China creates video game simulating combat against US troops

[Trakar]

Lol, man I love Americans. So one-eyed and myopic all at the same time. Yeah sure, it’s just wrong and apparently thread-worthy if China designs a game depicting the US as the “bad guys”, but a-ok if they use Taiwan, a nation they’re far more likely to be embroiled in a conflict with. USA USA USA!
.

evoking nationalistic denigrations in the same breath as condemning the evocation of nationalistic jingoism?

a most curious style of argument

 

[Cobalt]

Weaksauce kinda stuff. I don't fight countries anymore. I battle full blown species, organic or not.

 

[Nerd]

...
Lol, man I love Americans. So one-eyed and myopic all at the same time. Yeah sure, it’s just wrong and apparently thread-worthy if China designs a game depicting the US as the “bad guys”, but a-ok if they use Taiwan, a nation they’re far more likely to be embroiled in a conflict with. USA USA USA! ...

You know - I like how you accuse people of being ignorant while you generalize an entire nationality of people with certain negative traits... wait that's quite "myopic" and "one-eyed", if I might say so myself!

It wouldn't be right if it was Taiwan either. Honestly I'll spell it out for you:
1.) It's wrong for any government to do this.
2.) It's not about the US being the "victim".

 

[Nerd]

I don't really care about the video game. I don't think it matters.

Fair enough.

... But it does coincide with a very real, VERY common opinion in China, which is that they will eventually go to war with the United States. And it's not just random peasants who think that, it's a very common opinion within the military as well. And I don't just mean thinking that we're a possible adversary, or an adversary they need to be prepared to fight, I mean thinking that war is inevitable. That doesn't mean it is, that doesn't mean that they want war either. And I don't think that this video game will make any significant difference to those opinions. But it is yet one more indicator (but far from the only or most significant one) of an opinion among the Chinese that signals danger. And we should be very aware of that danger.

We're already at war with them in terms of economy, that is. In the future, there will be a possibility of war, but I doubt that it's inevitable. At this point, I don't think anyone is itching towards war.

 

[LashL]

Note to all: cool your jets, play nice, and remember the terms of the Membership Agreement to which you agreed when you signed up here.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Sceptic-PK]

You know - I like how you accuse people of being ignorant while you generalize an entire nationality of people with certain negative traits... wait that's quite "myopic" and "one-eyed", if I might say so myself!

Fair point. Obviously I don’t really think that everyone is as bad as the OP. But, this thread is indeed an example of said traits.

1.) It's wrong for any government to do this.

Why? What’s different between a country actively planning, role-playing and exercising against another country, and having that country play the same role in a computer game? If you’re a country like China, clearly the most obvious choice for the other side is the US or some other nation of comparable size, strength and technological know-how. This is a nothing subject.

2.) It's not about the US being the "victim".

I doubt the issue would have raised the ire of the OP were it not for the US’ role in the simulation.

 

[egslim]

Which is, of course, utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand

American political and military leaders cite China as a threat.

Chinese game-developers and their military sponsors picture American troops as the enemy.

It's called tit for tat.

 

[McHrozni]

If this is the case then why are Pakistan's parlement and chief of intelligence condemning the raid, and protesting all the drone missile strikes?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/15/world/la-fg-pakistan-bin-laden-20110515

Damage control, they don't want to be seen as cooperating with the US, and they want to appear strong, lest they suffer an even greater insurrection.

And how does this refute the other instances noted of attacks against nuclear powers?

You mean when you redefined the term "attacked a nuclear power" to include "having proxy fights with them"? Why would I respond to that? It's nonsense.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I read your arguments, they were nonsense.

Really. Please list two of them of your choice and specify why they are nonsense, then.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

American political and military leaders cite China as a threat.

Chinese game-developers and their military sponsors picture American troops as the enemy.

It's called tit for tat.

I happen to think this is irrelevant, but assuming you're right, do you think tit for tat escalation is fine or not?

McHrozni

 

[egslim]

I don't really care about the video game. I don't think it matters. But it does coincide with a very real, VERY common opinion in China, which is that they will eventually go to war with the United States. And it's not just random peasants who think that, it's a very common opinion within the military as well. And I don't just mean thinking that we're a possible adversary, or an adversary they need to be prepared to fight, I mean thinking that war is inevitable. That doesn't mean it is, that doesn't mean that they want war either. And I don't think that this video game will make any significant difference to those opinions. But it is yet one more indicator (but far from the only or most significant one) of an opinion among the Chinese that signals danger. And we should be very aware of that danger.

Most importantly (and to the point of my other questions to McHrozni), the Chinese don't think they are going to eventually go to war with the US, because they want to challenge the US, they think they are eventually going to go to war with the US because they rightfully fear a US invasion and attack of their nation. "Rightfully" because we have a nation full of citizens and politicians who keep threatening everyone on this planet with attack and invasion, and they see how quickly the US can mobilize on a whim and attack and invade nations on the opposite side of the planet with little or no pretext. If we stop employing rogue, loose-cannon geopolitics, and start engaging other nations in more meaningful trade, cooperation and joint-effort treaties, using diplomacy instead of gunboats, we might actually accomplish something on this mudball.

Actually I doubt Chinese leaders actually expect a real war - a repeat of the Cold War seems more likely.

But the important point is the US gives China far more cause to worry than the other way around, so you should expect blowback. And from a country with a fast-growing economy and four times your population, it could get quite nasty.

 

[McHrozni]

But the important point is the US gives China far more cause to worry than the other way around, so you should expect blowback. And from a country with a fast-growing economy and four times your population, it could get quite nasty.

You don't see the irony here do you?

McHrozni

 

[egslim]

I happen to think this is irrelevant, but assuming you're right, do you think tit for tat escalation is fine or not?

It is to be expected. As I said, if it remains restricted to computergames, count yourself lucky.

You don't see the irony here do you?

That's why it's called escalation.

Tit for tat escalation is best prevented. If not, it's easiest to stop in an early stage. Once it reaches Cold War-status it becomes very hard to get out of the cycle.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

It's just ridiculous. What's the bigger cause for concern? That pretend army men in a pretend universe are wearing US uniforms and using US equipment, or that the world's biggest army is training for conflict against the world's sole superpower?

You could re-badge the US enemy anyway you wish, and it wouldn't change the nature of the simulation.

ITT: People get upset when spade not called shovel.

 

[McHrozni]

It is to be expected. As I said, if it remains restricted to computergames, count yourself lucky.

Given the arrogance the Chinese have displayed lately, it will not. As you said later, these things are best stopped early.

That's why it's called escalation.

Tit for tat escalation is best prevented. If not, it's easiest to stop in an early stage. Once it reaches Cold War-status it becomes very hard to get out of the cycle.

You answered my question - you obviously don't see the irony in "USA presents much greater threat to the four times larger China with a fast growing economy than vice versa". Sad.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

It's just ridiculous.

Your great debating skills apperantly include insulting and acting dismissive and not much else. Can you present something resembling a coherent argument, or do I have to put you on ignore?

McHrozni

 

[egslim]

Given the arrogance the Chinese have displayed lately, it will not. As you said later, these things are best stopped early.

An American accusing another country of arrogance? That's the biggest joke I heard in a long time.

American foreign policy is the most arrogant of all countries, no contest. It claims the right to intervene militarily in countries throughout the world on flimsy pretexts. No other country even comes close.

You answered my question - you obviously don't see the irony in "USA presents much greater threat to the four times larger China with a fast growing economy than vice versa". Sad.

I don't see China as a threat, unless it's made into one.

Despite its (potential) power, China has no history of worldwide interventionism. It may intervene with its neighbours, but it tends to focus on internal matters. China was a major power before, it didn't attempt to dominate the world then either.

On the other hand, if you poke him long enough even a peaceful dragon will become angry at you.

You know what's really sad? That you feel threatened by a country for no other reason than it could become more powerful than yours. Though it's somewhat understandable. When your country has been the most powerful for so long, the prospect of losing that position must seem frightening.

 

[McHrozni]

American foreign policy is the most arrogant of all countries, no contest. It claims the right to intervene militarily in countries throughout the world on flimsy pretexts. No other country even comes close.

Red herring, even if it were true (and it's not). "America does worse anyway" is not an intelligent argument, it never was and it never will be. It's just an attempt to deflect attention away from the issue, and a pathetic one at that.

I don't see China as a threat, unless it's made into one.

Wilfull ignorance doesn't make a very persuasive argument.

Despite its (potential) power, China has no history of worldwide interventionism.

*cough*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war
*cough*

While it is true they don't intervene all over the world yet, this is mainly because they didn't have the economic capacity to do so until some 5 years ago, and they still don't have the military capacity to do so. They're building it up for precisely that purpose however. Do you live in a cave perhaps?

It may intervene with its neighbours, but it tends to focus on internal matters. China was a major power before, it didn't attempt to dominate the world then either.

Which is irrelevant.

You know what's really sad? That you feel threatened by a country for no other reason than it could become more powerful than yours.

Actually it's that China has been displaying willingness to work with literarily anyone if it suits them. They support some of the worst regimes in the world for no other reason than to either profit (Zimbabwe and it's diamonds) or to frustrate and set back their economic competitors (North Korea). It's also their virtually complete disregard for human rights in their own country and abroad. Lastly, their forcus for economic power for it's own sake has worrying implications.

This also puts your 'argument' that they don't intervene all over the world in perspective. The world has changed and military power has long since been a secondary method of foreign interference (didn't you know?). They are intervening in some places withe other means, such as throwing a lifeline to Robert Mugabe, so they can leech his country under the protection of his thugs. You may claim this is somehow better than military intervention, but given that between a quarter and a third of Zimbabwes' population fled the country due to his rule, I really don't see how you can support that with anything resembling an intelligent argument.

You may put a blindfold over your eyes, plug your ears and go "la la la, I'm not hearing you" if you want, I won't stop you. It won't prevent you from being a fool though.

McHrozni

 

[stokes234]

Actually it's that China has been displaying willingness to work with literarily anyone if it suits them. They support some of the worst regimes in the world for no other reason than to either profit (Zimbabwe and it's diamonds) or to frustrate and set back their economic competitors (North Korea). It's also their virtually complete disregard for human rights in their own country and abroad. Lastly, their forcus for economic power for it's own sake has worrying implications.

The argument that china supports north korea to avoid having an economic competitor is particularly shaky. The popular theory as I understand it is that china wants north korea to be stable because it doesn't want millions of refugees flooding over it's border with north korea.

As for selling weapons to zimbabwe, america doesn't exactly have a perfect highground position to be arguing from. America has sold weapons to the muhajideen in afghanistan, to saddam hussein, libya, saudi arabia, and many more. And americas arms exports come to what, 6 times as much as chinas?

 

[IDB87]

It's just ridiculous. What's the bigger cause for concern? That pretend army men in a pretend universe are wearing US uniforms and using US equipment, or that the world's biggest army is training for conflict against the world's sole superpower?

You could re-badge the US enemy anyway you wish, and it wouldn't change the nature of the simulation.

ITT: People get upset when spade not called shovel.

Listen, the important issue is this:

Make sure people seed.