The coming war on China. John Pilger

pinno

Interesting and slightly worrying programme last night on ITV. Worth watching and available on the ITV hub for a while. Just finished watching it this evening.

Starting with the horrific treatment of the Marshall Islanders, any thoughts?

mamba80

Yep Pilger seems to be ahead of the curve on the subjects he reports, though if he is correct on this, god alone knows what will happen when Trump gets in, old men seem to have no trouble wasting young lives.

China has been a threat to the west for years, why we keep giving them technological leg ups, with nothing in return, never ceases to amaze me.
china is only interested in the Greater China.

bianchimoon

mamba80 wrote:

Yep Pilger seems to be ahead of the curve on the subjects he reports, though if he is correct on this, god alone knows what will happen when Trump gets in, old men seem to have no trouble wasting young lives.

China has been a threat to the west for years, why we keep giving them technological leg ups, with nothing in return, never ceases to amaze me.
china is only interested in the Greater China.

How do you work out Chinas been a threat to the west for years? can't say I've felt threatened by anything they've done or know anyone else who has, we do get things in return... cheap goods!

finchy

bianchimoon wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Yep Pilger seems to be ahead of the curve on the subjects he reports, though if he is correct on this, god alone knows what will happen when Trump gets in, old men seem to have no trouble wasting young lives.

China has been a threat to the west for years, why we keep giving them technological leg ups, with nothing in return, never ceases to amaze me.
china is only interested in the Greater China.

How do you work out Chinas been a threat to the west for years? can't say I've felt threatened by anything they've done or know anyone else who has, we do get things in return... cheap goods!

I think the biggest danger is that the West will get sucked into a regional war. Obviously China doesn't have the military capability to attack the West (unless the Russians let them march through the country, which I doubt very much), and even it did have the capability, wouldn't have much interest in doing so, but the rise of China to economic global superpower and regional military superpower status is a pretty solid bet right now, and eventually they might clash with an American ally. Or India.

bianchimoon

finchy wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Yep Pilger seems to be ahead of the curve on the subjects he reports, though if he is correct on this, god alone knows what will happen when Trump gets in, old men seem to have no trouble wasting young lives.

China has been a threat to the west for years, why we keep giving them technological leg ups, with nothing in return, never ceases to amaze me.
china is only interested in the Greater China.

How do you work out Chinas been a threat to the west for years? can't say I've felt threatened by anything they've done or know anyone else who has, we do get things in return... cheap goods!

I think the biggest danger is that the West will get sucked into a regional war. Obviously China doesn't have the military capability to attack the West (unless the Russians let them march through the country, which I doubt very much), and even it did have the capability, wouldn't have much interest in doing so, but the rise of China to economic global superpower and regional military superpower status is a pretty solid bet right now, and eventually they might clash with an American ally. Or India.

I think the biggest danger is Trump, if he declares a trade war with China. If he takes away there newly found consumerism and returns China to being inward looking. Just have to look at North Korea and their posturing, building military assets etc, after all when you have nothing... you have nothing to lose.

slowmart

finchy wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Yep Pilger seems to be ahead of the curve on the subjects he reports, though if he is correct on this, god alone knows what will happen when Trump gets in, old men seem to have no trouble wasting young lives.

China has been a threat to the west for years, why we keep giving them technological leg ups, with nothing in return, never ceases to amaze me.
china is only interested in the Greater China.

How do you work out Chinas been a threat to the west for years? can't say I've felt threatened by anything they've done or know anyone else who has, we do get things in return... cheap goods!

I think the biggest danger is that the West will get sucked into a regional war. Obviously China doesn't have the military capability to attack the West (unless the Russians let them march through the country, which I doubt very much), and even it did have the capability, wouldn't have much interest in doing so, but the rise of China to economic global superpower and regional military superpower status is a pretty solid bet right now, and eventually they might clash with an American ally. Or India.

So when mutually assured destruction is assured the conflict and interests are fought in other areas. Economic, digital, Commercial, natural resource and covert action by proxy are all avenues to exert pressure and shape policy without direct intervention.

mamba80

bianchimoon wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Yep Pilger seems to be ahead of the curve on the subjects he reports, though if he is correct on this, god alone knows what will happen when Trump gets in, old men seem to have no trouble wasting young lives.

China has been a threat to the west for years, why we keep giving them technological leg ups, with nothing in return, never ceases to amaze me.
china is only interested in the Greater China.

How do you work out Chinas been a threat to the west for years? can't say I've felt threatened by anything they've done or know anyone else who has, we do get things in return... cheap goods!

All those cheap goods have come at a cost to the US and Europe, one of the biggest is our lose of intellectual property rights and RnD, perhaps having trump as the next leader of the so called free world is another cost?

kingstongraham

I haven't seen it, but can I guess he thinks it's the fault of the west?

pinno

America's military bases and nuclear capacity in the Pacific dwarfs that of China. Who's the aggressor here?

bompington

Pinno wrote:

America's military bases and nuclear capacity in the Pacific dwarfs that of China. Who's the aggressor here?

To be an aggressor surely you have to use the weapons, or at least to threaten their use in an offensive rather than defensive capability? I think you can at least make a case that the US has been quite effective at maintaining peace by being world policeman - without discounting the truth that some of their actions and policies have been plain wrong.
Where would we be if the Americans hadn't spread their armed might around the world? They certainly did some seriously dodgy things during the Cold War, but that was in the face of the real threat - not to mention actual military action - of the USSR and China. There are British people alive today who have fought actual Chinese soldiers actually invading Korea in support of an actual communist dictatorship: it's easy to forget about all that now and just assume that because the US has the troops all around, that they're the aggressors.

I assume that's what Pilger does, anyway, cos that's what he always does.

bianchimoon

bompington wrote:

Pinno wrote:

America's military bases and nuclear capacity in the Pacific dwarfs that of China. Who's the aggressor here?

To be an aggressor surely you have to use the weapons, or at least to threaten their use in an offensive rather than defensive capability? I think you can at least make a case that the US has been quite effective at maintaining peace by being world policeman - without discounting the truth that some of their actions and policies have been plain wrong.
Where would we be if the Americans hadn't spread their armed might around the world? They certainly did some seriously dodgy things during the Cold War, but that was in the face of the real threat - not to mention actual military action - of the USSR and China. There are British people alive today who have fought actual Chinese soldiers actually invading Korea in support of an actual communist dictatorship: it's easy to forget about all that now and just assume that because the US has the troops all around, that they're the aggressors.

I assume that's what Pilger does, anyway, cos that's what he always does.

You're right RT (Russia Today) show a lot of his work, everyone has an agenda, his is just left leaning

Frank the tank

I watched most of it, will catch the rest later.
Seen many doc's about Dr Mengele and the torture of Auschwitz inmates, what the US did to the Marshall islanders was every bit as bad.
Mao approached US presidents but was rejected.
The Cuban crisis all but one missile was targeted on China from the pacific, and almost launched.
The Chinese entrepreneur made a telling contribution about the difference between who really calls the tune in capitalist west and China.
But the film was very worrying.

pinno

bompington wrote:

Pinno wrote:

America's military bases and nuclear capacity in the Pacific dwarfs that of China. Who's the aggressor here?

To be an aggressor surely you have to use the weapons, or at least to threaten their use in an offensive rather than defensive capability? I think you can at least make a case that the US has been quite effective at maintaining peace by being world policeman - without discounting the truth that some of their actions and policies have been plain wrong.
Where would we be if the Americans hadn't spread their armed might around the world? They certainly did some seriously dodgy things during the Cold War, but that was in the face of the real threat - not to mention actual military action - of the USSR and China. There are British people alive today who have fought actual Chinese soldiers actually invading Korea in support of an actual communist dictatorship: it's easy to forget about all that now and just assume that because the US has the troops all around, that they're the aggressors.

I assume that's what Pilger does, anyway, cos that's what he always does.

Whilst the Cold War was on going, many, many wars and conflicts occurred under the 'Nuclear Umbrella' because Nuclear weapons are a gun that cannot be used.

I think you should watch the documentary Bompy before casting judgement. Yes, Pilger is left leaning but Capitalism in China is hardly left. It's Communist politically but with a capitalistic economy.The Chinese entrepreneur summed up the situation in America when he pointed out that the administration changes all the time but the Economy is stagnant whereas in China change was welcomed and the economy and their society was constantly evolving whilst their administration stayed the same.

The US had Reds under the beds trials and imprisonments for years. Their paranoia underlined the conflict in Vietnam. They actively disrupted any administration in South America that was socialist. Whether you agree with socialism or not, the fact is, it is a people's right to choose their government and not have an external influence because that influence is paranoid about Communism. Not that Socialism is Communism.

I think that overall, the global policemen are malevolent and they have done a lousy job.

Frank the tank

Pinno wrote:

bompington wrote:

Pinno wrote:

America's military bases and nuclear capacity in the Pacific dwarfs that of China. Who's the aggressor here?

To be an aggressor surely you have to use the weapons, or at least to threaten their use in an offensive rather than defensive capability? I think you can at least make a case that the US has been quite effective at maintaining peace by being world policeman - without discounting the truth that some of their actions and policies have been plain wrong.
Where would we be if the Americans hadn't spread their armed might around the world? They certainly did some seriously dodgy things during the Cold War, but that was in the face of the real threat - not to mention actual military action - of the USSR and China. There are British people alive today who have fought actual Chinese soldiers actually invading Korea in support of an actual communist dictatorship: it's easy to forget about all that now and just assume that because the US has the troops all around, that they're the aggressors.

I assume that's what Pilger does, anyway, cos that's what he always does.

Whilst the Cold War was on going, many, many wars and conflicts occurred under the 'Nuclear Umbrella' because Nuclear weapons are a gun that cannot be used.

I think you should watch the documentary Bompy before casting judgement. Yes, Pilger is left leaning but Capitalism in China is hardly left. It's Communist politically but with a capitalistic economy.The Chinese entrepreneur summed up the situation in America when he pointed out that the administration changes all the time but the Economy is stagnant whereas in China change was welcomed and the economy and their society was constantly evolving whilst their administration stayed the same.

The US had Reds under the beds trials and imprisonments for years. Their paranoia underlined the conflict in Vietnam. They actively disrupted any administration in South America that was socialist. Whether you agree with socialism or not, the fact is, it is a people's right to choose their government and not have an external influence because that influence is paranoid about Communism. Not that Socialism is Communism.

I think that overall, the global policemen are malevolent and they have done a lousy job.

The entrepenuer Said in the capitalist system the administration changes but regime dosen't the power remains with the multi-national super wealthy businessmen/corporations. In China people can amass massive wealth but will not call the political tune and set the agenda. The politicians make the laws and people have to conform.

Agree Pinno the worlds "policeman" has done and continues to do a sh1t job.

pinno

Frank the tank wrote:

Pinno wrote:

bompington wrote:

Pinno wrote:

America's military bases and nuclear capacity in the Pacific dwarfs that of China. Who's the aggressor here?

T...does.

Whilst...job.

The entrepenuer Said in the capitalist system the administration changes but regime dosen't the power remains with the multi-national super wealthy businessmen/corporations. In China people can amass massive wealth but will not call the political tune and set the agenda. The politicians make the laws and people have to conform.

Yes, somewhat more correct than my poor recollection.

finchy

It's just a case of a rising nation meeting a superpower whose (relative) strength is starting to fade a bit. The USA never assumed the role of world policeman, it just found itself in a position of power due to Europe spending 10% of the last century fighting. Then it did what all other powerful nations do, and acted in its own interest. This is what China's started doing, and let's be honest, we might not have much of a choice but to let China expand its sphere of influence. One factor that might prevent this is China's disastrous demographics meaning that social spending might have to reach such high levels that their military activities are checked.

The constant, turbulent flow of world history isn't going to come grinding to a halt, and Asia's massive population is going to see a lot of power shifting from West to East. That's something that will worry a lot of people, and I hope that in the future our countries will be powerful enough to stand up for Western values, as I no longer believe that when countries get richer they will necessarily view the world in the same way as we do. Anyway, I think we are soon going to be living in interesting times, as the (probably not) Chinese curse would have it.

flanners1

I don't think the policeman even wishes to do a fair job, this is all about economic supremacy and control/influence upon the worlds raw materials. The US is better at it than China and Russia, currently. Britain handed over the 'police duties' to the US.

For 'police duties' read impearialist/globilisation agendas.

pinno

Of course it is. Since when has foreign policy been about altruism? It's all about trade and power.

...and not too unrelated: In the context of hos role, Boris didn't do the right thing but in context of the 'Proxy wars' and the hypocrisy, well done. I never thought I would say that.

bianchimoon

Pinno wrote:

Of course it is. Since when has foreign policy been about altruism? It's all about trade and power.

...and not too unrelated: In the context of hos role, Boris didn't do the right thing but in context of the 'Proxy wars' and the hypocrisy, well done. I never thought I would say that.

Yup defiantly hypocrisy as we're selling them the weapons to have a proxy war

flanners1

Pinno wrote:

Of course it is. Since when has foreign policy been about altruism? It's all about trade and power.

...and not too unrelated: In the context of hos role, Boris didn't do the right thing but in context of the 'Proxy wars' and the hypocrisy, well done. I never thought I would say that.

The talk above was of political ideology which is frankly bunk; along with the altruistic rhetoric we are fed. I laugh when people say we don't have an industry anymore....BAE Systems made £24.5billion in world arms sales in 2014. The UK is as much of disgrace as the US in it's foreign policy. As for Boris he has just made his first big mistake in the FO...telling the truth.