5 ms·

None of my examples (except China) were from over a century ago, nor were they from before the United Nations (or League of Nations existed). Guess you need to

None of my examples (except China) were from over a century ago, nor were they from before the United Nations (or League of Nations existed). Guess you need to look at the nations that took part in the various battles during the annexation of Hong Kong, Opium Wars etc. The US was not involved? Didn’t say China has done nothing wrong, just if we are looking at nations that need to be reigned in. The US has done more to damage other countries sovereignty than basically the rest of the world combined. So it seems weird to focus on China… So the US is just protecting Phillipines sovereignty… randomly? Interesting take on it. I wonder why they don’t care about Myanmar… same region… very clear cut destruction of a democracy (which was the reason they went to Vietnam…) Or even Australia, that time they assisted in the sacking of a prime minister to protect their mining interests. Or the fact they passed laws to try to undermine nations (specifically its allies)to purchase drugs as a whole to prop up the pharmaceutical industry. It’s not whataboutism. It’s the US is shit to everyone, and the fact that people even talk about China (unless you’re a Uighur, Tibetan, or Filipino) is just falling for US propaganda.

_djo_ 2y ago
> None of my examples (except China) were from over a century ago, nor were they from before the United Nations (or League of Nations existed). I was referring specifically to the example you provided of US annexation of formerly Mexican territory. As far as I know the US hasn't annexed territory since 1945. Which is also when the world collectively changed its approach in an attempt to avoid great powers creating another World War, and shifted to a model where annexation by force is a bad thing. Rather have stable borders shifted by appeals to the ICJ than by rolling tanks over the borders. It has never been a perfect system, of course, but by and large it held as a set of norms until recently. > Didn’t say China has done nothing wrong, just if we are looking at nations that need to be reigned in. The US has done more to damage other countries sovereignty than basically the rest of the world combined. So it seems weird to focus on China… That's a very myopic US-centric view, and I think one that can only be held because there's much more accessible > So the US is just protecting Phillipines sovereignty… randomly? Interesting take on it. I wonder why they don’t care about Myanmar… same region… very clear cut destruction of a democracy (which was the reason they went to Vietnam…) I never said it was random. Clearly, it's also of strategic value to the US. I said it's because they were invited in by those countries, and remain only because the democratically-elected governments that host them continue to renew those agreements and alliances because it's in their interests too. Myanmar is run by a military junta that doesn't want to be an ally of the US. In contrast, South Vietnam invited the US in. > It’s not whataboutism. It’s the US is shit to everyone, and the fact that people even talk about China (unless you’re a Uighur, Tibetan, or Filipino) is just falling for US propaganda. That's exactly whataboutism, and the fact that you think that nobody should even talk about China unless they're Uighur, Tibetan, or Filipino just proves the point. Everyone has an interest in a peaceful, stable, and fair global order, and that means opposing the actions of any country that threatens it whether it's the US, China, Russia, or any other power. China's clearly stated ambitions to take over Taiwan by force, for instance, would massively and negatively impact the rest of us through the knock on effects to the global economy and the shortage of key electronic parts like chips.
- onethought 2y ago
  So China has stated its intent on Taiwan. But the US actually did it: Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s not nobody should talk about China, it’s that it literally hasnt done anything worth talking about compared with a whole host of countries… If you think the view is myopic… how about you challenge it? Who’s disturbed more foreign nations than the US? Like in the history of civilisation. Myanmar was not run by a junta, it was a democracy and they did invite the US and are desperately asking for help right now… just like Vietnam did. So what is different? I would say because the US only wants to fuck with China and couldn’t care less about these other nations. Which you also admit is the case. What is “strategic” about protecting the Philippines? The answer is China, most specifically “containing China” - but why “contain” a country that has never expressed ill will towards you? Is the US also containing India? It is like people purposely pretend the US are the “Good guys” and ignore any other possibility. If you point this out, it’s whataboutism (a made up term pretending to be a fallacy used generally to justify American exceptionalism)
  - _djo_ 2y ago
    The US was rightly condemned for its invasion of Iraq, and more should have been done by the world’s nations to prevent it. We have that opportunity with China and Taiwan now, and letting it happen just because other major powers have done stuff too would be a mistake. The USSR (and now Russia) and China have ‘disturbed’ just as many foreign nations as the US. Both have long pursued interventionist foreign policies, covertly and overtly supporting sub-national groups that worked in their interests. Even in the most recent years we have Russian intelligence causing a string of coups throughout Africa and funding and supporting disruptive extremist groups, and China has been caught spying on the African Union’s governance structures in order to influence continental policy and coerce leaders. It’s less publicised and less visible because, unlike the US, neither Russia nor China have a free and unfettered press and civil society who can obtain and report on leaks and other embarrassing information. It’s not enough that Myanmar was a democracy, because soon after winning elections that administration launched a genocidal campaign against the Rohingya. There’s also no strategic interest for the US there. As I said earlier, alliances happen when the two align. The US’s strategic interest in that area is not to ‘fuck’ with China, but to preserve a rules-based order that’s open for international trade. If China is allowed to take over the entire South China Sea and other surrounding areas they can close it to any traffic whenever they want, they’ll be more easily able to take over Taiwan and maybe even countries like the Philippines, and there’ll be nothing stopping them from annexing more and more territory. We saw in the 1930s what allowing this sort of thing can lead to. I’d say it’s in all our interests, not just the US’s, that China not be allowed to simply annex more territory. I’d similarly be opposed to the US or any other country trying to annex territory by force.

_djo_ 2y ago

> None of my examples (except China) were from over a century ago, nor were they from before the United Nations (or League of Nations existed). I was referring specifically to the example you provided of US annexation of formerly Mexican territory. As far as I know the US hasn't annexed territory since 1945. Which is also when the world collectively changed its approach in an attempt to avoid great powers creating another World War, and shifted to a model where annexation by force is a bad thing. Rather have stable borders shifted by appeals to the ICJ than by rolling tanks over the borders. It has never been a perfect system, of course, but by and large it held as a set of norms until recently. > Didn’t say China has done nothing wrong, just if we are looking at nations that need to be reigned in. The US has done more to damage other countries sovereignty than basically the rest of the world combined. So it seems weird to focus on China… That's a very myopic US-centric view, and I think one that can only be held because there's much more accessible > So the US is just protecting Phillipines sovereignty… randomly? Interesting take on it. I wonder why they don’t care about Myanmar… same region… very clear cut destruction of a democracy (which was the reason they went to Vietnam…) I never said it was random. Clearly, it's also of strategic value to the US. I said it's because they were invited in by those countries, and remain only because the democratically-elected governments that host them continue to renew those agreements and alliances because it's in their interests too. Myanmar is run by a military junta that doesn't want to be an ally of the US. In contrast, South Vietnam invited the US in. > It’s not whataboutism. It’s the US is shit to everyone, and the fact that people even talk about China (unless you’re a Uighur, Tibetan, or Filipino) is just falling for US propaganda. That's exactly whataboutism, and the fact that you think that nobody should even talk about China unless they're Uighur, Tibetan, or Filipino just proves the point. Everyone has an interest in a peaceful, stable, and fair global order, and that means opposing the actions of any country that threatens it whether it's the US, China, Russia, or any other power. China's clearly stated ambitions to take over Taiwan by force, for instance, would massively and negatively impact the rest of us through the knock on effects to the global economy and the shortage of key electronic parts like chips.

onethought 2y ago
So China has stated its intent on Taiwan. But the US actually did it: Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s not nobody should talk about China, it’s that it literally hasnt done anything worth talking about compared with a whole host of countries… If you think the view is myopic… how about you challenge it? Who’s disturbed more foreign nations than the US? Like in the history of civilisation. Myanmar was not run by a junta, it was a democracy and they did invite the US and are desperately asking for help right now… just like Vietnam did. So what is different? I would say because the US only wants to fuck with China and couldn’t care less about these other nations. Which you also admit is the case. What is “strategic” about protecting the Philippines? The answer is China, most specifically “containing China” - but why “contain” a country that has never expressed ill will towards you? Is the US also containing India? It is like people purposely pretend the US are the “Good guys” and ignore any other possibility. If you point this out, it’s whataboutism (a made up term pretending to be a fallacy used generally to justify American exceptionalism)
- _djo_ 2y ago
  The US was rightly condemned for its invasion of Iraq, and more should have been done by the world’s nations to prevent it. We have that opportunity with China and Taiwan now, and letting it happen just because other major powers have done stuff too would be a mistake. The USSR (and now Russia) and China have ‘disturbed’ just as many foreign nations as the US. Both have long pursued interventionist foreign policies, covertly and overtly supporting sub-national groups that worked in their interests. Even in the most recent years we have Russian intelligence causing a string of coups throughout Africa and funding and supporting disruptive extremist groups, and China has been caught spying on the African Union’s governance structures in order to influence continental policy and coerce leaders. It’s less publicised and less visible because, unlike the US, neither Russia nor China have a free and unfettered press and civil society who can obtain and report on leaks and other embarrassing information. It’s not enough that Myanmar was a democracy, because soon after winning elections that administration launched a genocidal campaign against the Rohingya. There’s also no strategic interest for the US there. As I said earlier, alliances happen when the two align. The US’s strategic interest in that area is not to ‘fuck’ with China, but to preserve a rules-based order that’s open for international trade. If China is allowed to take over the entire South China Sea and other surrounding areas they can close it to any traffic whenever they want, they’ll be more easily able to take over Taiwan and maybe even countries like the Philippines, and there’ll be nothing stopping them from annexing more and more territory. We saw in the 1930s what allowing this sort of thing can lead to. I’d say it’s in all our interests, not just the US’s, that China not be allowed to simply annex more territory. I’d similarly be opposed to the US or any other country trying to annex territory by force.