China and war

[DarrenM343]

We invaded Iraq yes but we did not occupy,I see no western flags or government in charge.

They will invade and occupy and all the amazing commie crap will be enforced upon them.

Big difference

But they haven't. China is also not communist in the traditional sense. More capitalist than the UK
Iraq was invaded for a specific reason and that reason came to be untrue.

Tell me all the positive points on china?must be amazing as the Hong Kong citizens are openly rejoicing at more control and eroding of civil rights.

Well, this is part of the problem. We get mostly to hear the negatives. Speak to Chinese people and many will have good things to say, including daughters who frequently get to run a family business rather than a son, which would simply not be considered in many countries (as an example)

Ethics and morals around this is interesting to consider. Do those with such negative beliefs and comments about China buy products made in China?

 

[sanaxe1]

But they haven't. China is also not communist in the traditional sense. More capitalist than the UK
Iraq was invaded for a specific reason and that reason came to be untrue.



Well, this is part of the problem. We get mostly to hear the negatives. Speak to Chinese people and many will have good things to say, including daughters who frequently get to run a family business rather than a son, which would simply not be considered in many countries (as an example)

Ethics and morals around this is interesting to consider. Do those with such negative beliefs and comments about China buy products made in China?

They say good things as it is illigal to criticize the communist party. It would also effect their social score which would then effect their family and friends because if you associate with somebody with a low social credit score your score goes down as well. Having a low social credit score will mean you can't go on planes, stay in a hotel , buy a house , get a loan or even go on a train. Your kids will also be banned from the best schools.

 

[DarrenM343]

They say good things as it is illigal to criticize the communist party. It would also effect their social score which would then effect their family and friends a well as if you associate with somebody with a low social credit score your score goes down as well . Having a low social credit score will mean you can't go on planes, stay in a hotel , buy a house , get a loan or even go on a train. Your kids will also be banned from the best schools.

But it's not fair to say however that all Chinese people are lying when talking about their homeland through fear of breaking the law, especially when now living in the UK . Crazy, agree, but on the flipside of that, it's the same for other 'real' crimes too. If the figures are to be believed crime rates are lower than UK

 

[alchal]

Haven't yet.

Hence the massive blue water navy build up and amphibious capability to help an invasion and dissuade the us from helping.

Once they do invade the population will lose their freedom.

 

[Doobedoo]

I understand that part. That is how the Molotov and Ribbentrop pact came about between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

But it's like today, at no point in history have 2 aggressive superpowers co-existed in peace. I think the most that could happen would be a cold war between the Nazi's and the US. You're right that they share a lot of things, including fascist symbols (like the ones behind the President when he makes his Presidential speech), and even the right arm salute. The US was doing the bellemy salute that was only changed in 1942, Hitler had come to power in 1933, so for nearly 10 years both the US and the Nazi's were throwing the right arm up.

Also there is a U.S Army barracks somewhere that has 4 buildings laid out to form a swastika. Kind of strange that.

 

[Pudney]

The Taiwan issue is a drastically different thing to Iraq, although apologies if I’ve misinterpreted whether or not that was the actual comparison.

 

[PlacidCasual]

@StriderX I never found the article on The Register that I thought was the source for my comment on US technology being used in chip layout and Huawei being banned from it having a big impact. But I did find this blog post that explains it differently. I can't verify anything in it because it's not my field but I hope you can trust the source.

https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/a-different-future-for-telecoms-in-the-uk

 

[DarrenM343]

The Taiwan issue is a drastically different thing to Iraq, although apologies if I’ve misinterpreted whether or not that was the actual comparison.

Was not meant to be a comparison other than to consider how nations such as China might view actions by others and whether they then feel justified in their actions. Even citizens in our own countries view the invasion and removal of the regime as going down as a great atrocity, given that, no evidence was found to back up the claims.

Good to try to look at this from from alternative perspective I think. Easy to forget about things from the past too and be too focus on our own bubble.

My over arching opinion is why the heck can't we all just get along on this special little planet of ours and work together rather than having friends and foe etc

 

[FoxEye]

Was not meant to be a comparison other than to consider how nations such as China might view actions by others and whether they then feel justified in their actions. Even citizens in our own countries view the invasion and removal of the regime as going down as a great atrocity, given that, no evidence was found to back up the claims.

Good to try to look at this from from alternative perspective I think. Easy to forget about things from the past too and be too focus on our own bubble.

My over arching opinion is why the heck can't we all just get along on this special little planet of ours and work together rather than having friends and foe etc

Er no, it's perfectly logically consistent to be opposed to both.

"We" didn't invade Iraq. It was Blair and his cronies hand-in-hand with the US govt.

Not "us".

In the same way most of the criticism of "China" is more accurately criticism of the Chinese Communist Party.

If Huawei really was 100% independent of the CCP, we probably wouldn't be in this position. But as we all know, not too long ago the CCP passed a law that Chinese corps have to basically do whatever the govt tells them to; hand over all info, implement backdoors, etc - anything could be going on tbh.

 

[StriderX]

Er no, it's perfectly logically consistent to be opposed to both.

"We" didn't invade Iraq. It was Blair and his cronies hand-in-hand with the US govt.

Not "us".

In the same way most of the criticism of "China" is more accurately criticism of the Chinese Communist Party.

How did the 2005 election go then if it wasn't the democratic will of the UK?

 

[FoxEye]

How did the 2005 election go then if it wasn't the democratic will of the UK?

Elections normally aren't single-issue affairs.

Do you think the 2005 election result was a blessing by the UK people on the Iraq war, perchance?

Also Labour lost 48 seats in that election.

 

[Greebo]

Elections normally aren't single-issue affairs.

Do you think the 2005 election result was a blessing by the UK people on the Iraq war, perchance?

Also Labour lost 48 seats in that election.

Well our current Govt and lots of posters of here claim the last GE was an absolute endorsement to leave the EU with no deal. Same thing. It is when it suits people.

 

[FoxEye]

Well our current Govt and lots of posters of here claim the last GE was an absolute endorsement to leave the EU with no deal. Same thing. It is when it suits people.

I'm not one of them Regardless of the result, I was of the view that a GE was the wrong tool to decide that issue - should have been a 2nd ref.

In my mind the GE was as much a rejection of JC (because of the Tories painting him as a terrorist, etc) and popularity contest between JC and Bojo. Some people will have voted Tory to "get Brexit done" of course - but most likely as many people voted Tory to "keep JC out" as well

Ancient history now of course ( ) but I wonder how things would have gone if Starmer were Labour leader back then..

 

[Greebo]

I'm not one of them Regardless of the result, I was of the view that a GE was the wrong tool to decide that issue - should have been a 2nd ref.

In my mind the GE was as much a rejection of JC (because of the Tories painting him as a terrorist, etc) and popularity contest between JC and Bojo. Some people will have voted Tory to "get Brexit done" of course - but most likely as many people voted Tory to "keep JC out" as well

Ancient history now of course ( ) but I wonder how things would have gone if Starmer were Labour leader back then..

I have wondered the same and said that if Labour had any other leader than JC (except Abbott) they would have won the last GE by a landslide. If Starmer had been leader I think I could have found myself voting Labour for the first time ever in my life.

 

[StriderX]

Elections normally aren't single-issue affairs.

Do you think the 2005 election result was a blessing by the UK people on the Iraq war, perchance?

Also Labour lost 48 seats in that election.

It may not have been a blessing, and maybe in an ideal world where representatives would actually represent themselves faithfully as individuals I wouldn't be so critical. The voters knew that party politics took precedence and still does, and then proceeded to keep the same government in place, less seats don't matter much at all in our parliament unless it explicitly meant losing a majority, which they didn't. Having representative democracy doesn't mean total amnesty for the electorate, it only minimises our responsibility and it's our duty to respond when we disagree with actions done in name.

Anyway, as this never goes anywhere, I'll end it there as it's not relevant to the thread.

 

[FoxEye]

It may not have been a blessing, and maybe in an ideal world where representatives would actually represent themselves faithfully as individuals I wouldn't be so critical. The voters knew that party politics took precedence and still does, and then proceeded to keep the same government in place, less seats don't matter much at all in our parliament unless it explicitly meant losing a majority, which they didn't. Having representative democracy doesn't mean total amnesty for the electorate, it only minimises our responsibility and it's our duty to respond when we disagree with actions done in name.

Anyway, as this never goes anywhere, I'll end it there as it's not relevant to the thread.

Well let's just leave it like this, then.

I'm not going to be any less critical of the actions of the Chinese Communist Party because the Iraq War was waged ostensibly "in my name". We don't have to silent on China because of something war-mongering Blair and co did.

e: I should also add that I don't particularly view our "democracy" as all that democratic, these days. FPTP is the most broken system you can possibly imagine for holding a fair and representative election.

 

[alchal]

As I have said previously,we invaded and removed a dictator..for good or bad.
We have not stayed to rule,the Iraqis vote for who they want etc and are free to do as they wish without us telling them what to think and read etc.

China, if it gets Taiwan, will be flying the Chinese commie flag, Taiwanese will lose their freedom and a lot will be 're educated and liquidated' and Taiwan as a country will no longer exist.

Can not compare the two.

 

[neocon]

It's hypocrisy.

What about the poor Uyghur Muslims they repeat. But what about the Muslims in India.

 

[StriderX]

As I have said previously,we invaded and removed a dictator..for good or bad.
We have not stayed to rule,the Iraqis vote for who they want etc and are free to do as they wish without us telling them what to think and read etc.

China, if it gets Taiwan, will be flying the Chinese commie flag, Taiwanese will lose their freedom and a lot will be 're educated and liquidated' and Taiwan as a country will no longer exist.

Can not compare the two.

Well in Beijing's mind, it has always been their land and is currently occupied territory. Might is right is what international law depends on and that's just how it is, everything else was always pretentiousness.

If they can successfully take it, it's theirs, just like Crimea.

 

[ubersonic]

I don't think China wants conflict but can easily see it happening between China and the USA in future. I'll give it 100 years or a lot less with Trump types running the joint. Reason? USA is losing it's top spot. The dynamics of the world are changing. It's natural progression however but some may try to force a return to other times or bring down the country threatening their position.

This is completely true. The USA and China are in the same position today that the British Empire and the USA were a century ago, the aging lion looking at the new hotness remembering when he showed that kind of potential.

We invaded Iraq yes but we did not occupy

O.o

We (the coalition) invaded Iraq, set up a puppet government and 17 years later still have troops/bases in Iraq, hell if you look up the wiki article for the Iraq war it states 2003-2011 because that's how long the country was under defacto coalition control.

Saying we never occupied Iraq is like saying that the USSR never occupied eastern Europe after WW2, or Afghanistan in the 80's.

They will invade and occupy and all the amazing commie crap will be enforced upon them.

Big difference

It's not actually that different from being invade, occupied and having all the amazing capitalist crap forced upon you, just the oppressors are more open about it.