461–470 of 653 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am from latin america and at least neither China nor Russia have participated in coup d'etat to install a military junta to then torture and massacre anyone slightly left of the US "Democratic" Party. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is this?
The China-India border? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53071913
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The police in China doesn't kill with guns. It kills by preventing people from demanding better healthcare. The same goes for incarceration. In US 3M people can't use Internet due to being incarcerated, but in China more than 1.5B have significant restrictions. (This is just an example for the idea of total restricted freedom)
> It kills by preventing people from demanding better healthcare. If you're American, this is the most "throwing stones in a glass house" accusation to make about another country.
My impression was that the healthcare here is very expensive, but not bad. Besides, US does not prevent people from demanding better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes. China and Russia are the biggest geopolitical threats to the world. > I don’t know why anyone would be afraid to say this. Probably because it's not that they are afraid, they simply don't agree. For many people around the world, the US and Europe have inflicted far greater problems over the past 0-100 years.
and by defining their opinion on the past rather than the current geopolitical environment, they would be prone to fall prey to china and russian influence. If they've got to be under the thumb of some foreign power, they ought to choose the US over china or russia. At least in a democracy, there's ways to change the public opinion.
Yeah, who cares about the bad stuff 3-5-10-20 years in the past! All those US wars and coups are not applicable since the USA has turned into a bright, shiny fairy now!
"If they've got to be under the thumb of some foreign power, they ought to choose the US over china or russia."
Yeah, the US holding a gun to your head and saying: You are either with us or against us. Many nations want to make their own independent sovereign choice. Your diplomats actually use this language when they feel they can push folks around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Define wanted? In Australia's case they're 'wanted' by the government insofar as the PM that tried to get rid of them was unlawfully ejected from parliament. Tye populace are at best indifferent, and this is after decades of pro US propaganda. Most of these 'wanted' bases are wanted in the same way the subjects of any other protection racket want their opressor.
In a protection racket, isn't the victim paying the oppressor money for "protection"? But when the US maintains foreign military bases, isn't the US footing the bill?
It may not be profitable for "the US" as an abstract whole, but the US is not a unitary entity; it's very profitable for the largest lobbying organisations in the US (Lockheed etc.).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that when entities from two countries interact we have to apply the norms of the least free country to the interaction seems counterproductive. Are we going to ban Afghani women from driving in the US because US women can't drive there? It seems like a race to the bottom.
> Are we going to ban Afghani women from driving in the US because US women can't drive there If they don’t have a valid international drivers license (presumed because they don’t drive at home) then literally yes we do de facto ban them. But it’s not about giving the people less rights at home it’s demanding they give us as much rights as we give them. The framing is backwards. Why do we honor their license (for men…
the initial tolerance of the intolerance is due to the idea that by freely trading and allowing trade in such a (asymmetric) fashion, the less democratic country would democratize. Over time, the gov't would become more open and "westernize".
That is a miscalculation by the US administration (particularly clinton's, but i won't pin this onto any particular one, as it's a wide policy not decided by a single administration). Neither russia nor china had leadership that would see themselves removed from power - that is their primary prerogative as dictators. And any policy changes that those countries implement is first, and foremost, a policy to keep themselves in power. To the extend that their policies benefit the people, it's done for the express purpose of keeping themselves in power, and never a primary objective.
Therefore, it's clear now, that neither china nor russia would want to integrate themselves in to the west as allies and partners. They forever see the west as an adversary to which they must best - it's an imaginary threat, made real by the fact that democratizing means disposing of dictators.
This can only end one way. I hope it's the west that wins, because despite the woes and poor performance, it cannot be worse than the alternative.
TikTok is the most successful espionage operation of the 21st century so far, and it is based on a simple idea - people will happily give away their data and privacy if you consistently entertain them. In my opinion the application should be shut down as soon as possible, but there are many lessons to learn from it. And most of them have little to do with technology.
As a non-US, non-Chinese citizen, is there something that makes TikTok espionage and Facebook not? Or is it just "china scary"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it surprisingly that simple? You lost me with that claim and I’m a suspicious US citizen.
Well, let me try it this way: if massively popular social networks weren’t a threat, both China and Russia wouldn’t have cared about Twitter, Facebook, or any other “western” internet company operating in their countries. Clearly, they think that these are important sovereignty issues such that they’ve clamped down or disallowed these services entirely. The ability to manipulate people via state sponsored algorithmic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a protection racket, isn't the victim paying the oppressor money for "protection"? But when the US maintains foreign military bases, isn't the US footing the bill?
The relationship is complex and contingent, but generally the host country will be making a range of concessions to the US (e.g. ceding land, giving US troops a range of indemnities, agreeing to purchase weapons systems from the US). It may not be profitable for "the US" as an abstract whole, but the US is not a unitary entity; it's very profitable for the largest lobbying organisations in the US (Lockheed etc.).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it is based on a simple idea - people will happily give away their data and privacy if you consistently entertain them. there’s the individual-level view, and the state-level view. i, as an individual, don’t really care if China has my location data or shopping data. what are they going to do with it? they can exert soft power over me: propaganda; distort my worldview a bit. meanwhile, if my own government has acce…
China doesn't exactly limit its activities to people within its borders. There are reports of Uighurs speaking up who get harassed after fleeing the country and speaking up: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56563449 Five men were charged with stalking and harassing Chinese dissidents in the US, including by seeking to derail the election bid of a congressional candidate: https://www.asiafinancial.com/five-ch…