"So now we’re told “Not” and “No” were masterclasses in succinctness,"

When Paul asked if I thought we should "sever all ties with China? " which part of my one word answer went over your head?

"it’s fuelling the very danger you claim to fear."

Didn't use the word "fear". Comprehension again!!

And how is selling them the stuff they need to build windmills and apartments towers fuelling the danger? If we stopped selling to every nation that might be a threat, we'd be in serious economic trouble... or should I say MORE serious economic trouble.

This'll probably be misunderstood, but there is a very good argument that the west threatening to cut off Japan's access to markets (and sometimes doing so) around the late 30s and early 40s, was a proximate cause for the outbreak of the Pacific theatre of WW2. And cutting off China's access to the markets they need for resources and food, would invite them to do what they are now just threatening to do.

mhaze,

You called China “the threat to world peace” - that’s stronger than “fear,” so quibbling over the wording doesn’t rescue you.

Still no comprehension issues on this end.

As for “sell them anything they want,” you’ve just admitted trade access shapes power. Your own Japan example shows it. Which means exports aren’t neutral - they’re leverage, they’re fuel, they’re strategic. You can’t have it both ways: either trade empowers the very threat you described, or you recognise it as a tool that has to be managed carefully.

And that’s the real point. Nobody’s arguing for cutting off trade entirely. The argument is whether “anything they want” is smart when dealing with a regime you call the gravest threat to peace.

That’s not “misunderstanding,” it’s holding you to the contradiction you’d rather dodge.

Sadly you utterly misunderstood the Japan example. If you cut nations off from the resources they need then you simply encourage them to seek those resources by other means. Can't dumb it down any further than that.

Ditto with China. Their entire economic system is utterly reliant on world trade and the freedom of the oceans that Pax America has created. Cut them off from resources and food and you simply encourage them to do that which they don't need too much encouragement to do anyway.

As to fear, I don't fear China. I think that in the event of war over Formosa they and their society will be in for a severe spanking. But war is never the preferred outcome and should always be avoided where possible. Churchill..."its better to jaw jaw than war war."

mhaze,

Now you’ve invented a false choice: either (a) cut China off entirely or (b) “sell them anything they want.”

Nobody here is calling for an embargo, but nobody serious thinks “anything they want” is strategy. The whole game is in the calibration - what, how much, and under what conditions.

And your own Japan example proves it.

You say cutting Japan off pushed them to war - which only shows that trade access isn’t neutral, it’s strategic. Vulnerability cuts both ways. Pretending otherwise is the real misunderstanding here.

As for “can’t dumb it down further,” that’s not statesmanship, that’s a sulk. And the “spanking” line? You’ve now called China both the gravest threat to world peace and a paper tiger you don’t fear.

That’s not Churchill, that’s chest-thumping contradiction.

What a tangle you've got yourself in!

Hi John,

I fear wars of all descriptions, I believe there is just as much a likelihood of a war involving Australia, brought on by America, they have form there, as there is one started by China. On nonalignment; If you go out in the storm, then its much more difficult to protect yourself from its effects, than if you stayed at home in the first place. Like the child, there comes a time when it has to be weaned off the titty, Australia is 124 years old and still relying on Mummy Americas breast milk!

Did you know the Trumpster owns a coffee shop, the 'KKK', his best customer was a Chinese fella who came in every morning, and bought 10 cups of coffee, Trumpster would present the fella with his 10 cups, then adds the parting words; "Now F off chink, and I'll see ya tomorrow." Well a new coffee shop called the 'Warm & Friendly' opened up a month ago opposite Trumpsters KKK establishment. The Trumpster can't figure out why he hasn't seen his best customer for the past month, must be on holidays back in China, or whatever!

"Now you’ve invented a false choice: either (a) cut China off entirely or (b) “sell them anything they want.”"

I never said cut China off. That was Paul. Do try to keep up. But then that's your schtick isn't it. Completely misrepresent what I say and then tell me how wrong the misrepresented views are. Do you think that works?

"which only shows that trade access isn’t neutral, it’s strategic."

So what? I say make the strategic decision to sell them anything they want.

You know you've not voiced an opinion here, merely tried to mispresent my and then critique that misrepresentation. So it seems you're the one in favour of cutting them off completely.