@yogthos even if we exclude that conflict as a civil war. Thats not addressing the other examples. Reducing Tibet to the Dalai Lama also seems somewhat inappropriate.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 3 weeks ago

It's not, Tibet was a theocracy where everyone was a slave of the religious caste. The fact that you keep doubling down on this shows profound lack of morals on your part. Meanwhile, the graphic clearly starts in the 80s. And the amount of conflicts China did have since the revolution can be counted on a palm of your hand. Meanwhile, Burgerland has been at war for its entire deplorable existence.

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Reducing Tibet to the Dalai Lama also seems somewhat inappropriate.

Agreed. It is indeed extremely inappropriate to reduce Tibet to the Dalai Lama and his fellow feudal theocrats. Which is why we don't consider the conflict waged against that tiny ruling elite to be an aggression against Tibet as a whole. It's why we celebrate the liberation of the overwhelming majority of regular Tibetans from feudal serfdom as the liberation of Tibet, because it is they who truly represent Tibet, and not the former ruling caste.

[+] mpldr@fosstodon.org -8 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

@cfgaussian say I grant the violent incursion on tibetan land as "liberation" (which I do not), that would still leave the Sino-Indian and Sino-Vietnamese wars. Or do we redefine those away on a technicality as well? Were they maybe not long enough? I dont ask you to defend western imperialism. Its inexcusable. I do ask you to see the PRC for what it is, which includes its flaws and mistakes.

[–] markinov@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 3 weeks ago

It was indeed liberation. Otherwise you should say you support the slave-like feudal society.

[–] REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

say I grant the violent incursion on tibetan land as “liberation” (which I do not)

So you love slavery. Good start.

that would still leave the Sino-Indian

India dicked around, China put them to their place and the war ended in extremely amicable terms.

Sino-Vietnamese wars

There was one (1), so no "wars"(plural), a war(singular). It was a limited border conflict because Vietnam and the PRC ended on different sides of the the Sino-Soviet split.

Were they maybe not long enough?

They happened before the timframe covered by the picture. Tibet happend under Mao, as did the Sino-Indian one. The war against Vietnam happened under Deng. The timeframe covered by the pic is post-Deng. Since then the PRC did, factually, not wage any war.

[–] gaust@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 3 weeks ago

My god, both occured before the time frame explicitly stated in the image.