| ▲ | Shin-- 3 days ago |
| Good. Unsurprising (well, known), but good. In fact, the world would be a better place if the US would not use their influence to try to keep other countries down. |
|
| ▲ | tonyhart7 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| "In fact, the world would be a better place if the US would not use their influence to try to keep other countries down." acting like china wouldn't doing the same thing to other country if they ever weld such position every great power would do the same thing to defend their position, its not unique to the US. only because current incumbent power is we see things this way |
| |
| ▲ | epolanski 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | When china will do it, I'll judge them for it. | |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If I don't make the world worse then someone else will is such a depressing state of affairs. If that's the mentality, then what's worth fighting over? We should give up because we don't even deserve the rewards. | | |
| ▲ | rangestransform 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | we shouldn't give up securing resources for ourselves, our loved ones, and our nations | |
| ▲ | tonyhart7 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | "If I don't make the world worse then someone else will is such a depressing state of affairs." its not make the world worse but simply take what matters to your group does that evil??? hmmm noo, people call it patriotism what do you think entire US military base reside in 80% of the world btw????? does US military doing picnic on these country????? I can tell you answer but some people didn't want to confront reality and would be downvote me to hell but in the end someone gotta to do it |
| |
| ▲ | throawayonthe 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | china's global status was obtained very differently from the US, its material interests and levers of influence are different if china was in the same position as the us it would just be the us; obviously this is not inherent to nationality, but material conditions |
|
|
| ▲ | sneak 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Don’t hate the player, hate the game. |
| |
| ▲ | esafak 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The player has the power to change the game. | | |
| ▲ | nish__ 3 days ago | parent [-] | | That is just not true. The referees have the power to change the game. The fans have the power to change the game. The owners and the commissioners have the power to change the game. The players have no power at all. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | watwut 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| China banned them tho. |
| |
| ▲ | Matl 3 days ago | parent [-] | | China banned them AFTER the US first banned them and then unbanned them and a series of unfriendly trade moves by the US. This discussion where China is always purely dishonest, bad etc. without any context is honestly lame. The Chinese ban is largely a political move designed to signal that they're not going to be pushed around. They pretty much know companies are using them, (and H100 in Thailand etc.) but as long as it sends a message and over time incentives domestic development, (which it does), then good as far as they're concerned. It's certainly better than the EU just rolling over for King Donald, which as a EU citizen is embarrassing. | | |
| ▲ | sofixa 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > It's certainly better than the EU just rolling over for King Donald, which as a EU citizen is embarrassing. I'm seeing it more as buying time thing. In sourcing as much as possible in the EU is already in progress, as well as various trade agreements with different countries and economic blocs. That doesn't mean it isn't preferable to play nice with the demented guy to make the transition less painful in the short term. | | |
| ▲ | Matl 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The problem is, the EU is damaging its relationships with countries like China and India etc. too, rather than building strategic alliances, On diplomatic trips, it often 'lectures' others, rather than listens. I think the EU is less and less liked by these other countries too, which is a disastrous combination when coupled with where the US is at imo. | | |
| ▲ | sofixa 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > On diplomatic trips, it often 'lectures' others, rather than listens. Like when? | | |
| ▲ | Matl a day ago | parent [-] | | i.e. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/kaja-kallas-history/ - or from the Chinese side
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202509/1342651.shtml This is not good diplomacy. | | |
| ▲ | sofixa a day ago | parent [-] | | Chinese propaganda full of nonsense falsehoods isn't better diplomacy either. > Guo noted that the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression was an important part of the World Anti-Fascist War. 80 years ago, the Chinese people made tremendous national sacrifices to save human civilization Lol, that particular part is hilarious. Imperial Japan wasn't drastically different in terms of governance compared to Chiang's or Mao's China. All three were pretty brutal anti-democratic regimes. Chiang had pretty clear fascist inspirations too. > showed a lack of basic historical knowledge Indeed, Chinese propaganda doesn't concern itself with historical knowledge. Those are the same people who imagine claims to half of Southeast Asia. But China is a bit like Russia, their foreign minister blabbers nonsense, but that doesn't prevent actual trade or deal making. | | |
| ▲ | Matl a day ago | parent [-] | | I don't think I ever saw a more illiterate comment in my life. | | |
| ▲ | sofixa a day ago | parent [-] | | Why? Neither Chiang nor Mao were fighting "the anti-fascist war". Both were more interested in fighting each other, for starters. Imperial Japan being considered fascist is also quite the stretch. And importantly, neither of the two/myriad of Chinese entities was fighting "to preserve human civilisation". When they were fighting the Japanese for a change, it was because the Japanese were attacking them. The article tries to position China as some "was fighting for good in WW2 so it's unfair to say current China is autocratic with it's buddies in NK and Russia". Even if it were true thay China was fighting for a good cause in WW2 (extremely debatable), doesn't in the slightest change the fact that today, China is an autocratic regime. How long is Xi's term? How long has he been in power? For how long will he be in power? It's the same story as Putin. China's foreign minister might bitch about it all he wants, it's nothing but the truth. You can consider that autocratic regimes aren't inherently bad, and that's a debate to be had about upsides and downsides. But it is categorically nonsense to pretend that China isn't autocratic. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Paradigma11 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Especially since the demented guys public support seems to be in freefall. Why not wait a year and kick him when he is down on the ground. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | remarkEon 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s debatable whether it’s a better use of US power and resources to try to stop PRC from obtaining these chips versus, say, sinking the Chinese fishing fleets actively wrecking entire ecosystems. I probably agree with you that on balance working on the later problem has a higher long term ROI. |
|
| ▲ | pembrook 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I agree that a fair playing field for everyone would be the ideal state. But let's not pretend China doesn't use their influence to keep other countries down as well, and let's not pretend they allow a fair playing field for foreign competitors domestically either. The US would not have imposed these targeted sanctions if China simply wanted to fairly compete in the marketplace. |
| |
| ▲ | dlisboa 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The US sanctions have nothing to do with free market maximalism. I thought that was quite obvious historically and specially now. They've imposed tariffs on literally every country on the planet. | | |
| ▲ | verdverm 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Tariffs are applied to countries that we are "ripping off", if King Donald's definition is used consistently for every country. If we had a surplus, you still get a 10% tariff that Americans have to pay... | |
| ▲ | pembrook 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's my fault for wading into a political discussion on a forum of react developers. That's on me. But the "banned" chips this article is referring to and the original chips act is from the Biden administration, having nothing to do with the current tariff climate. Also, obviously US actions have nothing to do with free market maximalism. Nor does China feel that way either. Which is my point. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | xadhominemx 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| China has promised to wage war and forcibly subjugate Taiwan, a democratic ally and critical trade partner. If China backed off Taiwan for a few decades, I think the US would drop export controls. |
| |
| ▲ | dialectical 3 days ago | parent [-] | | >If China backed off Taiwan for a few decades, I think the US would drop export controls. Total historical illiteracy. if only there was an island nation immediately southeast of the US we could look to for information on how America treats countries that try the whole "back off" thing |
|
