33
The US is Fanning the Flames of War with China
(truthout.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
33 points (59.9% liked)
World News
32272 readers
462 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It is the USA that has been the target of appeasement. Every expansion, every death squad, every war crime, every black site, every assassination, every war of aggression, every single time the world appeases the USA.
If you think the USA is appeasing China, your head is screwed on backwards. I know it's a common trope for abusers to feel offended and attacked when their victims standup for themselves, and I know you probably stand with the victims and see through the abusers' bullshit. You need to do that with the USA.
Abu Ghraib - appeased.
Nord Stream 2 - appeased.
Solemaini - appeased.
Iraq - appeased.
Iraq 2 - appeased.
Vietnam - appeased.
Laos - appeased.
Cambodia - appeased.
Korea - appeased.
Hiroshima - appeased.
Nagasaki - appeased.
Guantanamo - appeased.
Libya - appeased.
Syria - appeased.
StuxNet - appeased.
Pulling out of nuclear treaties - appeased.
Refusing to be accountable to ICC - appeased.
Refusing to sign landmine treaty - appeased.
Agent Orange - appeased.
Napalm - appeased.
White phosphorus - appeased.
Depleted Uranium - appeased.
Yugoslavia - appeased.
Afghanistan - appeased.
School of the Americas - appeased.
Wiretapping the entire US civilian population - appeased.
Wiretapping every embassy through Siemens supply chain attack - appeased.
NATO expansion - appeased.
Economic shock therapy kills millions - appeased.
Training terrorists - appeased.
Airlifting terrorists into other countries - appeased.
Environmental devastation - appeased.
Sending expired vaccines - appeased.
Refusing to send vaccines - appeased.
Refusing to follow the predefined protocol for sharing vaccine research - appeased.
Iranian regime change - appeased.
Color revolutions - appeased.
Extracting trillions from Africa - appeased.
Child separation - appeased.
Toddlers in solitary confinement - appeased.
Forced hysterectomies - appeased.
Collective punishment of civilians - appeased.
Support for Israeli apartheid - appeased.
Iran-Contra - appeased.
Fast and Furious - appeased.
CIA drug trafficking - appeased.
Haitian assassination - appeased.
Bolivia - appeased.
Nicaragua - appeased.
Pinochet - appeased.
I can keep going if you want.
Fuck the United States. They’re easily the worst, most imperialist nation on the planet. But we’re capable of more nuance than “any country in opposition to the US can do no wrong”
What the fuck is wrong with you? The idea that the USA could possibly engage in appeasement is completely undermined by the fact that THEY ARE THE AGGRESSOR WHO IS BEING APPEASED. When China pushes back against the USA they are not doing something wrong, they are doing something against the USA's interests. When China doesn't push back against the USA, they are appeasing.
The entire analysis of "oh everyone is bad and therefore the USA shouldn't appease them" is completely structureless. It's all moron vibes.
You see - fuck the US - but if the US is putting 12 000 km away from their mainland military equipment on what they recognize as China's territory, it is actually "CCP imperialism" if they react ;)
Thanks for your reply, before I address it, I have to ask, would you support it if the CCP government launched a military invasion of Taiwan?
I would need to analyze the situation. The CPC has established it will not do this for any reason except to protect Chinese national security interests. If it turns out that the USA delivers advanced missile "defense" systems and other nuclear capabilities including submarines, air power, and other plaforms and assets, then it will be all but strategically certain that China will be forced to use military action to push the USA off the island and out of the surrounding waters.
Given the analysis of the Ukraine conflict, it's possible that China may need to include other considerations that I am not fully up to speed on about American capabilities and American proxy war strategies.
In short, yes, I trust the CPC to only use military force when all other options for defense against the USA have been exhausted. This has been their policy and doctrine for a while and there are no indications of it changing anytime soon.
Honestly, I don’t think we really disagree all that much in broad terms. We both hate US imperialism. I just don’t see the CCP as an omni-benevolent state which can do no wrong. Until the world is ready to fully transition away from capitalism, greed and totalitarianism, it is best to limit the power and influence of nation states. And that includes states which claim to be transitioning towards communism. Checks and balances against supremacy prevents anti-revolutionary elements from seizing control of the state and turning its power against the people. Let’s just agree to disagree, move on with our lives, and spend our energy arguing with people who still support capitalism instead.
We do disagree, a lot. For example you think I believe that China is omnibenevolent. I don't.
Another example, you think it's possible to limit the power and influence of nationstates without simultaneously expanding the power and influence of nationstates. Exactly how do you think this is possible? Who, exactly, is going to limit the power and influence of China? After that power and influence is limited, what do you think will happen to the power and influence of others.
What you don't seem to understand is that China is STILL going through the process of limiting the power and influence of the North Atlantic in China's own physical location. The USA however, is busy limiting the power and influence of other nations in those nations' physical locations. Pushing back against the North Atlantic is literally how you achieve the goal you say you want.
The idea of having checks and balances in an international world order that has spent the last 600 years dominating 80% of the world's population with abject brutality and genocide required the expansion of power and influence of formerly oppressed states. Like it or not, you can't just reduce the USA's influence with vibes while the USA reduces China's influence with nukes.
*CPC
"But somehow I keep finding all these familiar geopolitical flashpoints where I support them."
The Fast and Furious thing is not a bit, btw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
TIL, thanks! I'm not an American so I hadn't ever heard of that one. I removed my comment on it.
I agree, we are capable of more nuance than the ludicrous position you just made up right now to shut down the conversation before you have to do any uncomfortable introspection.
You jumped to conclusions about my position and now you’re upset that your assumption was wrong? Sounds like a you problem.
📽
Do you not believe in supporting the lesser evil? I thought libs loved that shit.
I’m not a lib. And no, I don’t believe in supporting the lesser evil. I don’t support any evil.
Oh sorry, you're an ultra, my mistake.
How is it idealistically opposing everyone everywhere and never accomplishing anything?
Why do you try to attack an identity you’re assuming that I hold, rather than addressing my actual arguments? Could it be because you’re incapable of actually successfully arguing against the points I’m making?
And no, I’m not an “ultra”, though it’s quite a vaguely defined term, I’m not opposed to all of the structures that ultra-leftists are traditionally opposed to. Keep guessing, though. You’ll probably get it eventually. The world is a nuanced place and you shouldn’t try to shove everything into a convenient box to make it easier to deal with. That’s lib behaviour. You should know better.
Your argument seems to be that we should oppose all sides equally, regardless of context.
Do you even support anything?
My argument is that neither side should invade the other and that they should peacefully coexist. I support peace, balanced reconciliation, and the end of capitalism.
You said appeasement.
Yes, my comment included the word appeasement. What’s your point?
Seem contradictory to use charged language like 'appeasement '. And then to say you want everyone to coexist peacefully. It seems to advocate for containment which isn't peaceful coexistence.
Would you explain what the contradiction is between a desire for peace and an opposition to imperialism?
If “containment of x” means “making it harder for x to invade” then yes, I am advocating for that so long as the ends justify the means, and yes, that is peaceful coexistence. If you have a personal problem with that, then I don’t care. But it’s a perfectly coherent philosophy.
The contradiction is saying that allowing a country to defend/enforce its borders is appeasement. The implications is that to do so is aggression.
Are you more interested in categorizing ideologies or in actual material conditions?
Pretty good, actually! Thanks for asking. I don’t want to get into too many details, but let’s just say that the roles were reversed from what you’re imagining. He was a lovely guy, it’s a shame that he was so inflexible with his beliefs, we got along really well because we shared a lot of common ground. I think the India/China thing was the first thing we actually disagreed on, and that was enough to end our relationship. Which is absolutely fair, but it took me a bit by surprise at the time.
He called it CCP himself lmfao you guys are so fucking funny. Love that being in a relationship with a Chinese guy meant that I was sinophobic. This is literally the most amusing thread I’ve ever created, I’m so glad I wrote my comment.
Don’t worry, you still haven’t. Not a liberal.
You'll cheer them on if they fight China
Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout.
You realize that if country A does something bad, "Country B did something bad too!" is not actually a defense of country A's behaviour? Indeed, it just implies that you agree that that behaviour is bad.