Oh really? Then why do you consider undesirable for one bad actor have it’s influence to be replaced by another one. I think we both know China is unlikely to look for imaginary WMDs in geopolitical rivals because it has different goals to the US, and different methods to achieve those goals. Even if you think they will do exactly the same as the US, at best the status quo remains the same. Hence one would think you will perceive neutrally.
Since we are going to play this game, you do realise that China's predecessor state put soldiers on the largest of the Spratlys when Vietnam was still part of the French colonial possessions and decades before the Philippines even made a claim to the Spratly's right? And that soldiers are still stationed there to this day.Do you agree or not agree that chinese territorial claims are based on claims of the former Chinese Empire and that China has no right to sea areas located closer or right on the doorstep of Vietnam or the Philippines?
Jesus Christ. I haven't said you aren't outraged, I even credited you for that. I accused you of applying a double standard in the outrage. Double standard doesn’t always mean you have zero outrage against one side and lots against the other. I am going to demonstrate this again below.And if you read my posting history you will surely find me worried about US intervention or the US being led by rabid warmongers. It is not an either or policy.
In any case this is a complete double standards fallacy. Just because I am outraged about something else I cannot be also outraged about a particular issue? Do you realize how you sound?
True, but one would think it be more worrisome about the thing that actually has happened and has led to deaths, rather than the one that may or may not happen.We are worried about both. One does not preclude the other.
I think its more than he is just wrong. His views on colonialism, military interventions are quite repugnant.Liu Xiaobo obviously is wrong about the Iraq War as he is wrong about many things. In any case, we still got a dissident being "freedomized" by the state. And he is just the most recent example. Guess what happened to the leaders of the Hongkong protests? How many times have they been arrested?
And the quip about being freedomized is because Liu just loved the US intervention in Iraq, spreading freedoms such as the freedom without running water and electricity and freedom from life. Now he gets to enjoy the latter freedom as well, courtesy of liver cancer.
Since you have now clarified your complaint is not based so much on both sides doing land reclamation to claim an EEZ, but because China puts military hardware on their reclaimed lands, enabling it to potentially threaten a neighbour, I will address that below. I will thus withdraw the claim of double standards for the land reclamation only.I think you will have found that I have consistently blamed both democracies and dictatorships in the past. In fact, I blame the USA more than any other country on this board because as the world leader I hold them to a higher standard. But yeah, I am totally just blaming dictatorships all the time. Ask any of the "patriotic" americans on this board how they feel about my criticism.
Pointing out a double standard is a character attack now? Seriously?In any case, these character attacks have gone on as poor substitutes for arguments for too long.
So I take you aren’t going to challenge my assertion that China’s geopolitical rivals have done land reclamation in a bid to stake out territory or EEZ claims, and that they did it first. Your objection which you now clarified (thank you) is because China’s reclaimed land is now stocked with military hardware which could potentially be used to threaten its neighbours, although they have not done so as of yet.You are again committing false equivalency, to my knowledge neither the Philippines or Japan or Malaysia turned whatever rock/ship into a floating fortress that can be used to attack its neighbours. But lets entertain your spiel for a bit.
Ok, fair enough. Do you also object to NATO military bases encircling Russia using the same principle, that these bases could be used to threaten Russia, although they have not done so as of yet? I think we both know the answer to that from Ukraine threads.
Can you not see from the POV of someone who isn’t a western sycophant that this might seem like a double standard. Democratic NATO nations has military bases which could threaten its neighbour, ok. Non democratic nations has military bases which could do the same thing. Bad.
You actually thought they had a valid claim to the Paracels.I don't think I posted something about those times but I wasn't alive in the 70s and in the 200y I was more busy criticizing the Iraqi war to read much about the china sea - then again I might have commented on it or not, I don't remember clearly.
https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic ... 2&t=161120
Its not so much spending time to criticise events in the SCS vs Iraq, its when you brought up the example of China’s actions in the SCS as an example of their malfeaseance in this thread, you fail to mention that it was after their rivals did the same shit much earlier. It wouldn’t have taken you more than few seconds to type that extra info, and its not like it’s a recent development so there is plenty of time to learn about what China’s rivals have been doing. This naturally makes me think you either are ignorant of the fact China’s rivals did it too, or you think its ok when others do it. Hence why I brought it up.In any case your point is moot, just because somebody does not critizise and keeps up about every shady thing in every state of the world he does not lose the right to criticize a particular thing that is being done now because otherwise nobody would ever be able to write anything on a message board. But hold on - during those times, would you have preferred me focus my limited time on efforts on the Iraqi War or the China sea? I think the answer is obvious to any sensible person.
However since you clarified that your objection is based not on the land reclamation per se, but because they have military hardware on the reclaimed land, I will focus on that aspect.
Then he makes a weak point at best then. Because even if China is a leader in X, it doesn’t follow it will be a leader in y. Frankly I was focussed in on the climate change aspect, and I don’t see why its human rights problems should disqualify it from being a leader in climate change, no more than the US human rights problems arising from the Iraq war should disqualify it from being a leader in fighting climate change. Failure to actually even commit to fighting climate change like Trump did, disqualifies them from a leadership role though.Then you missed the point of the video because Uhlmann specifically points out the overall decline of the US and china stepping into that void. He is not just talking about climate change.
