Finestkind
OK, going off topic into the History of the World Volume I.
Originally Posted by
finestkind
However, ask those involved in Vietnam and the ME just what they think about being there in defence of their country. A fair percentage have questioned the reason why.
I have not queried that, and am proud of my service.
Originally Posted by
finestkind
Even the "young " US with its isolation stand prior to WW11 has become a modern version of colonisation.
Boy, don't tell the Yanks that! The US rallied against European/Brit colonisation post-WWII for nearly two decades, probably justifiably. However, the US later did get bogged down in SVN, ME and Stan extending their initial concepts from support and short shock-and-awe conflicts into endless occupation with no credible endstate and no out clause.
Originally Posted by
finestkind
Asking what China's endgame is rhetorical. It is world domination. Whether through military might or economic power becomes a moot point. As stated, this has been reflected through history in invasion, colonisation or economic power (East Indian Trading Company being a prime example). History repeating itself?.
Agree, yes it is world domination - and China has always played the long game. When you visit China, they love to talk of 5,000 years of history. And they build infrastructure (I saw flyovers out in the countryside) that would join with motorways to be built in 10-20 years time. They are building power stations at an incredible rate, and will have long-term power as we in the West continue with our madness pursuing green solar panels and windmills (built in China of course). They truly look beyond our Western 3-4 year election cycle.
However, I don't agree with your retrospective view of history - invasion and colonisation. It was what it was, we can't go back, but this was progress - and we can argue whether for better or worse - that without that history and the Industrial Revolution, we would never have reached the pinocle of civilisation that the Western era has given. And that level of world stabilisation allowed, for instance, international dialogue between nations, security pacts, trade agreements, and the eventual decolonising of large parts of continents. But back on topic, I don't think Chinese hegemony will produce such a balanced and fair outcome.
cheers