• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Beijing vows justice as ISIS kills Chinese, Norwegian hostages

joG said:
Yes. But it is not the interesting finding. That is that the game theory prediction was right. They are doing, what growing powers always do. The individual explanations are essentially unimportant.

This is important, because it means there is no known way within the game structure to prevent major war. Trying to is an exercise in futility. Unilateral attempts to ameliorate the situation are doomed. The only way to change the dismal end is to break the mold and introduce a new set of rules to the game.
Click to expand...

They are doing what any power would do looking at a world dominated by a single super power which immediately started threatening the world with its new found status, yes. Dude, you may dismiss the fact that Russia and China are directly responding to the imbalance of power in the world presently, but they are, and have made no secret of it and you can file it in any other theory box you wish. The direct result of a world spinning now without balance is at least two, and perhaps arguable four nations scurrying to address it.
 
Last edited:
nota bene said:
Do you object to the use of "overwhelming force"? I've heard Raqqa being compared to WWII Berlin.
Click to expand...

How did that work out in Iraq? The enemy will just hide and wait us out while they strike us with IED's and snipers. We need a overwhelming force of NATIVES who want to reclaim their country or we will fail again. Giving ISIS American targets is just what they want. We have proven that all our power is incapable of building a nation that will stabilize the region. Our troops will only make things worse in the long run. Again we proved that in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
They are doing what any power would do looking at a world dominated by a single super power which immediately started threatening the world with its new found status, yes. Dude, you may dismiss the fact that Russia and China are directly responding to the imbalance of power in the world presently, but they are, and have made no secret of it and you can file it in any other theory box you wish. The direct result of a world spinning now without balance is at least two, and perhaps arguable four nations scurrying to address it.
Click to expand...

I guess one could think in categories of "threat" and "balance of power", if one were rather indifferent to reality and laden with inferiority complexes. It is not very helpful economically nor is it a strategy that will lead anywhere but Armageddon. The thinking is just wrongheaded in a game theory sense. This is especially true, if it is short term activities of your self declared enemies on which you act and begin to pursue a strategy of exponential growth of military spending.

Nope. I believe your criticism gets in the way of your analysis and you miss the important factors of the game. This leads to proposals that are not effective and irrelevant to our all future.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I guess I'll be the first to say it, I'll be impressed if China does much of anything.
Click to expand...

They wont. The Chinese are all talk.

Apparently that Chinese guy went over to that region because he was "looking for danger and excitement". Looks like he got what he wanted. Another Darwin Award winner.
 
truthatallcost said:
I doubt that China is going to sit back and let their citizens be slaughtered like we do in the west. Note that China isn't taking in 'refugees' in the first place. Which means they're not falling for the fuzzy wuzzy story that some here do.
Click to expand...
I think it would be interesting to see China deploy troops there, and see them in actual combat.

Go China!

Do what our president doesn't have the grits to do.
 
Mason66 said:
ISIS's biggest mistake may be believing that all countries will take a light approach like the US does.

I don't think China will care about civilian casualties.
Click to expand...

I agree. I do think they would like an excuse to show off their military might.
 
Riveroaks said:
China has not launched their first aircraft carrier yet. So they can't really project any force into the region.
Click to expand...
They aren't that far from their western border. Jets can fly that far rather easily.
 
Montecresto said:
Apparently, the Chinese Internet is ablaze with praise for Russia's work in Syria. Just as a reminder, it was China and Russia which both warned the US that their interference in Syria would cause an escalation in violence and lead to the chaos spilling out of Syria into the entire region. Similarly, a consensus report by our nations security/intelligence agencies informed Bush in 2006 that his invasion and occupation of Iraq caused an increase in global terror and made the world less safe. Cause and effect. No wonder Russia and China are increasingly involving themselves in crisis of the US making.

While there may be little to feel optimistic about as the situation in Syria continues to deteriorate, Chinese netizens and its state media are surprisingly excited about Putin’s bombing campaign. “Russia is really, truly getting things done,” one netizen noted, in a quote representative of the general sentiment on the Chinese Internet.

Chinese Netizens Are Cheering Putin’s Syria Campaign | Foreign Policy
Click to expand...
I'm excited about what Russia is doing too.

To bad our president is such a dolt when it comes to these matters.
 
Erod said:
No doubt the seeds of a major scale war is brewing for down the road. It's all very biblical actually.
Click to expand...

Isn't there something about a bear in revelations?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I think it would be interesting to see China deploy troops there, and see them in actual combat.

Go China!

Do what our president doesn't have the grits to do.
Click to expand...

I think China having troops in the Mideast would be disastrous. I agree with you though that Obama will not use force against Isis at this point for any reason. He supported the Arab Uprising, which was really just Muslim extremists replacing moderate and more secular regimes. No, Obama is rooting for Isis 100%.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm excited about what Russia is doing too.

To bad our president is such a dolt when it comes to these matters.
Click to expand...

Too bad the present and past administrations policies have been that of dolts.
 
truthatallcost said:
I think China having troops in the Mideast would be disastrous. I agree with you though that Obama will not use force against Isis at this point for any reason. He supported the Arab Uprising, which was really just Muslim extremists replacing moderate and more secular regimes. No, Obama is rooting for Isis 100%.
Click to expand...

But Obama IS (pun intended) using force against Isis in Syria, and quite without any authorization, where have you been? Perhaps you mean he isn't doing enough, and like several others here, you'd like a more scorched earth policy. Seems to me if the US wanted to defeat the Islamic State, we'd stop supporting forces that are fighting against Assad who has been trying to expel them himself. :shrug:
 
joG said:
I guess one could think in categories of "threat" and "balance of power", if one were rather indifferent to reality and laden with inferiority complexes. It is not very helpful economically nor is it a strategy that will lead anywhere but Armageddon. The thinking is just wrongheaded in a game theory sense. This is especially true, if it is short term activities of your self declared enemies on which you act and begin to pursue a strategy of exponential growth of military spending.

Nope. I believe your criticism gets in the way of your analysis and you miss the important factors of the game. This leads to proposals that are not effective and irrelevant to our all future.
Click to expand...

The moral to the story is a balance of power which is good for global security. Not that the governments of Russia and China are expressing collective complexes about anything. And pointing out that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, that concerns for global security have prompted countries to seek to counter the imbalance, supported with data from organizations like SIPRI that monitor such things, as well as commentary from individuals within the countries so responding is not a criticism but an observation.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
The moral to the story is a balance of power which is good for global security. Not that the governments of Russia and China are expressing collective complexes about anything. And pointing out that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, that concerns for global security have prompted countries to seek to counter the imbalance, supported with data from organizations like SIPRI that monitor such things, as well as commentary from individuals within the countries so responding is not a criticism but an observation.
Click to expand...

That is the false assumption. A balance of power is only "good for global security" under very few circumstances. Usually it defines a highly volatile game with no stabile optimum. Historically this means that war.
This is not a tactical thing. You are pursuing the wrong strategy.
 
joG said:
That is the false assumption. A balance of power is only "good for global security" under very few circumstances. Usually it defines a highly volatile game with no stabile optimum. Historically this means that war.
This is not a tactical thing. You are pursuing the wrong strategy.
Click to expand...

I'm not pursuing anything, Russia and China are, I'm merely pointing out why that is. However, I'm not interested in a uni-polar world, not even if it's dominated by the US. and so I support the balance that Russia and China are seeking. And, whether you like what they're doing or not, agree or not that it's sound, it is what's happening, and it is, as I've repeatedly shown to you, a direct response to US actions. So, either those responsible for US actions (policy) either don't agree with your line of reasoning, or, are incompetent to to appease Russian and Chinese concerns.
 
Montecresto said:
I'm not pursuing anything, Russia and China are, I'm merely pointing out why that is. However, I'm not interested in a uni-polar world, not even if it's dominated by the US. and so I support the balance that Russia and China are seeking. And, whether you like what they're doing or not, agree or not that it's sound, it is what's happening, and it is, as I've repeatedly shown to you, a direct response to US actions. So, either those responsible for US actions (policy) either don't agree with your line of reasoning, or, are incompetent to to appease Russian and Chinese concerns.
Click to expand...

You see, I do not think that the reasons you name are relevant to the behavior in other than an incidental way. And the idea that the world could in any way become safer or wealthier by shifting from a unipolar structure to a multipolar one is tragically wrong. It is quite the opposite. And yes, you have shown this and that about the evil ways of the US. Having reviewed the path from 1990 till now I think it absolutely off the wall. The US helped China become wealthy during that period and did not threaten Russia to my knowledge. I do realize that the way China and Russia are acting is exactly what Wilhelm was doing in the 1890s with the inevitable consequences. Instead of taking the way pointed to in the 2005 change in UN Charter norms, they have pursued strategies of multipolar security structure instead of a multilateral one. This started in the earlier to later 1990s. This is vastly dangerous as it has wasted a lot of time and we do not have much left to undertake the rebuilding of the international theater. This is, what you do not seem to want to understand. And if you do not go back and work through the literature, I do not see, how we should find common ground in the security sphere.
 
joG said:
You see, I do not think that the reasons you name are relevant to the behavior in other than an incidental way. And the idea that the world could in any way become safer or wealthier by shifting from a unipolar structure to a multipolar one is tragically wrong. It is quite the opposite. And yes, you have shown this and that about the evil ways of the US. Having reviewed the path from 1990 till now I think it absolutely off the wall. The US helped China become wealthy during that period and did not threaten Russia to my knowledge. I do realize that the way China and Russia are acting is exactly what Wilhelm was doing in the 1890s with the inevitable consequences. Instead of taking the way pointed to in the 2005 change in UN Charter norms, they have pursued strategies of multipolar security structure instead of a multilateral one. This started in the earlier to later 1990s. This is vastly dangerous as it has wasted a lot of time and we do not have much left to undertake the rebuilding of the international theater. This is, what you do not seem to want to understand. And if you do not go back and work through the literature, I do not see, how we should find common ground in the security sphere.
Click to expand...

That would be because you won't read the numerous commentary by both Russian and Chinese officials on the subject that I've laid before you on multiple occasions in the past. ;) Btw, there's no relevance whatsoever to you and I finding common ground, and whether or not you think that Russia and China's approach to addressing global security is the right approach is also irrelevant, they're doing it, and have pointedly stated that it's in response to US actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom