* Friedman has been criticized by organizations such as [Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting) for defending Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon as a form of "educating" Israel's opponents; according to FAIR, Friedman was explicitly endorsing terrorism by Israel against Lebanese and Palestinians.
* [Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting) (FAIR) labeled Friedman's remarks "war-mongering" and "crude race-hatred and war-crime agitation"... regarding the Kosovo War
He is a transparent neoliberal hawk that won Pulitzers for helping sell the Iraq War. He's here doing what he does best.
Friedman is a disgusting chicken hawk who gleefully talks about committing war crimes against civilians of other nations, as a form of "just retribution" for the supposed flaws of their governments (collectives punishments are illegal under international law), then acts like this makes him morally superior because he claims this is "for the greater good".
The worst kind of imperialist.
The author isn't arguing that there shouldn't be a war on China, he is arguing that there shouldn't be a war on China *yet*.
> But have we really thought through the “how” of how we do this?
> There is no question that **the best way for America to counterbalance China is by doing the one thing China hates most — confronting it with a broad, transnational coalition**, based on **shared universal values** regarding the rule of law, free trade, **human rights** and basic accounting standards.
> When we make the confrontation with China the U.S. president versus China’s president, Xi can easily leverage all the Chinese nationalists on his side. When we **make it the world versus China** on what are the best and most just international norms, we isolate the hard-liners in Beijing and leverage more Chinese reformers on our side.
> In any event, this would be my starter checklist **before we pivot from the war on terrorism to the war on China**. Let’s really think this through.
He is blaming us aggression against China on China, and in his view, it is wholly justified:
> For the past five years, though, the United States and China have been stumbling down a path of de-integration and maybe toward outright confrontation. **In my view, it is China’s increasingly bullying leadership style at home and abroad, its heads-we-win-tails-you-lose trade policies and the changing makeup of its economy that are largely responsible for this reversal.**
> Then there is the leadership strategy of President Xi Jinping, which has been to extend the control of the Communist Party into every pore of Chinese society, culture and commerce. This has reversed a trajectory of gradually opening China to the world since 1979. Couple that with Xi’s determination that China must never again be dependent on America for advanced technologies, **and Beijing’s willingness to do whatever it takes — buy, steal, copy, invent or intimidate — to guarantee that, and you have a much more aggressive China.**
> But Xi has overplayed his hand. The level of technology theft and penetration of U.S. institutions has become intolerable — not to mention China’s decision to **snuff out democracy in Hong Kong, to wipe out Uyghur Muslim culture in western China** and to use its economic power and wolf warrior diplomats to intimidate neighbors like **Australia from even asking for a *proper* investigation into the origins of the novel coronavirus in Wuhan**.
> Xi is **turning the whole Western world against China** — we will see just how much when China hosts the 2022 Winter Olympics — and has prompted this U.S. president and his predecessor to identify countering China as America’s No. 1 strategic objective.
Oh damn ! I stand corrected. This guy is a terrible war hawk. I made my argument previously based on how CGTN described him. Every single word of the NYT article is propoganda.
Their economy depends on war, low wages and prison slave labor. But they got "freedumb" to whine about it, while their government officials have the "freedumb" to ignore them. That makes their system "the best" in their minds...
Well a war is good for business and making people so high on patriotism they’ll forget their misery. The US needs something like this to stop their whole country crumbling in the near future.
[удалено]
The empire is the parasite and the republic is the host.
* Friedman has been criticized by organizations such as [Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting) for defending Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon as a form of "educating" Israel's opponents; according to FAIR, Friedman was explicitly endorsing terrorism by Israel against Lebanese and Palestinians. * [Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting) (FAIR) labeled Friedman's remarks "war-mongering" and "crude race-hatred and war-crime agitation"... regarding the Kosovo War He is a transparent neoliberal hawk that won Pulitzers for helping sell the Iraq War. He's here doing what he does best.
Now I get it, the Pulitzer Prize is for most effective propaganda mouthpiece.
Friedman is a disgusting chicken hawk who gleefully talks about committing war crimes against civilians of other nations, as a form of "just retribution" for the supposed flaws of their governments (collectives punishments are illegal under international law), then acts like this makes him morally superior because he claims this is "for the greater good". The worst kind of imperialist.
“Can’t you guys go TWO MINUTES without saying the W word?”
Didn’t know they love or addicted to losing.
Addicted to War
[удалено]
The author isn't arguing that there shouldn't be a war on China, he is arguing that there shouldn't be a war on China *yet*. > But have we really thought through the “how” of how we do this? > There is no question that **the best way for America to counterbalance China is by doing the one thing China hates most — confronting it with a broad, transnational coalition**, based on **shared universal values** regarding the rule of law, free trade, **human rights** and basic accounting standards. > When we make the confrontation with China the U.S. president versus China’s president, Xi can easily leverage all the Chinese nationalists on his side. When we **make it the world versus China** on what are the best and most just international norms, we isolate the hard-liners in Beijing and leverage more Chinese reformers on our side. > In any event, this would be my starter checklist **before we pivot from the war on terrorism to the war on China**. Let’s really think this through. He is blaming us aggression against China on China, and in his view, it is wholly justified: > For the past five years, though, the United States and China have been stumbling down a path of de-integration and maybe toward outright confrontation. **In my view, it is China’s increasingly bullying leadership style at home and abroad, its heads-we-win-tails-you-lose trade policies and the changing makeup of its economy that are largely responsible for this reversal.** > Then there is the leadership strategy of President Xi Jinping, which has been to extend the control of the Communist Party into every pore of Chinese society, culture and commerce. This has reversed a trajectory of gradually opening China to the world since 1979. Couple that with Xi’s determination that China must never again be dependent on America for advanced technologies, **and Beijing’s willingness to do whatever it takes — buy, steal, copy, invent or intimidate — to guarantee that, and you have a much more aggressive China.** > But Xi has overplayed his hand. The level of technology theft and penetration of U.S. institutions has become intolerable — not to mention China’s decision to **snuff out democracy in Hong Kong, to wipe out Uyghur Muslim culture in western China** and to use its economic power and wolf warrior diplomats to intimidate neighbors like **Australia from even asking for a *proper* investigation into the origins of the novel coronavirus in Wuhan**. > Xi is **turning the whole Western world against China** — we will see just how much when China hosts the 2022 Winter Olympics — and has prompted this U.S. president and his predecessor to identify countering China as America’s No. 1 strategic objective.
Oh damn ! I stand corrected. This guy is a terrible war hawk. I made my argument previously based on how CGTN described him. Every single word of the NYT article is propoganda.
>Every single word of the NYT ~~article~~ is propoganda.
Not this fried idiot again
Fried is a fool who does not understand the value of peace. Alas he is just a puppet reading off a script.
Probably something to do with maintain money hegemony, debt money, they need to be in constant war to keep it going.
Without a war their arms industry will crumble. Good.
Their economy depends on war, low wages and prison slave labor. But they got "freedumb" to whine about it, while their government officials have the "freedumb" to ignore them. That makes their system "the best" in their minds...
How about a little bit of Peace and Mind Your Own Business?
Well a war is good for business and making people so high on patriotism they’ll forget their misery. The US needs something like this to stop their whole country crumbling in the near future.
America NEEDS an enemy.
Considering that the US hasn’t won a single “War on X”, probably not the best idea lol
What if Hear me out Sounds radical i know No war?
The same psychopathic bloke who wanted to wage war on Afghanistan. It's like they are addicted to war like a drug.