Dan,

As Gandolph, with extreme powers to order vast numbers of people here and there, like some medieval sultan, Yeah, that might work in a Hobbit or Harry Potter book. But in the real world, (apart from the obvious question: 'Why China ?!'), not one country in the world has ever had anything like such powers.

What do you mean by 'the whole flock' ? Including Syrians, in their infinite variety ? Including the Americans ? Kurds ? Iranians ? Russians ? Islamists ? Yazidis ? Saudis ? Turks ?

Or am I too thick to realise that you are being extremely and cleverly satirical, which everybody else is fully aware of ?

Joe

Joe.

You are too polite to be anti-anything. You are blinded by the comforts of old age and over security, which to some it brings! (I've concluded).
China is unquestionably more threatening than Syria to world peace, and to US world dominance, and should be challenged sooner rather than later, on the strength of that simplicity.

Dan,

Ah, so by 'the whole flock', you mean primarily Russia and the US ? That they both face off against China ? That Syria or ISIS or Iran or Islamism are not the main issues ? Okay, leaving ISIS and Iran and Islam generally, all aside, why should Russia join in any attack on China ? How might Trump persuade Putin to do that ?

Almost by definition, in a multi-polar political world, there are bound to be points of conflict which are especially crucial to different powers, including those between Russia and China: central Asia might become one ground for contestation. But China has concerns which do not involve or worry Russia, the South China Sea for one. And Russia has concerns which are of little interest to China, Ukraine and eastern Europe, and of course Syria. Currently, the issues that divide them are of far less salience than those which make them allies, such as US dominance or influence generally.

Or do you mean by 'the whole flock', the US and its allies generally, such as Australia ? That they should leave the Middle East alone and focus on China ?

On the other hand, if China seizes the initiative over Korea and resolves that situation, there goes any such rationale for direct action by the US against China ?

Joe

Bastard's mad. Always has been.

Sorry, EJ, which particular bastard are you referring to ?

Joe

Or do you mean by 'the whole flock', the US and its allies generally, such as Australia ? That they should leave the Middle East alone and focus on China

Yep Joe, that scenario!

And I agree with EJ...it's a mad world brimming with mad people. He may no more ignore mad people therefore, than you or I Joe!