Mr O,

I don't for one minute doubt that you mean well.
And I apologise for having called you a troll
earlier. I was having an off-day. But that's no
excuse. Anyway, I shall keep my fingers crossed
that we shall all get through this.

I do respect the knowledge that you've acquired.

Dear Mr. Opinion,

«Giving sanctuary to Chinese fleeing China has not only angered the CCP»

It angered no one, quite the contrary. The CCP has eyes on Australia for decades, it wants our land and our natural resources which they need, not because of what we do or don't. Even when they show an angry face, beneath that mask they are actually smiling for the easy pretext they got to attack us - but do not be deluded: they will attack anyway, with or without pretexts!

http://fablesofaesop.com/the-wolf-and-the-lamb.html

The lamb's best strategy in Aesop's fable, is to swallow something that would give the wolf stomach-cramps if it is eaten.

Our best strategy, for the time-being until we finally catch up and obtain our own nukes and biological weapons for a meaningful second-strike, is to mine this continent, making sure that if we are defeated, nothing will be left for them here, that the level of radioactivity would be so high that nobody will be able to live or extract ores in here. Unlike Hitler who acted solely on emotions, the Chinese are very practical people who act on profits - and it is quite un-Confuscian to invest in attacking in situations from which one cannot gain.

Hi Mr O and Foxy,

I agree there is some evidence to suggest China as a growing power in the world is attempting to increase its sphere of influence. I do not believe Australia is best served by opting for an aggressive response, and by default being seen as a toady of the United States. The US has for the past 75 years done nothing else except aggressively exert its influence over the whole world, both militarily and economically. The dangers of the US "Military-Industrial Complex" was warned of as far back as 1961 by none other than Dwight D. Eisenhower. The Soviet Union was a necessity for the MIC to justify massive US government expenditure on proxy wars. With the downfall of the USSR a new bogeyman was needed to destabilise the world, and justify that massive US arms spending, and we now have that in China.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-jvHynP9Y

Yuyutsu wrote: “Unlike Hitler who acted solely on emotions, the Chinese are very practical people who act on profits - and it is quite un-Confuscian to invest in attacking in situations from which one cannot gain.”

The above is stereotyping and wrong.

If Hitler had operated solely on emotion he never would have gained power. He was a calculating person who was expert at stirring the emotions of the others.

Mao’s Great Leap Forward was one of the most impractical acts in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

“Mao decreed increased efforts to multiply grain yields and bring industry to the countryside. Local officials fearful of Anti-Rightist Campaigns and competed to fulfill or over-fulfill quotas based on Mao's exaggerated claims, collecting "surpluses" that in fact did not exist and leaving farmers to starve. Higher officials did not dare to report the economic disaster caused by these policies, and national officials, blaming bad weather for the decline in food output, took little or no action. The Great Leap resulted in tens of millions of deaths,[1] with estimates ranging between 18 million and 45 million deaths,[2] making the Great Chinese Famine the largest in human history.”

Some Chinese are practical. Other Chinese are not so practical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius

“The philosophy of Confucius, also known as Confucianism, emphasized personal and governmental morality, correctness of social relationships, justice, kindness, and sincerity.”

“Confucius's principles have commonality with Chinese tradition and belief. He championed strong family loyalty, ancestor veneration, and respect of elders by their children and of husbands by their wives, recommending family as a basis for ideal government. He espoused the well-known principle "Do not do unto others what you do not want done to yourself", the Golden Rule. He is also a traditional deity in Daoism.”

https://chinatxt.sitehost.iu.edu/Analects_of_Confucius_(Eno-2015).pdf

The above url points to Confucius Analects. They are worth reading.
Perhaps you have confused Confucius with Sun Tzu who wrote the Art of War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu

I notice China's mouthpiece The Global Times didn't lash out the instance Scott Morrison announced formally that he would give sanctuary to Chinese wanting to flee to Australia through his let's call it 'Hong Kong Initiative' to not confuse it with China's 'Belt and Road Initiative'.

I think this means China has stopped talking and is going to take action against Australia for undermining the Chinese nation-state.

I wonder what's coming. Something horrible I'm guessing.

No offence, Mr O, but I think your understanding of international relations needs some work.

What is the CCP going to do to us, besides economic retaliation?

Do you honestly think that Australia cannot go on without Chinese money?

You need to toughen up, or explain exactly what the CCP is going to do to us beyond your simplistic summary that we are all .......

What I say, and I don't need to wait to 20 years of new academic work on understanding China like some here seem to want, is that the response by the West will be in accordance to the threat raised by the CCP. It could be sooner rather later, but we shall see how dumb the CCP is.

Rather than your defeatist scenario, which has no real basis of reality, Australia/the West would be more likely to go on war footing with US forces based here long before China gets anywhere near us, or beyond the countries between it and us.

IN this era of incredible telecommunications, I think the West would have a good grasp of any CCP military build up or any bid to destroy the Australian economy which has huge Western foreign investment.

I think you are capable of better, so look forward to more sensible contributions from yourself.

But I do like your humour.