249
Priorities
(lemmygrad.ml)
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 20 Oct 2023
249 points (83.0% liked)
World News
2697 readers
97 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Maybe, but is China using this initiative to pour gasoline on the fires in active conflicts?
No, because it's an international project that requires the cooperation of the nations involved. However, China is definitely pouring gasoline around in the South China Sea with the expansion of its territories annexing land from other countries.
When the US, shall we say "encourages" other countries to "cooperate" on an "international project," it is uses threats, sanctions, coups, corruption, and outright deadly force. Even its wicked henchmen in the EU didn't have the stomach for the war in Ukraine, several countries dragged their feet chipping in arms knowing full well it was they who would suffer the most for the US's choices. US has to twist their arms and pull a "We're done, when I say we're done" to get their "allies" to back yet another project of death, destruction, and looting.
What has China done in the South China Sea? Menacingly sailed their own ships in their own front yard? Why is this so "menacing"? Oh yeah, because the US has completely encircled them with military bases, and is trying to paint a picture that makes aggressive military action against China somehow look defensive. If you knew anything about China that wasn't from the mouth of the biggest liar in world history, you would know China has wanted nothing but to resume diplomatic and peaceful integration of Taiwan, something that was popular and ongoing before most of us were in diapers. US, playing from their usual playbook, pours money and weapons into divide-and-conquer using disinformation and fascist empowerment.
Learn more about geopolitics outside of the US's distorted bubble, you will find that US starts and fuels fires, and China out of all others is the one that puts them out, hence they have earned seething hatred from the biggest snake, bully, and bandit in human history.
I'm always open to learning from people who can have reasonable and rational discussions. I also expressed no support for the US in my comments.
China has published new maps that expand their territory beyond their previous maps, into the territory of other countries. This has nothing to do with anything from the US, purely what China has said in the past and what they are saying now. Much of their new claimed territory is ridiculously close to the coastlines of the Philipines and Malaysia.
I'm more than willing to call out the US on the shit they do, and agree with much of what you said on that. However the biased one in this conversation is clearly you, as you are blindly supporting China and painting them as a nation that does no evil.
There's a lot of I's in your comment, so let's get that out of the way: I'm sure you're one of the good ones, congratulations! Ok, now we can discuss things properly. Whenever someones accuses you of supporting USA in posts like these it's because you are. When people discuss changing something and you openly criticize this change without new proposals or sugestions, you are supporting the status quo. It doesn't matter if you agree with it completely, if you criticize some things but believe it can be reformed, or worst, if you think we should just wait around until something better comes along, the end result is the same: you're supporting the status quo.
So we believe that China is miles better than the US, none of the things you said here changes that. China is not perfect, but there's no point in criticizing when we are making the argument that it's better than what we currently have. We discuss the faults and mistakes of China when it's appropriate to do so, doing it in this post would be counter productive. It's basic politics
The reason I started talking about myself is because you started an ad hominem attack, which you're attempting to continue with. It's falling flat.
I'm not supporting the status quo, I'm searching for objective truth. A broken clock is right twice a day, and the status quo can be correct in some ways - even if it were wrong in every way that matters. If you want to change the status quo for the better, it would be wise to not throw the baby out with the bath water.
You're suggesting that your only purpose for posting here is to promote a political agenda.
Why wouldn't we be promoting a political agenda?
"We don’t need no culture except revolutionary culture. What we mean by that is a culture that will free you. You heard your Field Lieutenant talking about a fire in the room, didn’t you? What you worry about when you got a fire in this room? You worry about water or escape. You don’t worry about nothin’ else. If you say “What’s your culture during this fire?” “Water, that’s my culture, Brother, that’s my culture.” Because culture’s a thing that keeps you. “What’s your politics?” Escape and water. “What’s your education?” Escape and water." - Fred Hampton - It's A Class Struggle Goddammit!, November, 1969
I mean sure, that's fine. I'm glad you're admitting to your biases, that better helps me find the truth.
There is no such thing as an unbiased lens. There is no neutral third party in international news where everyone has an interest.
Sure, but confirming what another person's biases are is useful.
As I said, it doesn't matter the reasons, you're still supporting the status quo. It's not about your intentions, it's about the effects of your discourse. The fact is that China's model of international relations is better than US's and should be incentivized, the denial of this fact is the same as the support for the opposite affirmation.
This post is supporting change, a better alternative to what we currently have. Proposing change is a political process. The fact that the word politic has become demonized by liberals doesn't change that fact
That's copypasta, and it doesn't even fit in this circumstance, in spite of how much you want it to. How are the effects of my discourse supporting the status quo?
This post isn't supporting change, it's a meme criticising the US and painting China as perfect. A meme in a news community, no less. The comparison invites criticism, it's pretty hypocritical to cry when someone delivers it.
I literally said it, and I'll reapeat it: "The fact is that China’s model of international relations is better than US’s and should be incentivized, the denial of this fact is the same as the support for the opposite affirmation."
Without going into the quality of China's model of international relations, where did I deny that good international relations should be incentivised?
I like the Belt & Roads Initiative, even if it might also include military objectives. Further up I said that China was cooperating with nations to make this project happen. What I don't like is China's activity in the South China Sea. You have to completely ignore China's activity in this area to make the claim you're making.
Also that whole "if you aren't with us, you're against us" philosophy is pure bullshit.
What land have they annexed from other countries? Name one territory, city, province, or piece of land. Please, name one.
Well, China's claims are probably that they were always Chinese territory, in spite of 100 years of history and previous Chinese government publications. But the fact is many of the islands within the new bounds on China's latest maps are internationally recognised as being the territory of other countries. Thus, China is attempting to annex these lands from those countries. The latest maps claim territory well within 100km of the Philipines' coastline, and it's practically right on the coast of a Malaysian island.
Examples include Scarborough Shoal off the Philipines, the Spratly Islands, and I think there was some Japanese administrated island that I can't be bothered to look up right now.
But have they annexed those countries? You are not describing annexation.
If an island is owned by one country, then taken by another, that is annexation.
The dispute is whether the first country owned it, however that argument is very weak.
But you said "maps claim it", that is not annexation. You require boots on the ground occupation to annex a territory, you can't just claim an annexation into existence.
I ask again, where has China, "taken those islands"?
You are making yourself look like a fool.
For example, the US and Canada both claim several islands and territories owned by the other. Canadian maps show they own it, and American maps show they own it. Have either of the two countries "annexed" that territory?
I annex Texas in the name of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea by virtue of being in the state. Sorry FBI, cope and seethe.
Somehow I feel like that's an improvement.
That's because almost anywhere being annexed by the DPRK is an improvement.
I don't know, I feel like that would be a logistical and administrative nightmare, especially as the population of Texas is 5 million more then North Korea, and not that many Texans speak Korean while an equally few North Koreans speak English.
It would still be better than the current administration.
Tbf you could probably drum up a lot of support for the DPRK in Texas by offering Texans the right to personal nukes, courtesy of Kim.
Sure, but on the other hand, this is Texas we’re talking about. It would turn into nuclear winter real fast…
You're being pedantic. You know what I mean, you're not arguing against the idea I'm presenting but pointlessly bickering over the words I'm using. And what's worse, you're not even correct.
Annexing does not require military action. It usually does involve it, but that is not a defining property. Annexing is adding territory to your own by appropriation, ie taking it from another nation.
China has "taken those islands" and that area of sea into their territory. Obviously it's still in exactly the same place, but territory is being taken away from other nations.
There's a handful of disputed territories between the US and Canada, and each situation is different. Some of those might have been annexed at some point or another.
A better example would be Canada and Denmark with Hans island. Each country claimed it in turn, back and forth. Every time each nation visited the island and claimed it they annexed it. Strictly speaking they probably didn't need to visit the island to annex it, but with each side planting a flag to prove their claim they kind of had to visit in order to remove the old flag and make their latest claim superior.
How is China expanding its territory and claiming that of other nations' not annexing? If it isn't that, then what is it?
Lots of words, none of them answer the question 🤦🏿♂️
Few words from you, even less substance. Two questions were asked and answered:
Care to answer my questions?
Turns out you don't need lengthy comments for substance.
Your "responses":
Dunning-Kruger is in full effect here lmfao.
You probably don't know what that means, but ironically you're correct - only it's not me exhibiting cognitive bias.
You still haven't answer my questions. Were they too hard for you?
No you didn't, what countries did China annex? What makes "the situation different" with regards to the US and Canada?
Lol mans just said "no u".
You can keep trying to snark me but you're the one who looks like an idiot here.
Philipines, Malaysia, and maybe Japan. That's 2-3. You could throw in Vietnam as well if you want.
I am a bit of an idiot, yes. Because I choose to argue with you and get covered in shit with you, in spite of the fact that you apparently like it. But I'm clearly not wrong, and that's what matters to me.
If China's not physically there to claim it, they're not really expanding their territory. South Korea considers itself to own all the territory of North Korea, but it can't enforce that, so their claim doesn't really matter.
You don't need to physically be there to annex territory. The map itself is the claim of annexation. You probably can't assert the claim without being there, but the claim is still annexation on its own.
Furthermore, China is sailing its warships through those areas as if it were their own territory. So they are physically there and attempting to assert their claim.
Korea is a little different in the way the country was split up by the victors of WW2. However, if you acknowledge the sovereignty of North Korea, then South Korea is also trying to annex that territory by claiming it as their own. South Korea's claims are a little bit more hollow than China's.
Maybe, but there's not much value in fighting over definitions. De facto, they have not gained additional territory regardless of any claims China may or may not be making.
Oh, are countries not allowed to sail ships through international waters now? Is the US annexing these territories when it does the same thing?
This is nonsense. You're attempting to redefine what annexation is to suit your argument.
China themselves claim that their boats are patrolling their own territorial waters when sailing in these areas. The US and Canada and others claim they are sailing in international waters under international maritime law, or with the permission of the nations whose water they are sailing through.
But the big difference is that the US isn't making a claim to any territory. China is, and then they're attempting to assert that claim with their navy. That is clearly annexation.
Fair enough, I did not phrase the above point correctly. I have edited the comment accordingly.
Since you keep using this word, I guess I'll bite a bit longer in fighting over definitions...
Courtesy of Merriam-Webster, annexation is incorporating "(an additional geographic area) within the domain of a country, state, etc." I don't think it's self-evident that just sailing a ship by some islands is "clearly annexation"
In any case, it's not really important whether it counts as "annexation" or not. What difference does it make if China makes this claim if there's nobody there to enforce it?
This just in: China cooperating with other asian countries to set up defensive positions and listening outposts in the South CHINA Sea is somehow a bad thing.
They're not cooperating with the other Asian countries, those countries are angry with China for claiming their territory. China is cooperating with mainland countries to build road and rail networks through to the Middle East, but treats all the island countries with disdain, while building artificial islands close to their shores.
Also, the sea is merely named after the large country in the area, many other countries are in the South China Sea - but that doesn't mean they're a part of China's territory. The Indian Ocean is quite a long way from India, New Zealand is in the Tasman Sea, several states are on the Gulf of Mexico, etc.
China isn't claiming territory that's not theirs, it multiple times offered to jointly build defensive fortifications with other neighboring countries to safeguard against invasion. Yet when they said no, they had the gall to throw a fit that China built some to protect itself.
treats all the island countries with disdain, while building artificial islands close to their shores.>>
Citation needed
Good thing that all the fortifications that China builds are within it's internal waters or act as safeguards and watch posts for nearby countries.
Keep up the slander.
We're discussing via writing, so if it's anything it's libel. But it isn't that either - for a start nothing I've said is false, and neither does it damage their reputation.
China is claiming territory that a few years ago they did not claim. They're doing this, in part, by building artificial islands very close to the lands of other countries. The idea being they want to expand their borders 200 miles around their new islands, regardless of whose territory this encroaches.
I never disputed your second paragraph, I said the reasons for doing it are fundamentally different.