TED Conversations

pat gilbert

TEDCRED 100+

This conversation is closed.

How likely is it that China will go to war as a solution to their current and future economic problems?

Countries often use war as a diversion to their economic problems?

Share:

Closing Statement from pat gilbert

The consensus is that China will not go to war.

Not sure how predictable this subject is though.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jan 16 2014: Hi Pat.Were you thinking of any particular country that China would wage war with when you frame the question?
    • thumb
      Jan 16 2014: No

      Although Japan probably is the most hated, for good reason, but that is not going to happen, I hope.
      • thumb
        Jan 17 2014: Who would you think could be a possible target and for what reasons? Like name a few countries that you think might get invaded by China.
        • thumb
          Jan 17 2014: I hadn't thought about what country, just the reason.
      • thumb
        Jan 18 2014: “ I hadn't thought about what country, just the reason.”

        You are interesting , since you just ran your assumption on Chinese, why did you raise the question as "How likely is it that CHINA will go to war as a solution to their current and future economic problems?" but not "How likely is it that JAPAN will go to war as a solution to their current and future economic problems?" Many Japanese also hate you American due to the American Air force base in Okinawa?
        • thumb
          Jan 18 2014: I'm shocked that the world does not love America.
      • thumb
        Jan 19 2014: Please don't get me wrong, I like America because you have many amazing traits,but I think if some Americans are less arrogant and violent, folksier and with more conscience in handling some matters, you will be accepted by more people.
        • thumb
          Jan 19 2014: color me obsequious
        • thumb
          Jan 19 2014: Yoka, I am not saying that you are wrong ... I agree.

          The only place this could occur is on the world stage. So the players must be our leaders and those who represent the USA.

          Specifically the President and the former and current Secretary of State.

          You are to kind to state the obvious ... I am not.

          Having identified the players, I must also state that nations have agendas and those agendas seldom change with new leadership. We are indeed lacking leadership and diplomatic relations in our foreign policy. This was established in the primaries that this weakness existed. The American people decided that it was not important .... and now the media has sided with the administration and down plays the importance also.

          This week the Senate investigation found that the State Department (Hillary Clinton) was directly responsible for Benghazi. And as the mid term elections come close the democrats are distancing themselves from the President. The new Secretary of State continues to make our friends angry at us .. and Putin continues to spank us on the world stage and by strange coincidence also saving Obamas legacy ... to which Obama fails to recognize.

          So I am not for sure we would be more accepted ... there would be less political cartoons about the Prince of Fools ... him going down with the US Ship of State ... bowing to Kings ... Liar of the Year ... etc ...

          The fact is that when you are on top ... everyone gets a shot at you. As you say some make it easier and provide more targets.

          We are accepted because we travel and throw money ... we give nations (who hate us) billions of dollars ... we are laughed at for doing these things ... they will not stop ... buying (false) friends is all we have going for us. We are about bankrupt then what?

          We need leadership and diplomacy ... or, Yoka, is it to late to adjust and regain what we have lost over the last few years.

          You are not alone in your perceptions.

          Be well. Bob

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.