Miscellaneous News

ZeEa5KPul said:

And if it becomes necessary, you don't think China can back an African tinpot with military force?

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be an issue but it will become a miscalculation all tho not from a military standpoint that tinpot African country will fold ease without hassle but the issue will rise from the worldwide media and image the timing is not right. In fact China can't do any sort of adventures until the timing is right and that is when this world economy goes because China won't have anything to lose at that point..

So sit tight, be patient and follow closely with the economy openings will come during the mid century point

Hendrik_2000 said:

First rule of the day is that to expect people respecting you, you have to respect yourself first. That is what the Israeli did. It is not matter of semantic whether they live inside or outside China the rest of the world consider it as Chinese. So if someone spite you and you did nothing where is the respect? We seen this in trade war in Taiwan dispute, China just didn't respond to challenge. It is like boxing match your opponent keep hitting you and you did nothing? No wonder even this low life Indian mock China

Click to expand...

You need some sleep man. You're acting wild.

ZeEa5KPul said:

China will lose billions, huh? Even if that's true, China's economy is in the scale of tens of trillions - what's a few billion to it?

And if it becomes necessary, you don't think China can back an African tinpot with military force?

Click to expand...

No, I agree with Hendrik, I don't think China won't send expeditionary force to Africa either.

Also, Hendrik is correct that China won't send troops to defend ethnic Chinese overseas, why would they send an expeditionary force to Africa to back a tinpot dictator?...

The author of this article makes the same mistake as he identifies. He tries to romanticize on the very things about the US that he claims are a mistake. When it comes down to it, everything costs money. China is troubling the West because of its purchasing power in the world and that trumps everything else. The romanticized version is everyone is not motivated by materialism. They don't see that because they don't have the money so they have to rely on romanticism. Like I've been saying, if the US goes down because of its own misfortunes, most of the US's allies, especially in Asia, will be sucking up to China as they do to the US right now. That's why China shouldn't be tossing the US any bones helping the US maintain "American exceptionalism".

Phead128 said:

No, I agree with Hendrik, I don't think China won't send expeditionary force to Africa either.

Also, Hendrik is correct that China won't send troops to defend ethnic Chinese overseas, why would they send an expeditionary force to Africa to back a tinpot dictator?...

Click to expand...

I agree with both of you, china might give lip service to overseas Chinese and that's it , foreigners get better treatment in china than any Chinese that's why the Chinese always get picked on

Phead128 said:

Also, Hendrik is correct that China won't send troops to defend ethnic Chinese overseas

Click to expand...

What use do ethnic Chinese overseas have for China? Do they pay taxes to it? Do they exercise preponderant political influence over their home countries for China's benefit?

Their ancestry alone does not give them any value to China. By contrast, investments by Chinese companies in Africa are of value and it's a valid question whether China might resort to force to protect them.

Phead128 said:

why would they send an expeditionary force to Africa to back a tinpot dictator?

Click to expand...

I'm not discussing scenarios, I'm not a screenwriter. I predicated my sentence on "if necessary" and I meant to discuss capability alone. There's also more to support than sending an expeditionary force - it's much more useful for China to train African military units so if a coup does occur (which in Africa is a stochastic affair), it's plotters are aligned with Chinese interests.

AssassinsMace said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The author of this article makes the same mistake as he identifies. He tries to romanticize on the very things about the US that he claims are a mistake. When it comes down to it, everything costs money. China is troubling the West because of its purchasing power in the world and that trumps everything else. The romanticized version is everyone is not motivated by materialism. They don't see that because they don't have the money so they have to rely on romanticism. Like I've been saying, if the US goes down because of its own misfortunes, most of the US's allies, especially in Asia, will be sucking up to China as they do to the US right now. That's why China shouldn't be tossing the US any bones helping the US maintain "American exceptionalism".

Click to expand...

Few articles hit home but this was one of these articles. He touched upon ground realities. The world has indeed changed and we have sort of entered a tranisitonal period where competition is heating up

ZeEa5KPul said:

What use do ethnic Chinese overseas have for China? Do they pay taxes to it? Do they exercise preponderant political influence over their home countries for China's benefit?

Their ancestry alone does not give them any value to China. By contrast, investments by Chinese companies in Africa are of value and it's a valid question whether China might resort to force to protect them.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right that's why the Chinese always get picked on, easy target with no consequence.

Chin evan said:

I agree with both of you, china might give lip service to overseas Chinese and that's it , foreigners get better treatment in china than any Chinese that's why the Chinese always get picked on

Click to expand...

there's a reason why ethnic based intervention is looked down on:

if China did interventions for noncitizens, expect immediate comparisons to Nazi Germany.

AssassinsMace said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The author of this article makes the same mistake as he identifies. He tries to romanticize on the very things about the US that he claims are a mistake. When it comes down to it, everything costs money. China is troubling the West because of its purchasing power in the world and that trumps everything else. The romanticized version is everyone is not motivated by materialism. They don't see that because they don't have the money so they have to rely on romanticism. Like I've been saying, if the US goes down because of its own misfortunes, most of the US's allies, especially in Asia, will be sucking up to China as they do to the US right now. That's why China shouldn't be tossing the US any bones helping the US maintain "American exceptionalism".

Click to expand...

The problem with the author is that he doesn't understand what the meaning of the words he uses is:

Many pundits seem to assume (save for the exceptional few) that American power is what it once was, that neither the world nor Russia have changed and Washington can change Moscow's course. This is sadly misguided.

Click to expand...

He then follows with

America is an indispensable nation

Click to expand...

and

It will, however, only achieve results if the United States understands Moscow's interests, and engages from a position of strength

Click to expand...