In the aftermath of tense talks between the US and China in Alaska, Russian and Chinese foreign ministers huddled in Guilin, China and a communique afterwards noted the two sides stood together against the US.

I would like to congratulate Biden for upholding another campaign promise but instead of "uniting" the country, he united our enemies!!!

It's just amazing how much better Trump was at being president....

Biden came in w 47 years political experience & he's total dog****

Trump took an escalator down from his own hotel & ended up being the goat

We've got to find a way to get away from these loser political lifers.... they are absolute garbage

As I've stated before on this topic; this should surprise absolutely no one. The fact they are so openly telegraphing their work together is what's more troubling. Indicates a significant shift in their respective calculus as to what they believe they can get away with.

BRIC will become much stronger; they will control the planet. America will become much weaker. The beginning of the end of the Republic.

Just proves that when you telegraph and show weakness your opponents will fill the vacuum with their strength. China and Russia are going to run circles around Biden. He's wasted in two months what took President Trump four years to build.

Another huge slap in the face to the Biden administration. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to expect no less.

APHIS AG said:

---

I would like to congratulate Biden for upholding another campaign promise but instead of "uniting" the country, he united our enemies!!!

---

This is what happens when you let the national media select the government and set policy.

Emotional rhetoric is the stupidest way to run foreign policy. Every country is looking after itself (except ours).

My Name Is Judge said:

---

It's just amazing how much better Trump was at being president....

Biden came in w 47 years political experience & he's total dog****

Trump took an escalator down from his own hotel & ended up being the goat

We've got to find a way to get away from these loser political lifers.... they are absolute garbage

---

He has always been dog sh*t. Even Obama knew that and wouldn't let him near the press. Biden has 47 years experience of being a libtard stooge. God only knows who is pulling his strings these days.

My Name Is Judge said:

---

It's just amazing how much better Trump was at being president....

Biden came in w 47 years political experience & he's total dog****

Trump took an escalator down from his own hotel & ended up being the goat

We've got to find a way to get away from these loser political lifers.... they are absolute garbage

---

And amazing how quickly it's all fallen apart. We are only two months into his presidency and we have our two biggest enemies openly taunting us to our face and making a point to publicly align. Our southern border is under assault due to Biden's open borders signals with the media actually starting to question Biden on it now (shockingly).

Massive tax increases being proposed to pay for national Marxist policies. Enabling an internal Racial Cold War between whites and everyone else. Taking credit for Trump's vaccine program while simultaneously trying to undercut it to play both sides.

It's all going so swimmingly.

Cassius said:

---

BRIC will become much stronger; they will control the planet. America will become much weaker. The beginning of the end of the Republic.

---

You think Brazil and India are going to partner with China? India and China are long standing enemies and had direct military engagement as recent as a couple months ago.

Russia will partner with China while its convenient and vice versa. As soon as Russia opposes China that relationship is over. It will be interesting to see where their interests begin to collide and how they navigate it.

titan said:

---

APHIS AG said:

---

I would like to congratulate Biden for upholding another campaign promise but instead of "uniting" the country, he united our enemies!!!

---

This is what happens when you let the national media select the government and set policy.

Emotional rhetoric is the stupidest way to run foreign policy. Every country is looking after itself (except ours).

---

This "announcement" is mainly for optics on both the Russian and CCP sides. Just like Chinese delegates getting on their soap box last week in Alaska, this was all about feeding images and soundbites back to their heavily propagandized public. Neither of those countries can be trusted for a long standing alliance to hold or even project power. This is 1) a finger in the eye of the U.S. and NATO and 2) a relationship of convenience.

Fumbleruski said:

---

This "announcement" is mainly for optics on both the Russian and CCP sides. Just like Chinese delegates getting on their soap box last week in Alaska, this was all about feeding images and soundbites back to their heavily propagandized public. Neither of those countries can be trusted for a long standing alliance to hold or even project power. This is 1) a finger in the eye of the U.S. and NATO and 2) a relationship of convenience.

---

Normally true, but with Washington and the MSM working 24/7 to make enemies out of Americans such an alliance of convenience may hold together longer. This because now they have a real chance at taking us down and apart with the help of the Left.

Fumbleruski said:

---

This "announcement" is mainly for optics on both the Russian and CCP sides. Just like Chinese delegates getting on their soap box last week in Alaska, this was all about feeding images and soundbites back to their heavily propagandized public. Neither of those countries can be trusted for a long standing alliance to hold or even project power. This is 1) a finger in the eye of the U.S. and NATO and 2) a relationship of convenience.

---

I would say it's a relationship of necessity. They are the two big holdouts to total globalism and the US has made it very clear it intends to take them out

Proper Twelve said:

---

Fumbleruski said:

---

This "announcement" is mainly for optics on both the Russian and CCP sides. Just like Chinese delegates getting on their soap box last week in Alaska, this was all about feeding images and soundbites back to their heavily propagandized public. Neither of those countries can be trusted for a long standing alliance to hold or even project power. This is 1) a finger in the eye of the U.S. and NATO and 2) a relationship of convenience.

---

I would say it's a relationship of necessity. They are the two big holdouts to total globalism and the US has made it very clear it intends to take them out

---

Interesting take. AmeriKa as the pushing of globalism. Certainly an illustration that if DC starts a war with them this will be a case of a fight with no good sides.

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

Fumbleruski said:

---

This "announcement" is mainly for optics on both the Russian and CCP sides. Just like Chinese delegates getting on their soap box last week in Alaska, this was all about feeding images and soundbites back to their heavily propagandized public. Neither of those countries can be trusted for a long standing alliance to hold or even project power. This is 1) a finger in the eye of the U.S. and NATO and 2) a relationship of convenience.

---

I would say it's a relationship of necessity. They are the two big holdouts to total globalism and the US has made it very clear it intends to take them out

---

Interesting take. AmeriKa as the pushing of globalism. Certainly an illustration that if DC starts a war with them this will be a case of a fight with no good sides.

---

It's not a take. It's a statement of fact.

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

Fumbleruski said:

---

This "announcement" is mainly for optics on both the Russian and CCP sides. Just like Chinese delegates getting on their soap box last week in Alaska, this was all about feeding images and soundbites back to their heavily propagandized public. Neither of those countries can be trusted for a long standing alliance to hold or even project power. This is 1) a finger in the eye of the U.S. and NATO and 2) a relationship of convenience.

---

I would say it's a relationship of necessity. They are the two big holdouts to total globalism and the US has made it very clear it intends to take them out

---

Interesting take. AmeriKa as the pushing of globalism. Certainly an illustration that if DC starts a war with them this will be a case of a fight with no good sides.

---

It's not a take. It's a statement of fact.

---

Maybe. Could even grant it with Russia. But China has been acting belligerent and expansionist all on their own for a while now. Its less clear how opposed they are to globalism. Russia, yes.

But at least Biden doesn't mean tweet.

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

Fumbleruski said:

---

This "announcement" is mainly for optics on both the Russian and CCP sides. Just like Chinese delegates getting on their soap box last week in Alaska, this was all about feeding images and soundbites back to their heavily propagandized public. Neither of those countries can be trusted for a long standing alliance to hold or even project power. This is 1) a finger in the eye of the U.S. and NATO and 2) a relationship of convenience.

---

I would say it's a relationship of necessity. They are the two big holdouts to total globalism and the US has made it very clear it intends to take them out

---

Interesting take. AmeriKa as the pushing of globalism. Certainly an illustration that if DC starts a war with them this will be a case of a fight with no good sides.

---

It's not a take. It's a statement of fact.

---

Maybe. Could even grant it with Russia. But China has been acting belligerent and expansionist all on their own for a while now. Its less clear how opposed they are to globalism. Russia, yes.

---

China has been "acting belligerent and expansionist"? Would you say the same about the United States? Which has been doing war with various sovereign nations for decades and still has military bases in countries it defeated 80 years ago?

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

Fumbleruski said:

---

This "announcement" is mainly for optics on both the Russian and CCP sides. Just like Chinese delegates getting on their soap box last week in Alaska, this was all about feeding images and soundbites back to their heavily propagandized public. Neither of those countries can be trusted for a long standing alliance to hold or even project power. This is 1) a finger in the eye of the U.S. and NATO and 2) a relationship of convenience.

---

I would say it's a relationship of necessity. They are the two big holdouts to total globalism and the US has made it very clear it intends to take them out

---

Interesting take. AmeriKa as the pushing of globalism. Certainly an illustration that if DC starts a war with them this will be a case of a fight with no good sides.

---

It's not a take. It's a statement of fact.

---

Maybe. Could even grant it with Russia. But China has been acting belligerent and expansionist all on their own for a while now. Its less clear how opposed they are to globalism. Russia, yes.

---

China has been "acting belligerent and expansionist"? Would you say the same about the United States? Which has been doing war with various sovereign nations for decades and still has military bases in countries it defeated 80 years ago?

---

Don't tie in all the Cold War stuff. All bets are off in the age of bipolar confrontation and risk of nuclear war over ideologies.

If you take from 1991 forward its not like we have been a tenth as belligerent as a superpower probably should have been with such an opportunity. North Korea should not have gotten nukes starting with that 1994 deal. You might say can rebut that claim by what we did NOT do, and probably should have.

Now this century, yes, there has been acting "belligerent and expansionist" - no argument. And having bases in places still are only a problem if you think they are some occupation and extremely determined to deny we are a hegemony like the British Empire. (While not having as many of the Empire's perks of direct imperial imports--in that sense we are not an empire. Like the Left talk about Iraq. Had we seized oil fields and run up our flag and sold it, then we would be. So far, we lack that aspect--perhaps even to a loss.

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

Fumbleruski said:

---

This "announcement" is mainly for optics on both the Russian and CCP sides. Just like Chinese delegates getting on their soap box last week in Alaska, this was all about feeding images and soundbites back to their heavily propagandized public. Neither of those countries can be trusted for a long standing alliance to hold or even project power. This is 1) a finger in the eye of the U.S. and NATO and 2) a relationship of convenience.

---

I would say it's a relationship of necessity. They are the two big holdouts to total globalism and the US has made it very clear it intends to take them out

---

Interesting take. AmeriKa as the pushing of globalism. Certainly an illustration that if DC starts a war with them this will be a case of a fight with no good sides.

---

It's not a take. It's a statement of fact.

---

Maybe. Could even grant it with Russia. But China has been acting belligerent and expansionist all on their own for a while now. Its less clear how opposed they are to globalism. Russia, yes.

---

China has been "acting belligerent and expansionist"? Would you say the same about the United States? Which has been doing war with various sovereign nations for decades and still has military bases in countries it defeated 80 years ago?

---

Don't tie in all the Cold War stuff. All bets are off in the age of bipolar confrontation and risk of nuclear war over ideologies.

If you take from 1991 forward its not like we have been a tenth as belligerent as a superpower probably should have been with such an opportunity. North Korea should not have gotten nukes starting with that 1994 deal. You might say can rebut that claim by what we did NOT do, and probably should have.

Now this century, yes, there has been acting "belligerent and expansionist" - no argument. And having bases in places still are only a problem if you think they are some occupation and extremely determined to deny we are a hegemony like the British Empire. (While not having as many of the Empire's perks of direct imperial imports--in that sense we are not an empire. Like the Left talk about Iraq. Had we seized oil fields and run up our flag and sold it, then we would be. So far, we lack that aspect--perhaps even to a loss.

---

Yea without getting into the weeds of an ancient history debate, the point is this. In current time, the United States is far more belligerent and expansionist than China. That's just a matter of fact.

Far more? I think we are becoming that now -- massive meddling abroad in favor of more regressive forces under the two phases of Obama -- the 44 admin and now the Obiden version of it. But under Trump we were pulling back.

Belligerent rhetoric -- even from 2000. Yes. But what do you see as "expansionist"? Because what see is only failure to defend our own borders, let alone seize new land or install direct puppets. Where "expanding"?

titan said:

---

Far more? I think we are becoming that now -- massive meddling abroad in favor of more regressive forces under the two phases of Obama -- the 44 admin and now the Obiden version of it. But under Trump we were pulling back.

Belligerent rhetoric -- even from 2000. Yes. But what do you see as "expansionist"? Because what see is only failure to defend our own borders, let alone seize new land or install direct puppets. Where "expanding"?

---

There is no belligerent "rhetoric". The United States has been doing constant war with various nations for decades. That is the definition of belligerent.

The United States is not expansionist in the physical conquer sense. It is expansionist in its endeavors to take out any sovereign nation opposing globalism

Ah-ha. See your argument now. That can certainly fly - post Reagan forward. In other words, the mis-use of the Cold War victory. Especially the 21st C's pushing the Left worldview more.

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

Fumbleruski said:

---

This "announcement" is mainly for optics on both the Russian and CCP sides. Just like Chinese delegates getting on their soap box last week in Alaska, this was all about feeding images and soundbites back to their heavily propagandized public. Neither of those countries can be trusted for a long standing alliance to hold or even project power. This is 1) a finger in the eye of the U.S. and NATO and 2) a relationship of convenience.

---

I would say it's a relationship of necessity. They are the two big holdouts to total globalism and the US has made it very clear it intends to take them out

---

Interesting take. AmeriKa as the pushing of globalism. Certainly an illustration that if DC starts a war with them this will be a case of a fight with no good sides.

---

It's not a take. It's a statement of fact.

---

Maybe. Could even grant it with Russia. But China has been acting belligerent and expansionist all on their own for a while now. Its less clear how opposed they are to globalism. Russia, yes.

---

China has been "acting belligerent and expansionist"? Would you say the same about the United States? Which has been doing war with various sovereign nations for decades and still has military bases in countries it defeated 80 years ago?

---

Don't tie in all the Cold War stuff. All bets are off in the age of bipolar confrontation and risk of nuclear war over ideologies.

If you take from 1991 forward its not like we have been a tenth as belligerent as a superpower probably should have been with such an opportunity. North Korea should not have gotten nukes starting with that 1994 deal. You might say can rebut that claim by what we did NOT do, and probably should have.

Now this century, yes, there has been acting "belligerent and expansionist" - no argument. And having bases in places still are only a problem if you think they are some occupation and extremely determined to deny we are a hegemony like the British Empire. (While not having as many of the Empire's perks of direct imperial imports--in that sense we are not an empire. Like the Left talk about Iraq. Had we seized oil fields and run up our flag and sold it, then we would be. So far, we lack that aspect--perhaps even to a loss.

---

Yea without getting into the weeds of an ancient history debate, the point is this. In current time, the United States is far more belligerent and expansionist than China. That's just a matter of fact.

---

Ever been to Africa?

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

Fumbleruski said:

---

This "announcement" is mainly for optics on both the Russian and CCP sides. Just like Chinese delegates getting on their soap box last week in Alaska, this was all about feeding images and soundbites back to their heavily propagandized public. Neither of those countries can be trusted for a long standing alliance to hold or even project power. This is 1) a finger in the eye of the U.S. and NATO and 2) a relationship of convenience.

---

I would say it's a relationship of necessity. They are the two big holdouts to total globalism and the US has made it very clear it intends to take them out

---

Interesting take. AmeriKa as the pushing of globalism. Certainly an illustration that if DC starts a war with them this will be a case of a fight with no good sides.

---

It's not a take. It's a statement of fact.

---

Maybe. Could even grant it with Russia. But China has been acting belligerent and expansionist all on their own for a while now. Its less clear how opposed they are to globalism. Russia, yes.

---

China has been "acting belligerent and expansionist"? Would you say the same about the United States? Which has been doing war with various sovereign nations for decades and still has military bases in countries it defeated 80 years ago?

---

Don't tie in all the Cold War stuff. All bets are off in the age of bipolar confrontation and risk of nuclear war over ideologies.

If you take from 1991 forward its not like we have been a tenth as belligerent as a superpower probably should have been with such an opportunity. North Korea should not have gotten nukes starting with that 1994 deal. You might say can rebut that claim by what we did NOT do, and probably should have.

Now this century, yes, there has been acting "belligerent and expansionist" - no argument. And having bases in places still are only a problem if you think they are some occupation and extremely determined to deny we are a hegemony like the British Empire. (While not having as many of the Empire's perks of direct imperial imports--in that sense we are not an empire. Like the Left talk about Iraq. Had we seized oil fields and run up our flag and sold it, then we would be. So far, we lack that aspect--perhaps even to a loss.

---

Yea without getting into the weeds of an ancient history debate, the point is this. In current time, the United States is far more belligerent and expansionist than China. That's just a matter of fact.

---

You had me agreeing with you until this post.

China released this virus on the world. Unless the US has done something that's been successfully hidden from the public, China takes the cake on being belligerent. And China has also been diving into Africa in a way that the US has not been.

You're totally wrong. The US has been the top dog in the world for two decades and we finally have another challenger. The challenger is always the more belligerent aggressor.

titan said:

---

Ah-ha. See your argument now. That can certainly fly - post Reagan forward. In other words, the mis-use of the Cold War victory. Especially the 21st C's pushing the Left worldview more.

---

No you apparently do not see the argument. If we are talking "belligerent" here's a simple way to explain it to you. How many nations does the US have military engaging in war? How many nations for China?

waitwhat? said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

Fumbleruski said:

---

This "announcement" is mainly for optics on both the Russian and CCP sides. Just like Chinese delegates getting on their soap box last week in Alaska, this was all about feeding images and soundbites back to their heavily propagandized public. Neither of those countries can be trusted for a long standing alliance to hold or even project power. This is 1) a finger in the eye of the U.S. and NATO and 2) a relationship of convenience.

---

I would say it's a relationship of necessity. They are the two big holdouts to total globalism and the US has made it very clear it intends to take them out

---

Interesting take. AmeriKa as the pushing of globalism. Certainly an illustration that if DC starts a war with them this will be a case of a fight with no good sides.

---

It's not a take. It's a statement of fact.

---

Maybe. Could even grant it with Russia. But China has been acting belligerent and expansionist all on their own for a while now. Its less clear how opposed they are to globalism. Russia, yes.

---

China has been "acting belligerent and expansionist"? Would you say the same about the United States? Which has been doing war with various sovereign nations for decades and still has military bases in countries it defeated 80 years ago?

---

Don't tie in all the Cold War stuff. All bets are off in the age of bipolar confrontation and risk of nuclear war over ideologies.

If you take from 1991 forward its not like we have been a tenth as belligerent as a superpower probably should have been with such an opportunity. North Korea should not have gotten nukes starting with that 1994 deal. You might say can rebut that claim by what we did NOT do, and probably should have.

Now this century, yes, there has been acting "belligerent and expansionist" - no argument. And having bases in places still are only a problem if you think they are some occupation and extremely determined to deny we are a hegemony like the British Empire. (While not having as many of the Empire's perks of direct imperial imports--in that sense we are not an empire. Like the Left talk about Iraq. Had we seized oil fields and run up our flag and sold it, then we would be. So far, we lack that aspect--perhaps even to a loss.

---

Yea without getting into the weeds of an ancient history debate, the point is this. In current time, the United States is far more belligerent and expansionist than China. That's just a matter of fact.

---

You had me agreeing with you until this post.

China released this virus on the world. Unless the US has done something that's been successfully hidden from the public, China takes the cake on being belligerent. And China has also been diving into Africa in a way that the US has not been.

You're totally wrong. The US has been the top dog in the world for two decades and we finally have another challenger. The challenger is always the more belligerent aggressor.

---

There is no evidence China released any virus on the world. In fact, traces of it were found in Italy months before wuhan

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Far more? I think we are becoming that now -- massive meddling abroad in favor of more regressive forces under the two phases of Obama -- the 44 admin and now the Obiden version of it. But under Trump we were pulling back.

Belligerent rhetoric -- even from 2000. Yes. But what do you see as "expansionist"? Because what see is only failure to defend our own borders, let alone seize new land or install direct puppets. Where "expanding"?

---

There is no belligerent "rhetoric". The United States has been doing constant war with various nations for decades. That is the definition of belligerent.

The United States is not expansionist in the physical conquer sense. It is expansionist in its endeavors to take out any sovereign nation opposing globalism

---

It is classic hegemonic theory: the top power pays the cost for being the world's policeman. Before the first Iraq war we had Iraqis and western powers calling for the US to step in, save their butts and expel the evil dictator. About the only countries that have/did not called for this are apartheid era South Africa and Israel.

UTExan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Far more? I think we are becoming that now -- massive meddling abroad in favor of more regressive forces under the two phases of Obama -- the 44 admin and now the Obiden version of it. But under Trump we were pulling back.

Belligerent rhetoric -- even from 2000. Yes. But what do you see as "expansionist"? Because what see is only failure to defend our own borders, let alone seize new land or install direct puppets. Where "expanding"?

---

There is no belligerent "rhetoric". The United States has been doing constant war with various nations for decades. That is the definition of belligerent.

The United States is not expansionist in the physical conquer sense. It is expansionist in its endeavors to take out any sovereign nation opposing globalism

---

It is classic hegemonic theory: the top power pays the cost for being the world's policeman. Before the first Iraq war we had Iraqis and western powers calling for the US to step in, save their butts and expel the evil dictator. About the only countries that have/did not called for this are apartheid era South Africa and Israel.

---

Sure that may be. And if so, it is very questionable to accuse some other nation of being "belligerent".

Proper Twelve said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

Fumbleruski said:

---

This "announcement" is mainly for optics on both the Russian and CCP sides. Just like Chinese delegates getting on their soap box last week in Alaska, this was all about feeding images and soundbites back to their heavily propagandized public. Neither of those countries can be trusted for a long standing alliance to hold or even project power. This is 1) a finger in the eye of the U.S. and NATO and 2) a relationship of convenience.

---

I would say it's a relationship of necessity. They are the two big holdouts to total globalism and the US has made it very clear it intends to take them out

---

Interesting take. AmeriKa as the pushing of globalism. Certainly an illustration that if DC starts a war with them this will be a case of a fight with no good sides.

---

It's not a take. It's a statement of fact.

---

Maybe. Could even grant it with Russia. But China has been acting belligerent and expansionist all on their own for a while now. Its less clear how opposed they are to globalism. Russia, yes.

---

China has been "acting belligerent and expansionist"? Would you say the same about the United States? Which has been doing war with various sovereign nations for decades and still has military bases in countries it defeated 80 years ago?

---

Don't tie in all the Cold War stuff. All bets are off in the age of bipolar confrontation and risk of nuclear war over ideologies.

If you take from 1991 forward its not like we have been a tenth as belligerent as a superpower probably should have been with such an opportunity. North Korea should not have gotten nukes starting with that 1994 deal. You might say can rebut that claim by what we did NOT do, and probably should have.

Now this century, yes, there has been acting "belligerent and expansionist" - no argument. And having bases in places still are only a problem if you think they are some occupation and extremely determined to deny we are a hegemony like the British Empire. (While not having as many of the Empire's perks of direct imperial imports--in that sense we are not an empire. Like the Left talk about Iraq. Had we seized oil fields and run up our flag and sold it, then we would be. So far, we lack that aspect--perhaps even to a loss.

---

Yea without getting into the weeds of an ancient history debate, the point is this. In current time, the United States is far more belligerent and expansionist than China. That's just a matter of fact.

---

You had me agreeing with you until this post.

China released this virus on the world. Unless the US has done something that's been successfully hidden from the public, China takes the cake on being belligerent. And China has also been diving into Africa in a way that the US has not been.

You're totally wrong. The US has been the top dog in the world for two decades and we finally have another challenger. The challenger is always the more belligerent aggressor.

---

There is no evidence China released any virus on the world. In fact, traces of it were found in Italy months before wuhan

---

There's no evidence because governments won't release the evidence.

I'm 95%+ convinced that this was released by China on purpose. Everything fits. You mention a lack of evidence, but what would happen if the evidence was released? The public would demand war. The public would demand World War III.

Governments won't take that risk since it would cost hundreds of millions of lives, AND there's zero reason to simply assume we would be on the winning side.

China released this virus and it's being covered up to prevent WW3. They bet that global governments wouldn't believe WW3 would be a worthwhile response and China was right.

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Ah-ha. See your argument now. That can certainly fly - post Reagan forward. In other words, the mis-use of the Cold War victory. Especially the 21st C's pushing the Left worldview more.

---

No you apparently do not see the argument. If we are talking "belligerent" here's a simple way to explain it to you. How many nations does the US have military engaging in war? How many nations for China?

---

How many of those are against the will of the countries involved and we started? The number drops then. Belligerence would only apply to the latter.

China has its share too. And on the expansionist part, the African and South American incursions bear some notice. I kind of agree with your more general point but wars themselves do not mean belligerent.

waitwhat? said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

Fumbleruski said:

---

This "announcement" is mainly for optics on both the Russian and CCP sides. Just like Chinese delegates getting on their soap box last week in Alaska, this was all about feeding images and soundbites back to their heavily propagandized public. Neither of those countries can be trusted for a long standing alliance to hold or even project power. This is 1) a finger in the eye of the U.S. and NATO and 2) a relationship of convenience.

---

I would say it's a relationship of necessity. They are the two big holdouts to total globalism and the US has made it very clear it intends to take them out

---

Interesting take. AmeriKa as the pushing of globalism. Certainly an illustration that if DC starts a war with them this will be a case of a fight with no good sides.

---

It's not a take. It's a statement of fact.

---

Maybe. Could even grant it with Russia. But China has been acting belligerent and expansionist all on their own for a while now. Its less clear how opposed they are to globalism. Russia, yes.

---

China has been "acting belligerent and expansionist"? Would you say the same about the United States? Which has been doing war with various sovereign nations for decades and still has military bases in countries it defeated 80 years ago?

---

Don't tie in all the Cold War stuff. All bets are off in the age of bipolar confrontation and risk of nuclear war over ideologies.

If you take from 1991 forward its not like we have been a tenth as belligerent as a superpower probably should have been with such an opportunity. North Korea should not have gotten nukes starting with that 1994 deal. You might say can rebut that claim by what we did NOT do, and probably should have.

Now this century, yes, there has been acting "belligerent and expansionist" - no argument. And having bases in places still are only a problem if you think they are some occupation and extremely determined to deny we are a hegemony like the British Empire. (While not having as many of the Empire's perks of direct imperial imports--in that sense we are not an empire. Like the Left talk about Iraq. Had we seized oil fields and run up our flag and sold it, then we would be. So far, we lack that aspect--perhaps even to a loss.

---

Yea without getting into the weeds of an ancient history debate, the point is this. In current time, the United States is far more belligerent and expansionist than China. That's just a matter of fact.

---

You had me agreeing with you until this post.

China released this virus on the world. Unless the US has done something that's been successfully hidden from the public, China takes the cake on being belligerent. And China has also been diving into Africa in a way that the US has not been.

You're totally wrong. The US has been the top dog in the world for two decades and we finally have another challenger. The challenger is always the more belligerent aggressor.

---

There is no evidence China released any virus on the world. In fact, traces of it were found in Italy months before wuhan

---

There's no evidence because governments won't release the evidence.

I'm 95%+ convinced that this was released by China on purpose. Everything fits. You mention a lack of evidence, but what would happen if the evidence was released? The public would demand war. The public would demand World War III.

Governments won't take that risk since it would cost hundreds of millions of lives, AND there's zero reason to simply assume we would be on the winning side.

China released this virus and it's being covered up to prevent WW3. They bet that global governments wouldn't believe WW3 would be a worthwhile response and China was right.

---

Now that is an interesting take. You are basically saying there is no evidence China release the virus but you believe they did anyway (presumably because the TV said so)

titan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Ah-ha. See your argument now. That can certainly fly - post Reagan forward. In other words, the mis-use of the Cold War victory. Especially the 21st C's pushing the Left worldview more.

---

No you apparently do not see the argument. If we are talking "belligerent" here's a simple way to explain it to you. How many nations does the US have military engaging in war? How many nations for China?

---

How many of those are against the will of the countries involved and we started? The number drops then. Belligerence would only apply to the latter.

China has its share too. And on the expansionist part, the African and South American incursions bear some notice. I kind of agree with your more general point but wars themselves do not mean belligerent.

---

It's not a question that needs any qualifiers. If you be honest and compare the numbers, you find US is far more belligerent

Proper Twelve said:

---

UTExan said:

---

Proper Twelve said:

---

titan said:

---

Far more? I think we are becoming that now -- massive meddling abroad in favor of more regressive forces under the two phases of Obama -- the 44 admin and now the Obiden version of it. But under Trump we were pulling back.

Belligerent rhetoric -- even from 2000. Yes. But what do you see as "expansionist"? Because what see is only failure to defend our own borders, let alone seize new land or install direct puppets. Where "expanding"?

---

There is no belligerent "rhetoric". The United States has been doing constant war with various nations for decades. That is the definition of belligerent.

The United States is not expansionist in the physical conquer sense. It is expansionist in its endeavors to take out any sovereign nation opposing globalism

---

It is classic hegemonic theory: the top power pays the cost for being the world's policeman. Before the first Iraq war we had Iraqis and western powers calling for the US to step in, save their butts and expel the evil dictator. About the only countries that have/did not called for this are apartheid era South Africa and Israel.

---

Sure that may be. And if so, it is very questionable to accuse some other nation of being "belligerent".

---

Seriously? We provided a stable global environment allowing China to steal, colonize and commit espionage for decades. I don't know how to say this more clearly: their aggression is not kinetic, but systemic, undermining structures and foundations of a mostly peaceful world system and introducing anarchy for their own benefit.