Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Manwon Lender

Xi Jinping Urges China to Prep for 'Military Struggle' Amid Afghanistan Security Concerns

Recommended Posts

Manwon Lender

Xi on Friday said China should be prepared for "military struggle" as the United States is set to withdraw from Afghanistan by September 11 of this year. Xi made the remarks about strengthening the country's military prowess ahead of the 94th anniversary of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) formation. Beijing officials have for months expressed concerns that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is stirring up a Taliban resurgence and inviting regional instability.

Xi and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi this week said the U.S. pullout could provide Uyghur separatists with a base of terror operations in which they could conduct attacks against the CCP in the Western region of Xinjiang. The CCP's Qiushi journal noted that Xi also ordered the People's Liberation Army to be "absolutely loyal" to the Communist Party and he claimed that the country's system of absolute leadership is a military advantage for China in comparison to Western democracies.

https://www.newsweek.com/xi-jinping-urges-china-prep-military-struggle-amid-afghanistan-security-concerns-1614931

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Tatetopa

Looks like it will be China's problem.  I am just as glad we do not have the "advantage" of absolute leadership.  Lets see how well that does for them.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Looks like it will be China's problem.  I am just as glad we do not have the "advantage" of absolute leadership.  Lets see how well that does for them.

Honestly Tate, I am glad that the United States Police Force of World is bringing our soldiers home. The Nation building BS that started in the 1950s during the so called Cold War has been a failure in US policy that has only become worst and has brought the US to where we are today. It's impossible to go into a Foreign Nation to try and create a Democratic Government or any Government that is so far outside the realm of what has existed for thousands of years. 

The only way to accomplish that is with shear force and no rules of engagement that apply to the way we view moral obligations. This why our war against terror has never been able to win the hearts and minds of the people we are suppose to liberate. Our enemies use force, fear, and ruthlessness to achieve their form of control, that's why we lost in Vietnam, and across the Middle East. But, the Chinese will deal with any Terrorist Activity in the same manner that the terrorists use, so I believe they will be much more successful than we have been. 

In my opinion, if you are going to fight a war or deal with terrorists you fight according to the same rules that your enemies use against you. Now, that doesn't apply to the civilian populations, but anyone armed against you can be shown no quarter at all.

Take Care Tate!:tu: 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

Honestly Tate, I am glad that the United States Police Force of World is bringing our soldiers home. The Nation building BS that started in the 1950s during the so called Cold War has been a failure in US policy that has only become worst and has brought the US to where we are today. It's impossible to go into a Foreign Nation to try and create a Democratic Government or any Government that is so far outside the realm of what has existed for thousands of years. 

The only way to accomplish that is with shear force and no rules of engagement that apply to the way we view moral obligations. This why our war against terror has never been able to win the hearts and minds of the people we are suppose to liberate. Our enemies use force, fear, and ruthlessness to achieve their form of control, that's why we lost in Vietnam, and across the Middle East. But, the Chinese will deal with any Terrorist Activity in the same manner that the terrorists use, so I believe they will be much more successful than we have been. 

In my opinion, if you are going to fight a war or deal with terrorists you fight according to the same rules that your enemies use against you. Now, that doesn't apply to the civilian populations, but anyone armed against you can be shown no quarter at all.

Take Care Tate!:tu: 

Man who lives in South Korea calls American Interventionism bull****. 
Irony is dead.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Man who lives in South Korea calls American Interventionism bull****. 
Irony is dead.

I have every right too call American Interventionalizim a failed foreign policy. Especially since I was part of it for 23 years in the US Army and for 10 additional years as a Government Contactor working in the Middle East. 

What is truely Irony is a Australian making comments about something he was never involved in and has never seen the effects of first hand!

So the fact that I am a expatriate currently living in Korea in no way effects my comments!:yes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

I have every right too call American Interventionalizim a failed foreign policy. Especially since I was part of it for 23 years in the US Army and for 10 additional years as a Government Contactor working in the Middle East. 

What is truely Irony is a Australian making comments about something he was never involved in and has never seen the effects of first hand!

So the fact that I am a expatriate currently living in Korea in no way effects my comments!:yes:

 

No, it’s hypocritical of me. But ironic of you, because you’d not be living in a free Korea if it wasn’t for American Interventionism, because there wouldn’t be a free Korea to live in.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
22 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

No, it’s hypocritical of me. But ironic of you, because you’d not be living in a free Korea if it wasn’t for American Interventionism, because there wouldn’t be a free Korea to live in.

I never say your Hypothetical and Korea isn't free until the country is united, that is the Korea view. In my opinion interventionaism, didn't begin until after the Vietnam War. Upon until that time wars like Korea and Vietnam were fought to stop the spread of communism, they were not fought for any other reason.

If not for a communist invasion we would have never entered Korea or Vietnam. In my opinion interventionism describes Iraq, Libya, Syria and the fact that we stayed in Afghanistan after our mission was accomplished there. 

The definition of interventionism is the policy or doctrine of intervening, especially government interference in the affairs of another state without being asked by that nation to do so or in another Nations domestic economic affairs.

The above definition doesn't describe the Korean or Vietnam wars. 

JIMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
6 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

I never say your Hypothetical and Korea isn't free until the country is united, that is the Korea view. In my opinion interventionaism, didn't begin until after the Vietnam War. Upon until that time wars like Korea and Vietnam were fought to stop the spread of communism, they were not fought for any other reason.

If not for a communist invasion we would have never entered Korea or Vietnam. In my opinion interventionism describes Iraq, Libya, Syria and the fact that we stayed in Afghanistan after our mission was accomplished there. 

The definition of interventionism is the policy or doctrine of intervening, especially government interference in the affairs of another state without being asked by that nation to do so or in another Nations domestic economic affairs.

The above definition doesn't describe the Korean or Vietnam wars. 

JIMO

You've created a designer definition, carefully tailored to fit your narrative. The real definition of military interventionism is as followed:

Military interventionism definition

military intervention. The deliberate act of a nation or a group of nations to introduce its military forces into the course of an existing controversy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

You've created a designer definition, carefully tailored to fit your narrative. The real definition of military interventionism is as followed:

Military interventionism definition

military intervention. The deliberate act of a nation or a group of nations to introduce its military forces into the course of an existing controversy.

 

I created nothing I responded to term that was quoted to me and that was interventionism. I should have but, I didn't combine the terms like you have above. Your definition from The Free Dictionary is not interventionism it is actually Military intervention, but it is certainly more accurate than mine was concerning this conversation.

Here is another definition of Interventionism, I favor this over your definition because it is more defined. 

An act needs to be coercive in nature to be considered interventionism. In other words, an intervention is defined as a threatening act that is unwelcome by the target of one’s intervention. Aggressiveness is also central to the concept of interventionism in foreign affairs: an interventionist action always operates under the threat of violence.

However, not all aggressive acts on the part of a government are interventionist. Defensive warfare within a country’s own legal jurisdiction is not interventionist in nature, even if it involves employing violence to alter the behaviour of another country. A country needs both to act outside its boundaries and to threaten force in order to be an agent of interventionism. 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/interventionism

Edited by Manwon Lender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

I created nothing I responded to term that was quoted to me and that was interventionism. I should have but, I didn't combine the terms like you have above. Your definition from The Free Dictionary is not interventionism it is actually Military intervention, but it is certainly more accurate than mine was concerning this conversation.

Here is another definition of Interventionism, I favor this over your definition because it is more defined. 

An act needs to be coercive in nature to be considered interventionism. In other words, an intervention is defined as a threatening act that is unwelcome by the target of one’s intervention. Aggressiveness is also central to the concept of interventionism in foreign affairs: an interventionist action always operates under the threat of violence.

However, not all aggressive acts on the part of a government are interventionist. Defensive warfare within a country’s own legal jurisdiction is not interventionist in nature, even if it involves employing violence to alter the behaviour of another country. A country needs both to act outside its boundaries and to threaten force in order to be an agent of interventionism. 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/interventionism

Perhaps all true, but in your previous post your examples were all military in nature. Any act, invited or uninvited, by a one party impacting the national or internal affairs of another party, constitutes intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
8 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Perhaps all true, but in your previous post your examples were all military in nature. Any act, invited or uninvited, by a one party impacting the national or internal affairs of another party, constitutes intervention.

My comments were based upon post 4 by Sir Wearer of Hats, and post 2 by Tatetopia and yes my comments were Military in Nature and this thread is also Military in nature. According to the link I provided for you therec is a much more complete definition of the Interventionism that go's beyond the definition of single sentence. However, in all honesty to me Military Interventionism means an univited incursion or invasion, I am aware this does certainly not completely agree with definitions. 

But, this is what my response originally was based upon in my earlier posts. I am tired of the US Governments failed Foreign Policies concerning Nation Building and acting as the Worlds Police Force. These policy decisions have cost the lives of too many American Soldiers, in my opinion it's time to the let the World Police itself. The only interventionism I agree with is in support of our allies if they are threatened or attacked. 

That pretty well sums up my thoughts on the subject, you can claim victory in this discussion! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grey Area
3 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

My comments were based upon post 4 by Sir Wearer of Hats, and post 2 by Tatetopia and yes my comments were Military in Nature and this thread is also Military in nature. According to the link I provided for you therec is a much more complete definition of the Interventionism that go's beyond the definition of single sentence. However, in all honesty to me Military Interventionism means an univited incursion or invasion, I am aware this does certainly not completely agree with definitions. 

But, this is what my response originally was based upon in my earlier posts. I am tired of the US Governments failed Foreign Policies concerning Nation Building and acting as the Worlds Police Force. These policy decisions have cost the lives of too many American Soldiers, in my opinion it's time to the let the World Police itself. The only interventionism I agree with is in support of our allies if they are threatened or attacked. 

That pretty well sums up my thoughts on the subject, you can claim victory in this discussion! 

Here’s a piece from a brilliant stand up, it’s controversial I guess to anyone stateside with an ounce of patriotism, but you can’t fault the logic.  I’m not judging, my country was ‘intervening’ before America was a single colony.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Golden Duck
On 8/1/2021 at 7:15 PM, Manwon Lender said:

I created nothing I responded to term that was quoted to me and that was interventionism. I should have but, I didn't combine the terms like you have above. Your definition from The Free Dictionary is not interventionism it is actually Military intervention, but it is certainly more accurate than mine was concerning this conversation.

Here is another definition of Interventionism, I favor this over your definition because it is more defined. 

An act needs to be coercive in nature to be considered interventionism. In other words, an intervention is defined as a threatening act that is unwelcome by the target of one’s intervention. Aggressiveness is also central to the concept of interventionism in foreign affairs: an interventionist action always operates under the threat of violence.

However, not all aggressive acts on the part of a government are interventionist. Defensive warfare within a country’s own legal jurisdiction is not interventionist in nature, even if it involves employing violence to alter the behaviour of another country. A country needs both to act outside its boundaries and to threaten force in order to be an agent of interventionism. 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/interventionism

You can't really blame someone inferring police action when you state "United States Police Force of World is bringing our soldiers home."  I understand that the conflicts you raised to were at sometime characterised as police actions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
On 8/3/2021 at 9:22 AM, Golden Duck said:

You can't really blame someone inferring police action when you state "United States Police Force of World is bringing our soldiers home."  I understand that the conflicts you raised to were at sometime characterised as police actions.

I certainly dont blame anyone for calling most of the conflicts police action or Nation Building because most actually were, and the policies failed. Like I said I would like to see our soldiers come home from there, the enemy will never be destroyed because the US Government has choose not to do that, and Iraq is exactly the same way. After all we have done and all the lives lost, the only positive thing that came from any of was the death of Osama Bin Laden. 

Peace Bro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.