Hacker News Reader

Comment by A4ET8a8uTh0 | Hacker News Reader

About 6 months ago I was telling my friend that US is moving towards war with Iran in 2 years and China in ten. Clearly, for whatever reason, that schedule has been accelerated.

The comparisons to cold war seem apt and given that US president was recently asked about what he talked about with Putin ( and the response, among others, was borders ). That sent a chill down my spine. How was this question not followed up is beyond me.

We have been moving towards a confrontation for a while now and this move will not make it less likely. I am not trying to defend China's moves, but realistically, what are the odds China will surrender to international pressure campaign?

View on HN

> what are the odds China will surrender to international pressure campaign?

China was given special consideration in the 90s on certain assumptions. Those assumptions have not borne out. This action is one of those special considerations being rolled back. Nothing more.

I am worried that we are talking about two different things. I was talking about current tactic of supporting HK autonomy as a way to limit Chinese influence as opposed to a seeming strategic goal of turning China into a model international citizen US would want it to be ages ago.

I also find the third sentence a very simplistic way of understanding international relations. I do not want to go on a rant here, but US does not really have a problem with lack of autonomy.

The problem for US is that China is not easily bullied. That is the reason the considerations are being rolled back.

> US does not really have a problem with lack of autonomy

The Secretary of State is literally required by law to report to Congress on Hong Kong's autonomy [1][2]. The beginning and end of this issue is Hong Kong's autonomy (and how that relates to its special trade status).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Hong_Kong_Policy...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Human_Rights_and_Dem...

I think the relevant questions here revolve around simple "and? so? what?". The mere fact that they were certified before with ample indications the autonomy was stripped away suggests that the decision is largely political as opposed to the noble goal of preventing human rights violations. Just to add to this ( I don't want to spend too much time on this ), note that Iran was for the longest time certified to be compliant ( until suddenly it was not ).

In other words, I am not sure what you are arguing here. You are absolutely right, but you do not advance your point as far I can tell.

> that they were certified before with ample indications the autonomy was stripped away suggests that the decision is largely political as opposed to the noble goal of preventing human rights violations

Of course it's political. The same way Beijing's national security law, and through it, repudiation of its 1997 agreement, are political decisions. Political decisions have real consequences. One of the consequences of that national security legislation is Hong Kong no longer has an independent justice system.

This notice mainly reverts Hong Kong to the same trade status as the rest of China. It was given special status, decades ago, because it was special. It's clearly no longer special in those ways.

In the wake of Beijing's violence in 2018, the consequences of a loss of autonomy were strengthened to include sanctions. That component of America's reaction pertains, in part, to human rights concerns. But the trade component does not.

> China was given special consideration in the 90s on certain assumptions. Those assumptions have not borne out. This action is one of those special considerations being rolled back. Nothing more.

So do you agree that the current events are more than just special consideration being rolled back? It clearly is not a simple if then kind of deal as your original post appeared to imply.

>Of course it's political.

We are in agreement.

> That component of America's reaction pertains, in part, to human rights concerns. But the trade component does not.

This is where we may be not in agreement. Could you elaborate on the trade part?

> Could you elaborate on the trade part?

If an American does business with China, there is one set of rules. If they do business with Hong Kong, there is another. The latter is more favourable than the former. This notice principally rolls back that delineation.

The special status was granted for commercial reasons. China and Hong Kong had different legal systems, and different commercial and policy risks. They merited different treatment.

Now, they’re less different. A business dispute in Hong Kong could end up in a Chinese court because a party functionary feels like it. A company exporting from Hong Kong may be coerced by Party officials, or be benefiting from IP stolen from the mainland. This happened, slowly, over years. But the national security legislation took a big, sudden step.

The special status was granted to protect commercial interests. It is being rescinded on commercial reasoning. Those commercial interests are exercised politically, and there are other factors at play, but that’s sort of like quibbling about whether one’s arm or brain lifts a teacup.

I think it is a good argument to make. Thank you for the response.

Considerations are being rolled back because the previous thesis of “as China grows economically, it will become more democratic” is becoming increasingly false.

War over what? This is undisputed Chinese soil. Nobody lifted a finger over Crimea. Nothing will be done about HK politics.

This is just the lowest hanging fruit of a zillion things China thinks it owns. Today it's Hong Kong. Tomorrow, Taiwan. Then the East Philippine Sea. It's hard to see where it ends.

This is just the lowest hanging fruit of a zillion things The United States thinks it owns. Today it's the Republic of Texas. Tomorrow, Hawaii. Then the East Philippine Sea. It's hard to see where it ends.

Won’t even explain why this is a bad comparison because you already know.

I've been hearing for almost 20 years now that "we're going to war with Iran <soon>". What's different now?

Umm. We barely avoided war with Iran when Suleimani was killed. Thankfully, Trump saw no benefit in it ( for better or worse, he does seem responsive to his base, that is not super thrilled about dying there ). But if you do not see the steady push of the drums of war, or worse, choose to actively ignore it, it is difficult for me to say anything that would change your mind. To me it seems apparent. It certainly should have been apparent after Iraq.

Again, though, what's different about the current situation than the last 20 years? There's constantly been a "steady push of the drums of war" over that time.

In a sense, it hard not to agree with you. The trajectory was set a good while ago. The destination did not change in any real way. From that perspective, you are right. It has been the case for 20 years and US did not attack Iran.

There is a difference though. For example, with Vietnam, the press was largely careful not ruffle administration's feathers. With Iraq, there was some mild questioning, but few of the established media questioned the narrative pushed by the administration. Now look at the response of the press to even a possibility of another full out war in ME ( at best divided along partisan lines ). That was one of the few times, I actually agreed with Tucker.

The change you are thinking of is that the war of Iran did not happen yet ( and it likely would have based on the publicly available information [1],[2]). If left to Washington alone, I am willing to bet good money, it would have happened already.

[1]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/concerns-trump-administratio...

[2]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20989/pompeos-12-deman...

>I was telling my friend that US is moving towards war with Iran in 2 years and China in ten

It takes two tango. Is Iran and/or China doing anything on their part to move us closer to war?

It really only takes one interested party to start a war.

Poland circa 1939 would beg to differ. I am not trying to be difficult, but your statement is easily countered.

edited: changed refuted to countered; seems more accurate

Poland was not so innocent, it was an aggressive state actor. Together with Germany, it invaded Czechoslovakia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie#Part_of_Poland_(1938%E...

I do not want to respond too harshly, but the question was whether it takes one to tango. And it does. Germany did not need Poland's permission to invade. All Germany needed is a moment it considered favorable. Everything else is an excuse used for public consumption ( and if you look at Iraq and Iran, the parallels become obvious ).

As for the aggressive actor part, I will leave it for now ( it does not add to conversation and since I am not a historian, I can't authoritatively say that comparatively speaking Poland was the nice guy on the block ).

They also left out the part that Poland invaded and took exactly back that which Czechoslovakia had invaded Poland and taken only a few years before during WWI.

So China and Iran are Poland circa 1939 and USA is Nazi Germany? Do you want to go with that analogy?

You are missing the point.

Argument: War takes two. Counter: No. It only takes one. See Germany invades Poland. Counter to counter: Your analogy can be extended to look ridiculous.

I know it can be, but all analogies can be.

>You are missing the point.

No. I got your point. Your original comment implied that it is America that is solely moving towards war. I asked you if you thought Iran and/or China were also responsible for moving us towards war and you choose to be pedantic about a metaphor and wasted mine and your time doing so.

So to answer you directly: who cares about the metaphor.

I do not think it was a waste. All metaphors are largely useless. They may help with getting a point a across, but they are just a crutch to help with understanding an issue. If I am pedantic, it is because I do not want my metaphor ( if that is the right word here ) to be misinterpreted.

But you do have a point. What if instead of what I think, we turn to the wisdom the global crowd ( [1],[2],[3] ), who, when recently polled, indicated that US is greater threat than China or Russia. So the world populace thinks US is moving towards war; moreso than China or Russia.

It is possible that I overstated my case. You do have a point here, but are you trying to tell me Iran is THE threat to that will pull this world into the abyss?

You're still not answering the question. Do you think Iran and China have a responsibility for the part they played in moving us towards war?

>So the world populace thinks US is moving towards war; moreso than China or Russia.

Not surprised. There is so much negativity around anything to do with America because America is what defines the current world order. The subtext is that if not for America we would be living in global utopia with no war and nations cooperating diplomatically to solve common goals - a state of things that has NEVER been true in all of human history. The only times of peace humanity have ever enjoyed were within the borders of some empire.

>You do have a point here, but are you trying to tell me Iran is THE threat to that will pull this world into the abyss?

No. Not into the abyss. Iran is a fascist nation that is a regional nuisance. They could join the community of nations if they abandoned their regional ambitions and stop funding terrorist groups. But their actions are leading to a war, either with America or Saudi Arabia.

Just to be clear, I'm not claiming America doesn't have a part in the state of things (America is run by humans, and humans make mistakes), I just don't see any evidence that Iran is an innocent party in this. They played their part and made their bed through the actions of their government over decades. They began existence by breaking global norms by storming the American embassy and taking diplomats hostage, and have been a terrible regional presence.

>Iran is a fascist nation that is a regional nuisance.

Absolutely the same could be said about Saudi Arabia.

Yes storming the USA embassy was wrong, but so was Flying two Airplanes into towers (i think you know very well ho founded Al-Qaida), and the whole Yemen-War is nothing, right?

I did not even started with the hole Nuclear-Contract that the US broke up, just to bring Iran (again) in a unbearable position.

It's funny, when the US makes mistakes then it's just 'run by humans, and humans make mistakes', but when Iran does it, then it's 'began existence by breaking global norms'

Believe it or not, I think we are a lot closer to an agreement than it seems. I would not ever dream of claiming that Iran is innocent in how things are. That said, I would like to point out that, they did not begin their existence by breaking global norms by storming American embassy. Their history is a little longer than that. Their history with US is longer than that too.

We can pursue this conversation once we agree on that simple truth.

Yes, "Iran tankers sailing to Venezuela in effort to undermine US sanctions": https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-tankers-sailing-to-venezu...

This HK takeover by China is significant and the social media taunting that China is doing is not exactly peaceful: https://twitter.com/HuXijin_GT/status/1265498343947542530?re...

So this brings an interesting question. Do you think US sanctions apply everywhere? I am not talking legal part of it or the justifications used. I am more curious about your perception of sanctions.

edit: added not. gotta slow down

I read the tweet you posted about HuXiJin (chief of CCP-backed media), and I LOL'ed very hard on how he responded. (Seems like Xi's 'Wolf Warrior' Diplomacy is true)

To be honest, China really sees itself as a world power. This is only because of the economic affluence it had on every country on Earth. Military wise, they do spend a lot of money but the equipment and training are not quite on par with the top dogs in the game. CCP also has no regards for its people so worst case is to sacrifice a few million population in case of an international conflict.

The problem with China is like a professional boxer fighting on a street with thugs. Your opponent is not afraid of getting down dirty on moves, they are not gonna abide any rules, nor do they have anything to lose.

>Your opponent is not afraid of getting down dirty on moves

Hear hear, the US just pay some privately-own'd armys for the 'dirty' stuff, to stay with your analogy, they just pay another thug that was probably a professional boxer in his former life ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com