"I ask what wars have the Chinese been responsible for, none."

The Taiwanese will be relieved to hear that.

But then the Vietnamese who had to fight off the Chinese in 1979 will be surprised that the war they fought in apparently didn't happen. As will the Tibetans.

Still, what's a bit of re-writing of history when defending the communist brethren?

Paul’s right that America’s record of interventions is long and bloody. But “China’s never been responsible for war” just won’t wash - ask Vietnam in 1979, Tibet in the ’50s, or anyone staring down the Taiwan Strait.

Neither superpower is clean.

And therein lies the dilemma for Australia: we sit between a trigger-happy ally and an authoritarian trading partner. How we navigate that tension is the strategic question.

Which is why it’s telling, mhaze, that when Paul raised the hard part - how do we engage China? - your contributions were “Not” and “No.” When it came to substance, silence; when it came to a slip-up, suddenly you’re animated.

How opportunistic.

Jeffrey Sachs:
"Let me tell you something about China's overseas military adventures.
It's easy. I'm going to give you 2,000 years of China's overseas military adventures. I'm done. There have never been Chinese overseas military adventures."

http://www.youtube.com/live/1E0Rf6M4068?t=2097

"How we navigate that tension is the strategic question."
- Neutrality.

America is circling the drain and couldn't protect us anyway, and the situation will only get worse.
http://www.youtube.com/@SeanFooGold/videos

G'day John,

I stand corrected, I concede China's annexation of Tibet was inexcusable, not so much a war as the Tibetans "agreed" to it, but certainly under duress. The brief China/Vietnam war in 1979, like all wars was inexcusable, China had no justification for its actions, although they claimed it was in response to Vietnams invasion of Cambodia to oust the Khmer Rouge regime. There also have been boarder disputes with India and others going on to this day, also questionable.

The situation with Taiwan is complex, China views Taiwan, as Australia views Tasmania. I actually have a good Taiwanese friend living in Sydney. Of course her major worry is the safety of her family back home, she is anti communist, but also has relatives living on the mainland, she doesn't want anything to happen to them, with a big war. I agree with her that Taiwan, because there is a communist regime on the mainland, should be an independent country. My friend would be happy for Taiwan to be part of greater China,if it wasn't for the Communist's being in power. Interestingly she sees America as a threat as well, believing they don't care about her people, but use them to "Make trouble with China".

As for Australia, I believe, and have since my youth, that we should be a nonaligned country, having good relations with all other nations where possible. I agree mostly, with the Albanese governments approach to international affairs, including our relationship with China. I don't agree with out relationship with America, i think it is to close and very dangerous, will drag us into an unwanted war again, sometime in the future.

JD,

Your poor comprehension skills on display again.

"when Paul raised the hard part - how do we engage China?"

Paul asked two questions..."Treat the Chinaman fair, and he's treat you fairly in return." I don't know if that's true or not." and "Are you suggesting we sever all ties with China?"

I answered each with alacrity and succinctness.

My own views on China? We should sell them anything they want to buy. Treat them as the threat to world peace they are. And prepare for their inevitable economic collapse by getting ever closer, economically, to India.

Credit to you, Paul. Unlike mhaze, you can actually concede a point and keep building the argument.

I’d only add that nonalignment is easier said than done. Australia’s security guarantee has always been tied to the US, and breaking that would be seismic. The real challenge is finding room to engage China constructively without being cornered into dependence - and doing that while still leveraging the US alliance without being dragged into another misadventure.

That’s the tightrope, and no amount of wishing away America will change that.
___

"Again," mhaze?

//Your poor comprehension skills on display again.//

You need a first time for "again."

//I answered each with alacrity and succinctness.//

So now we’re told “Not” and “No” were masterclasses in succinctness, not evasions. That’s some creative rebranding, mhaze.

At least you’ve finally offered a position:

//We should sell them anything they want to buy. Treat them as the threat to world peace they are. And prepare for their inevitable economic collapse by getting ever closer, economically, to India.//

Trouble is, those don’t sit neatly together.

If you genuinely see them as the world’s greatest threat, “anything they want to buy” is the opposite of a strategy - it’s fuelling the very danger you claim to fear.

And as for China's ‘inevitable collapse’? We’ve been hearing that prediction for 30 years. Maybe it will happen, maybe it won’t.

But planning our future on the assumption that our biggest threat will just conveniently fall over isn’t strategy, it’s denial.