China has occupied Bagram airbase in Afghanistan - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15193154
With Talib invitation of course. The airbase has had its power restored and first Chinese transport has arrived.

Image

This is virgin, developing news but I like to dwell on the freshest happenings, therefore Im framing it as another political circus clown show. This is a big stinky finger at the US by China and the Taliban. What do you think? I think China is about to show the US what nation building actually looks like.

I'm on my phone so posting is super frustrating, so consider this thread of high significance to me.It took me 20 mins to compose.
#15193155
Igor Antunov wrote:What do you think? I think China is about to show the US what nation building actually looks like.


China has no interest in national building. I suspect they would rather deal with the previous regime... but without the American baggage. If they are controlling the airport and have restored its power, then clearly they will want something in return. Perhaps Lithium. More likely a route for their belt and road initiative. Or it might just be something as simple as making an ally on their border. But they won't fix up Afghanistan nor prop up the government. So no sticky fingers or FUs. More like trading their way to success.
#15193158
B0ycey wrote:China has no interest in national building. I suspect they would rather deal with the previous regime... but without the American baggage. If they are controlling the airport and have restored its power, then clearly they will want something in return. Perhaps Lithium. More likely a route for their belt and road initiative. Or it might just be something as simple as making an ally on their border. But they won't fix up Afghanistan nor prop up the government. So no sticky fingers or FUs. More like trading their way to success.


Belt and road is nation building on a global scale. Afghanistan is now part of that.
#15193160
Igor Antunov wrote:Belt and road is nation building on a global scale. Afghanistan is now part of that.


The Belt and Road is part of China's economic policy. It has nothing to do with nation building, including China as it happens, and most definitely not Afghanistan. China has no interest in Africa beyond trade and the same will be true for Afghanistan. People need to get real when it comes to China. They are not going to fix the world and have no interest in you if you have nothing to offer. They are all about building themselves up. But what I will say is given Afghanistans location, they will have one interest for China on them being a stable nation. That is a potential terrorism threat. So if they are seen doing these things, working with the government and basically trading their way to cooperation, then perhaps they have an interest in Afghanistan succeeding more than anyone else right now to counter that threat. But there are limits to what those interest will be and it will not involve throwing away $2tn dollars on a vain project to reshape Afghanistan to their image I can assure you.
#15193162
Igor Antunov wrote:This is virgin, developing news but I like to dwell on the freshest happenings, therefore Im framing it as another political circus clown show. This is a big stinky finger at the US by China and the Taliban. What do you think? I think China is about to show the US what nation building actually looks like.

I'm on my phone so posting is super frustrating, so consider this thread of high significance to me.It took me 20 mins to compose.

What if it is a trap? America is a master at organizing and coordinating radical and terror groups. China has a large chunk of land called Eastern Turkestan which radical Islamists and America is interested. Don't Chinese guys fear anything?
#15193163
Though I haven't done any real research on this, there appears to be something of a disparity between the number of Chinese overseas military bases and those of the United States of America.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... tary_bases

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.
#15193170
Torus34 wrote:Though I haven't done any real research on this, there appears to be something of a disparity between the number of Chinese overseas military bases and those of the United States of America.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... tary_bases

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.


It says that China is not a global player in this particular area.
Whilst the overall number of overseas military bases has fallen since 1945, the United States, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Russia and France still possess or utilize a substantial number. Smaller numbers of overseas military bases are operated by India, Iran, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.
#15193172
Istanbuller wrote:It says that China is not a global player in this particular area.


Hi, Istanbuller!

Thank you for your comment. It's a nice foil to the alarums being raised in some quarters.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
#15193174
B0ycey wrote:The Belt and Road is part of China's economic policy. It has nothing to do with nation building, including China as it happens, and most definitely not Afghanistan. China has no interest in Africa beyond trade and the same will be true for Afghanistan. People need to get real when it comes to China. They are not going to fix the world and have no interest in you if you have nothing to offer. They are all about building themselves up. But what I will say is given Afghanistans location, they will have one interest for China on them being a stable nation. That is a potential terrorism threat. So if they are seen doing these things, working with the government and basically trading their way to cooperation, then perhaps they have an interest in Afghanistan succeeding more than anyone else right now to counter that threat. But there are limits to what those interest will be and it will not involve throwing away $2tn dollars on a vain project to reshape Afghanistan to their image I can assure you.


Building Roads, bridges, hospitals, railways, stations, ports, powerplants, schools etc have nothing to do with nation building? Then what does?
#15193175
Igor Antunov wrote:Building Roads, bridges, hospitals, railways, stations, ports, powerplants, schools etc have nothing to do with nation building? Then what does?


How about building a nation?

If China do any if those things, which I might add they are doing in the third world (and the first world to some extent) anyway, it won't have anything to do with nation building and everything to do with Capitalism. They aren't going to be building any powerplants without a sharehold and profit margin. They will also not interfere or reshape the Talibans political system or education institutions.
#15193177
B0ycey wrote:How about building a nation?

If China do any if those things, which I might add they are doing in the third world (and the first world to some extent) anyway, it won't have anything to do with nation building and everything to do with Capitalism. They aren't going to be building any powerplants without a sharehold and profit margin. They will also not interfere or reshape the Talibans political system or education institutions.


A nation needs all these things to function without them it is nothing more than a loose confederation of autonomous tribes. Which has been the case for afghanistan and much of africa up until recently. This is also exactly how the west built nations across africa and how US tried to do so in Afghanistan. It also built infrastructure. Infrastructure, literacy, electricity, technology all influence and help form the traits of a nation. China will have more success because it doesnt micromanage the populace. It works within the confines of the existing system and slowly over decades it might start to change owing to access to new services and technologies. US tried to shape the mindset of afghans before it even built adequate infrastructure and services. Soviets tried as well, of course they failed.
#15193181
Igor Antunov wrote:A nation needs all these things to function without them it is nothing more than a loose confederation of autonomous tribes. Which has been the case for afghanistan and much of africa up until recently.


Sure, I don't disagree. But what you fail to understand is that the US did indeed nation build Afghanistan and as such they already have much of these things a nation needs anyway, whether China becomes more involved or not. But given China are in Afghanistan, they do so not for Afghanistan but for them in any case. It maybe they build roads, railways, airports and maybe even a powerplant or two for them. But it won't be a free lunch and I suspect it is all part of their Belt and road initiative in any case. And where I expect to see China the most in Afghanistan is mining and not in Schools and hospitals.
#15193183
Igor Antunov wrote:A nation needs all these things to function without them it is nothing more than a loose confederation of autonomous tribes. Which has been the case for afghanistan and much of africa up until recently. This is also exactly how the west built nations across africa and how US tried to do so in Afghanistan. It also built infrastructure. Infrastructure, literacy, electricity, technology all influence and help form the traits of a nation. China will have more success because it doesnt micromanage the populace. It works within the confines of the existing system and slowly over decades it might start to change owing to access to new services and technologies. US tried to shape the mindset of afghans before it even built adequate infrastructure and services. Soviets tried as well, of course they failed.

"Socialism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the Soviet Union!" - V.I Lenin
#15193248
Igor Antunov wrote:Building Roads, bridges, hospitals, railways, stations, ports, powerplants, schools etc have nothing to do with nation building? Then what does?


Hi, Igor!

In reply to your question, one answer is installing a 'democratic' government.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.
#15193251
Igor Antunov wrote:Meme. There is nothing democratic about imposing a culturally incompatible alien system on a population.


Hi again.

I hope you noted the quotes around the word democratic.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.
#15193253
Torus34 wrote:Hi, Igor!

In reply to your question, one answer is installing a 'democratic' government.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

This is irrelevant to nation-building. The nations of Europe have existed for more than a thousand years, and for more than 90% of that time they have not been democracies. Does this mean that they weren't 'really' nations at all? :eh:
#15193255
Potemkin wrote:This is irrelevant to nation-building. The nations of Europe have existed for more than a thousand years, and for more than 90% of that time they have not been democracies. Does this mean that they weren't 'really' nations at all? :eh:


Indeed, they were not.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]