541–550 of 653 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
You are asking whether sporadic US police abuses and a literal police state stack up comparably in terms of human rights?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Huh, a single guy having all the power and changing the fundamental rules of the game (aka constitution or however it's called in China)? Not a red flag?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"and by defining their opinion on the past rather than the current geopolitical environment" 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 sa…
Well if you put bad things in the past 3-5 years, China and Russia have a lot on their hands Russia: uses their natural resources as weapons, invaded Ukraine, supports dictatorship in Syria China: embargoes anyone that dares to have a relationship with Taiwan or talks bad about the CCP, provokes Taiwan like crazy, likely will invade it in the next 10 years This is just the recent stuff, China has invaded Vietnam and…
Far better that compared to Obama's "moderate", rapist rebels who evolved into ISIS. All the scenes of jubilation and crying when women were unchained from basements in Aleppo never made it to the US media and were taken down in 15/20 mins on youtube. The mind-boggling thing is that Aleppo was liberated from Al-Nusra by the Syrian Army - the US were providing weapons to folks on their own terrorist list!
"China: embargoes anyone that dares to have a relationship with Taiwan or talks bad about the CCP, provokes Taiwan like crazy, likely will invade it in the next 10 years"
Regarding China and Taiwan, the amount of American ignorance here truly astonishes me. When the United States moved to recognise the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and de-recognise the Republic of China (ROC) in 1979, the United States stated that the government of the People’s Republic of China was “the sole legal Government of China.”
The recent statements by the US president seem to reverse that acknowledgement severely enflaming tensions. Washington is playing with true fire here - China has no interest in invading Taiwan as long as they can moderate Taiwanese policy and as long as Beijing is recognised as the real Chinese government. But Biden is regularly being used as a play-the-dotard puppet by the War-Hawks to inflame tensions, with a nod-and-a-wink later: oh my dear, he didn't really mean it. Until the next inflaming statement comes out of his mouth.
If the US attempts to worsen the state of affairs and keep escalating tensions with statements of support for Taiwanese independence, then YES, there will indeed be an invasion. It will be utterly brutal and Taiwan will be annexed in the end - unless the US is willing to suffer heavy casualties in the hundreds of thousands and transition to a war-economy (which they will not as that would make the donors un-happy. They need to be paid more not less for arms)
Tens of thousands of Taiwanese lives will be lost to American egos and the American military industry who are always looking for the next war to keep their billionaire shareholders fat and happy. More Transfer of Wealth from the American taxpayer to the American elite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, two parties representing largely the same lobbyists and sharing largely the same views are not "night and day" compared to one party. I'd go as far as to say they are exactly the same, except for pretending there's some actual, working opposition.
This was an easier both sides-ism to get away a decade ago. It stretches credulity today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
> More likely you are seeing that content because something indicates to the algorithm that you like such content. Very bluntly, you are most likely telling on yourself right now. This is true for literally every giant app/site. Is it "telling" that everyone thinks Youtube is full of conspiracy theory videos? Or that Twitter is a cesspool of outrageous political commentary? Of course you can shield yourself from it s…
Especially with those two, yes, what you are recommended and who you subscribe to or follow is heavily in your hands. Stop interacting with the content you so much despise. It's not even "shield yourself from it somewhat", you can totally avoid such content. It's very much telling me more about the person than the platform, if they're logged in.
However, without logging in YouTube does tend to suggest the most popular content in the region, but in the US that's mostly just bad prank channels, pop music and some major US news channels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's a difference between a private company having my data and an adversarial government. The company has a clear motive, profit. They're lawful neutral. An adversarial government may be chaotic evil. I don't know why this isn't obvious. Wasn't everyone freaking out just a few years ago when Russian government was manipulating people with political groups on Facebook? And that's even with Facebook's earnes…
According to my very old Players Handbook, leaders of tyrannical states are lawful evil. “Lawful” or “chaotic” relate to whether the character embrace order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well if you put bad things in the past 3-5 years, China and Russia have a lot on their hands Russia: uses their natural resources as weapons, invaded Ukraine, supports dictatorship in Syria China: embargoes anyone that dares to have a relationship with Taiwan or talks bad about the CCP, provokes Taiwan like crazy, likely will invade it in the next 10 years This is just the recent stuff, China has invaded Vietnam and…
I suspect the US would not be very happy had one of its states unilaterally declared independence and claim they're the real US (of one). China views Taiwan as a separatist, secessionist province that would be long reclaimed if not for support from the foreign powers. Ukraine views Donetsk/Luhansk People Republics exactly the same . Why is Ukraine right and China not?
Eventually, beaten by Mao, Chiang Kai Shek and its army invaded Taiwan and claimed it theirs. The CCP never ruled the island of Taiwan.
Your analogy is wrong and there's no really other country with a similar history in the world. The CCP loves making claims based on dubious (i.e false) historical basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whole eastern Europe, central Europe and Scandinavia disagrees with you.
A tiny population rarely in control of their own future, and ethnically + culturally acceptable to the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would be surprised if you polled non-US, non-China citizens about what country is the biggest geopolitical threat to the world. Wait, I don't even need to talk in conditionals. I Googled it and apparently it has indeed been done several times, and the results are what I expected. https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/05/us-threat-demo...
Non-US, non-China citizens don't speak Chinese but they speak English (or their journalists do). US shenanigans are for the whole world to see. You probably can't read Chinese so you have no idea how the Chinese government and their citizen view the rest of the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect the US would not be very happy had one of its states unilaterally declared independence and claim they're the real US (of one). China views Taiwan as a separatist, secessionist province that would be long reclaimed if not for support from the foreign powers. Ukraine views Donetsk/Luhansk People Republics exactly the same . Why is Ukraine right and China not?
A tiny part of Taiwan was under Chinese rule for barely 2 centuries 400 years ago. Even at that time China never cared about it nor made an effort to develop it. China doesn't have more claim to Taiwan than any other similar colonizers that came and invaded Taiwan throughout the centuries. Japan was the first invader to achieve real control of most of the island. Eventually, beaten by Mao, Chiang Kai Shek and its arm…
Edit:
> barely 2 centuries 400 years ago
Wiki says it was 1683–1895, so 2 centuries but just 130 years ago. It was then ceded to Japan after China defeat in a war, so it had to be Chinese before that (otherwise, how could China cede it?).
Edit:
> [Wiki says:] In September 1945 following Japan's surrender in WWII, ROC forces, assisted by small American teams, prepared an amphibious lift into Taiwan to accept the surrender of the Japanese military forces there
In 1945 the Chinese civil war was still ongoing, but WW2 has already finished, Japan lost, and ~300k Japanese residents of Taiwan were expelled from the island. There was no fighting during the takeover, so I don't think it can be called an invasion.
There are important differences between that situation and Ukraine, but... I don't believe they are enough to invalidate the whole analogy. My understanding is that both PRC and ROC see themselves as continuation of imperial China, which means both have equal claim to Taiwan (and mainland). Taiwan was colonized by Japan for some 50 years, but I don't think that's enough to claim it's inherently Japanese (especially after the deportation of Japanese citizens). If not, then it has to be Chinese.
So: there was a civil war in China, then because of unrelated happenings a part of China that was occupied by Japanese became Chinese again, and then an external power chose one of the warring sides in the civil war and unilaterally gave a part of Chinese territory to that side. Is this about right?
If so - I see enough parallels to current Ukraine situation to say that I don't believe my analogy breaks down, as you said. Following 2014, there was a civil war in Ukraine (honestly, saying it was a "special anti-terrorist action" is as valid as calling Russian invasion "special military operation"). The insurgents did not get a newly reclaimed land to retreat to, so they stayed where they were. Then an external power chose one side of the civil war, and propped it up so that they won't fail. There was next to no fighting during proclamation of secession. A few years later, separatists backed by the external power were recognized unilaterally by that power as independent entities. It was even similar timeline: ROC went to Taiwan in 1945, but the island was officially recognized as not-Japanese in 1952. That's 7 years; in Ukraine it was 8 years (2014-2022).
The more successful/bigger side of the civil war in both case never considered the other side anything other than rebels and terrorists. The less successful sides claim to be freedom-fighters trying to exercise their right to self determination.
The only real difference is that the powers backing ROC didn't, for one reason or other, try to help them retake more of the territory of the more successful side - but they were arming that side for 70 years now.
I really don't think the differences make the two situations incomparable.