4 ms·

> I know that must feel emotionally invigorating to believe Have a little class please. > the larger number is for all worldwide facilities Pointless distinc

> 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".
- surfpel 2y ago
  Your fixation on numerical specifics and word choices misses the point entirely. The issues here are clear-cut patterns of global interventionism, both recent and historical, that have wide-reaching impacts. Nitpicking about base counts or who funded whom doesn’t change the reality of these policies’ effects on actual people, nor does it excuse moral double standards. It's telling that you’d rather split hairs on specifics than engage with the ethical implications of systemic militarization and the resulting destabilization worldwide. I’d hoped for a meaningful discussion about the costs and consequences of these actions on a global scale, but you seem more invested in technicalities that derail any serious dialogue. So, if the best you can offer is dismissive corrections and patronizing asides, then I think we’re done here.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Again, pointing out that you're off by 10x isn't "nitpicking", and that wasn't the only matter of concern in regard to issues of basic factual integrity (and logical coherence) of the stuff you're saying. We definitely seem to be speaking different languages in any case, so I agree that we can close up shop here, and move onto other things.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  "through" → "threw"

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".

surfpel 2y ago
Your fixation on numerical specifics and word choices misses the point entirely. The issues here are clear-cut patterns of global interventionism, both recent and historical, that have wide-reaching impacts. Nitpicking about base counts or who funded whom doesn’t change the reality of these policies’ effects on actual people, nor does it excuse moral double standards. It's telling that you’d rather split hairs on specifics than engage with the ethical implications of systemic militarization and the resulting destabilization worldwide. I’d hoped for a meaningful discussion about the costs and consequences of these actions on a global scale, but you seem more invested in technicalities that derail any serious dialogue. So, if the best you can offer is dismissive corrections and patronizing asides, then I think we’re done here.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Again, pointing out that you're off by 10x isn't "nitpicking", and that wasn't the only matter of concern in regard to issues of basic factual integrity (and logical coherence) of the stuff you're saying. We definitely seem to be speaking different languages in any case, so I agree that we can close up shop here, and move onto other things.
aguaviva 2y ago
"through" → "threw"