U.S. Building Up Military Presence Against China?--Is This Because of Ukraine...!?

[Chevdove]

 

U.S. Building up Military Presence Against China?--Is This Because of Ukraine, China, Taiwan or What!?

 

 

U.S. Building up military presence in western Pacific

 

 

 

 

[Pioneer1]

Wake me up when they actually exchange fire.....lol.

They've been woofing back and forth for decades now.
When o when will the time come for action?
 

[ProfD]

Protecting Taiwan is the reason for any US military build up in the western pacific.

 

The US doesn't want China to pull the same move that Russia is doing against Ukraine. 

[richardmurray]

It is simple, the cold war's whole point was that two countries that have a large arsenal of weapons: USA+USSR didn't battle each other except through proxy. 

USSR isn't strong enough but china is growing. The actions in ukraine may have created the environment for a second cold war. Which was inevitable. 

[Chevdove]

On 2/28/2023 at 8:19 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Wake me up when they actually exchange fire.....lol.

They've been woofing back and forth for decades now.
When o when will the time come for action?

 

Oh no. @Pioneer1 I hope not. The kind of fire of choice today will probably be nuclear 'fire' and I hope not.

 

On 2/28/2023 at 11:27 PM, ProfD said:

 

 

The US doesn't want China to pull the same move that Russia is doing against Ukraine. 

 

Oh! @ProfD Never thought of it in this way. Good point.

 

8 hours ago, richardmurray said:

The actions in ukraine may have created the environment for a second cold war. Which was inevitable. 

 

Well, @richardmurray I'd rather it be a cold war than a nuclear war.

 

[richardmurray]

@Chevdove it will be cold, the difference is , this one will not be as straightforward, china is also fiscal capitalist and the former dominions of the european empires are not as enslaved so china has support in many non white european quarters so USA vs CHina will be something else

[Pioneer1]

richardmurray

Only problem is.....the West literally OWNS the Chinese economy.

Much if not most of the Chinese are working for Western corporations like am*zon and Walmart and Microsoft who own companies overthere.

The only thing the Communist Party of China does is whip and keep the Chinese people in line and keep them working.
But when a Western corporation needs a couple million slaves to do some hard labor for them....they go to the CPC and tell them how many they need and they round up the workers and whip them into action.
 

Talk about a slave-system:

The Western corporations are the masters

The Chinese people are the slaves
The Communist Party of China are the overseers or slaver-drivers

[richardmurray]

@Pioneer1  So what your saying is, for China to be a competitor , or fellow master to the USA in your opinion, China has to be a greater engine of labor in china than the outsiders in china?

Quote

Much if not most of the Chinese are working for Western corporations like am*zon and Walmart and Microsoft who own companies overthere.

 

Now I want it known, China's government spends a lot of money on infrastructure, more than any other government, including the usa by a long mile. The white man even admits this.  China has the largest military of any government, including the usa, the white man admits this, ,which means meals/clothes/medical attention/housing which requires military infrastructure. Which means military labor like the usa's army core of engineers. It isn't private sector but considering how many fiscal poor people join the military in the usa, i figure it shouldn't be deemed whipping. China has more female billionaires than any other government including the usa. China's rare earth materials , mined by chinese on chinese soil, dominate the tech industry in humanities requirement of materials needed for all the technology being made. 

Not all chinese are being whipped by the government of china, while all governments china/usa/russia/france/south africa/cuba/mexico/brazil/vatican city  whip people under their roof.  Many chinese are millionaires plus billionaires, china spends money on exporting chinese to places in africa or south america , financing their lives and supporting their wealth accumulation outside china. 

China is whipping many under their roof,but they are also helping many under their roof prosper and considering that I live in the usa, a country which whipped and is whipping  far more and with less rights under its roof while the british was number 1 empire or now that the eagle flies high, i can forgive china for its internal negativities, cause at least it has a nuclear arsenal which is why the usa can't invade it unlike mexico and it isn't forcing people into china to whip, unlike the country my forebears was forced into..  

 

Quote

The only thing the Communist Party of China does is whip and keep the Chinese people in line and keep them working.
But when a Western corporation needs a couple million slaves to do some hard labor for them....they go to the CPC and tell them how many they need and they round up the workers and whip them into action.

 

I see china as a fellow empire to the usa/russia. those three are the lone empires in modernity, all other governments today suffer those three. Comprehending that all governments want to be the number 1 empire, whether they admit or not. 

[Chevdove]

On 3/13/2023 at 1:50 AM, richardmurray said:

Now I want it known, China's government spends a lot of money on infrastructure, more than any other government, including the usa by a long mile.

 

 

Really!? @richardmurray That is news to me.

I would have thought the west had them beat on that score.

I read that China has put a lot of effort in building up the infrastructure in Africa though.

 

 

On 3/13/2023 at 1:50 AM, richardmurray said:

I see china as a fellow empire to the usa/russia. those three are the lone empires in modernity, all other governments today suffer those three. Comprehending that all governments want to be the number 1 empire, whether they admit or not. 

 

What about India, how to they measure up, in your opinion?

 

 

[richardmurray]

@Chevdove

By the west if you mean, the usa plus the western european countries plus australia then yes china has built more infrastructure than them all combined. 

China has been busy building up china. Roads/railway lines, buildings, hospitals, schools, the tiangong space station,water reservoirs, mining operations, shipping ports, which is the source of the issue with hong kong. comprehend, MAcau is the gambling capitol of the world. not las vegas or monaco .MAcau was just like hong kong but portuguese not english. The deal was the city goes back to china after a certain time. But why is it hong kong is complainging and macau isn't? why is the chinese government inconcerned with one special administrative division macau, while trying to redirect another special administration division.

In the 1970s when nixon went to china, china didn't have a port for the incoming usa business which would be followed by the rest of the west, but england had a port that would be chinese one day, Hong Kong, and times was great for the anglophile hong kong financial elite. Consider for a solid ten years, but involving twenty at scale, hong kong was the only mouth for goods in and out of china, so all those usa firms, would ship to hong kong into mainland china and get from hong kong from mainland, circa 80% of all goods in and out of china came through hong kong. but china got busy. Guangzhou/shanghai/beijing/shenzen all these mainland chinese cities took over the traffic industry that hong kong had. Hong Kong couldn't keep up with the infrastructure development of mainland china. And because mainland china was wise to make sure all business in china goes through a vetting, the ability to control that traffic was simple. So Hong Kong no longer is a main shipping port, to be blunt , the hong kong film industry and the shipping industry are miniscule in the larger china picture where as in the 1970s 1980s hong kong was the source. so financially hong kong has lost its place. THink of it like new orleans, new orleans was at one time the second most important city in the usa, financially in shipping,  but the usa kept growing and new orleans became less important. So, without a monetary value, the mainland chinese government hasn't decided to take away hong kong but is clowly changing the culture of the hong kong people, demanding mandarin in schools. And just so you know, the agreement with england didn't say that hong kong was to have self rule, the agreement with england said china would get back completely the entirety of hong kong and anything else around the british empire had. China agreed to allow hong kong its own currency/passports/local government/port status/banking/ but the contention came in with the legal system. A man murdered a woman , a taiwanese woman, cut her up in a bag from hong kong but the chinese government constitution has a strict rule , all chinese citizens, which includes the chinese in hong kong, have to be tried by chinese courts for all crimes regardless of any external courts. So china has been using their power to change certain legal loopholes in hong kong to the larger chinese law and that with the growing influence of the mainland on hong kong has made many people in hong kong cry foul, but the mainland hasn't done anything wrong. The federal government of the usa has stepped in many tiems on states or cities. The west doesn't critique the spanish government when it manipulates their special regions for catalonia or et cetera. But this is china, a non white european country and a country that is a military rival to the usa, thus , criminalize. 

 

YEah, well, China is also building up in south america- like roads and bridges in places like ecuador/the rest of asia- like indonesia will have a new railway / all over. China has been building everything, yes their military,  but also all sorts of infrastructure projects. 

The problem with china from a mere image perspective is that the chinese government is the dominant financial player in china. MEaning, the usa government actually is the biggest business in the usa, but doesn't appear that way. while in china, the private business owners have a direct rival in a branch of the chinese government. That was china's answer to the usa coming in. IT will keep their one party system, which has factions in it. So it isn't what people think, the chinese government has one party but think of it like the party of abraham lincoln in the usa today, the commonly called republicans. The republicans have, the fiscal wing/the war hawks wing, the maga wing, the tea party wing, the reform wing, and others. This is how the chinese one party works. They have wings, all to often based on generations not just merely ideology. 

 

So china has been busy, and is china imperial? 100% just like the USa/Russia. just like india wishes, and england/france/spain/germany/italy wish to be again. Yes, the han chinese in china are the majority group, like whites in the usa are the majority group. the ugyars are a minority, like blacks, yes the han chinese are dominating or taking advantage of a minority group. yes, but whites do it in the usa all the time. In russia, tartars or chechens are abused to, just like the native americans in the usa. IS it negative? yes. But , all countries have this. My issue with the ugyars is the usa acts like it is legal for a native american to start any business they want on a reservation, which isn't the case. Even though reservations are supposed to be territorially out the bounds of the usa control. Minority peoples are abused throughout all humanity in every country and yet, the han chinese doing it in china is sin. Is it positive? no again. but I call it a non issue. LEt's help the native american if everyone in the usa is so concerned abused minority peoples.  And hong kong is a non issue. THe problem with hong kong is what I said about the black community in the usa or most countries. a set of chinese people in a now former territory of a non chinese empire had it good financially and thought themselves better than the majority of their fellow chinese people, but the majority actually were able to grow and said minority is now complaining that said majority is treating them appropriately.

 

As i said, the black one percent in the usa, the wealthy blacks are full of it. They are and in my view, in cheap hindsight, the black one percent has been problematic to the larger village. And black advocates to the village have struggled trying to figure out a way to get an agenda that suits the majority of black people in the usa, who want prosperity but not necessarily integration with the wealthy minority of black people in the usa, who want prosperity through integration. Comprehend when the war between the states ended you had a black majority, 90%, that was enslaved. They hated whites and had a distant form of christianity. remember, it was after the war between the states that the black community became episopalian and baptist and et cetera, during slave times, that majority was its own form of christian really, with the negro spirituals and no churches or sunday clothes or any of that pomp later.  But the 10% of blacks at the end of the war between the states , were the black advocates, black wealthy, black elected leaders, black paid laborers. many of whom were completely patroned by whites and had little incentive for the anti white energy of the majority of black people now "free".  I think china has done well to manage the europhile financial elites in their community, spearheaded by the people of hong kong, if only the majority of black people in south africa could do that to all the oxford chieftan sons and et cetera. 

 

To India, I Want to first do the honey, before the pot. 

India unlike china was dominated by one country. England had the entire country, plus modern day pakistan or bangladesh.  china was cut up by foreigners. That while simple to say i think had huge influences on how china or india have grown to today. The Chinese when Citizen Mao defeated the , in my opinion, tiresome traitor , shangkaishek, who I think has a lot in common with WEB Dubois. anyway... when Mao gained victory in mainland china, he had a people's who had been dominated by not just white europeans, but Statians, from the usa, plus Chrysanthemum throne. So you have white europeans but also the usa has a part of country, a country that says all men are creating equal owns part of your country, making tons of profits. And your neighbor across the ocean owns a part of your country. so I think china has in its soul at the moment, a huge sense of us against the world. Neighbors/newer countries/older countries all can take advantage of you. and will. Thus way the chinese government works. As in their constitution, all who step in china have to deal with chinese law first. I think that explains my case better than anything I said. People forget Mao hid in western china with the ugyars, he was han chinese but he saw the future of china including all people's of china. 

 

But india was dominated, cruelly, meanfully, by one country. And I think that led to a different idea when they were founded. yes, the wanted the british gone, but the future of india wasn't including all indians, like with china with all chinese including ugyars. Thus pakisan and bangladesh, who are both majority muslim,  separated quick, with little pause, from the india in the middle. And india is a country where hindus as the majority and the I personally think dysfunctional parsi , the financial aristrocracy of india, are all in it for themselves. the attacks on muslims in india by hindus is to me a far greater minority abuse than the han chinese to the ugyars but india speaks english, has the english parliamentary system, has embedded racial biases that are deemed acceptable. The caste is like phenotypical bias in the usa. It doesn't necessarily block all in the lower castes from growth or happiness but it blocks most. 

 

Now for the pot. And to your question of infrastructure. All infrastructure projects at their heart reflect who the financier wants to help. right? and as i type in india, hindus are attacking muslims murderously, a majority on a minority. so, the people called indian are not one. Which is to me , not a big deal cause that is in many countries. that explains nigeria or south africa or brazil or... . BEing one people's isn't about a lack or growth of humanity. IT is about culture to be blunt. all humans are human, but just because another human is human does not mean you want to live next to them, to aid in their growth. And that is human as much as giving food to a hungry child you never saw before. But to infrastructure, it explains the lack of infrastructure in india. India is very compartmentalized. when you go to Mumbai, it is big city lights with internet and skyscrapers and hospitals and steam baths and all these things, but not to far from mumbai, is a dirt village without a water pump at the well. Whereas in china, a general quality exists that is better than most and comparable to the scandanavian european countries who have lots of natural resources, small populations, and no need for heavy military financing for now.  Gandhi knew. He talked constantly about the internal cultural problems of india. And while it is negative it isn't a problem, just a part of humanity. In contrast. most black people in the usa I think feel whites are the other, but the situation the black community in the usa is in, as a decentralized people geographically in the usa, which the black one percent supported and support, made it where the ability to get the modern black community to embrace the white was easier than to get the hindu and muslim in india who are geographically entrenched usually. But, until the human populace in india becomes one in its heart, not just the law, the infrastructure will reflect the lack of love that the groups have to each other in the country. Flint Michigan, mostly black, is not far from mostly white suburbs of complete opulence. The problem is india like its anglophone predecessors speaks , or advertises itself, as one when it isn't. 

 

But I end with a little prediction. India has never deemed the west as their militaristic ally, never. And like China, India is a militaristic ally to Russia. The three don't trust each other necessarily, but all three dislike the usa and its western european satraps. so, I can see a merger, the big problem is, while russia and china exist more distantly  to the russian or chinese communities in the usa or western europe<like in NYC for example>, the indian communities int he usa or western europe, are tightly bonded to india still. so, it will be interesting how india handles being militaristically opposed to the west while so many indians live in the west and don't want to break ties with india.