|
GreyjoyBastard posted:What if, say, President Bernie Sanders used our position as global hegemon to move things towards a more multilateral structure? That might be better than deciding that because the USA is bad we should abrogate all hard power involvement. I don't think they're the two options either and I support using soft power and multilateral solutions to move the world towards global wealth equality and environmental sustainability. I simply am increasingly more anti-interventionist the older I get. The Syria thing is really lovely and ZePollack was right when they said the operative lesson to learn is that other people should never trust America because we can't guarantee we won't derp out and elect a Trump. Archonex posted:Last I checked, we didn't recently try to put our muslim population into literal re-education through labor death camps. Or straight up have them assassinated in the modern era if they dare to speak out against the government in the case of Russia. Or even exist at all, in the case of Chechnya and the purges that happened over there. Likewise, even with the Republicans in power and being their lovely selves there's been a tremendous outcry against their bullshit. Over there? They just get disappeared half the time. Considering that American hegemony props up such delightful luminaries as Saudi Arabia and Israel, I think you're being silly here. American empire isn't the lesser of two evils, it's just evil. Military bases and interventions abroad don't spread civil rights for LGBT people. Edit: GreyjoyBastard posted:how on earth is this a relevant analogy to Syrian Kurdistan I don't think the Kurds are the only thing at issue here. Trump is also talking about pulling troops out of Afghanistan, for example. We never should've put the Kurds into this position in the first place and we're not going to station troops there forever to maintain it. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Dec 21, 2018 |
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:24 |
|
|
Free Drinks posted:The bill is DoA in the Senate because it needs 60 votes, not 50, right? This is a man who was so stupid that he threw a party for an Obamacare repeal bill after it passed the House. Trump isn't up on his civics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
Archonex posted:No one is saying that. The point is that they're using non-military means of intervening in other countries affairs. Which is a far more insidious sort of means of control given how the people in charge of those two countries look at their own population. Not that it justifies the US's means of pursuing a global hegemony, but you're out of your goddamn mind if you think that their means of control doesn't have a lot of loving horror behind it too. They're both terrible in some pretty nasty ways. China exerting economic influence is not countered by the US fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or maintaining military bases and using unparalleled economic and military influence leading directly to genocides and purges across the globe. China doing "bad things" is not a convincing rebuttal to the host of completely unrelated US imperial actions. The US is not serving as a counter to China, if anything it is complicit. The US is not a moral counter-weight to Russia and China, there is no reason to suggest that the discussion be framed as such. It is dishonest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:The bullshit about uighur concentration camps is a good trial balloon for when America does it for real in a decade or two. Half of America likes the idea and can't wait to put muslims into camps themselves. Oh, hi. I think it might have been maybe as recent as a month ago that your take on the uighur concentration camps is that they don't exist, or that they're an absurd fiction / psyops to malign the chinese. Now that more comes out about the absurd and totalitarian extent of these camps, your position appears to be morphing effortlessly. You're currently trying to still deny that they exist and you're doing a halfway "it isn't real, but the American muslim concentration camps WILL be real." Eventually it'll be "well, the United States will totally do the same thing." It's some bizarre form of future perfect tense whataboutism, and it's something very few people besides you could possibly have contorted themselves into.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don't think they're the two options either and I support using soft power and multilateral solutions to move the world towards global wealth equality and environmental sustainability. I simply am increasingly more anti-interventionist the older I get. Not what i'm saying. The "soft touch" policies that Russia pursues to try and obtain their own control of the world are responsible for the very same issues you and I are both talking about. I tried explaining this before. Like I said, there is no case where Russia or China run things in a vacuum. Russia's current strategy of destabilizing and pushing far right wing types to power is a perfect example of what I mean when I say that many people would have to fear for their lives. They also have absolutely no problem with the sort of military interventionism you're talking about when it comes to the US. It's weird that you say these things and overlook how they've treated their nearby nation-states. I mean, holy poo poo, just look at Ukraine or Syria. Archonex fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Dec 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:China exerting economic influence is not countered by the US fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or maintaining military bases and using unparalleled economic and military influence leading directly to genocides and purges across the globe. China doing "bad things" is not a convincing rebuttal to the host of completely unrelated US imperial actions. The US is not serving as a counter to China, if anything it is complicit. The US is not a moral counter-weight to Russia and China, there is no reason to suggest that the discussion be framed as such. It is dishonest. IIRC, China actually got access to some lucrative rare-earth mining in Afghanistan due to our unseating the Taliban from their base of power. So yeah, if our goal is to counter China we've been going about it rather clumsily.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Last I checked, we didn't recently try to put our muslim population into literal re-education through labor death camps. Or straight up have progressives assassinated in the modern era if they dare to speak out against the government in the case of Russia. Or even exist at all, in the case of Chechnya and the purges that happened over there. Likewise, even with the Republicans in power and being their lovely selves there's been a tremendous outcry against their bullshit. Over there? They just get disappeared half the time. LOL you don't do it by putting them in camps, you just get them screwed by having your country structured in a way that insures they'll end up either dead or in jail working for pennies. That's "even more insidious", to quote one of your previous posts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
American global hegemony, via the pumpkin flavored fecal smear, presented as tax in one act: https://i.imgur.com/5kAJTPF.mp4
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
I'm one of the (non DHS) feds that is going to furloughed with all this. The no pay thing only impacts us if it extends beyond a pay period (which one ends Saturday). Probably a bigger immediate impact is people will have to cancel their holiday vacations or risk not getting paid for their vacation time (since they'd be in a non pay status). Historically there has always been back pay, including for leave, but this timeline...
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:35
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don't think they're the two options either and I support using soft power and multilateral solutions to move the world towards global wealth equality and environmental sustainability. I simply am increasingly more anti-interventionist the older I get. Syrian Kurdistan right now is pretty much the perfect scenario where A) humanitarian intervention is a good thing, B) overthrowing the government is infeasible, which is probably for the best given the track record of interventions that do that, and C) a UN-sanctioned intervention is probably infeasible because Russia (also D) the people we'd be protecting are pretty much tailor made ideologically for western leftists) if we hypothesize that it is possible for a unilateral-ish US intervention to be good, this is it, this is the one a negotiated solution with Assad is probably possible and definitely worth trying, especially since the alternative if we pull out is the Kurds begging him for help from a much weaker position lest they be obliterated Actually, regarding C, under a President Bernie a UN intervention might not be totally impossible if Team Kurd was willing to throw some of the other SDFers under the bus
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:35
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:China exerting economic influence is not countered by the US fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or maintaining military bases and using unparalleled economic and military influence leading directly to genocides and purges across the globe. China doing "bad things" is not a convincing rebuttal to the host of completely unrelated US imperial actions. The US is not serving as a counter to China, if anything it is complicit. The US is not a moral counter-weight to Russia and China, there is no reason to suggest that the discussion be framed as such. It is dishonest. Wait are you saying that the US is responsible for all the genocides? Like its our fault that China is wiping out the uighur? Is the US responsible for Russia murdering journalists that talk poo poo about Putin? Is the US responsible for Russia annexing Crimea? It is a bit confusing to see that at the same time as you lambasting someone for being dishonest in how they're framing an argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:36
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:
i'm much less against the withdrawal from afghanistan for a bunch of reasons, which is why i'm focusing on the one i feel strongly about trump's still going to do it stupidly and get a bunch of people killed in afghanistan, but the proposition itself is much more palatable
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:38
|
|
|
ZypherIM posted:Wait are you saying that the US is responsible for all the genocides? Like its our fault that China is wiping out the uighur? Is the US responsible for Russia murdering journalists that talk poo poo about Putin? Is the US responsible for Russia annexing Crimea? Somewhat, given US pinky swore that Ukrainian territorial integrity would be safe in exchange for Ukraine giving up Nuclear weapons, and really didn't do much more than pinky waving in response.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
ZypherIM posted:Wait are you saying that the US is responsible for all the genocides? Like its our fault that China is wiping out the uighur? Is the US responsible for Russia murdering journalists that talk poo poo about Putin? Is the US responsible for Russia annexing Crimea? you're framing his argument by putting words in his mouth ("wait are you saying" weasel wording) right now
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Somewhat, given US pinky swore that Ukrainian territorial integrity would be safe in exchange for Ukraine giving up Nuclear weapons, and really didn't Russia signed the same treaty. Whoops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
like, i'm generally pretty alright with someone who says "american intervention is almost always bad and we should look real closely at anything we think might pass the smell test" (hi, sexpig!) but i think this particular situation is one where that 'almost' might come into play
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
BigRoman posted:Russia signed the same treaty. Whoops. I have bad news for you if you think America cares about treaties. Go to the museum of the american indian and take a look at the 300+ treaties the US broke with various american indian tribes
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
silly mane posted:The other day I suddenly remembered those reports from June about Trump habitually ripping up documents with his bare hands, leaving staffers with the job of jigsawing and taping them back together because they are required by law to be archived. Ripping up papers is also a sign of dementia
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:43
|
|
|
not a cult posted:you're framing his argument by putting words in his mouth ("wait are you saying" weasel wording) right now No I'm asking if that is what he is implying, or if he meant something else. That is what asking a question is all about. A statement with "The US is not serving as a counter to China, if anything it is complicit" really seems to be saying that it is our fault, at least in some capacity, for these acts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
Kavros posted:Oh, hi. I think it might have been maybe as recent as a month ago that your take on the uighur concentration camps is that they don't exist, or that they're an absurd fiction / psyops to malign the chinese. Yeah the camps that are pointed out by xinjiang brown moses via google maps. 3 years ago before the state dept. etc. ramped up the agitprop to this hilarious new level the play with uighurs was that the han chinese were genociding them via HIV-infected sex workers being bussed into xinjiang: quote:“Thousands of Han-Chinese immigrants moved to the southern part of Xinjiang with the government’s support,” he said. “Hundreds of prostitution houses opened under the guise of beauty salons, massage parlors or bathrooms in Aksu (in Chinese, Akesu), Kucha (Kuqa), Kashgar (Kashi), Yarkant (Shache) and Hotan (Hetian).” Interesting that in the course of 3 years official han policy went from trying to ply them with cheap sex to literal camps, but hey, what's good for the native informer is good for the empire, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
ZypherIM posted:Wait are you saying that the US is responsible for all the genocides? Like its our fault that China is wiping out the uighur? Is the US responsible for Russia murdering journalists that talk poo poo about Putin? Is the US responsible for Russia annexing Crimea? There's a reason I didn't even bother replying to that. It's some tankie level distortion of reality. not a cult posted:you're framing his argument by putting words in his mouth ("wait are you saying" weasel wording) right now You literally said the US was complicit in China and Russia doing the "bad things" (Like genociding the Uighur and Russia murdering anyone that tries to fix their broken political system.) they've done of their own accord and are in many cases actively still doing. Unless you mistyped that that sure as hell sounds like you're saying the US is responsible. quote:China doing "bad things" is not a convincing rebuttal to the host of completely unrelated US imperial actions. The US is not serving as a counter to China, if anything it is complicit. Archonex fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Dec 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
BigRoman posted:I misunderstood and misspoke. I thought the argument was about the west suppressing communists in Italy after WWII. The West suppressed communists at all times because they represented a threat to Capitalism. Even after the war, an Italian communist shift would still ally with the USSR out of mutual protection, but look more like the Eastern European movements but with more favorable opportunity to resist becoming a conquered puppet state. Or it could have gone horribly wrong. Either way, the US shares blame for the path of post-war "Soviet style Communism." It is OK, we can say both things are bad. We can even discuss degrees of bad, without having to express things in terms of false preferences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:I have bad news for you if you think America cares about treaties. Not my point. Blaming Americans and Great Britain for failing to uphold the Budapest Memorandum obligations, when Russia, a signatory and architect to said memorandum, was the one who invaded Ukraine by proxy is rich.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
ZypherIM posted:No I'm asking if that is what he is implying, or if he meant something else. That is what asking a question is all about. A statement with "The US is not serving as a counter to China, if anything it is complicit" really seems to be saying that it is our fault, at least in some capacity, for these acts. It's a "question" question, the fact that you stuck a question mark onto a sentence doesn't mean anything. Just like "have you stopped beating your wife?" isn't a serious question even if it does formally look like a question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
BigRoman posted:Not my point. Blaming Americans and Great Britain for failing to uphold the Budapest Memorandum obligations, when Russia, a signatory and architect to said memorandum, was the one who invaded Ukraine by proxy is rich. The memorandum had literally no enforcement mechanism other than "consultations" if someone felt like it was being violated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
ZypherIM posted:Wait are you saying that the US is responsible for all the genocides? Like its our fault that China is wiping out the uighur? Is the US responsible for Russia murdering journalists that talk poo poo about Putin? Is the US responsible for Russia annexing Crimea? No, I said the US is responsible for genocides. Are you under the impression that those are the only genocides?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:The West suppressed communists at all times because they represented a threat to Capitalism. Even after the war, an Italian communist shift would still ally with the USSR out of mutual protection, but look more like the Eastern European movements but with more favorable opportunity to resist becoming a conquered puppet state. Or it could have gone horribly wrong. Either way, the US shares blame for the path of post-war "Soviet style Communism." Christ. I already admitted I was wrong in this case. What more do you want?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
not a cult posted:It's a "question" question, the fact that you stuck a question mark onto a sentence doesn't mean anything. Just like "have you stopped beating your wife?" isn't a serious question even if it does formally look like a question. archangelwar posted:No, I said the US is responsible for genocides. Are you under the impression that those are the only genocides? Yea he pretty clearly did mean that, thanks for the attempt there not a cult. @archangelwar: What genocides would you say are the responsibility of the US?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
Archonex posted:You literally said No I didn't, that was archangelwar. Which is why I was referring to him as "him" and not "me" or "myself" in the post you're quoting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
not a cult posted:No I didn't, that was archangelwar. Which is why I was referring to him as "him" and not "me" or "myself" in the post you're quoting. Yeah, I got you guys mixed up. My internet keeps crapping out and the thread is moving pretty fast so I had to hurry up and post before I lost my connection again. My mistake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:54
|
|
|
Here is the extremely normal and very democratic loving rationale for forming an independent nation in east turkestan, from the president of the first islamic republic himself:
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:54
|
|
|
ZypherIM posted:Yea he pretty clearly did mean that, thanks for the attempt there not a cult. No, thank YOU for making it clear that your questions were a bad faith attempt at putting words in his mouth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:54
|
|
|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:Yeah the camps that are pointed out by xinjiang brown moses via google maps. I rest my case about you, effortlessly. Do let me know when we progress to the point where you have to form a new apologist line around the tender acknowledgement of the atrocities being committed by the Chinese, rather than this one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:54
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Syrian Kurdistan right now is pretty much the perfect scenario where A) humanitarian intervention is a good thing, B) overthrowing the government is infeasible, which is probably for the best given the track record of interventions that do that, and C) a UN-sanctioned intervention is probably infeasible because Russia The problem with this is that the US isn't a good faith actor, so even a morally justifiable intervention can't be supported because there's no reason to believe we won't be self-serving and lovely in the aftermath. Humanitarian reasons are never going to be the primary reason the US as it is commits to an intervention. I would be more willing to support a UN action than a US + NATO action tho (though that arguably still isn't great). Archonex posted:Not what i'm saying. The "soft touch" policies that Russia pursues to try and obtain their own control of the world are responsible for the very same issues you and I are both talking about. Russia is as it is largely because we dicked them over in the aftermath of the Soviet Union so again I don't think saying "look at how bad Russia is!" is a compelling argument for American empire when Russia is in many ways a product of American empire. I don't think you can credibly argue for American empire, that's the thing. "But then Russia and China will take over" just isn't a relevant counterargument to me because I am fundamentally opposed to us continuing to perform intervention regardless. That doesn't make what Russia or China does good, it just means I fundamentally oppose using American hard power to stop them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
BigRoman posted:My questions are: 1) "our best interests" isn't a thing. for some people, its absolutely in their best interest to make sure the war machine marches on. they don't pay the costs of war. as a member of the proletariat, i don't think the occupations are in my or my class's interests because they result in numerous harmful results: the murder of innocents across the globe who are slaughtered in my name, under colors that are equally representative of me as they are the oligarchical ruling class- a thing that may, someday, however unlikely it seems, force me or my loved ones to pay a toll for those errors; the deaths and maiming of thousands of working class-born soldiers who are funneled into the war machine under the guise of glory, honor, service, and country; the exorbitant costs of the war that suck money and interest away from potential domestic matters resulting in subsequent calls for austerity that once again directly hurt myself and my class; a culture obsessed with the military which only normalizes war and begets increased calls to use violence globally; etc. no, the occupations are absolutely not "in my best interests." i'm absolutely not afraid of iran, such a demeaning specter that propaganda demands we fear. they are a regional power and have the right to exert regional political influence. if they are forced to act violently it is because we have set the stage so that only violence may have power. as for russia, once again, no, i'm not afraid of them having regional partners either. the fear of russia is equally if not more so as pathetic as a fear of iran. russia has a military less than a tenth the size of the united states. there is no scenario where they could directly threaten americans. their violent political ambitions are once again the result of a world the us has created. they know the us cannot play the role of world police, especially if we are tied down all over the drat planet with expensive wars going no-where. were there to be some overt military action then the only moral response is collective action by the world's countries. unilateral action has been condemned since the founding of the UN (and before). russia's actions show that the western world is already overstretched. that we cannot oppose them because we can't literally be everywhere. however, for those who demand the opportunity to retaliate, i think we would be in a much more capable position if we didn't have thousands and troops and billions in supplies tied down in self-made hell holes. and more importantly, so what? so what if russia and iran and whatever boogie man you can dream up have client states. we have client states and they are far from utopian democracies. we back plenty of brutal, violent dictators who can't stop slaughtering their own people, that is, when we're not the ones ordering them to do it. under what circumstances is it worse for a country to be under another's influence? in a worst case scenario aren't they only doing the exact same thing we're doing? like, what could they do that's worse, other than not saluting the stars and stripes while brutally enforcing empire? yes, we should pull out of the occupied countries of the middle east. no more soldiers. diplomatic relationships only. 2) obviously a trap question. yes, our empire is built upon global military presence. but that very presence is creating unrelenting chaos throughout the world. we've been given the most dominant military position in history and what are we doing with it: fighting injustice, liberating oppressed peoples, good in any discernible way? no, we use it for petty material gain of the few, at the massive expense of the whole. and how sustainable is it? how just is our presence too? sure we can have bases in places that "want" us, but obviously that list is extremely short. it is safe to assume every overseas base if forced to accept us. that given the option, they would see us gone so that they may create a diplomatic scenario of their own choosing. we can heed the call of other nations if they feel the need extra help, but once again, not unilaterally, only collectively. stronger diplomatic relations where countries are more equals instead of clients would create a more stable world. a world where force by collective action, a union of nations, is the only moral and legitimate force. there is no "great power" opposed to the us right now. or military power and spending is an order of magnitude above or nearest rivals. perhaps if countries didn't see inviting americans in for protection as something that would result in a permanent exploitation like military bases that never seem to leave even though the conflict has long been settled then countries would be more inclined to reach out for help. military bases imposed upon other countries whether by direct pressure or a corruption of the ruling class are immoral and illegitimate. they should be closed. if other countries want our bases there then they can have them. but we cannot continue to force this violent hegemony upon the world. we're already seeing it breaking down and failing right now 3) the only moral action is collective action. unilateral action has been an absolute disaster. coalition based military forces are the only ones i support. if our global diplomacy is so fragile that an obvious breach of international law cannot be responded to then we should be working on strengthening those bonds. nations behave better when treated as equals instead of our current position of "we pay the most so everyone should do what we want." our corrupting of the founding ethos of the united nations has led to an organization that is a pale parody of itself. obviously i don't have the answer to making that happen, but i can see that the current trajectory is unsustainable and only causing further violence. if it is the fate of man and nations to perpetually squabble and compete for dwindling resources across the globe then there will never be peace. but i refuse to accept that outcome. instead, i think of all of that desire for capital gain to be a folly of greed. a poisonous rot that lays within the hearts of ruling classes all around the globe, exacerbated by the hyper-capitalist ideologies of the american-led west. we need a new ideology that pushes back against greed and is focused on sustainable, modest living and providing a decent life for all of mankind. we have the means to make a global utopia right now, it just requires a change in focus. until then, all countries and men are forced to continue to compete violently for a dwindling supply of resources and power that will ultimately result in the death of the entire planet. cooperative action as a community of nations is the only legitimate force; however, until we change the culture and ideology of the world's ruling classes then force will always be necessary. force doesn't have to be from a multinational force. it can be all us troops, but the authorization must be pan-national. as long as there is power and wealth to be gained from the exploitation of others than people and nations will seek to enrich themselves by doing so. only by creating a world where there is no opportunity to grow wealth and power that way can we seek to end the cycle of war, empire, and exploitation. our current path is not one that will result in that kind of conclusion and therefore must be changed i think that's everything. sorry if its a bit of a mess, but i tried to answer honestly and thoughtfully.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
not a cult posted:No, thank YOU for making it clear that your questions were a bad faith attempt at putting words in his mouth. My questions were bad faith because he did mean to imply that the US is directly responsible for "using unparalleled economic and military influence leading directly to genocides and purges across the globe". I asked him if he meant all of them, because I'm aware of the US running any genocides (only picking and choosing which they interfere with). He did mean to imply that the US is responsible for genocides, just I guess not those from Russia and China. But he did say the US was complicit in China doing "bad things", so I guess he did mean those? I don't think "bad faith" or "putting words in his mouth" mean what you think they mean.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:1) "our best interests" isn't a thing. for some people, its absolutely in their best interest to make sure the war machine marches on. they don't pay the costs of war. as a member of the proletariat, i don't think the occupations are in my or my class's interests because they result in numerous harmful results: the murder of innocents across the globe who are slaughtered in my name, under colors that are equally representative of me as they are the oligarchical ruling class- a thing that may, someday, however unlikely it seems, force me or my loved ones to pay a toll for those errors; the deaths and maiming of thousands of working class-born soldiers who are funneled into the war machine under the guise of glory, honor, service, and country; the exorbitant costs of the war that suck money and interest away from potential domestic matters resulting in subsequent calls for austerity that once again directly hurt myself and my class; a culture obsessed with the military which only normalizes war and begets increased calls to use violence globally; etc. no, the occupations are absolutely not "in my best interests." thanks. I was genuinely curious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
Kavros posted:I rest my case about you, effortlessly. Do let me know when we progress to the point where you have to form a new apologist line around the tender acknowledgement of the atrocities being committed by the Chinese, rather than this one. I mean, you would think if this was such a disaster Trump would be shouting it from the rooftops and directing congress to act urgently to immediately free the people of east turkestan, who last year numbered only 10,000 imprisoned but now apparently number 1 million? There are only 25 million muslims in China, surely disappearing 4% of them would cause economic collapse? I'm really not sure who this new approach is supposed to appeal to: most Americans dislike Islam and would absolutely have no issues with putting American muslims in camps. ZypherIM posted:But he did say the US was complicit in China doing "bad things", Of course it's bullshit. The chinese genociders are truly inhuman and barbaric. However, they can keep on genociding as long as CRRC Sifang finishes their Chicago factory in time to have the CTA 7000-series in production by 2020. That's what people mean when they say the US is "complicit" - complain loudly about "crimes" even though nobody's even suggesting even reevaluating or cancelling all these large chinese capex investments in the US. CAPS LOCK BROKEN fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Dec 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:like, i'm generally pretty alright with someone who says "american intervention is almost always bad and we should look real closely at anything we think might pass the smell test" (hi, sexpig!) (hi!  )I agree this is a really good thing to use as an example of a 'good' intervention, but the problem is where does it stop? I don't even mean slippery slope I mean literally where does THIS intervention stop? Even when the civil war ends Turkey will want to slaughter Kurds. Do we just set up protectorate bases in every pocket of Kurdish population? Why not other oppressed minorities? Should we get involved in China's genocide against their Muslims?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:24 |
|
|
CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:The memorandum had literally no enforcement mechanism other than "consultations" if someone felt like it was being violated. Dude, weren't you just arguing about how bad it is to break treaties?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2018 06:04
|
|