.
Gen Mattis was speaking just 10 days before President Donald Trump is scheduled to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore.
Gen Mattis said the issue of removing US troops from South Korea was "not on the table" and that "our objective remains the complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-44343368

[One Degree]

I am surprised you are posting an example of Obama’s failed foreign policy. This was a foregone conclusion as soon as ‘liberal’ countries refused to strongly prevent the initial occupation of these islands. Once they allowed it, it would be stupid of China not to take full advantage. Ofcourse they assured us they had no military intent and we believed them. Lol.

[Rancid]

No, the US will have no choice but to roll over and allow China to continue its dominance of Asia. I think the US should just let them do this stuff. It will help foster further international distrust of China.

It's clear that China is out to eat everyone's lunch. There's no stopping it really. All we can hope for is that that technology progresses to a point where having client states and colonies is pointless and a waste of money. It's why I think the one belt initiative in China is stupid. Technology will make it obsolete pretty quickly.

[Atlantis]

No, the US will have no choice but to roll over and allow China to continue its dominance of Asia. I think the US should just let them do this stuff. It will help foster further international distrust of China.

It's clear that China is out to eat everyone's lunch. There's no stopping it really. All we can hope for is that that technology progresses to a point where having client states and colonies is pointless and a waste of money. It's why I think the one belt initiative in China is stupid. Technology will make it obsolete pretty quickly.

Technology does not make trade obsolete, on the contrary, it facilitates trade. The Belt & Road initiative is to promote trade by integrating Eurasian economies. It's what the Anglo-American naval-based Empire has been trying to prevent for over a century. I only wish Europe were less dependent on the US to take the lead in this instead of leaving it to the Chinese.

[Rancid]

Technology does not make trade obsolete, on the contrary, it facilitates trade. The Belt & Road initiative is to promote trade by integrating Eurasian economies. It's what the Anglo-American naval-based Empire has been trying to prevent for over a century. I only wish Europe were less dependent on the US to take the lead in this instead of leaving it to the Chinese.

I see the future of manufacturing getting decentralized. goods will be produced much closer to where they are consumed. Technology will render China as the worlds factory obsolete. When that happens, what is there to ship on those rail ways between China and Europe?

[anarchist23]

If you have the time to watch...

[One Degree]

We have 3D printers. Replicators won’t be far behind. Globalism is already an unnecessary destruction of our environment and local customs. Global trade should be directed to strictly luxury items.
Simply the damage done to the environment by international shipping and air travel should tell any sensible person it is a bad idea. Our technology should be used for a reduction of trade, not an increase.

[Rancid]

We have 3D printers. Replicators won’t be far behind. Globalism is already an unnecessary destruction of our environment and local customs. Global trade should be directed to strictly luxury items.
Simply the damage done to the environment by international shipping and air travel should tell any sensible person it is a bad idea. Our technology should be used for a reduction of trade, not an increase.

Exactly. Hence my belief that the One Belt Initiative will a total waste of money, and thus be an epic failure. The cost/benefit ratio will be far far worse than even the Great Wall failure which brought down the Ming Dynasty.

Hence, I support the One Belt Initiative.

[Atlantis]

I see the future of manufacturing getting decentralized. goods will be produced much closer to where they are consumed. Technology will render China as the worlds factory obsolete. When that happens, what is there to ship on those rail ways between China and Europe?

"Integration" of Eurasian economies means a lot more than just transport, but there will always be transport and China will undoubtedly be one of the centers of manufacturing.

[Zamuel]

If you have the time to watch... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=neBQcvMRBRk

There's a lot of interesting information here, but it's not about war with China, It's essentially 1 1/2 hours of subtle indictment of the USA's pacific policies since WWII. About 20 minutes actually focuses on America vs, China.

If you're interested in American atomic testing or Chinese political change, it might be worth watching, As far as a Us war with China it's worthless.

Zam

[Rancid]

"Integration" of Eurasian economies means a lot more than just transport, but there will always be transport and China will undoubtedly be one of the centers of manufacturing.

I don't buy it.

[MistyTiger]

The US just does not have enough funds to start any more wars. I'm pretty sure there's nothing left in the budget and will be less with the new tax reforms and the lower corporate tax rate. Corporations aren't going to die over paying taxes or they'd need to be downgraded to LLCs or S Corps. Geniuses.

[Crantag]

Exactly. Hence my belief that the One Belt Initiative will a total waste of money, and thus be an epic failure. The cost/benefit ratio will be far far worse than even the Great Wall failure which brought down the Ming Dynasty.

Hence, I support the One Belt Initiative.

The One Belt One Road Initiative is consistent with a broader pattern of large-scale state-funded infrastructure construction projects. These projects both support employment and provide an outlet for government investment spending. It doesn't need to be profitable in from a straight-forward cost-benefit in order to be effective. That said, I disagree with your assertion that it is an ineffective pursuit.

As such, I also support the One Belt One Road Initiative.

[Atlantis]

In history there is a debate between "intentionalists" and "functionalist", in other words between those who believe that certain events in history were caused by the intentions of certain individuals and those who believe that said invents resulted from the inbuilt functions of a system. I'm mostly a functionalist. I believe that war between China and the US is pre-programmed in how the US functions.

Even if Western hubris won't allow people to see it, but China will develop into another Asian Tiger, not based on cheap labor but based on state of the art technology. The US won't be able to compete. To survive as superpower and to feed its industry, the US needs incessant war.

I don't buy it.

What is it exactly that you don't buy?

Before we waste any time, have a look at Crantag's comment, which sums up the essential.

The US just does not have enough funds to start any more wars.

That's why the US is trying to shift the cost onto its allies. Nato countries already spend 10 or 20 times more on defense than Russia or China. What's the purpose of spending even more, if not preparation for war?

Corporations aren't going to die over paying taxes or they'd need to be downgraded to LLCs or S Corps. Geniuses.

The military-industrial complex needs war to be profitable. And since the US doesn't manufacture many useful products, arms are about the only hardware it can export. And once a country has been bombed to rubble, there are great profits to be made for "reconstruction," which, in the chaos caused by war, provides plenty of opportunities to divert public money into the pockets of the deal-makers. The corruption in US-occupied Iraq was eye-watering.

[anarchist23]

The military-industrial complex needs war to be profitable. And since the US doesn't manufacture many useful products, arms are about the only hardware it can export. And once a country has been bombed to rubble, there are great profits to be made for "reconstruction," which, in the chaos caused by war, provides plenty of opportunities to divert public money into the pockets of the deal-makers. The corruption in US-occupied Iraq was eye-watering.

Definitely. I think you have hit the nail on the head. The US is the master at creating wars, with help from Israel. lol

[Rancid]

What is it exactly that you don't buy?

Before we waste any time, have a look at Crantag's comment, which sums up the essential.

Crantags said mostly nothing (Most of his post are very generic). All he said is "it doesn't have to be profitable." That's not much of a summary.

Anyway, my assertion is that it will be a large financial strain, on the order of the great wall of china (which basically bankrupt the Ming Dynasty).

Here's a sampling of what I'm getting at.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-could-be-the-next-risk-to-the-global-financial-system.html

China has deep pockets, but not infinite pockets.

[Beren]

China must be wrong people, Americans know better. They elected Trump and spend $700 billion on "defense" annually instead of investing in infrastructure and their own people, so they must be right. Even investing in infrastructure abroad would make more sense than the total waste of money they do. But the Chinese must be wrong guys, although long-term strategy doesn't mean planning for two terms in their dictionary. And they will rule the South China Sea soon, of course, the fancy US Navy won't be able to do much about it anyway.

[Atlantis]

China must be wrong people, Americans know better. They elected Trump and spend $700 billion on "defense" annually instead of investing in infrastructure and their own people, so they must be right.

Absolutely! The Americans were right too about pissing 5 trn dollars into the Iraqi desert sand. Such a good investment. Millions dead, tens of millions displaced the whole region destabilized, continental Europe under threat by Jihadists and waves of refugees. It does serve the Empire well, divide and conquer.

The Empire always wins, just like in a casino, the house always wins. Trump must know something about that. The Empire can piss away as much as it likes since it can always use extortion to get it back from its vassals.

[Zamuel]

Crantags said mostly nothing - All he said is "it doesn't have to be profitable." That's not much of a summary.

It is however an essential point. The difference between solvency and profit is significant. The real question (I think) is can the project remain solvent? This is largely a matter of commitment, by both China and participating States.

The system would extend Chinese influence considerably and could build a good deal of international trust. I would propose that it continue at a cautious pace. Money is worth nothing if you don't use it.

China has deep pockets, but not infinite pockets.

That's realistic, but China's cash flow is of much greater concern than it's reserves. Such a project should moderate aggressive behavior on China's part and make war with the US less, rather than more, likely.

Zam

[Rancid]

Money is worth nothing if you don't use it.

Hoarding money and keeping it out of the hands of the poor is the most noble thing any single person can do.