[US Foreign Policy] Suckers

1868788899092»

Posts

  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    edited September 15
    I know that this is probably really unlikely but is there any way for other nations to place the same kinda sanctions on individuals and stuff that we do? Like could a bunch of foreign governments get together and just sanction the president and all his businesses and members of his staff financially?

    Yup. All sanctions are, are an aggrement among enough nations to tell the targets of the sanctions "Fuck off", and a willingness to have some stance about countries that aren't willing to do so.

    The US is in the strongest position because of the relative strength of their economy, but unless a target of sanctions is only willing to deal with the US, they can still be at least partially effective.

    Sanctions are just a formalized "Fuck you, matey", and getting your friends to agree with you.

    MorganV on
    ElvenshaePhoenix-DSmrtnikBlackDragon480monikerFencingsaxNobeardForarGnome-InterruptusJaysonFourtynic
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    What's the Obama administration's exposure since they initiated the sales? Like, for a guy who likes to scream lock em up this sounds like an avenue he can use.

    And it's not like Trump's currently at risk since everyone involved in prosecuting the crimes are either involved or beholden to him.

    It's not great for biden or obama, but it happened in the last year of the presidency so the full fallout would have been less clear, though it would be considerably worse for trump since he has both continued the sales and actively defended the actions of the people he has sold it to.

    Really, the question at this juncture is whether trump is stupid enough to try and weaponize this.

    The difference there is that the current DOJ is perfectly willing to pursue charges against Obama and Biden.

    They've had 4 years to charge obama and didn't do jack shit despite the fact that they would litterally have all the information they need to do so.

    And besides all that, what the hell would they be charging joe for? Like the schtick for republicans is to gaslight some error or tradgedy as some sort of capricious act of the lovecraftian "left wing", but Joe's been basically sitting on his ass for the better part of 4 years and there has been nothing on the scandal front outside of maybe the situation with his son and the ukraine, but any court would see the sequence of events and hear from actual ukranians about what was going on with that company and the prosecutor.

    So yeah, I'm sure they'd try and do something but the problem is that there isn't nearly enough to even begin gaslighting.

    I'm not PARTICULARLY afraid they will try to arrest Biden (or Obama) for the reasons you've mentioned above. And despite the horrifying speed rule of law has been undermined in this country, grand juries and indictments and arrests don't happen on a whim. Even if Barr decides fuck it YOLO and gets hack judges on board, I still can't see Biden being raided - much less cuffed and hauled off between now and Election Day without the largest series of protests (and riots) that our country has seen.

    More likely it'll be the same shit we saw in 2016 with Comey about Weiner's laptop and emails. Barr will announce some meaningless bullshit that plays into whatever narrative about Hunter / Burisma and Joe's supposed interference in that, and people who haven't followed it closely will figure smoke = fire.

    Of course, bringing up Ukraine / Burisma / Hunter just reminds everyone of the impeachment, so it could maybe backfire on them? Or go nowhere? I don't think they are going to move the needle that much on it.

    Which is why I'm skeptical that they can even try to pull a comey at this point; Biden isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination but the simple fact is that he hasn't actually done anything to merit criminal investigation in the past year so any attempt by trump to use the justice department against him would be seen by people as proof that trump knows he can't beat biden in a fair election and needs to try and cheat to even the odds.

    And the people who would buy it? They're all in on trump and would believe it if trump told them his opponent was the angriest black lesbian he'd ever seen.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    zagdrob
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    I dunno, I'd rather disputes were resolved by assassination of political leadership than war. At least the leaders likely had some choice in the matter, unlike the poor grunts on the ground.

    This would be a bad thing.

    Imagine what would happen domestically if heads of state are routinely targeted by foreign nations. This means the battle space becomes wherever the president currently is, and measures to defend against assassination would resemble a police state. And god forbid one actually succeeds.

    And likely still end in war.

    Commander ZoomNobeardshrykeMild ConfusionHappylilElfElkiBlackDragon480painfulPleasance
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    Yeah, you're probably thinking / fantasizing about "meet on neutral ground, in an arena, to engage in gladiatorial combat". That is not at all what is actually being discussed.

    And even then, I would not be a fan of "______ia gets to dictate whatever terms they like to us, and we have to accept, because their leader/champion was a better killer than ours."

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
  • XantomasXantomas Heat level critical. Thermal threshold exceeded. Shutdown sequence initiated. Shutdown sequence ov.. Registered User regular
    Yeah, you're probably thinking / fantasizing about "meet on neutral ground, in an arena, to engage in gladiatorial combat". That is not at all what is actually being discussed.

    And even then, I would not be a fan of "______ia gets to dictate whatever terms they like to us, and we have to accept, because their leader/champion was a better killer than ours."

    Do you want Vlad Putin as ruler of the world? Cause that's how you get Vlad Putin as ruler of the world!!

    MrVyngaard
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    Xantomas wrote: »
    Yeah, you're probably thinking / fantasizing about "meet on neutral ground, in an arena, to engage in gladiatorial combat". That is not at all what is actually being discussed.

    And even then, I would not be a fan of "______ia gets to dictate whatever terms they like to us, and we have to accept, because their leader/champion was a better killer than ours."

    Do you want Vlad Putin as ruler of the world? Cause that's how you get Vlad Putin as ruler of the world!!

    I doubt the other world leaders will agree to be drugged for the photo op to build up his strongman meme.

  • XantomasXantomas Heat level critical. Thermal threshold exceeded. Shutdown sequence initiated. Shutdown sequence ov.. Registered User regular
    Kamar wrote: »
    Xantomas wrote: »
    Yeah, you're probably thinking / fantasizing about "meet on neutral ground, in an arena, to engage in gladiatorial combat". That is not at all what is actually being discussed.

    And even then, I would not be a fan of "______ia gets to dictate whatever terms they like to us, and we have to accept, because their leader/champion was a better killer than ours."

    Do you want Vlad Putin as ruler of the world? Cause that's how you get Vlad Putin as ruler of the world!!

    I doubt the other world leaders will agree to be drugged for the photo op to build up his strongman meme.

    Well, he could take Donald Trump in a fight, that's for sure. So America is boned either way.

    CelestialBadgerRingo
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    Looks like UAE is providing the next standard rifle for the German military which is ugh.

    Technically the order for 120k rifles goes to a German company, but that company has like 10 or so employees. Its parent company has about 130 employees. That company is then part of Edge, the UAE state weapons manufacturer. So now UAE is probably going to invest in a large weapons factory in Germany. Ironically in the only state that has a leftist head of government who is pretty outspoken against weapon exports.

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Surprising that they didn't go with H&K, as they are the premier German small arms manufacturer

    But then H&K is in no danger of going under, it's going to be selling the 416 for a long time to a lot of European militaries. Think the French military adopted it?

  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    Germany and weapons exports, name a more iconic duo

    kFJhXwE.jpgkFJhXwE.jpg
    Elldren
  • cckerberoscckerberos Registered User regular
    Maybe I should, but I don't really associate Germany with arms exports. I think more of countries like the US, Russia, and China.

    SmrtnikKrieghundOrcaEinzelshryke
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    honovere wrote: »
    Looks like UAE is providing the next standard rifle for the German military which is ugh.

    Technically the order for 120k rifles goes to a German company, but that company has like 10 or so employees. Its parent company has about 130 employees. That company is then part of Edge, the UAE state weapons manufacturer. So now UAE is probably going to invest in a large weapons factory in Germany. Ironically in the only state that has a leftist head of government who is pretty outspoken against weapon exports.

    Are you meaning a specific state in Germany, or Germany itself.

    Because it always amuses me when people talk about Germany and Angela Merkel as "left", when she and the CDU are centre-right. The opposition (SPD) is centre-left. The window has been distorted so hard by American politics (and the current strain of UK conservatives) as to the spectrum on which this is judged, that people assume Germany must be left.

    CelestialBadgermonikerDocrahkeesh2000Phoenix-DGnome-InterruptusJragghenDavid WalgasTicaldfjamButtersCommander ZoomshrykepainfulPleasanceErlec
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    cckerberos wrote: »
    Maybe I should, but I don't really associate Germany with arms exports. I think more of countries like the US, Russia, and China.

    It is one of the biggest arms exporters in the world, as is the UK and France (although they export less I think)

    honovereKayne Red RobeElldren
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    honovere wrote: »
    Looks like UAE is providing the next standard rifle for the German military which is ugh.

    Technically the order for 120k rifles goes to a German company, but that company has like 10 or so employees. Its parent company has about 130 employees. That company is then part of Edge, the UAE state weapons manufacturer. So now UAE is probably going to invest in a large weapons factory in Germany. Ironically in the only state that has a leftist head of government who is pretty outspoken against weapon exports.

    Are you meaning a specific state in Germany, or Germany itself.

    Because it always amuses me when people talk about Germany and Angela Merkel as "left", when she and the CDU are centre-right. The opposition (SPD) is centre-left. The window has been distorted so hard by American politics (and the current strain of UK conservatives) as to the spectrum on which this is judged, that people assume Germany must be left.

    The specific state in Germany, Thuringia. It's led by a member of Die Linke (The Left).
    Solar wrote: »
    Surprising that they didn't go with H&K, as they are the premier German small arms manufacturer

    But then H&K is in no danger of going under, it's going to be selling the 416 for a long time to a lot of European militaries. Think the French military adopted it?

    H&K as you said were providing the standard rifle for about 60 years, yeah. They already said that will explore every legal way against the result of the tender process. So probaly a legal suit in the procurement tribunal.

    SolarElldrenMorganVPhoenix-DDavid Walgas
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Terry Branstad, Ambassador to China, this op-ed about the current state of US-China relationships.

    After the op-ed being censored on Chinese media, he put his resignation this Monday. Branstad was an old political animal and with a personal friendship with Xi, having met each other by virtue of Iowa being a pork producer and China being a vast pork consumer. If he threw the towel, then things are going to heat up even more. And that's going to happen no matter who wins in November, a Biden admin seems unwilling to let Xi push them around either.

    BlackDragon480
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Terry Branstad, Ambassador to China, this op-ed about the current state of US-China relationships.

    After the op-ed being censored on Chinese media, he put his resignation this Monday. Branstad was an old political animal and with a personal friendship with Xi, having met each other by virtue of Iowa being a pork producer and China being a vast pork consumer. If he threw the towel, then things are going to heat up even more. And that's going to happen no matter who wins in November, a Biden admin seems unwilling to let Xi push them around either.

    Tension was going to continue no matter what; China is kind of a shit in general and now Xi has to prove his chops by standing up to the west while biden isn't going to look like he's rolling over for Xi. With any luck though, both leaders can talk it over and de-escalate this whole stupid thing since no one is winning this dick measuring contest.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    CelestialBadgerElldrenGnome-Interruptus
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    Gaddez wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Terry Branstad, Ambassador to China, this op-ed about the current state of US-China relationships.

    After the op-ed being censored on Chinese media, he put his resignation this Monday. Branstad was an old political animal and with a personal friendship with Xi, having met each other by virtue of Iowa being a pork producer and China being a vast pork consumer. If he threw the towel, then things are going to heat up even more. And that's going to happen no matter who wins in November, a Biden admin seems unwilling to let Xi push them around either.

    Tension was going to continue no matter what; China is kind of a shit in general and now Xi has to prove his chops by standing up to the west while biden isn't going to look like he's rolling over for Xi. With any luck though, both leaders can talk it over and de-escalate this whole stupid thing since no one is winning this dick measuring contest.

    De-escalating with China is going to be difficult going forwards though since China is now ruled by a dictator. External threats are to be used for internal leverage and everything is secondary to keeping Xi in power since the only way he leaves is if his opponents murder him.

    electricitylikesme on
    CelestialBadgermrondeauElldrenTryCatcherAistanGnome-InterruptuszagdrobIncenjucarBlackDragon480FencingsaxCommander ZoomGiantGeek2020shryke
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Not to mention, as that op-ed mentions, the complete unwillingness of doing basic concessions like "stop stealing IP that isn't yours" and "submit your companies to the same audit process that everybody else does".

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Again: China is always going to be shitty. But the reality of the situation is that they're an emergent world power and the US doesn't have the ability to force capitulation on them; their economy is too strong and their military capabilities too formidable for you to challenge them. The best move is to figure out ways to co-operate with them as much as you can while still prodding them to improve their humanitarian situation.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    OrcaTicaldfjam
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Again: China is always going to be shitty. But the reality of the situation is that they're an emergent world power and the US doesn't have the ability to force capitulation on them; their economy is too strong and their military capabilities too formidable for you to challenge them. The best move is to figure out ways to co-operate with them as much as you can while still prodding them to improve their humanitarian situation.

    They are too strong to bullied/pushed around, NOT too strong to be challenged. This is like saying we should've rolled over for the Soviet Union.

    Like then direct confrontation isn't much of an option. The main thing we need is buy-in from allies to put teeth to sanctions, instead of unilateral tarriffs that are lose-lose. This would be a hard sell in any time and even moreso after this presidency, but the effort has to be made where possible.

    TryCatcherSmrtnikMosatiJragghenBlackDragon480KruiteShadowfireFencingsaxGiantGeek2020ElldrenLord_Asmodeus
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Again: China is always going to be shitty. But the reality of the situation is that they're an emergent world power and the US doesn't have the ability to force capitulation on them; their economy is too strong and their military capabilities too formidable for you to challenge them. The best move is to figure out ways to co-operate with them as much as you can while still prodding them to improve their humanitarian situation.

    They are too strong to bullied/pushed around, NOT too strong to be challenged. This is like saying we should've rolled over for the Soviet Union.

    Like then direct confrontation isn't much of an option. The main thing we need is buy-in from allies to put teeth to sanctions, instead of unilateral tarriffs that are lose-lose. This would be a hard sell in any time and even moreso after this presidency, but the effort has to be made where possible.

    I'm not saying you can't pressure them, I'm saying that a combination of China spreading it's influence while the US has burnt it's own means bringing them to heel isn't possible.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    autono-wally, erotibot300painfulPleasance
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Again: China is always going to be shitty. But the reality of the situation is that they're an emergent world power and the US doesn't have the ability to force capitulation on them; their economy is too strong and their military capabilities too formidable for you to challenge them. The best move is to figure out ways to co-operate with them as much as you can while still prodding them to improve their humanitarian situation.

    "We can't do anything so we should just do mewling noises to look like we are doing something". Such an inspiring foreign policy position, can't imagine why is proving to be unpopular.

    rahkeesh2000
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Again: China is always going to be shitty. But the reality of the situation is that they're an emergent world power and the US doesn't have the ability to force capitulation on them; their economy is too strong and their military capabilities too formidable for you to challenge them. The best move is to figure out ways to co-operate with them as much as you can while still prodding them to improve their humanitarian situation.

    "We can't do anything so we should just do mewling noises to look like we are doing something". Such an inspiring foreign policy position, can't imagine why is proving to be unpopular.

    As opposed to what? The US has pissed off it's decades old allies in favor of toadying up to every third rate dicator while trump jerks off into his own face so the odds you get actual help from them is sketchy (and this is completely putting aside how when your allies have tried to help with this they were left them twisting in the wind), Third party powers are liable to not give a shit, and the developing world has too many immediate problems to worry about china stealing IPs.

    It sucks I know, but you're in a situation where theres someone who has become strong enough to simply say "fuck off" when you tell them what to do and probably too influential to isolate economically.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    mrondeauOrcaautono-wally, erotibot300Gnome-Interruptus
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited September 16
    Sometimes, the solution is worse than the problem. For example, you might want to remove the threat of a failed state with a narcissistic government, but an actual invasion would kill to many people, and sanctions would not work.
    This is a true for China as for the USA.
    The best you can do is use soft power to limit their influence, and try to accept as many refugees as possible.

    mrondeau on
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Sometimes, the solution is worse than the problem. For example, you might want to remove the threat of a failed state with a narcissistic government, but an actual invasion would kill to many people, and sanctions would not work.
    This is a true for China as for the USA.
    The best you can do is use soft power to limit their influence, and try to accept as many refugees as possible.

    Which is no longer possible since trump has incinerated as much of your soft power as possible as fast as possible; you're state department was gutted in the first few months, NATO has been castigated and it's founding purpose called into question by trump's inability to commit to it (to say nothing of his nightmarish bromance with putin), Canada has had to fight over the stupidest shit with him regarding trade in adition to being left twisting in the wind following the arrest of a high level chinese CEO and the ensuing arrest of visiting canadian's by china...

    Like, maybe at some point you can rally your sphere of influence to your side and bring china in line. But that isn't going to be anytime soon and absolutely not before you have trump out and softened your current stance.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    Orca
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Sometimes, the solution is worse than the problem. For example, you might want to remove the threat of a failed state with a narcissistic government, but an actual invasion would kill to many people, and sanctions would not work.
    This is a true for China as for the USA.
    The best you can do is use soft power to limit their influence, and try to accept as many refugees as possible.

    Which is no longer possible since trump has incinerated as much of your soft power as possible as fast as possible; you're state department was gutted in the first few months, NATO has been castigated and it's founding purpose called into question by trump's inability to commit to it (to say nothing of his nightmarish bromance with putin), Canada has had to fight over the stupidest shit with him regarding trade in adition to being left twisting in the wind following the arrest of a high level chinese CEO and the ensuing arrest of visiting canadian's by china...

    Like, maybe at some point you can rally your sphere of influence to your side and bring china in line. But that isn't going to be anytime soon and absolutely not before you have trump out and softened your current stance.
    I’m Canadian. I know. China is actually less of a problem right now. At least, they don’t keep trying to wreck our economy through sheer stupidity every few months.

    GaddezOrcaGnome-Interruptus
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Sometimes, the solution is worse than the problem. For example, you might want to remove the threat of a failed state with a narcissistic government, but an actual invasion would kill to many people, and sanctions would not work.
    This is a true for China as for the USA.
    The best you can do is use soft power to limit their influence, and try to accept as many refugees as possible.

    Which is no longer possible since trump has incinerated as much of your soft power as possible as fast as possible; you're state department was gutted in the first few months, NATO has been castigated and it's founding purpose called into question by trump's inability to commit to it (to say nothing of his nightmarish bromance with putin), Canada has had to fight over the stupidest shit with him regarding trade in adition to being left twisting in the wind following the arrest of a high level chinese CEO and the ensuing arrest of visiting canadian's by china...

    Like, maybe at some point you can rally your sphere of influence to your side and bring china in line. But that isn't going to be anytime soon and absolutely not before you have trump out and softened your current stance.
    I’m Canadian. I know. China is actually less of a problem right now. At least, they don’t keep trying to wreck our economy through sheer stupidity every few months.

    Which is why I argue trying to push sanctions is a pointless move to try and muscle china right now; most of the US's allies are in the exact same position as us and wouldn't see any real benefit from doing so if there isn't anything coming back our way.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    There's two different things discussed. Nobody is talking about, let's say, an invasion to liberate the Uyghur concentration camps. Branstad is specifically talking about trade, and nobody has to trade with China. And the US has a large leverage in that freedom of navigation as we know it only exists because the US Navy can beat up all the navies of everybody else combined, so trade ships can go around without having to be escorted. That can easily change, and that change geographically doesn't benefit China. Or pretty much anybody with an export economy.

    TryCatcher on
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    There's two different things discussed. Nobody is talking about, let's say, an invasion to liberate the Uyghur concentration camps. Branstad is specifically talking about trade, and nobody has to trade with China. And the US has a large leverage in that freedom of navigation as we know it only exists because the US Navy can beat up all the navies of everybody else combined, so trade ships can go around without having to be escorted. That can easily change, and that change geographically doesn't benefit China. Or pretty much anybody with an export economy.

    The same argument could be leveled at the united states; that no one needs to trade with you and that ~barring a major upswing in global piracy~ the value of a massive naval presence stabilizing international shipping is moot.

    Also, it should be pointed out that the Navy is badly overstretched as it stands right now and is desperately in need of refurbishment.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    There's two different things discussed. Nobody is talking about, let's say, an invasion to liberate the Uyghur concentration camps. Branstad is specifically talking about trade, and nobody has to trade with China. And the US has a large leverage in that freedom of navigation as we know it only exists because the US Navy can beat up all the navies of everybody else combined, so trade ships can go around without having to be escorted. That can easily change, and that change geographically doesn't benefit China. Or pretty much anybody with an export economy.

    Nobody has to trade with the USA either, and the reason the US navy has that advantage is that no one really wanted to challenge it. If the USA starts dictating terms, well, then everyone has a reason to get to a state where they can challenge the USA. Which is not that hard, only expensive.

    Not much can be done against China for the same reason not much can be done against the USA: it’s not worth the damage it would do.
    This, of course, can change. The current USA foreign policy, for example, is a pretty good justification for the ex-US allies to re-arm and reduce ties with the USA.

    At least China does not try to hurt its trade partners for shit and giggles. Trading with them is much safer than trading with the USA.

    Gnome-InterruptusGaddezRingo
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    "Global piracy". Uh huh. What have to ask is what happens if the US leaves and countries like India or Japan decide "you know what? this cargo ship is mine, what are you going to do about it?". Securing trade routes was one of the main motivators behind pre-WWII colonialism and imperialism, which means that things can get real ugly real fast.

  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    I don't think we can overstate what a massive foreign policy failure this administration's China policy has been. Previous administrations had their faults and certainly turned blind eyes to the Chinese government's human right violations like the Trump administration overlooking Uighur persecution. But that was specifically to gain inroads on trade and intellectual property protection which not only hasn't materialized at all but our lack of leadership internationally has emboldened Xi and the CPP even further. It is not a coincidence that China chose the last 4 years to enact new restrictions in Hong Kong and now Mongolia. Those moves are only possible when the US is equal parts incompetent and uninterested in taking actions to prevent them.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    OrcaFencingsaxGiantGeek2020ElldrenGaddezLord_AsmodeusTicaldfjamshrykeNobeard
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    "Global piracy". Uh huh. What have to ask is what happens if the US leaves and countries like India or Japan decide "you know what? this cargo ship is mine, what are you going to do about it?". Securing trade routes was one of the main motivators behind pre-WWII colonialism and imperialism, which means that things can get real ugly real fast.

    Piracy increased after the collapse of the Soviet Union and their subsequent dry docking their navy. The US stepped up patrols and brought it back down because it was rather expensive to global commerce which we have a large hand in. If we decided to perpetually lower our naval presence then other nations will fill the void that they are free riding on now, because the alternative is more expensive.

    mrondeauFencingsaxCouscousGiantGeek2020Elldren
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    "Global piracy". Uh huh. What have to ask is what happens if the US leaves and countries like India or Japan decide "you know what? this cargo ship is mine, what are you going to do about it?". Securing trade routes was one of the main motivators behind pre-WWII colonialism and imperialism, which means that things can get real ugly real fast.

    Piracy increased after the collapse of the Soviet Union and their subsequent dry docking their navy. The US stepped up patrols and brought it back down because it was rather expensive to global commerce which we have a large hand in. If we decided to perpetually lower our naval presence then other nations will fill the void that they are free riding on now, because the alternative is more expensive.

    Though it may be more of a situation where piracy has a stronger correlation when nations collapse instead of following the decrease in patrols.

    Ie: Somalia

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    GiantGeek2020PolaritieElldrenGaddezzagdrobshrykepainfulPleasanceNobeardRingo
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    "Global piracy". Uh huh. What have to ask is what happens if the US leaves and countries like India or Japan decide "you know what? this cargo ship is mine, what are you going to do about it?". Securing trade routes was one of the main motivators behind pre-WWII colonialism and imperialism, which means that things can get real ugly real fast.

    The main reason for them not to do that is that siezure of goods leads to people not trading in the region which is a net loss for the economy of the nation in question.

    Which is why I talk about global piracy since they don't give a shit about their nation's trade relations (because they're typically broke as fuck).

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    mrondeauGiantGeek2020BlackDragon480RingoElldren
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    Butters wrote: »
    I don't think we can overstate what a massive foreign policy failure this administration's China policy has been. Previous administrations had their faults and certainly turned blind eyes to the Chinese government's human right violations like the Trump administration overlooking Uighur persecution. But that was specifically to gain inroads on trade and intellectual property protection which not only hasn't materialized at all but our lack of leadership internationally has emboldened Xi and the CPP even further. It is not a coincidence that China chose the last 4 years to enact new restrictions in Hong Kong and now Mongolia. Those moves are only possible when the US is equal parts incompetent and uninterested in taking actions to prevent them.

    That's true but it's also true that China's current position is the result of at this point decades of failure by US administrations to really tackle the problem. From the timing I believe most of it rests on GWB (not shocking). But also a huge part is the blindness, stupidity and greed of corporations, who were more then willing to sell out their near-future selves for a quick buck. All while complaining about the very obvious problems the deals they cut got them.

    It is in many ways too late to do much about China. Even by the time Obama took office they were probably already too big to really be pushed around.

    shryke on
    GiantGeek2020BlackDragon480NobeardHappylilElfGnome-InterruptusElvenshaeOrca
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    We'll see. Demographics don't favor China (though, to be fair, they don't favor a lot of countries either), and the COVID saga hasn't done China many favors.

Sign In or Register to comment.