i would hardly call it an 'impassioned defense'. please, leave the 'SJW liberal' smears alone for half a day. i've never made an impassioned defense of islam or china, here. in fact i'm pretty sure that a few months ago i was posting frequently on their internment camps, to which you replied facetiously that you 'didn't mind the chinese state teaching the muslims how to behave'. how are you making me out to be a moral cripple when you entertain beliefs like that?
i was putting china's supposed 'territorial ambitions' in context. as larssen rightly pointed out, by far the greatest amount of china's political energies are directed inwards at their own populace and development. it has always been thus. hence my statement that they have been 'one of the least bellicose nations'. where was china during the age of empire, again? it had almost zero presence on global politics as a whole until the opening up of the chinese economy in the latter part of the 20th century; the alliances and efforts made in south-east asia in places like korea or indochina do not make sense unless you look at them as continuations of european or japanese colonialism; in many ways those conflicts had begun in 1894 with the first sino-japanese war. that was my point.
thank you, once again, for bringing my attention to several cold-war-era border dispute and small wars that china had with its neighbours. i consider myself better educated on that point now. but how long would a wikipedia list be of every war or incursion that america was involved in, most of which had fuck-all to do with establishing its borders and entirely to do with america's global ambitions, or pure ideological struggle? you have to put these things in context. saying 'china wants to destroy' the west is alarmist hysteria; a chinese person sat in Beijing could just as easily say 'america wants to destroy china'. after all, you're the ones with a ring of bases on their border.
i was putting china's supposed 'territorial ambitions' in context. as larssen rightly pointed out, by far the greatest amount of china's political energies are directed inwards at their own populace and development. it has always been thus. hence my statement that they have been 'one of the least bellicose nations'. where was china during the age of empire, again? it had almost zero presence on global politics as a whole until the opening up of the chinese economy in the latter part of the 20th century; the alliances and efforts made in south-east asia in places like korea or indochina do not make sense unless you look at them as continuations of european or japanese colonialism; in many ways those conflicts had begun in 1894 with the first sino-japanese war. that was my point.
thank you, once again, for bringing my attention to several cold-war-era border dispute and small wars that china had with its neighbours. i consider myself better educated on that point now. but how long would a wikipedia list be of every war or incursion that america was involved in, most of which had fuck-all to do with establishing its borders and entirely to do with america's global ambitions, or pure ideological struggle? you have to put these things in context. saying 'china wants to destroy' the west is alarmist hysteria; a chinese person sat in Beijing could just as easily say 'america wants to destroy china'. after all, you're the ones with a ring of bases on their border.
Last edited by uziq (2020-04-24 06:46:37)
