China said the United States is the “biggest disruptor of regional peace and stability” in the world in a scathing response Wednesday to a Pentagon report on China’s growing military buildup.
The annual report that is required by Congress is one way the Pentagon measures the military capabilities of China, which the U.S. government sees as its key threat in the Asia-Pacific region and America’s primary long-term security challenge.
The statement China’s Ministry of Defense issued in response called the Pentagon report’s findings false and used it in turn to hit back at the U.S.’ recent actions in helping Israel and Ukraine, as well as its buildup of military installations worldwide.
As aggressive as the US is, they don’t regularly traipse over their own neighbour’s borders to attack them.
China on the other hand, Tibet, India, Vietnam, … and most of their disputes aren’t even settled or beyond dispute yet.
Verdict, China can’t manage stable borders and do away with further disputes.
Point out a country that the US has hostilities with that isn’t destabilizing or in a border dispute?
(Disclaimer, we don’t have to like America to point out the obvious.)
I assume you don’t know much about the US’s interference in Latin America.
Like China sucks, but they’re not wrong when they say the US is the most destabilising influence in world politics.
Oh my god are we really doing this. It’s like an elephant took a shit, and a rhino took a shit, and the rhino says that the elephant shit is going to make a worse sandwich.
Sure, you could technically argue that the rhino shit is 2% smaller, you’re still shoving a giant rhino shit sandwich in your mouth.
And “stable/unstable” is not the best metric either. An authoritarian militaristic dictatorship is often more “stable” than a Democracy. You can force stability on a population by taking all their rights away. Doesn’t make it a good thing.
Dictatorships aren’t stable. Literally a lot of the destabilisation the US does is destroying elected left wing governments and replacing them with right wing autocrats.
And the difference is enormous, it’s not marginal. It’s not even close. Your analogy isn’t good.
And sure, every genocide is an atrocity, but the US hasn’t just done genocides, they’ve spread them. They’ve educated foreign groups in how to perpetrate their own genocides.
China isn’t better, they have simply had less power to implement their power plays, and that’s down to historical accident. It’s just the US’s history of this crap is so much more extensive that China isn’t wrong to point it out. That’s all I’m saying.
They are, infact, wrong to think that Russia threatening to send in nukes if it’s not allowed to do a Genocide and starve Africa is less disruptive than the atrocities committed by Washington upon the southern continent.
If we’re not restricting their activities to regular incursions in their immediate neighbours then I think it’s fair to say the US has perpetrated more disastrous invasions in every continent on earth than any other. If you count proxy wars then it gets worse.
Going into disasters and it being a disaster are the same thing. I’m not irresolute on the matter, but clearer identification of wrongdoing shouldn’t involve a number of villains destabilizing everything.
Ho Chi Minh, had a clear mandate before the US entered, and should have been welcome to expel the French (who allied with Japan). Now, sovereignty is resolved and all borders and diplomacy are entirely respected by the US. They’re practically an ally these days. The US performed like absolute crap in the war, but now they encourage the sovereignty of the Vietnamese people.
Does China learn lessons like that? Ho Chi Minh’s cadre also had to say no to China, and if it wasn’t for Russia that could have ended worse. And it’s still not resolved. China barely understands foreign sovereignty.
(Ahh, I don’t want to stick up for the US position!)
I meant what I said. Not entered into, not participated in, perpetrated. Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mainland China, Cambodia, Phillipines, and that’s just off the top of my head.
Vietnam was an invasion perpetrated on the basis of a lie, and it didn’t make Vietnam’s struggle against France and China any easier to also have the US invading.
You don’t want to defend the US? DON’T. It forces you to lie and be an asshole, and it’s not worth it.
No nation state gives a shit about sovereignty. They understand violence and little else. It’s just the US has been in a position of global power since WWII left them with all the benefits of war profiteering and almost none of the direct cost of war at home.
No, I think you’re wrong. A lot of countries try to make a big deal of sovereignty as a recommendation for peace. The US buys into that logic. It’s been proven repeatedly. In a way, they see borders as almost sacred.
It’s the same as they’ve proven not to want to use nuclear weapons. Despite the empire based logic leaking into some factors of US activities they still avoid WMDs and keep stepping back from the brink.
You can’t seriously think the other countries being mentioned are pushing any such agenda. Most mentioned are disrespecting the sovereignty of their neighbours and building up on international activity to harm efforts for international peace.
The US even tried everything to embrace China and Russia before this last decade of absolute bullshit from those countries.
The US’s biggest problem is actually getting involved because of previous promises. They made no promises in Myanmar, and look how that shitshow went down with China as an ally.
I can’t buy this China is an alternative military superpower idea. They never prove to do anything other than end up in a lifelong dispute with every other nation that gets in their way. Look at how Hong Kong panned out. That was disrespectful as hell! I know who the assholes are.
Lmfao
bender-laugh-240p-h264.mp4
Edit: if you’re upset that I didn’t take their comment seriously, they didn’t either. They’re just saying shit. “They see borders as almost sacred” What? How? Why? What? More importantly, fuck you? This is such complete unadulterated bullshit that I don’t even know where to start. That sentence is such a spit in the face that I refuse to dignify it with a real response.
Read a GODDAMNED BOOK.
Edit 2: don’t read a book, that’s too advanced. Start with a pamphlet: https://archive.org/details/war-is-a-racket-smedley
Edit 3: I will be thinking about this comment for a long time. What the fuck? What? WHAT? This comment gives me existential dread. How did this happen? I think I need to reexamine my concept of knowledge. This isn’t just ignorance, it’s not a level of ignorance like a baby has. This ignorance has to be learned. Like I know misinformation and propaganda do that to people, but this forced me to gain a new perspective on that particular abyss.
They said they DIDN’T WANT TO DEFEND THE US. How do you get from that position to saying what’s in this comment? I will lose sleep over this.
Cuba? Unless you count Guantanamo.
Yeah, I don’t get Cuba. That’s a WTF. To me, the best way not to put Cuba in collusion with your enemies is to give it all the concessions they need, and just drop all the sanctions. Maybe I’m wrong and they’re planning on being the ultimate backdoor rogue state, but it just doesn’t seem like it.
Cuba makes sense when you look through the CIA documents that are released after a set period of time has elapsed. I recommend checking them out, they’re interesting to read.
Spoilers: [spoiler] They did not like mostly peaceful neighbours doing left-wing stuff with success. It provided evidence that it might work elsewhere. [/spoiler]
So it was a dick move. I could have guessed.
That’s geopolitics for you.
Incidentally, It also represents the same reasons behind US ‘involvement’ in probably most of the countries in this “US involvement in regime change” list
Thankfully the law still requires these documents are public history