- cross-posted to:
- the_dunk_tank
Like the amount of half truth and ignored nuance in this piece is staggering.
EDIT: It is even more insane when you consider there is an explicit plan by the US intelligence state to break up and balkanize China. Like they aren't even trying to keep it secret.
Edit2: "non amp version:https://web.archive.org/web/20211102155719/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/us-china-war/620571/" Courtesy of Alcoholicorn
In the expanded Korean War that resulted, China suffered almost 1 million casualties, risked nuclear retaliation, and was slammed with punishing economic sanctions that stayed in place for a generation.
Wow that's crazy, I wonder who killed 1 million Chinese people, threatened them with nukes, and put sanctions on China? The article never says so I guess it's just a mystery
occupied korea didnt get liberated though :lenin-pensive:
must of just been one of those things that happens??? Well never know
With 1.3 billion people, sky-high growth rates, and an authoritarian government that courted big business, China was simply too good to pass up as a consumer market and a low-wage production platform. So country after country curried favor with Beijing.
:deng-smile:
Every instinct inside of me screams out that Deng's reforms should have doomed China. The idea of opening your markets to finance capital seems like flushing the revolution down the toilet. And yet here we are. I can't tell if the Dengists were brilliant or the West was just incredibly stupid and blinded by ideology. I'm more inclined to believe the latter, but damn.
Its so strange too, its not like deng was hiding his plans. Theres quotes of him telling US diplomats what china is doing, and its plans for the future. The bourguoise are too blinded by short-term profits and their own ideology to care.
Deng once angrily insisted that he was not the "Kruschev of China," and while I'm glad his liberalization efforts paid off where Kruschev's didn't, I sometimes can't help but think that Deng just got lucky.
Deng upheld Mao and his contributions and the ideological and historical unity of the party and movement. Kruschev on the other hand
:corn-man-khrush: :stalin-gun-1::deng-smile: "Khrushchev? What good has Khrushchev ever done?"
Was it Deng or Mao who called Kruschev to Beijing for an emergency meeting and then when he got there they were just chilling in the pool shouting things at him through his interpreter?
And then made Kruschev get in the pool because it was easier to talk and they had to get Kruschev floaties because he couldn't swim?
Edit: it was Mao
China attacks not when it feels confident about the future but when it worries its enemies are closing in.
maybe stop closing in then
concern that the Americans would conquer North Korea and eventually use it as a base to attack China
I wonder why they were concerned about that
In the expanded Korean War that resulted [because of China]
this is just straight up genocide denial
an authoritarian government that courted big business
I wonder what compelled them to court big business. surely it must have been the "personality quirks of individual leaders"
JFC the thing just goes on I can't read any further. Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate
In the expanded Korean War that resulted [because of China]
this is just straight up genocide denial
:powercry-2: "WAA WAA THE SCHEMING DUPLICITOUS ORIENTALS INTERRUPTED OUR GENOCIDE OF THE KOREAN PENINSULA AND PUSHED US BACK TO THE 38TH PARALLEL WAA."
What special variety of terrible person do you have to be to blame China for "expanding" the Korean war? :visible-disgust:
What does "authoritarian" actually mean to these people? Just seeing this word is enough to know that the author has no worthwhile insights.
"a political system that is hard for the CIA to manipulate successfully"
see also: every anarchist org. the CIA had memos leaked where they complain that we don’t have leaders they can easily kill lol
:anarchy:
As best as I cant tell, to Americans Authoritarian means "Not allowing for CHOICE." I bold choice because it's the key for American brainwashing. So for example if you had one society that gave guaranteed healthcare, housing, education, and food but it was limited to one type of each service and you HAD to take it, and you had another that didn't guarantee all those things but if you could access it then you had a choice between many or none at all, the second would be less "Authoritarian."
Also it is in the act of choosing itself that the American ideology places freedom. So if you lived in a society where everyone got to contribute to the planning of national goals and structure of society, but once decided everyone was required to follow it, on one hand and a society where planning and goal setting were out of the hands of the overwhelming majority of people, but then you got to vote between plans set by those who did have the power to make them then the latter would be more "Free."
It really is the fetishization of choice, that you find a ton of the American ideology.
Seriously. I got to the "an authoritarian government that courted big business" and rolled my eyes hard. Then I looked at how much there was left to fucking read and just gave up, lmao.
Great minds... And since when do these people care about "big business" anyway?
When the same people are writing op eds deep throating CEO boot
Thats about how far I got. The lecturing tone of someone who knows better was so grotesque I couldn't handle it. MAYBE CHINA FELT THAT WAY AND THEY WERE RIGHT TO!!!
I love that this person is paid a 6 figure salary to write racist propaganda and we all have to work for minimum wage to serve them treats.
…
Every journalist that has been killed during a revolution probably had it coming.
This is not a journalist, this is a columnist/commentator/think tank ghoul.
President xi jinping declared in July that those who get in the way of China’s ascent will have their “heads bashed bloody against a Great Wall of steel.”
For some reason, I doubt this is what he said.
During the last election in Venezuela US media was reporting that people who didn't vote for Maduro's party were being denied food. What happened was women were telling their partners that if you don't vote, you don't eat. Eat in Venezuela is slang for having sex. If you don't vote, you don't fuck.
he said those who 'bully, oppress or enslave us'. the entire article is insane.
at the time of speech, and even with a truthful translation, there were liberals and conservatives who felt threatened by it. just a fucking testament to how bloodthirsty of a people we anglos are. brings me back memories of my chud family members arguing islam is a violent religion. nah dude, look within.
Walls are famously defensive implements.
They only work if people come to kill you. A great wall of steel is a great descriptor of Chinas armed forces.
IIRC it was a figure of speech about enemies bashing their own heads against a great wall of steel made of the will of all the Chinese people, or something to that effect.
Hal Brands is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he studies US foreign policy and defense strategy, and is the Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
There's your problem right there. You got a war criminal fellatiator writing articles.
Anyway why's this in the Atlantic. Isn't it about the pacific?
Kissinger likes having credit for "opening up" China, so he's forced to defend it on occasion. Which is hilarious.
:die-motherfucker:
“China good because… uh… well… we can still exploit them.”
When you're so old that even a suit doesn't make you look good, it's time to just stop.
whether America can deter China from initiating a hot one
why does America want to prevent Xi from eating spicy food on a youtube?
These people act like the US wasn't the one who had a cold war policy called "brinkmanship" where they intentionally antagonized another nuclear power to the maximum extent they thought they could get away with without causing a nuclear war.
A cold war is already under way. The question is whether Washington can deter Beijing from initiating a hot one.
Ah yes, just like the last time China started a war with America, by getting involved in the American Civil War. No, wait a second, that doesn't sound right...
Hal Brands is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he studies US foreign policy and defense strategy, and is the Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
Thank you the Atlantic for getting the opinion of a genocide enjoyer on whether we should bomb China.
Highlighted the Kissinger professorship before realizing he's also an AEI guy, lmao.
Hal Brands
This is basically a name from a Butch Hartman Cartoon like Chet Ubetcha
Cambodian Kissinger weighing in on how to avert an international catastrophe.
:maybe-later-kiddo: “why are hate crimes against asian people skyrocketing?!?”
In conflicts including the Korean War and clashes with Vietnam in 1979, China has often viewed the use of force as an educational exercise. It is willing to pick even a very costly fight with a single enemy to teach it, and others observing from the sidelines, a lesson.
Isn't this just 'how to deal with bullies 101'?
China just sitting calmly on the subway trying to not make eye contact while a drunk and loud America stumbles in.
this paragraph is so full of :brainworms: and :pigmask-off:
Examples of this are plentiful. In 1950, for instance, the fledgling PRC was less than a year old and destitute, after decades of civil war and Japanese brutality. Yet it nonetheless mauled advancing U.S. forces in Korea out of concern that the Americans would conquer North Korea and eventually use it as a base to attack China. In the expanded Korean War that resulted, China suffered almost 1 million casualties, risked nuclear retaliation, and was slammed with punishing economic sanctions that stayed in place for a generation. But to this day, Beijing celebrates the intervention as a glorious victory that warded off an existential threat to its homeland.
out of concern that the Americans would conquer North Korea and eventually use it as a base to attack China
I wonder why they might have thought that. It's not like America had interfered in their Civil War and bombed villages along the Korean border before China entered Korea.
risked nuclear retaliation
Straight up admitting how close the Americans came to nuking people because they couldn't stand losing imperial control of a peninsula, very cool.
But to this day, Beijing celebrates the intervention as a glorious victory that warded off an existential threat to its homeland.
Correct, eat shit and cry about it :lmayo: .
The subtext in what the author is saying is that China was irrational to think the US would use Korea as a base to launch an attack, because "we don't do that sort of thing".
I wonder why they might have thought that. It’s not like America had interfered in their Civil War and bombed villages along the Korean border before China entered Korea.
MacArthur was a very stable genius and would never have initiated a bloody genocide from Pyongyang to Beijing that would make the Japanese blush, given half an opportunity.
What Will Drive China to War? A cold war is already under way. The question is whether Washington can deter Beijing from initiating a hot one.
This is… I can’t wait for this country to collapse.
I thought the "pwwease let us datamine your device uwu" prompt was the submission for like a minute before I opened comments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_Mobile_Pages#Reception
