Comments by "Bob" (@bobs_toys) on "Binkov's Battlegrounds"
channel.
-
30
-
17
-
13
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@christophmahler >>The US NAvy has no business to patrol outside territorial waters - regardless of international law, the US never abides to, anyway, looking back to 30 years of destabilization. <<
Sure it does.
And nice bit of whataboutism.
>>It's a provocation and in the end, carriers will be sunk by anti-ship missiles or sub surface nuclear detonations. <<
If it's a provocation to exercise the right of free passage covered under the UNCLOS, which the PRC voluntarily signed, then the problem isn't with the US.
>>This is not about the CCP, but the drive for total supremacy by the West - of which all of us have had enough.<<
This is very much about the CCP's illegal attempts to achieve 'total supremacy' over territory it doesn't own, and by the agreements it voluntarily signed, has no legal right to beyond those rights enjoyed by any random nation, including the USA.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fugueguy1929 that's superficial in many ways. It's also an image given to an outsider. Face is everything. I've spent the best part of two decades viewing this country from the inside and the outside.
My best way of describing it is layers of circles. Culturally on the mainland, this goes from national, right down to personal family and friends.
Anyone inside your circle is to be defended and supported. Anyone outside of it is an enemy to be profited from or treated as a threat. The inner circle is most important, the outer circle is least. So when given a choice, they'll tend to preference the inner circle at the expense of the outer.
This is a collectivist culture thing to begin with (look up high and low context cultures. Also look up geert hofstede's cultural dimensions) but it's made so much worse by the CCP, particularly with the long term scarring from the cultural revolution which was very much a "succeed by any means to survive" event.
For contrast, broadly speaking, we're (I'm guessing you're western) come from low context cultures, which are individualistic. This both means we're not as supportive of each other, but it also means that we view outsiders as individuals, just like ourselves.
But in general, ignore the words and look at the actions. They paint a very different picture.
And for what the leadership is afraid of, look at their actions. Also remember that the party is more important than the country. They're simply terrified of anything that unites the people against the centre and they'd rather see China burn in a civil war than to give up power any sooner than they need to.
Hong Kong is proof of that. They could have used Hong Kong as a base to experiment with preparing China for a post CCP life. They didn't.
All this ignores the trust issues, btw. This thing where we trust strangers is not normal. In the PRC it's taken to an extreme.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dps253 >>No. I don't have an answer to your ideological question<<
It seems a pretty practical one to me.
>>because currently there's no danger of any trade route disruption, even with the Chinese military establishments in the middle of South China Sea<<
Before anything else: It's interesting that even you felt the need to insert the word 'currently'.
Anyway, is this where we try to pretend that the CCP doesn't use trade as a way of punishing countries that say things it doesn't like?
More seriously:
1. The world (even if only tacitly) decides that these are PRC waters, and that the PRC has the right to say who can go through them.
2. The PRC starts to find reasons why ships going to countries it dislikes can't go through them.
>>On the contrary, with her focus on the BRI project which will require this Seaway and all other international trade routes to be free of disruption,<<
All approved trade routes
>>China will ensure this passage be accessible to everyone<<
Accessible to all approved entitites.
>>But obviously you agree with sending 80% of the Navy strike groups to exercise in an area where there is no clear and present danger<<
The only way there isn't a clear and present danger is if you believe the CCP doesn't have a tendency to use trade (and trade embargoes) as a weapon.
>>while ignoring the real flashpoint 8000 km to the West,<<
You mean the land based flashpoint?
>>and you are more than willing to lose 78M of tax payers' money to a phantom mission,<<
Peanuts vs the value of trade going through there.
>>and you inadvertently place higher priority on commercial interest over democracy preservation, then in that case, I have no answer for that.<<
How is allowing totalitarian states to have a powerful tool they could (If you're going to claim that the CCP doesn't use trade as a weapon, this Australian will simply laugh at you) use against democracies democratic preservation?
More to the point, what do you even mean when you say 'democracy preservation'?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WalkOverHotCoal
Ok, when you first go into a major area, you're generally stunned. The entrance and central bits of a tier 1 city like Beijing, Shenzhen or (I assume) Shanghai is glorious.
Priority is heavily placed on things that give a good first impression to outsiders. Image really is everything. If you don't spend much time there, you come away pretty amazed.
Move away from things that come under this category and it changes. You can walk around a random city or town and basically see bad paving, concrete coming off walls. Last time I was in Shenyang, I went into a major govt run hotel that's heavily used by officials. It looked fine from a distance, but you go closer there are cracks in the facade, there were water leaks in the bedroom and so on (You had a shower, a couple of square meters next to the bed was soaked) and so on.
There's a culture of rebuilding what's decayed, rather than doing anything for the long term and maintaining.
And this last bit applies to a huge amount there. Everything is short term expediency. As true for simple things like queuing as it is for major things like construction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1