• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Iran and China unveil 25 year $400 billion energy/infrastructure deal

MrTickles

Member
Feb 22, 2018
3,205
4,163
660

A biggly investment. Tremendously big.

Staggered 25-year deal could mark seismic shift in the global hydrocarbons sector
Iran's foreign minister Mohammad Zarif paid a visit to his Chinese counterpart Wang Li at the end of August to present a road map for the China-Iran comprehensive strategic partnership, signed in 2016.

The updated agreement echoes many of the points contained in previous China-Iran accords, and already in the public domain. However, many of the key specifics of this new understanding will not be released to the public, despite representing a potentially material shift to the global balance of the oil and gas sector, according to a senior source closely connected to Iran's petroleum ministry who spoke exclusively to Petroleum Economist in late August.

The central pillar of the new deal is that China will invest $280bn developing Iran's oil, gas and petrochemicals sectors. This amount may be front-loaded into the first five-year period of the deal but the understanding is that further amounts will be available in every subsequent five-year period, subject to both parties' agreement.

There will be another $120bn investment in upgrading Iran's transport and manufacturing infrastructure, which again can be front-loaded into the first five-year period and added to in each subsequent period should both parties agree.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: Shad0w59

MrTickles

Member
Feb 22, 2018
3,205
4,163
660
Even if you outright attacked Iran to depose the regime, the bombing would actually cost more than China's investment, weakening you further. By all means. Spend trillions bombing billions of Chinese assets in Iran. Keep repeating the same actions that are rapidly leading to your relative decline in the world. China is counting on it.
 

Holgren

Member
Dec 27, 2018
76
60
220
Even if you outright attacked Iran to depose the regime, the bombing would actually cost more than China's investment, weakening you further. By all means. Spend trillions bombing billions of Chinese assets in Iran. Keep repeating the same actions that are rapidly leading to your relative decline in the world. China is counting on it.
Wouldn't bombing Chinese assets be an act of war thus initiating a formal military conflict between the U.S and China?
 

MrTickles

Member
Feb 22, 2018
3,205
4,163
660
Wouldn't bombing Chinese assets be an act of war thus initiating a formal military conflict between the U.S and China?
No. France and Britain bombed tens of billions in Chinese infrastructure in Lybia. Now they're mired in an epic mass migration disaster alongside political upheaval. China simply moved its 10,000 workers out of the country and is now offering Merkel economic deals she can't refuse.

I guess Iran doesn't care much about the Millions of Muslims in China.
How many millions of poverty/AIDS stricken Christians do you care about in Africa? 0? Thought so. Uighurs have nothing to do with Iran.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: ymoc

Pallas

Gold Member
May 9, 2018
1,492
1,248
490
Tennessee
I guess Iran doesn't care much about the Millions of Muslims in China.
Uighurs are Sunni Muslims mainly iirc and a very large majority of Iranians are Shia. That alone should tell you that Iran gives two shits about the millions of Uighurs being forcibly imprisoned in camps and indoctrinated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

womfalcs3

Member
May 11, 2007
5,498
582
1,250
Uighurs are Sunni Muslims mainly iirc and a very large majority of Iranians are Shia. That alone should tell you that Iran gives two shits about the millions of Uighurs being forcibly imprisoned in camps and indoctrinated.
That has nothing to do with it. Saudis are sunni and they're supporting China in spite of the Uighur situation.

They're selling out their brethren for "economic survival" in the coming 50 years.
 

MrTickles

Member
Feb 22, 2018
3,205
4,163
660
Uighurs are Sunni Muslims mainly iirc and a very large majority of Iranians are Shia. That alone should tell you that Iran gives two shits about the millions of Uighurs being forcibly imprisoned in camps and indoctrinated.
If you're indoctrinating somebody that is indoctrinated already, the net result is overall de-indoctrination. In the west its called de-radicalization.
 
Last edited:

Pallas

Gold Member
May 9, 2018
1,492
1,248
490
Tennessee
That has nothing to do with it. Saudis are sunni and they're supporting China in spite of the Uighur situation.

They're selling out their brethren for "economic survival" in the coming 50 years.
That is one way to look at it and you wouldn’t be wrong either. It’s really a sad state of affairs.


If you're indoctrinating somebody that is indoctrinated already, the net result is overall de-indoctrination. In the west its called de-radicalization.


That’s assuming their religion(maybe all?) is indoctrination, in which case that’s subjective. It’s also assuming they are all radicalized to began with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

MisterFalcon

Member
Mar 12, 2013
2,997
182
445
That’s assuming their religion(maybe all?) is indoctrination, in which case that’s subjective. It’s also assuming they are all radicalized to began with.
If you reject the glory of being part of China and a subject of its heavenly leader Xi then you're very radical and must put into a camp.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Pallas

MrTickles

Member
Feb 22, 2018
3,205
4,163
660
That is one way to look at it and you wouldn’t be wrong either. It’s really a sad state of affairs.



That’s assuming their religion(maybe all?) is indoctrination, in which case that’s subjective. It’s also assuming they are all radicalized to began with.
Many of my best lifetime friends are muslims. They share nothing in common (religiously) with sunni islamists/salafists. There are entire communities of muslims in eastern China that have zero issues with the state. Uighurs have a radicalization problem, but the vast majority do not. Of the 16 million at least 2-3 million in remoter parts outside of towns and cities are subject to some extremist influences. It is those communities that are being de-radicalized.
 
Last edited:

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,068
3,292
720
How bout we just bomb both of them?

Should have let MacArthur do his thang in the Korean War.
Stalin wanted to drop A-Bomb onto US Navi (it would probably wiped out entire group, as US's own tests have shown).
Beria (KGB head) said, dear Mr Joseph, in case americans will try to do the same with Moscow, we won't be able to stop them.
This got Stalin worried, so a major anti-air system has been built, with set of roads, some of which were going literally nowhere (to confuse the enemy).
The anti air defenses included, wait for it, tactical nuclear warheads to use against airplanes.
"Umbrella" protecting Moscow persisted through all the treaties later on.
 

MisterFalcon

Member
Mar 12, 2013
2,997
182
445
Many of my best lifetime friends are muslims. They share nothing in common (religiously) with sunni islamists/salafists. There are entire communities of muslims in eastern China that have zero issues with the state.
These communities can be easily recognized by the walls, barbed wire, guard towers and armed guards.

Uighurs have a radicalization problem, but the vast majority do not. Of the 16 million at least 2-3 million in remoter parts outside of towns and cities are subject to some extremist influences. It is those communities that are being de-radicalized.
Wow, millions of radicals. There must be thousands of people murdered daily by such a vast army of jihadists.
 
Last edited:

MrTickles

Member
Feb 22, 2018
3,205
4,163
660
These communities can be easily recognized by the walls, barbed wire, guard towers and armed guards.



Wow, millions of radicals. There must be thousands of people murdered daily by such a vast army of jihadists.

Not millions, but thousands have been killed in hundreds of attacks in the past two decades alone. Additionally thousands of uighurs have gone to syria to fight alongsie HTS and the islamic state recently.

At least a few 9/11's worth of people have been killed by uighurs terrorists, most of them fellow muslim uighurs. For instance the only reason China banned facebook in 2009-2010 was because facebook refused to remove these terror groups pages after a particularly grisly machete attack in urumqi that killed 200 people.

Imagine if facebook had keep islamic state pages up after attacks in france and germany.
 
Last edited:

MisterFalcon

Member
Mar 12, 2013
2,997
182
445
Any sources for 'a few 9/11's worth' of victims ? There have been the stabbings with 37 deaths and the 2014 SUV bomb attacks which killed 43 but those are the largest I can find.
 

MrTickles

Member
Feb 22, 2018
3,205
4,163
660
Any sources for 'a few 9/11's worth' of victims ? There have been the stabbings with 37 deaths and the 2014 SUV bomb attacks which killed 43 but those are the largest I can find.
3,022 casualties just from the global terrorism database alone. This is by no means a complete list since its US based. I'd have to start looking at Chinese language sources for more complete figure. There were 800 dead and injured in 2014 alone, all attributed to islamists.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
6,528
7,183
880
How many millions of poverty/AIDS stricken Christians do you care about in Africa? 0? Thought so. Uighurs have nothing to do with Iran.
Not sure how thats relevant I am not Christian nor African.

But Iran pretends its fighting for Muslims in "Palestine". I guess since the Chinese aren't Je--- er I mean Zionists they don't care much.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,393
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
If only Trump hadn't pulled out of the Iran Nuclear deal, they would've kept singing "Praise to America" while waving our flag and celebrating our beneficial partnership. Now that the USA pulled out and Europe couldn't hold it together, China moved in.

Truuuuump!
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: KojimaLovesMiyazaki

crowbrow

Gold Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,325
1,775
545
I for one welcome a world with a more balanced distribution of power. Several fronts should keep check and balances between each other.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,393
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
I for one welcome a world with a more balanced distribution of power. Several fronts should keep balance between each other.
How can you obtain a balance of power when one or more of the nations involved do not even have a balance of power within their own structure? :pie_thinking:

Yeah, one-party governments know how to keep themselves in line and do not overstep their bounds against their citizenry. We should prop them up to keep the balance of power abroad, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KojimaLovesMiyazaki

crowbrow

Gold Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,325
1,775
545
How can you obtain a balance of power when one or more of the nations involved do not even have a balance of power within their own structure? :pie_thinking:

Yeah, one-party governments know how to keep themselves in line and do not overstep their bounds against their citizenry. We should prop them up to keep the balance of power abroad, too.
No nation has really a balance of power within their own structure. And if we get into details, the US has started three wars in two decades while China and Iran have started none so i have no reason to think they are more dangerous.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,393
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
No nation has really a balance of power within their own structure. And if we get into details, the US has started three wars in two decades while China and Iran have started none so i have no reason to think they are more dangerous.
I never said "dangerous". I posed a question about why we should expect worldwide balance of power when one or more one-party governments are involved. How does a country that does not keep itself in check keep other countries in check? Are we talking about an adversarial system (like what the USA has) but on the world scene? Wouldn't one-party countries in particular be unsuitable to provide checks and balances in this system?

Unless you are chalking up the USA's wars and China's lack of wars to their specific differences in government, that's a non-sequitur.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: KojimaLovesMiyazaki

crowbrow

Gold Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,325
1,775
545
I never said "dangerous". I posed a question about why we should expect worldwide balance of power when one or more one-party governments are involved. How does a country that does not keep itself in check keep other countries in check? Are we talking about an adversarial system (like what the USA has) but on the world scene? Wouldn't one-party countries in particular be unsuitable to provide checks and balances in this system?

Unless you are chalking up the USA's wars and China's lack of wars to their specific differences in government, that's a non-sequitur.
I don't see why i should be more worried that the Chinese powers that be go batshit insane than the US powers that be. I don't see how a multi-party system provides bigger security against a state making unilateral decisions against international regulations. I mean, the US supposedly has this internal checks and balance System and they still went against international law to declare war with Irak and lied to the entire international community. So, again, i don't see a reason to be more concerned about China than the US. In the end, they will increase the checks and balances between themselves better than if one alone holds the vast majority of power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shad0w59

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,393
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
I don't see why i should be more worried that the Chinese powers that be go batshit insane than the US powers that be. I don't see how a multi-party system provides bigger security against a state making unilateral decisions against international regulations.
It's a plain question. How will a one-party system that lacks internal checks and balances somehow impose that upon the world scene? You don't have to make excuses for a multi-party system or wonder why they are "better", because I never proposed that. I'm simply asking how a one-party system without internal checks and balances will be a check and balance to other nations around the world.

In the past, communist countries "checked and balanced" by absorbing nations and grinding them under the heel of communism. Since I'm assuming you do not anticipate this happening again, what means will China use to make sure they keep everything balanced? Does China even have a concept of "balanced" they're aiming for, or is their involvement on the world scene for self interest? If their aim is self-interest, what mechanism will keep them in check?

I mean, the US supposedly has this internal checks and balance System and they still went against international law to declare war with Irak and lied to the entire international community. So, again, i don't see a reason to be more concerned about China than the US. In the end, they will increase the checks and balances between themselves better than if one alone holds the vast majority of power.
I'm not asking a comparative question, so there's no reason to handwave China because of the USA. The question is rather simple and I'll even include your point: when countries that have more robust internal checks and balances still violate international law and cause problems, how will a one-party country without rigorous checks and balances provide balance to the world scene?
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Gold Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,325
1,775
545
How will a one-party system that lacks internal checks and balances somehow impose that upon the world scene?
First, how do you know that one-party system lacks checks and balances. Are all the decisions of the Chinese government done by one person alone or do they go through some type of procedure? I will assume that something as complex as a government, even a one-party one, needs a fair share of internal control and checks and balances. Otherwise the entire country would be chaos. But to answer your question the balance comes from both sides putting political/economic/Military pressure on each other. I have no reason to believe why that pressure wont work on China more or less than on the US. So i prefer both sides putting pressure on each other than one side reigning free to do as they please.
 

crowbrow

Gold Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,325
1,775
545
I'm not asking a comparative question, so there's no reason to handwave China because of the USA. The question is rather simple and I'll even include your point: when countries that have more robust internal checks and balances still violate international law and cause problems, how will a one-party country without rigorous checks and balances provide balance to the world scene?
Well i prefer to go by evidence. First i have no idea what type of internal controls and checks and balances China has compared to the US. And, second, the US has started three wars in the last 2 decades while China has started none. So whatever China is doing, internal checks and balances or not, is right now more trustworthy than whatever the US is doing until the opposite is proven. So i think we need powerful countries like China to keep the US more restrained and viceversa.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,393
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
First, how do you know that one-party system lacks checks and balances. Are all the decisions of the Chinese government done by one person alone or do they go through some type of procedure? I will assume that something as complex as a government, even a one-party one, needs a fair share of internal control and checks and balances.
The purpose of a party is by its very nature to counteract the goals and desires of the other party(ies). You can assume what you want. I'm still curious how China will check and balance the world scene when they have a history of crushing internal dissent and having no tolerance for opposing viewpoints within the government. How will a country structured in this way be a check and balance to others?

I guess you already answered that, though:

Well i prefer to go by evidence. First i have no idea what type of internal controls and checks and balances China has compared to the US. And, second, the US has started three wars in the last 2 decades while China has started none. So whatever China is doing, internal checks and balances or not, is right now more trustworthy than whatever the US is doing until the opposite is proven. So i think we need powerful countries like China to keep the US more restrained and viceversa.
How is the USA's multi-party system related to the wars it has waged, and how is China's one-party system related to them starting none? Unless these are related, then it is irrelevant to your own claim that China will keep things restrained on the world scene.

Otherwise the entire country would be chaos. But to answer your question the balance comes from both sides putting political/economic/Military pressure on each other. I have no reason to believe why that pressure wont work on China more or less than on the US. So i prefer both sides putting pressure on each other than one side reigning free to do as they please.
But "one side" isn't reigning free to do as they please, and you still haven't explained how China in particular is going to bring more balance to the world scene. They don't have a history of bringing balance. I would be hard-pressed to find any one-party government in the last 150 years that brought balance to the world scene, but if China is the magical exception, I'd like to know how they buck the trend. It does not sound, however, that you have any of these details.

It's nice to believe in platitudes like "China will keep the USA in check" but at a certain point it's just empty propaganda. How will China keep itself in check? You've already admitted you don't know what kind of checks and balances China has. The USA's checks and balances are available for anyone to learn about and are widely imitated around the world by dozens of countries. Are China's internal checks and balances so secretive -- yet so effective -- that you don't know about them?

I'll repeat the question: how do you expect a one-party government like China to keep the world in check? You obviously hope for it, but you don't seem curious about how they'll do it. "Ends justify the means" sort of situation, eh?
 

rorepmE

Member
Jan 20, 2019
258
353
290
Republic of Val Verde
I for one welcome a world with a more balanced distribution of power. Several fronts should keep check and balances between each other.
Only someone completely ignorant would welcome something like that.

Because balance of power would mean some sort of stalemate along spheres of influence and no wars.

How did that work out in WW1 between the "Great Powers"?

China claimed nearly the entire South China Sea but yeah they're not going to misbehave.

ok.

Crowbrow reminds me of the Iranian students who ousted the repressive Shah of Iran and replaced them with the Ayatollahs.

What could go wrong?
 

KojimaLovesMiyazaki

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
14,458
23,232
1,400
Australia
The US should have been looking into something like this with Iran instead of war escalation.
Iran wanted money from the US, nothing more, and Obama was naive/corrupt/ideologically-possessed enough to give it to them. They fundamentally hate the West and its cultural values, and they especially hate America since it's at the top of the pile. There is no alliance to be had with Iran on cultural terms, and they have already shown that they won't stick to the terms of any financial agreement.
 
Last edited:

TheGreatYosh

Member
Jul 19, 2018
1,618
1,403
545
Iran wanted money from the US, nothing more, and Obama was naive/corrupt/ideologically-possessed enough to give it to them. They fundamentally hate the West and its cultural values, and they especially hate America since it's at the top of the pile. There is no alliance to be had with Iran on cultural terms, and they have already shown that they won't stick to the terms of any financial agreement.
There is not much to like about the west's current values. I'm not saying we should give Iran money. We shouldn't be giving money to any country, and yet we do. Some of these countries even have a higher standard of living than we do.
They probably did, but you didn’t hear about it because it doesn’t make good headlines.
Maybe so, but it couldn't have been in good faith with all the saber rattling.
 
Last edited:

KojimaLovesMiyazaki

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
14,458
23,232
1,400
Australia
There is not much to like about the west's current values. I'm not saying we should give Iran money. We shouldn't be giving money to any country, and yet we do. Some of these countries even have a higher standard of living than we do.

Maybe so, but it couldn't have been in good faith with all the saber rattling.
I'm talking about traditional Western values of individualism and freedom, not this perverted modern form of leftism.
 

Foxbat

is on their last warning for console warring
May 30, 2018
543
594
425
the US has started three wars in the last 2 decades while China has started none.
You keep repeating this as it's apparently the main point of your argument. What 3 wars in the last 2 decades did the US start exactly?

I know the US has been involved in several conflicts/wars such as Syria. Just wondering which 3 you are referring to.
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Gold Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,325
1,775
545
Crowbrow reminds me of the Iranian students who ousted the repressive Shah of Iran and replaced them with the Ayatollahs.
Oh the Shah that came to power thanks to a coup sponsored by the US? Another reason why the US shouldn't be left unchecked. Who named the US as world police and think they should be deciding the faiths of foreign nations interfering in their internal processes? Why should the US be trusted and not China? Much of the mess the middle east is now is in no small part thanks to western meddling.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,393
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Oh the Shah that came to power thanks to a coup sponsored by the US? Another reason why the US shouldn't be left unchecked. Who named the US as world police and think they should be deciding the faiths of foreign nations interfering in their internal processes? Why should the US be trusted and not China? Much of the mess the middle east is now is in no small part thanks to western meddling.
True enough, there are a lot of problems in the post-Ottoman middle east, largely due to "Western meddling" but that region has been plagued by Eastern meddling too, specifically Russia.

The USA plays "world police" because Europe was in shambles post WW2 and people wanted global commerce. We established and then kept the world's shipping lanes safe while holding Russia at arm's length from swallowing the West. We rebuilt former defeated countries (Japan, Korea, Germany) and turned them into economic powerhouses in their respective regions.

I'm not making moral excuses, just stating facts. USA brought most of the world into the 20th century. I don't see how that's debatable, though it doesn't excuse our mistakes and sins, either.
 

crowbrow

Gold Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,325
1,775
545
The purpose of a party is by its very nature to counteract the goals and desires of the other party(ies).
Yeah but even inside one party there can be opposing voices and they usually are. Hardly one party thinks as one head.
I'm still curious how China will check and balance the world scene
I'm also curious how the US will alone when they have the history of conflicts they have engaged in and promoted.

Unless these are related, then it is irrelevant to your own claim that China will keep things restrained on the world scene.
Well then your claim that one party system won't keep things restrained is also irrelevant then. I don't think the internal structure of a country means much here, in the end the world powers will keep each other in check by means of economic, political and military pressures.

But "one side" isn't reigning free to do as they please
In a way they are, without the US having so much power the Iraq war probably would have never happened. The US has also military pressence all over the world much more than all other nations combined. That's quite licentious. Maybe it's time for the US to be restrained more to their own territory.

They don't have a history of bringing balance
Neither the US alone so I guess it's time to try a new approach.

You've already admitted you don't know what kind of checks and balances China has.
I also don't know what kind of checks and balances the US has since it seems they jump into wars and conflicts all the time and if the ones they have that you pointed out are the ones then they suck big time considering the US meddling in world affairs. So you or anyone else has still to demonstrate how the US alone is better than a world with multiple power fronts keeping checks and balances on each other.

Are China's internal checks and balances so secretive -- yet so effective -- that you don't know about them?
Whatever they are doing, at least they haven't started wars or conflicts like the US has in the past decades.
 

crowbrow

Gold Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,325
1,775
545
True enough, there are a lot of problems in the post-Ottoman middle east, largely due to "Western meddling" but that region has been plagued by Eastern meddling too, specifically Russia.

The USA plays "world police" because Europe was in shambles post WW2 and people wanted global commerce. We established and then kept the world's shipping lanes safe while holding Russia at arm's length from swallowing the West. We rebuilt former defeated countries (Japan, Korea, Germany) and turned them into economic powerhouses in their respective regions.

I'm not making moral excuses, just stating facts. USA brought most of the world into the 20th century. I don't see how that's debatable, though it doesn't excuse our mistakes and sins, either.
Well in that case, China is investing heavily in Africa. So, if in the end some African countries end up more developed than before thanks to Chinese influence shouldn't we be supporting Chinese deals in those lands also? I mean, at least with different powers fighting for influence and resources maybe these countries could actually choose which superpower could help them develop more appropriately. It should work just like competition in the market.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,393
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Yeah but even inside one party there can be opposing voices and they usually are. Hardly one party thinks as one head.

I'm also curious how the US will alone when they have the history of conflicts they have engaged in and promoted.
Do you believe China's history over the past 50 years corroborates your claim that "there can be opposing voices and they usually are"? I do not believe that's the case. China has a long documented history of being extremely intolerant of internal arguing and disagreement. This is not only a communist-era thing (lol obviously) but also something that Xi has been accused of this year. China is known especially as a country that thinks as one head. Their history over the past 80 years should be evidence of that.

Of course, any country can change. I'm just pointing out that their recent behavior does not indicate there can be opposing voices within the government.

Concerning the USA being "alone", I disagree. Why do you think the USA is alone and no one is keeping them in check? Did you not see our 2016 elections get table-flipped due to Russian interference? Have you not seen the conflict between the USA and our allies our allies over the past 10 years (and the last 3 years especially)? I simply don't buy this idea that no one is holding the USA in check. What are we comparing the current situation to, the Cold War? Pre- World War 2?

Well then your claim that one party system won't keep things restrained is also irrelevant then. I don't think the internal structure of a country means much here, in the end the world powers will keep each other in check by means of economic, political and military pressures.

In a way they are, without the US having so much power the Iraq war probably would have never happened. The US has also military pressence all over the world much more than all other nations combined. That's quite licentious. Maybe it's time for the US to be restrained more to their own territory.

Neither the US alone so I guess it's time to try a new approach.
As I already mentioned above, I do not agree with your notion of the USA being "alone" on the world scene. Concerning why the one-party system is important (and it's why I posed the question), if your country has a history of squashing internal dissent and demanding adherence to their rule of law, how will that country keep others in check on the world scene? As you've said, it's some mix of political, military, and economic extension. Communist countries (or arguably post-communist authoritarian, in China's case) have caused countless deaths when they extended themselves in the three ways you listed. So, I am wondering if this is your idea of "balance" or if China is capable of a more peaceful way of keeping others in check?

I also don't know what kind of checks and balances the US has since it seems they jump into wars and conflicts all the time and if the ones they have that you pointed out are the ones then they suck big time considering the US meddling in world affairs.
The USA is the world's mercenary state. Didn't you know? It's no surprise that we jump into wars, but the notion that we are simply doing it for fun is ignorant of history. Why did the USA fight in Vietnam, do you know? Why did the USA get involved in Syria, do you know?

So you or anyone else has still to demonstrate how the US alone is better than a world with multiple power fronts keeping checks and balances on each other.
It's not necessary to do so, because I don't see how the USA is alone in the first place. If you could help me understand how the rest of the world (EU, Africa, Aus, Canada, South America, Russia, Japan, N and S Korea) isn't keeping the USA in check at all, that would clear up my confusion. How is the USA "alone" in the first place? I don't think the USA being alone would be good, but that isn't our current situation anyway, so it's a hypothetical argument at best.

Whatever they are doing, at least they haven't started wars or conflicts like the US has in the past decades.
Does China's involvement in Korea and Vietnam Wars not count? Do their border conflicts (Sino-Indian, Sino-Soviet, Sino-Vietnamese) not count? Does China's continued subjugations of Tibet and their encroachment into free territories (Taiwan, S. China sea, ongoing support of N. Korea) not count? I am not really trying to play the comparison game (you are), but if that's the game you're playing we should at least be fair about it.

Well in that case, China is investing heavily in Africa. So, if in the end some African countries end up more developed than before thanks to Chinese influence shouldn't we be supporting Chinese deals in those lands also? I mean, at least with different powers fighting for influence and resources maybe these countries could actually choose which superpower could help them develop more appropriately. It should work just like competition in the market.
The USA has been sending aid -- not just investment, but goodwill aid -- to Africa for decades longer than the Chinese, so by your logic we should've been supporting the USA's expansion into these territories for many years, right? Since I do believe China's current form of government is dangerously flawed (to answer your earlier statement that you "don't think the internal structure of a country means much here"), I wouldn't want them expanding into Africa at all. Let the rich Chinese millionaires come over here and buy our land, though. I think that's fair play. Investing into the USA and buying your piece is simply what US businesses did when we moved so much of our infrastructure over to China.
 
Last edited: