"“Biden and previous administrations have been too much influenced by
the domestic aspects of the view of China,” Kissinger, 99, said in an interview Tuesday in New York with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait. “It is, of course, important to prevent Chinese or any
other country’s hegemony.”
But “that is not something that can be achieved by endless confrontations,” he added in the interview produced by Intelligence
Squared US and How To Academy. He’s previously said the increasingly adversarial relations between the US and China risk a global
“catastrophe comparable to World War I.”"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kissinger-warns-biden-against-endless-confrontation-with-china/ar-AAZL2VS
Kissinger, nevertheless, agrees that it is important to prevent
Chinese or any other country's hegemony. US hegemony good. Chinese
hegemony bad. But why? […[
ltlee1 wrote:
"“Biden and previous administrations have been too much influenced by the domestic aspects of the view of China,” Kissinger, 99, said in an interview Tuesday in New York with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait. “It is, of course, important to prevent Chinese or any other country’s hegemony.”
But “that is not something that can be achieved by endless confrontations,” he added in the interview produced by Intelligence Squared US and How To Academy. He’s previously said the increasingly adversarial relations between the US and China risk a global “catastrophe comparable to World War I.”"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kissinger-warns-biden-against-endless-confrontation-with-china/ar-AAZL2VS
Kissinger, nevertheless, agrees that it is important to prevent
Chinese or any other country's hegemony. US hegemony good. Chinese
hegemony bad. But why? […[
A short _cynical_ version: Because he is usanesse? :-)
--
A. Filip : Big (Tech) Brother is watching you.
| All the taxes paid over a lifetime by the average American are
| spent by the government in less than a second. (Jim Fiebig)
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 2:54:36 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
ltlee1 wrote:
"“Biden and previous administrations have been too much influenced by
the domestic aspects of the view of China,” Kissinger, 99, said in an
interview Tuesday in New York with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John
Micklethwait. “It is, of course, important to prevent Chinese or any
other country’s hegemony.”
But “that is not something that can be achieved by endless
confrontations,” he added in the interview produced by Intelligence
Squared US and How To Academy. He’s previously said the increasingly
adversarial relations between the US and China risk a global
“catastrophe comparable to World War I.”"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kissinger-warns-biden-against-endless-confrontation-with-china/ar-AAZL2VS
Kissinger, nevertheless, agrees that it is important to prevent
Chinese or any other country's hegemony. US hegemony good. Chinese
hegemony bad. But why? […[
A short _cynical_ version: Because he is usanesse? :-)
If this kind of answer is considered legitimate, then Sino-US was is inevitable.
ltlee1 wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 2:54:36 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
ltlee1 wrote:
"“Biden and previous administrations have been too much influenced by >> > the domestic aspects of the view of China,” Kissinger, 99, said in an >> > interview Tuesday in New York with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John >> > Micklethwait. “It is, of course, important to prevent Chinese or any >> > other country’s hegemony.”
But “that is not something that can be achieved by endless
confrontations,” he added in the interview produced by Intelligence >> > Squared US and How To Academy. He’s previously said the increasingly >> > adversarial relations between the US and China risk a global
“catastrophe comparable to World War I.”"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kissinger-warns-biden-against-endless-confrontation-with-china/ar-AAZL2VS
Kissinger, nevertheless, agrees that it is important to prevent
Chinese or any other country's hegemony. US hegemony good. Chinese
hegemony bad. But why? […[
A short _cynical_ version: Because he is usanesse? :-)
If this kind of answer is considered legitimate, then Sino-US was is inevitable.This kind of answer is illegitimate but it is based on "interests of the speaker".
It is easier to see what you want to see.
It is a theater played (also) for *third* parties.
Do you expect me to treat *also* your posts not like statements of *interested* party? You may dream.
On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 11:28:50 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
ltlee1 wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 2:54:36 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:This kind of answer is illegitimate but it is based on "interests of the speaker".
ltlee1 wrote:
"“Biden and previous administrations have been too much influenced by >> >> > the domestic aspects of the view of China,” Kissinger, 99, said in an >> >> > interview Tuesday in New York with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John >> >> > Micklethwait. “It is, of course, important to prevent Chinese or any >> >> > other country’s hegemony.”
But “that is not something that can be achieved by endless
confrontations,” he added in the interview produced by Intelligence >> >> > Squared US and How To Academy. He’s previously said the increasingly >> >> > adversarial relations between the US and China risk a global
“catastrophe comparable to World War I.”"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kissinger-warns-biden-against-endless-confrontation-with-china/ar-AAZL2VS
Kissinger, nevertheless, agrees that it is important to prevent
Chinese or any other country's hegemony. US hegemony good. Chinese
hegemony bad. But why? […[
A short _cynical_ version: Because he is usanesse? :-)
If this kind of answer is considered legitimate, then Sino-US was is inevitable.
It is easier to see what you want to see.
It is a theater played (also) for *third* parties.
Do you expect me to treat *also* your posts not like statements of
*interested* party? You may dream.
Of course everyone, Kissinger, you or me, has he or her opinion based on interest.
It is Kissinger's interest to think and suggest "US hegemony good. Chinese hegemony bad"
because he is American.
But is this reality based thinking or just wishful thinking?
ltlee1 wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 11:28:50 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:
ltlee1 wrote:
On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 2:54:36 PM UTC-4, A. Filip wrote:This kind of answer is illegitimate but it is based on "interests of the speaker".
ltlee1 wrote:
"“Biden and previous administrations have been too much influenced by
the domestic aspects of the view of China,” Kissinger, 99, said in an
interview Tuesday in New York with Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John
Micklethwait. “It is, of course, important to prevent Chinese or any
other country’s hegemony.”
But “that is not something that can be achieved by endless
confrontations,” he added in the interview produced by Intelligence
Squared US and How To Academy. He’s previously said the increasingly
adversarial relations between the US and China risk a global
“catastrophe comparable to World War I.”"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/kissinger-warns-biden-against-endless-confrontation-with-china/ar-AAZL2VS
Kissinger, nevertheless, agrees that it is important to prevent
Chinese or any other country's hegemony. US hegemony good. Chinese >> >> > hegemony bad. But why? […[
A short _cynical_ version: Because he is usanesse? :-)
If this kind of answer is considered legitimate, then Sino-US was is inevitable.
It is easier to see what you want to see.
It is a theater played (also) for *third* parties.
Do you expect me to treat *also* your posts not like statements of
*interested* party? You may dream.
Of course everyone, Kissinger, you or me, has he or her opinion based on interest.
It is Kissinger's interest to think and suggest "US hegemony good. Chinese hegemony bad"
because he is American.
But is this reality based thinking or just wishful thinking?As in most cases it is a mix of both. We are unlikely+ to agree on
_exact_ proportions because it is for many people (personal) opinion based. "Good" is so "imprecise", ask Good for WHOM, based on WHAT criteria,
WHEN and HOW MUCH. Isn't it in US interest to "over emphasize" good consequences of US hegemony?
Was US co-hegemony good for China when US military "visited" Beijing in 1900?
Has it stayed in the same position for over a century?
Be careful forcing (big) "not a friend" into plain enemy.
Dose "unfriendliness" carefully. Kissinger words may be interpreted this
way too.
<irony? US brings freedom and democracy to the world even if "sometimes"
it is "freedom and democracy" of Saudi Kingdom or Sisi Egypt. </irony>
[…]
If one thinks purely in term of interest, there is no friend or enemy.
For friend or enemy to be meaningful beyond transactional, value must also
be invoked.
America's Middle East policy cannot balance its "freedom and democracy"
value against interest. Hence the the "freedom and democracy" of Saudi Kingdom or al Sisi Egypt.
Is America's "freedom and democracy" value really universal?
Similarly, is America's "US hegemony good. Chinese hegemony bad"
really universal? If so, why?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 483 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 156:01:27 |
| Calls: | 9,594 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 13,676 |
| Messages: | 6,148,865 |
| Posted today: | 4 |