It’s official Joe Biden becomes the 46 President of the United States.

[ben]

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/1...pet-as-he-packs-his-cabinet-with-china-hawks/
Ms Johnstone's point in the article I linked and quoted above is that the Right are full of nonsense in saying that Biden will be China's puppet

I skimmed over rather than read the article you linked, firstly because Ms. Johnstone has always struck me as slightly unhinged at least, and secondly because I do not dispute the premise that Biden is not at all a Chinese puppet.
I am not sure what is your point there. It is indisputable that China is asserting itself in ways large and small as a dominant power. And China does not have much internal hand-wringing about its military-industrial complex, or other such first-world introspection. Vietnam, South Korea, and the Philippines are some of the countries that know that all too well, to say nothing of the Tibetans Uighurs and the like (though you will almost certainly argue that that is none of the US’s business).
The US can act to check that, or acquiesce in China’s ascension. There is not much of a third option, certainly not in the medium-to-long term.
Do you dispute that those are the choices, or do you believe the US should just let China do its thing?

nonsense to claim that Trump was Russia's puppet
[...]
Yes, I read the so-called "evidence" you cited earlier in support of that idea; it's laughably, contemptibly weak.

{shrug}

its interesting that you mention only the European theatre, when it was only in the Pacific that the US was actually attacked.

That’s exactly why I mentioned it. In the Pacific, you can argue that the US was attacked. In Europe, it was not. By your logic, alliances aside, Europe was none of the US’s business.
Should the US not have helped liberate Europe? If it should have, why?

 

[another]

2024 movie: Biden ( Kamala ?) vs Kanye West avec Kim Kardashian as a first dame...

 

[Redpossum]

I skimmed over rather than read the article you linked, firstly because Ms. Johnstone has always struck me as slightly unhinged at least, and secondly because I do not dispute the premise that Biden is not at all a Chinese puppet.
I am not sure what is your point there. It is indisputable that China is asserting itself in ways large and small as a dominant power. And China does not have much internal hand-wringing about its military-industrial complex, or other such first-world introspection. Vietnam, South Korea, and the Philippines are some of the countries that know that all too well, to say nothing of the Tibetans Uighurs and the like (though you will almost certainly argue that that is none of the US’s business).
The US can act to check that, or acquiesce in China’s ascension. There is not much of a third option, certainly not in the medium-to-long term.
Do you dispute that those are the choices, or do you believe the US should just let China do its thing?



{shrug}



That’s exactly why I mentioned it. In the Pacific, you can argue that the US was attacked. In Europe, it was not. By your logic, alliances aside, Europe was none of the US’s business.
Should the US not have helped liberate Europe? If it should have, why?

Nice job side-stepping my point, and quoting selectively. I said I won't dispute WW2, but every war waged by the US government has been, (and is), morally indefensible. So you respond by ignoring what I said, and wanting to argue about WW2.

 

[Renzi]

I skimmed over rather than read the article you linked, firstly because Ms. Johnstone has always struck me as slightly unhinged at least, and secondly because I do not dispute the premise that Biden is not at all a Chinese puppet.
I am not sure what is your point there. It is indisputable that China is asserting itself in ways large and small as a dominant power. And China does not have much internal hand-wringing about its military-industrial complex, or other such first-world introspection. Vietnam, South Korea, and the Philippines are some of the countries that know that all too well, to say nothing of the Tibetans Uighurs and the like (though you will almost certainly argue that that is none of the US’s business).
The US can act to check that, or acquiesce in China’s ascension. There is not much of a third option, certainly not in the medium-to-long term.
Do you dispute that those are the choices, or do you believe the US should just let China do its thing?

{shrug}

That’s exactly why I mentioned it. In the Pacific, you can argue that the US was attacked. In Europe, it was not. By your logic, alliances aside, Europe was none of the US’s business.
Should the US not have helped liberate Europe? If it should have, why?

The US helped make China what it is today when it invited it into the WTO. The US business community is so tied up in China that there's no way to effectively confront them without also doing serious harm to the US economy.

Unless the US is willing to imporse tariffs and sanctions on all products made in China (which often relies on forced slave labor), any attempt at "containing" China militarily would be a pointless endeavor and only ignite an arms race. Besides, China has shown that it can do quite a bit of damage with 1/3 of the US's military budget through cyberwarfare, intellectual property theft, currency manipulation, espionage, disinformation, and, hypothetically, biological warfare.

If you're interested in the topic, I recommend this book:

Can China Lead?: Reaching the Limits of Power and Growth ^ 10837

Buy books, tools, case studies, and articles on leadership, strategy, innovation, and other business and management topics

store.hbr.org

It's a few years old (2014), but so far, many of its projections have come to pass. The authors argue that China's internal problems will keep it from becoming a true global leader, and it's economic growth is not sustainable for much longer (it recently shrank for the first time in decades). So essentially China is due to collapse in on itself in the near future.

 

[ben]

Nice job side-stepping my point, and quoting selectively. I said I won't dispute WW2, but every war waged by the US government has been, (and is), morally indefensible. So you respond by ignoring what I said, and wanting to argue about WW2.

I simply asked where you draw the line. As you noted, the US was not attacked in the European theater.
So I asked you what made WWII defensible.

We can certainly opine about whether a given war was ill-considered, or even most for that matter. But you don’t go into that level of detail. You say that all are morally indefensible.

So I asked you why you drew the line at liberating Europe. The Berlin Airlift? Continued occupation of Germany into 1990? Kosovo? Should the US have backed down during the Cuban Missile Crisis? On Berlin in 1948? Or in 1961? Or in 1988? Why is WWII your line?

I understand if you don’t want to have to define your position, but don’t accuse me of sidestepping.

There are a great many wars that, it can be argued, did not take place because the certainty of US resolve, coupled with the might of the US military, made that war not worth prosecuting.

And yes, I quote the parts I’m responding to. Time was when that was a thing.

 

[ben]

The US helped make China what it is today when it invited it into the WTO. The US business community is so tied up in China that there's no way to effectively confront them without also doing serious harm to the US economy.

Agreed. We can agree, I imagine, both on the good intentions behind that move as well as that it backfired.

Unless the US is willing to imporse tariffs and sanctions on all products made in China (which often relies on forced slave labor), any attempt at "containing" China militarily would be a pointless endeavor and only ignite an arms race. Besides, China has shown that it can do quite a bit of damage with 1/3 of the US's military budget through cyberwarfare, intellectual property theft, currency manipulation, espionage, disinformation, and, hypothetically, biological warfare.

Again agreed. One of the few positive things Trump may have accomplished is simply moving the Overton window in terms of how much he was willing to let the relationship with China deteriorate: past administrations had regarded the economic integration as something like inviolable destiny. It is true that that was only the case because he’s a blowhard; it’s also true that he did not prosecute his trade war particularly well, with any clear strategy. Biden enters office with a wider range of options clearly available to him than did, say, Obama.

If you're interested in the topic, I recommend this book:

Can China Lead?: Reaching the Limits of Power and Growth ^ 10837

Buy books, tools, case studies, and articles on leadership, strategy, innovation, and other business and management topics

store.hbr.org

It's a few years old (2014), but so far, many of its projections have come to pass. The authors argue that China's internal problems will keep it from becoming a true global leader, and it's economic growth is not sustainable for much longer (it recently shrank for the first time in decades). So essentially China is due to collapse in on itself in the near future.

Would that this be true. I fear it may be too rosy a perspective.

 

[camberiu]

Biden would like to nominate a torture apologist who served under Obama's both terms as the head of the CIA.

This administration is shaping up to be pure gold.

 

[camberiu]

 

[semigoodlookin]

Why do people post videos as responses? Is it because they are worried about their own lack of credibility? It is strange to me to not put your own thoughts, even if someone else sums them up for you. None of us really have credibility here, so should we all just post videos to each other? Even if I agree with the point of the video, it shows that the poster has few of their own ideas and are simply parroting what other people say. It's the nodding in the affirmative generation.

 

[ben]

Why do people post videos as responses? Is it because they are worried about their own lack of credibility? It is strange to me to not put your own thoughts, even if someone else sums them up for you. None of us really have credibility here, so should we all just post videos to each other? Even if I agree with the point of the video, it shows that the poster has few of their own ideas and are simply parroting what other people say. It's the nodding in the affirmative generation.

While I more than agree with the point in general, some exceptions are in order. Somebody like @camberiu, who does argue his points on a regular basis - dare I say well, even when I disagree - I am willing to listen to stuff they suggest is worth my time (=link) as well. Even if I find myself disliking that video.

The ones who either can’t argue a point for their lives or don’t want to, just video-bomb without even trying to argue, ought to be disenfranchised, if not executed.