The new cold war with China

"Cold War" with China means we have to import potential Al Qaeda war veterans in the USA in the midst of an economic collapse and a pandemic.
You're over-estimating those goat-fuckers. Take a look at the UK right now, plenty of Muslim no-go zones, not much terrorism. That said, offering them refuge does jack-shit either. Afterall its not like China cares if they leave. Rather from what I can tell, they don't want to leave.

Though if I were China, this would be a great opportunity to introduce subversive agents to the US.
 
You're over-estimating those goat-fuckers. Take a look at the UK right now, plenty of Muslim no-go zones, not much terrorism. That said, offering them refuge does jack-shit either. Afterall its not like China cares if they leave. Rather from what I can tell, they don't want to leave.

Though if I were China, this would be a great opportunity to introduce subversive agents to the US.
They no longer have to commit terrorism. They just have to wait a few generations, keep having kids and letting the native Brits pay for it all on the social system, and they will eventually rule the country.

This would be awful for the USA. IN the midst of a economic free fall and a pandemic, and we bring in millions of more people who have no association with anyone here.
 

Borealis

Sparrow
tumblr_m6cdaikxd11rx9ntho1_500.gif
 
Lmao, so the result of the cold war with China is the importing of more Muslims into the US? Cool. I can see where this is going.
Its almost like Governments of the world are secretly collaborating to screw us over. If only someone had warned us about this!

Wasn't the result of war in Syria importing millions of non-Syrians pretending to be Syrian refugees to Europe. Clearly war now means importing more denizens of the third world. If thats the case, I guess I'm a pacifist.
 

Borealis

Sparrow
Its almost like Governments of the world are secretly collaborating to screw us over. If only someone had warned us about this!

Wasn't the result of war in Syria importing millions of non-Syrians pretending to be Syrian refugees to Europe. Clearly war now means importing more denizens of the third world. If thats the case, I guess I'm a pacifist.
Someone did try to warn us but we butchered them in 1945.
 

Arado

Pelican
Gold Member
View attachment 30453
LOL at those who think that China is based, or not globalist.
They are based when it comes to their own interests, and globalist when it comes to pushing a global trade order that benefits their national champion subsidized model. The problem is everyone trying to either put them into the globalist-controlled camp, or the anti-globohomo camp and ignoring various facts to justify the narrative.

They are a different civilization with their own interests and culture.
 

Dr Mantis Toboggan

Kingfisher
Gold Member
They are based when it comes to their own interests, and globalist when it comes to pushing a global trade order that benefits their national champion subsidized model. The problem is everyone trying to either put them into the globalist-controlled camp, or the anti-globohomo camp and ignoring various facts to justify the narrative.

They are a different civilization with their own interests and culture.

They're allies of convenience with globohomo. The fact that they don't want globohomo in their own country doesn't change that.
 
It would be better if there'd be a clear definition of aphorisms like globohomo, globalists and New World Order

These terms get thrown around very easily and in a wide variety of contexts. Member A means something entirely different when using these terms than member B. It's confusing.

--

As for the commentary accompanying the article, it's a silly attempt to obfuscate the situation and create some sort of false dichotomy. I can't help to think that there is some sort of personal distaste here.

1. China is not interested in cutting itself off from the world economy and turning into North Korea or even Russia. Suggesting the opposite by outing them as globalists is, again, silly. An integrated global economy is one of the main underpinnings of China's strategy and at no point have the Chinese ever alleged that it's the opposite.

2. Like Arado said before, you are applying a Western political context onto a very distinct culture, economy and ideology.

In China (and probably the vast majority of the countries elwewhere) the discourse related to The Great Reset and the New World Order does not exist. They simply are complete non-issues

So to thereby imply that Xi Jinping has, amongst his own people in Boao, declared that he's in on it and wants to turn the world into single ruled entity where local cultures, languages and identities are eradicated is non-sensical

3. There is a quite vile linguistic play in the article's headline. Obviously people at the Financial Times know that at this point the term New World Order carries tremendously negative connotations in the West. The New World Order is the presumed plan to establish a One World Government ran by the Banksters. Bytheway, those Banksters are not Chinese, do not reside in China, do not control the Chinese political elite, nor the banks

However, does the article in this particular case refer to the NWO?

No, it doesn't. It refers to the new world order (no upper case letters), which is how the Financial Times apparantly coins the Chinese goal to break the power of the global hegemon and establish themselves on equal footing.

Like I said, this is quite a vile trick.

4. These comments were likely made as a response to the increasing number of sanctions on a wide variety of countries. Sanctions implemented by the completely NWO controlled USA.

These sanctions are part of the creation of a new Cold War/Iron Curtain situation in Europe and this might also happen in Asia. This is not in China's interests

Yet it's the globalists imposing these sanctions. Again it doesn't make any sense from your perspective

5. I would genuinely prefer the members that barge into threads shouting 'tHeY aRe in On iT!!!1!' to create their own thread where they can argue how the NWO controls Russia, China, Iran and basically any state entity on the planet. This is a genuine proposal and would keep threads like the Coming War on Iran, the War on Russia Thread and the New Cold War Thread open for more facts based discussions/analysis regarding recent events
 
Last edited:
To get this thread back on track. Rody Duterte is threatening to send warships to the disputedJuan Felipe Reef/Whitsun Reef/ Niu e Jiao

A couple of weeks ago (although some allege it happened in November 2020 already) about 220 Chinese fishing vessels showed up in the disputed reef. These vessels - which the US calls a maritime sea militia - have been anchored near the reef ever since

images (54).jpeg20210410_ASM955.png

This has been a flashpoint for weeks now and is reminiscent of the 2012 and 2016 standoffs. Duterte is between a rock and a hard place as the anti China sentiment is running high in the Philippines yet he has been pivoting the nation towards the Chinese ever since he took power. Elections are in early 2022

Today he threatened to send warships. Probably more of an act to placate his domestic audience than anything else

I personally believe that this is already a done deal and what we're seeing now is theatricalities.


 

ralfy

Robin
View attachment 30453
LOL at those who think that China is based, or not globalist.

CN has been globalist since the late 1980s, and both CN and US need each other, together with many other countries. That's why a "new cold war" might hurt both countries badly, if not the global economy.

Given that, I think what's "based" is that CN has been answering back at the US. That's a shock to the latter, as it had been used to thinking that it's the most powerful country in the world.
 

Don Quixote

Woodpecker
To get this thread back on track. Rody Duterte is threatening to send warships to the disputedJuan Felipe Reef/Whitsun Reef/ Niu e Jiao

A couple of weeks ago (although some allege it happened in November 2020 already) about 220 Chinese fishing vessels showed up in the disputed reef. These vessels - which the US calls a maritime sea militia - have been anchored near the reef ever since

View attachment 30472View attachment 30473

This has been a flashpoint for weeks now and is reminiscent of the 2012 and 2016 standoffs. Duterte is between a rock and a hard place as the anti China sentiment is running high in the Philippines yet he has been pivoting the nation towards the Chinese ever since he took power. Elections are in early 2022

Today he threatened to send warships. Probably more of an act to placate his domestic audience than anything else

I personally believe that this is already a done deal and what we're seeing now is theatricalities.


It looks like things are converging, with Ukraine-Russia on the one hand, and China-Taiwan-Phillipines on the other. I don't see Biden successfully navigating this scenario. He is in no man's land. He won't be like JFK. I don't see diplomatic resolution in sight, in fact I see all countries committed to war. So we might be on the precipice here of nuclear war. Hope I am wrong.
 

ralfy

Robin
To get this thread back on track. Rody Duterte is threatening to send warships to the disputedJuan Felipe Reef/Whitsun Reef/ Niu e Jiao

A couple of weeks ago (although some allege it happened in November 2020 already) about 220 Chinese fishing vessels showed up in the disputed reef. These vessels - which the US calls a maritime sea militia - have been anchored near the reef ever since

View attachment 30472View attachment 30473

This has been a flashpoint for weeks now and is reminiscent of the 2012 and 2016 standoffs. Duterte is between a rock and a hard place as the anti China sentiment is running high in the Philippines yet he has been pivoting the nation towards the Chinese ever since he took power. Elections are in early 2022

Today he threatened to send warships. Probably more of an act to placate his domestic audience than anything else

I personally believe that this is already a done deal and what we're seeing now is theatricalities.



What's not mentioned is that there are three claimants to the reef: CN, PH, and VN. There's actually a fourth claimant--TW--as it has the same nine-dash line claim as CN. Most also don't know that the nine-dash line claim, which covers much of the WPS, was started by TW.

PH does not have a lot of warships except for the rustbuckets that its US ally gave and the few it bought recently because it had barely increased its military capability since the late 1980s. It has one of the weakest military forces in the region.

That's the same US ally that had been taking advantage of PH since the end of WW2, as seen in the Bell Trade Act and other onerous agreements, not to mention US support for the Marcos dictatorship and subsequent admins in exchange for retaining the bases and detrimental policies like structural adjustment.

That's also why when parts of the WPS was fought over, such as the first one in 1988 between CN and VN, with VN losing, the US did not act. It still didn't act in 1994 and 1995, when PH complained, and when claimants like VN and MY started building installations, too.

The 2012 event was notable because the previous PH President, Aquino, withdrew vessels for no logical reason: PH claimed that the vessels were running out of fuel, which made no sense as they were static and could have been supported by supply ships, and that a storm was arriving, which made even less sense as the storm was far away. Later, some reported that the US convinced PH to withdraw because it was negotiating between PH and CN, which also made no sense as CN had no reason to listen to the US. PH later engaged in failed backdoor negotiations with CN involving a non-diplomat who did not even speak Mandarin (an allied senator of the admin who later released memos blaming his fellow politicians for his failures), and then later sued CN based on a second narrative that it was advised to do so by the US, but for which no evidence has appeared.

Some more punchlines:

The arbitration resulted in all claims negated because there's no land involved in the disputed areas, and claims to aquatic resources like fish also don't count because the resources move around. The conclusion is that the claimants will have to work things out for themselves, which is ironically what CN wanted before PH sued.

Most Filipinos have little to no knowledge of every point raised above, not to mention the fact that all of the other claimants--TW, MY, VN, and BN--have not withdrawn their claims or even taken down their installations, even though one--TW--is supposed to be an ally of the US (which means it should be an ally of the PH, too) and two--MY and VN--argue that they support the PH because of the arbitration results.

Finally, the US spoke up recently and said that any attack on PH will trigger the Mutual Defense Treaty, even though the MDT states that it covers only land territories (and the arbitration results reveal that no land is involved) and that any asistance to the PH will require Congressional approval.

That's the same US that claims that it supports freedom and democracy even though it still has CN has a major trading partner and treated its real friends, like PH, badly. When it still had bases in the PH, it not only supported PH dictators like Marcos, it even insisted on not paying for any rent for the bases, and instead donated overpriced military surplus. Meanwhile, it was providing over a billion dollars in military aid to allies like Saddam while paying twice the amount just for port rental facilities in Singapore, which is not even its ally.

These might explain why politicians like Duterte have been swinging back and forth between the US and CN, just like VN and the others:

 

ralfy

Robin
It looks like things are converging, with Ukraine-Russia on the one hand, and China-Taiwan-Phillipines on the other. I don't see Biden successfully navigating this scenario. He is in no man's land. He won't be like JFK. I don't see diplomatic resolution in sight, in fact I see all countries committed to war. So we might be on the precipice here of nuclear war. Hope I am wrong.

Don't count out Biden yet. Unlike Trump, who wanted trade negotiations and peace deals, Biden, like Bush and Obama, is a known warmonger. But what should stop him from engaging in full-scale war with CN is what also stopped neocons from the past, from Reagan to Obama: the point that no will win in such a conflict, that many countries will suffer, and that CN is a major trading partner. In which case, one should expect more proxy wars, destabilization attempts, and other dirty tricks which took place throughout the "old" Cold War.
 

AntoniusofEfa

Kingfisher
Don't count out Biden yet. Unlike Trump, who wanted trade negotiations and peace deals, Biden, like Bush and Obama, is a known warmonger. But what should stop him from engaging in full-scale war with CN is what also stopped neocons from the past, from Reagan to Obama: the point that no will win in such a conflict, that many countries will suffer, and that CN is a major trading partner. In which case, one should expect more proxy wars, destabilization attempts, and other dirty tricks which took place throughout the "old" Cold War.
Even if China will take over Taiwan? China has an excess of 80 Million single men. That is a lot of meat to throw onto the battlefield.
 

Dr Mantis Toboggan

Kingfisher
Gold Member
It would be better if there'd be a clear definition of aphorisms like globohomo, globalists and New World Order

These terms get thrown around very easily and in a wide variety of contexts. Member A means something entirely different when using these terms than member B. It's confusing.

--

As for the commentary accompanying the article, it's a silly attempt to obfuscate the situation and create some sort of false dichotomy. I can't help to think that there is some sort of personal distaste here.

1. China is not interested in cutting itself off from the world economy and turning into North Korea or even Russia. Suggesting the opposite by outing them as globalists is, again, silly. An integrated global economy is one of the main underpinnings of China's strategy and at no point have the Chinese ever alleged that it's the opposite.

2. Like Arado said before, you are applying a Western political context onto a very distinct culture, economy and ideology.

In China (and probably the vast majority of the countries elwewhere) the discourse related to The Great Reset and the New World Order does not exist. They simply are complete non-issues

So to thereby imply that Xi Jinping has, amongst his own people in Boao, declared that he's in on it and wants to turn the world into single ruled entity where local cultures, languages and identities are eradicated is non-sensical

3. There is a quite vile linguistic play in the article's headline. Obviously people at the Financial Times know that at this point the term New World Order carries tremendously negative connotations in the West. The New World Order is the presumed plan to establish a One World Government ran by the Banksters. Bytheway, those Banksters are not Chinese, do not reside in China, do not control the Chinese political elite, nor the banks

However, does the article in this particular case refer to the NWO?

No, it doesn't. It refers to the new world order (no upper case letters), which is how the Financial Times apparantly coins the Chinese goal to break the power of the global hegemon and establish themselves on equal footing.

Like I said, this is quite a vile trick.

4. These comments were likely made as a response to the increasing number of sanctions on a wide variety of countries. Sanctions implemented by the completely NWO controlled USA.

These sanctions are part of the creation of a new Cold War/Iron Curtain situation in Europe and this might also happen in Asia. This is not in China's interests

Yet it's the globalists imposing these sanctions. Again it doesn't make any sense from your perspective

5. I would genuinely prefer the members that barge into threads shouting 'tHeY aRe in On iT!!!1!' to create their own thread where they can argue how the NWO controls Russia, China, Iran and basically any state entity on the planet. This is a genuine proposal and would keep threads like the Coming War on Iran, the War on Russia Thread and the New Cold War Thread open for more facts based discussions/analysis regarding recent events

I don't think (although maybe I missed it) anyone is saying that the Chinese government is controlled by the NWO/globohomo/whatever you want to call it, but I do think it's pretty apparent that the CCP has entered an alliance of convenience with the NWO in order to further its own aims. While the two have diverged ideologically they do a common ancestor in early-mid 20th century era Bolshevism which gives some common ground, and CCP propaganda has as of late taken to using western SJW terminology ("white supremacy", pushing gun control in the US, etc).
 
Top