• 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!

[W:18]Russia, China warn U.S. of 'consequences' of 'playing with fire'

TU Curmudgeon said:
The post doesn't say that at all.

Once you have considered that possibility, have you considered the possibility that it just might be that the leadership of "Country B" could conclude that it was in the best interests of "Country A" to have "Country B" apply ineffective sanctions against it and, therefore, (assuming that the leadership of "Country B" actually had some hold over the leadership of "Country A") the leadership of "Country B" would "encourage" the leadership of "Country A" to take the course of action that the leadership of "Country B" thought would be beneficial to "Country B" - even if, on the surface (and in the short run) that course of action might look like it was harmful to "Country B" (provided that you didn't bother to actually analyze what the actual effects were)?
Click to expand...

Oh-- so Russia and China working together is an attempt to deceive the USA that Russia and China are working together.
 
Re: Russia, China warn U.S. of 'consequences' of 'playing with fire'

TU Curmudgeon said:
Possibly it might help you to understand what I meant when I wrote "Mind you a decrease of around $246.3Bn/yr in "economic stimulus" to the American economy just might have some slight effect on the economic health of the US." if you considered that falling off the top of a 10 storey building just might have some slight effect on your health.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be comparable to the economic stimutus profided by ending the Iraq War. I missed that. So did the USA. Ergo, start another war./
/
 
Re: Russia, China warn U.S. of 'consequences' of 'playing with fire'

DaveFagan said:
Wouldn't that be comparable to the economic stimutus profided by ending the Iraq War. I missed that. So did the USA. Ergo, start another war./
/
Click to expand...

Somewhat.
 
Re: Russia, China warn U.S. of 'consequences' of 'playing with fire'

Fledermaus said:
I may have missed it... Where have we prohibited China from manufacturing any weapons of any sort?
Click to expand...

That, of course, is the next "logical" step since any manufacturing of weapons by China reduces the amount of weapons that American companies can sell to China. (We'll ignore the fact that American companies are not allowed to sell weapons to China, just so that the "logic" holds true.)

Fledermaus said:
I do know the sanctions against Russia are due in part to their illegal annexation of Crimea and more recently the meddling in our elections...
Click to expand...

Two minor points here. First, the Russians did not "annex" the Crimea. An "annexation" takes place when an external authority takes over regardless of the wishes of the people. What actually happened was the the Crimea voted in favour of acceding to the Russian Federation.

You do know that the Crimea had been a part of Russia since 1783, don't you? You do know that the Crimea had been a part of Russia for longer than the territory involved in the Louisiana Purchase has been a part of the United States of America, don't you? You do know that some of the land that France sold to the United States of America in the Louisiana Purchase was NOT "French" (it was Spanish), don't you?

Fledermaus said:
The problem is if we don't like the Russians selling to the Chinese what then? A sternly worded letter? A couple more tarrifs?
Click to expand...

I believe that in the capitalist system the way to deal with a customer buying from a different supplier is to offer the customer a better deal than the other supplier is willing to provide. That better deal can involve some combination of quality, price, after sale support, responsiveness to requirements, and/or tailoring the product to the customer's needs/wishes.

Fledermaus said:
Hell, the Chinese bought a freaking aircraft carrier. I don't think they care about hurting any feelings.
Click to expand...

Actually the Chinese bought a barely floating hulk that had been intended to become an aircraft carrier. If the US government had had one that it was prepared to sell at a lower price than the Russians wanted, the Chinese would likely have bought the American one. Unfortunately the US government neither had one, nor would have sold one to the Chinese if it had had one.
 
Mycroft said:
I am happy to help you correct yourself from your previous contention: "...no discernible effect..."
Click to expand...

Sorry for the sloppy wording.

The US bombing (which incidentally happened to hit some of Pol Pot's assets while targeting PAVN and NLF assets in Cambodia) had no significant effect on Pol Pot or his forces. The effect on the Cambodians which were killed, en passent, was most certainly significant on an individual basis, but was so insignificant on the POLITICAL level as to be indiscernible.

Mycroft said:
Oh, I can address it.

We'll see what happens, but considering the purpose of the sanctions and who they affect, this is certainly a strong message to Russia and China.
Click to expand...

Well. I suppose that that is slightly more elegant than "No comment.".
 
hanger4 said:
You conspiracy theory was cruising right along till turned left and made it a strawman with *ineffective sanctions*.
Click to expand...

In short, "No I haven't and I'm not going to consider that possibility.".
 
Re: Russia, China warn U.S. of 'consequences' of 'playing with fire'

sanman said:
You're misrepresenting history. The US did not bomb the Khmer Rouge. What happened was that during the Vietnam conflict, while the US was bombing Vietnam, the Vietcong then started routing their supply lines through Cambodia. The US expanded bombing to Cambodia in the context of trying to stop the Vietcong from operating on Cambodian soil..
Click to expand...

You have missed their point.

The fact is that some US bombs fell on places where some of Pol Pot's assets were (even though the US wasn't aiming the bombs at Pol Pot's assets) therefore the US "attacked" the Khmer Rouge.

Anything that detracts from that conclusion is to be discarded.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
In short, "No I haven't and I'm not going to consider that possibility.".
Click to expand...

You're right, Russia and China are complaining and warning the US about *ineffective sanctions*. :doh:
 
Re: Russia, China warn U.S. of 'consequences' of 'playing with fire'

Tigerace117 said:
Ah yes, the guy who spinelessly defends the slaughter of millions of people in the Great Leap Forward
Click to expand...

You do know that a "slaughter" is something that is done deliberately and with the specific intention of killing, don't you?

On second thought, I rather suspect that you don't.

Tigerace117 said:
...and tried to blame the US government for actions taken before there was a US is, ...
Click to expand...

The actions in the American colonies are to be laid at the feet of the (British) government(s) of the day.

The actions of the United States of America are to be laid at the feet of the (American) government(s) of the day.

Tigerace117 said:
as usual, fawning all over brutal dictatorships.
Click to expand...

Which, of course, isn't what I did at all. Admittedly, anyone who is completely unable to admit that the American governments of the day have ever done anything wrong might not see it that way.
 
Re: Russia, China warn U.S. of 'consequences' of 'playing with fire'

Tigerace117 said:
Oh by the way when you are a dictator who has anyone who doesn't "vote for you" brutally murdered you can't pretend that you are "democratically elected".
Click to expand...

Indeed.

And the people of the ROC, the Philippines, the ROK, Iraq (under Hussein before Hussein became a "Bad Guy"), Iran (under the Shah), Vietnam, Cuba, and a whole lot of Central American countries will agree with you.

Tigerace117 said:
I could list the number of things you don't know but we'd be here for about three years.
Click to expand...

Nailed that one in one, except that you got the pronoun wrong.
 
hanger4 said:
You're right, Russia and China are complaining and warning the US about *ineffective sanctions*. :doh:
Click to expand...

Nope, they are complaining and warning the US about "economic bullying".

The effectiveness of shotgun sanctions on "Command Economies" is somewhat less than the effectiveness of targeted sanctions on "Competition Economies".

Do I deny that the US sanctions will have any effect on the Chinese economy? Nope.

Am I skeptical that the US sanctions will have the desired effect on the Chinese economy. Yep.

Do I think that the Chinese sanctions will have some effect on the US economy? Yep.

Do I think that the Chinese sanctions will have the desired effect on the US economy? It's more likely than not.

Do I think that the US sanctions will have the desired effect on Chinese politics? Nope.

Do I think that the Chinese sanctions will have the desired effect on American politics" It's more likely than not.

Anything that does not have the desired effect is "ineffective" - even if it has other effects - because it does not achieve the desired goals.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Sorry for the sloppy wording.

The US bombing (which incidentally happened to hit some of Pol Pot's assets while targeting PAVN and NLF assets in Cambodia) had no significant effect on Pol Pot or his forces. The effect on the Cambodians which were killed, en passent, was most certainly significant on an individual basis, but was so insignificant on the POLITICAL level as to be indiscernible.



Well. I suppose that that is slightly more elegant than "No comment.".
Click to expand...

Pol Pot???

What on earth are you talking about? I'm talking about sanctions against China and Russia.
 
Re: Russia, China warn U.S. of 'consequences' of 'playing with fire'

TU Curmudgeon said:
You do know that a "slaughter" is something that is done deliberately and with the specific intention of killing, don't you?

On second thought, I rather suspect that you don't.



The actions in the American colonies are to be laid at the feet of the (British) government(s) of the day.

The actions of the United States of America are to be laid at the feet of the (American) government(s) of the day.



Which, of course, isn't what I did at all. Admittedly, anyone who is completely unable to admit that the American governments of the day have ever done anything wrong might not see it that way.
Click to expand...

There was slaughter aplenty during the "Great Leap Forward".

Was it all intentional killing?

No.

Much like Holodomor, collectivism, relocation and other cases where a communist government killed through neglect and incompetence.
 
hanger4 said:
You're right, Russia and China are complaining and warning the US about *ineffective sanctions*. :doh:
Click to expand...

There is an interesting way that a 150 pound person can get a 750 pound pig into the back of a truck when the pig doesn't want to go there.

What you do is get between the pig and the truck and push the pig away from the truck.

The pig will, of course, resist your efforts and push back.

You then let the pig win and push you up the ramp and into the truck.

At that point you get out of the back of the truck and close the gate behind the pig - who then can enjoy a nice scenic ride to the knackers.

If you don't know what the Russians and/or Chinese are trying to do, it's somewhat difficult to reject the "Let The Pig Win" strategy out of hand, isn't it?
 
Mycroft said:
Pol Pot???

What on earth are you talking about? I'm talking about sanctions against China and Russia.
Click to expand...

OK. The US sanctions have about the same effect on the political level as the US (accidental) bombing of Pol Pot's assets in Cambodia. There WERE effects on the individual level, but those individual effects did not change the political situation at all.
 
Re: Russia, China warn U.S. of 'consequences' of 'playing with fire'

Fledermaus said:
There was slaughter aplenty during the "Great Leap Forward".

Was it all intentional killing?

No.

Much like Holodomor, collectivism, relocation and other cases where a communist government killed through neglect and incompetence.
Click to expand...

Change that to "There were deaths aplenty ..." and I'll go along with it because, the fact is that those deaths were NOT intentional (in the sense that causing the deaths was the motivating force behind "The Great Leap Forward").

PS - Did you know that your "Much like Holodomor, collectivism, relocation and other cases where a communist government killed through neglect and incompetence." makes equal sense if you substitute "capitalist" for "communist"?

PPS - The PS means that it IS true in both cases and NOT that it IS NOT true in either case.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
OK. The US sanctions have about the same effect on the political level as the US (accidental) bombing of Pol Pot's assets in Cambodia. There WERE effects on the individual level, but those individual effects did not change the political situation at all.
Click to expand...

We already have changes, on the political level, between the US, Russia and China. We'll see how large they end up being over time, won't we? I think it's way too soon for you to complain about whether they are discernible or not.
 
Mycroft said:
We already have changes, on the political level, between the US, Russia and China.
Click to expand...

Indeed we do. Those changes appear to be that the Russians and the Chinese are gaining and the US isn't.

Mycroft said:
We'll see how large they end up being over time, won't we?
Click to expand...

True.

Mycroft said:
I think it's way too soon for you to complain about whether they are discernible or not.
Click to expand...

Those changes are already discernible, what we don't know at this point is whether they are "discernible good" or "discernible bad", or even "discernible cosmetic".

What we DO know is that

"All change is not necessarily good change, even if the intent of the change was that it be good change."​

and

"All stability in not necessarily good stability, even if the intent of the stability was that it be good stability.".​
 
Mycroft said:
We already have changes, on the political level, between the US, Russia and China. We'll see how large they end up being over time, won't we? I think it's way too soon for you to complain about whether they are discernible or not.
Click to expand...

It's never too soon to complain these days. In fact, pre-emptive complaints over fears of what could
 happen are all the rage just now.
 
humbolt said:
It's never too soon to complain these days. In fact, pre-emptive complaints over fears of what could
 happen are all the rage just now.
Click to expand...

Do you ever get the thought that Washington DC would make a perfect setting for an "UNreality TV" program?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Do you ever get the thought that Washington DC would make a perfect setting for an "UNreality TV" program?
Click to expand...

I believe it already is. I'm watching - well, not really, but it's on, anyway - the current episode in the Senate.
 
humbolt said:
I believe it already is. I'm watching - well, not really, but it's on, anyway - the current episode in the Senate.
Click to expand...

As long as you remember the two underlying tenets of "Political Ethics":

  1. "IF you are IN power, THEN it is permissible to do anything at all (even stuff that you voraciously condemned when you were NOT IN power [because 'That's DIFFERENT!!!" if you do it]) in order to RETAIN power."; and
  2. IF you are OUT of power, THEN it is permissible to do anything at all (even stuff that you voraciously condemn if done by those who ARE IN power [because 'That's DIFFERENT!!!" if you do it]) in order to GAIN power."

everything becomes a whole lot clearer.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
As long as you remember the two underlying tenets of "Political Ethics":

  1. "IF you are IN power, THEN it is permissible to do anything at all (even stuff that you voraciously condemned when you were NOT IN power [because 'That's DIFFERENT!!!" if you do it]) in order to RETAIN power."; and
  2. IF you are OUT of power, THEN it is permissible to do anything at all (even stuff that you voraciously condemn if done by those who ARE IN power [because 'That's DIFFERENT!!!" if you do it]) in order to GAIN power."

everything becomes a whole lot clearer.
Click to expand...

Fortunately for me, I'm in power. At my age, It's a day to day thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom