3 ms·

Take a hint from the Sagan quote in your bio. It’s because the conversation is ridiculous. Because I’m ashamed to be an American witnessing people trash a rela

Take a hint from the Sagan quote in your bio. It’s because the conversation is ridiculous. Because I’m ashamed to be an American witnessing people trash a relatively poor country that actually takes care of its citizens when conditions are so bad in the US. When my tax dollars go to antagonizing nuclear armed Russia and committing various genocides, wasting resources on almost 1000 military bases abroad, but somehow I have to pay off students loans for a degree that not only ultimately benefits this country more than what I paid for it, but also could be easily paid for by reducing global military waste slightly. And that’s just the start. Have a little perspective yeah? Good for you that you’re so far removed from the material reality of most of the world, so that you can be detached from what’s going on, so you can ignore what the US does, so you can go after the WAY WAY WAY more peaceful China. Oh and BTW, Taiwan is a separatist territory from their civil war. If the US was to lose Hawaii in a civil war, what do you think they would do?? Except it’s worse than that because Taiwan becomes a blockade/choke point against China. China, a fairly peaceful developing country of 1.4 billion people who apparently needs to be choked out by a rich country of about 1/5th that. That’s psychotic. People really need to learn history and stop applying ridiculous double standards.

aguaviva 2y ago
Given its support for the Khmer Rouge, its invasion of Vietnam, its tacit support of the aggression against Ukraine, and its menacing actions against the Philippines, and its intimidation of expats abroad (nevermind what it threatens to do to Taiwan) -- I wouldn't put China in the "WAY WAY WAY more peaceful" category. It also isn't being "choked out" by anyone and never will be. On almost 1000 military bases abroad I know that must feel emotionally invigorating to believe, but it turns out it's just a number that gets copy-pasta'd around in order to get you riled up. If you do you homework on the number, you will quickly find (1) the larger number is for all worldwide facilities, the vast majority being in the US of course; and (2) the actual number of foreign "bases" is much smaller (e.g. 128 according to the Congressional Research Service), and many of these are still largely foreign-run and/or barely count as "bases" in any meaningful sense (the U.S. and/or NATO just has an office or a token presence there, etc). So reality is infinitely more boring and that's a huge bummer of course, but that's how life is unfortunately.
- surfpel 2y ago
  > I know that must feel emotionally invigorating to believe Have a little class please. > the larger number is for all worldwide facilities Pointless distinction and missing the forest for the trees. Just close up shop. Don't spend 1.6 billion on anti-China propaganda (google this). Don't spend $800+ billion on endless wartime activity. > I wouldn't put China in the "WAY WAY WAY more peaceful" category The more you learn about both American and Chinese history, the more true this becomes. Suppose China invaded a sovereign country for their oil rights? Or directly funded terrorist regimes across the globe? Or toppled democratically elected governments to install brutal regimes? It just keeps going to the point where it's somehow unremarkable and it becomes background noise. It's psychotic. This shouldn't be so normalized. > It also isn't being "choked out" by anyone and never will be. Google "china containment". Then also mentally reverse the roles between China and the US to give yourself a little objectivity on the matter. There's way too much to refute in your statements that I literally just don't have the time so I encourage you to do more research on them, including the extent of Khmer Rouge support and the US role in supporting them among SO, SO MANY other brutal regimes. You seem to be on the right track in your other comments regarding Israel, so I hope you can eventually see through the fog of propaganda on this issue. Just like how western media lies in unison about the situation and events in Israel/Ukraine, as verified by on-the-ground sources, it also does with China. It's really not that clear cut.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Pointless distinction and missing the forest for the trees. Don't know what to tell you, but you were literally off by a solid order of magnitude with the "1000 military bases abroad" figure, which means you were also wrong in the forest/trees sense. It isn't nitpicking at all to point this out. I'm not saying the US military footprint above isn't a problem. But for some reason you seem determined to present a characterization of this footprint that is numerically much larger than it actually is. Including the extent of Khmer Rouge support and the US role in supporting them China's support for the KR was unquestionably far, far greater than the material support they are alleged to have indirectly obtained from the US (and even that is hotly contested). It seems you're trying to point to a near-equivalence between their respective roles here, but there just wasn't one, or anything close to it. There is the rather more subtantial issue of the US appatantly tolerating China's support for the KR (via statements we have from Brzezinski et al). But that's still different from the matter of the far greater outright material support that China provided (well over $1B in aid, training KR troops on their own soil -- and of course invading Vietnam in response to its own defense against the KRs aggression against it, in turn supported by China). And either way, it simply veers off topic: you were trying to say China was "WAY WAY WAY more peaceful", to which I said "yeah, like their support of the KR for example", which you attempted to water down with "but US also through something into the KRs tip jar, allegedly". Nevermind the fine-grained detail on those cover programs -- whatever the US did at the time, it does not detract in any way from the decidedly non-peaceful role that the PRC played in that conflict. Google "china containment". Make of the policy what you will. The point here is that for some reason you're using wildly exaggerated and emotionally manipulative language ("choked out") to talk about it. Which I find to be (1) not useful (2) boring. You don't have to like what the US does in the world, but there's no need for all factual distortions and weird, emotional language, please. And you can definitely spare us this rhetoric about "peaceful China".

aguaviva 2y ago

Given its support for the Khmer Rouge, its invasion of Vietnam, its tacit support of the aggression against Ukraine, and its menacing actions against the Philippines, and its intimidation of expats abroad (nevermind what it threatens to do to Taiwan) -- I wouldn't put China in the "WAY WAY WAY more peaceful" category. It also isn't being "choked out" by anyone and never will be. On almost 1000 military bases abroad I know that must feel emotionally invigorating to believe, but it turns out it's just a number that gets copy-pasta'd around in order to get you riled up. If you do you homework on the number, you will quickly find (1) the larger number is for all worldwide facilities, the vast majority being in the US of course; and (2) the actual number of foreign "bases" is much smaller (e.g. 128 according to the Congressional Research Service), and many of these are still largely foreign-run and/or barely count as "bases" in any meaningful sense (the U.S. and/or NATO just has an office or a token presence there, etc). So reality is infinitely more boring and that's a huge bummer of course, but that's how life is unfortunately.

surfpel 2y ago
> I know that must feel emotionally invigorating to believe Have a little class please. > the larger number is for all worldwide facilities Pointless distinction and missing the forest for the trees. Just close up shop. Don't spend 1.6 billion on anti-China propaganda (google this). Don't spend $800+ billion on endless wartime activity. > I wouldn't put China in the "WAY WAY WAY more peaceful" category The more you learn about both American and Chinese history, the more true this becomes. Suppose China invaded a sovereign country for their oil rights? Or directly funded terrorist regimes across the globe? Or toppled democratically elected governments to install brutal regimes? It just keeps going to the point where it's somehow unremarkable and it becomes background noise. It's psychotic. This shouldn't be so normalized. > It also isn't being "choked out" by anyone and never will be. Google "china containment". Then also mentally reverse the roles between China and the US to give yourself a little objectivity on the matter. There's way too much to refute in your statements that I literally just don't have the time so I encourage you to do more research on them, including the extent of Khmer Rouge support and the US role in supporting them among SO, SO MANY other brutal regimes. You seem to be on the right track in your other comments regarding Israel, so I hope you can eventually see through the fog of propaganda on this issue. Just like how western media lies in unison about the situation and events in Israel/Ukraine, as verified by on-the-ground sources, it also does with China. It's really not that clear cut.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Pointless distinction and missing the forest for the trees. Don't know what to tell you, but you were literally off by a solid order of magnitude with the "1000 military bases abroad" figure, which means you were also wrong in the forest/trees sense. It isn't nitpicking at all to point this out. I'm not saying the US military footprint above isn't a problem. But for some reason you seem determined to present a characterization of this footprint that is numerically much larger than it actually is. Including the extent of Khmer Rouge support and the US role in supporting them China's support for the KR was unquestionably far, far greater than the material support they are alleged to have indirectly obtained from the US (and even that is hotly contested). It seems you're trying to point to a near-equivalence between their respective roles here, but there just wasn't one, or anything close to it. There is the rather more subtantial issue of the US appatantly tolerating China's support for the KR (via statements we have from Brzezinski et al). But that's still different from the matter of the far greater outright material support that China provided (well over $1B in aid, training KR troops on their own soil -- and of course invading Vietnam in response to its own defense against the KRs aggression against it, in turn supported by China). And either way, it simply veers off topic: you were trying to say China was "WAY WAY WAY more peaceful", to which I said "yeah, like their support of the KR for example", which you attempted to water down with "but US also through something into the KRs tip jar, allegedly". Nevermind the fine-grained detail on those cover programs -- whatever the US did at the time, it does not detract in any way from the decidedly non-peaceful role that the PRC played in that conflict. Google "china containment". Make of the policy what you will. The point here is that for some reason you're using wildly exaggerated and emotionally manipulative language ("choked out") to talk about it. Which I find to be (1) not useful (2) boring. You don't have to like what the US does in the world, but there's no need for all factual distortions and weird, emotional language, please. And you can definitely spare us this rhetoric about "peaceful China".