what's preventing China from just taking ALL of Russia
The same thing that's made china not have an overt military conflict for the past half century: they're not a militaristic, expansionist country. I know that's inconceivable for bloodthirsty Americans, but really, give it a thought, which country has participated in more overt conflicts in the past half century.
The same thing that's made china not have an overt military conflict for the past half century: they're not a militaristic, expansionist country.
I could keep going but my train is almost at my stop. China tries their best to keep their conflicts on the quiet-side to prevent sanctions like the west did to Russia.
Thank you for proving me right by bringing as your utmost evidence BBC (the unbiased source that uses the grey "China filter" on videos) reports that "some countries are purportedly sad because of a map". Really, very telling that that's the best you've got. In the meanwhile, NATO bombed Yugoslavia and Libya, and the US outright invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to name just a select few.
You guys are unbelievable.
"Your evidence is overwhelming, so I will point out what I don't like about one source, ignore all others, and then try to use whataboutism to further bury myself in this hole I've created ."
"your evidence is overwhelming"
I explicitly said that all your sources are "western-biased source reports that some government official of a bordering country cries at slight border tensions". By that logic, Spain is a hugely militaristic, imperialist and expansionist regime:
I wasn't doing whataboutism, I was bringing real examples of militarism as opposed to literal news cuts of government officials crying at maps that you provided as "overwhelming evidence".
I'm guessing the Dalai Lama doesn't agree with you on that one.
That pedophile can honestly suck me
Okay, replace him with a large percentage of Tibetans in the world.
Or are they all pedophiles?
Please tell me you have a reliable source on the number of Tibetans in Tibet that want independence from China.
Let's then compare that to Catalonians in Spain, or to Quebec nationals in Canada, or to indigenous colonies in the US
I said "the world" and not "China."
None of those places were conquered within living memory, the thing you said China doesn't do.
(Believe it or not, arguing that they like being conquered and colonized doesn't mean they weren't conquered and colonized.)
(Believe it or not, arguing that they like being conquered and colonized doesn't mean they weren't conquered and colonized.)
"The right of self-determination is only relevant when it's bad for China :("
Tibet was a literal feudal state with absolutist power, where Tibetans worked the land as serfs for their feudal lords as they were legally tied to it. The liberation army liberated the Tibetans from their feudal yoke in a non-colonial way (we can get into the details if you want to).
None of those places were conquered within living memory, the thing you said China doesn't do.
Ok, hopefully we'll stop hearing the imperialists cry about how much better Tibet was under feudalism in 20 years, when it's no longer living memory.
Again- this was about you claiming China is not expansionist.
You can claim the expansionism was justified, you can claim that the people wanted it, you can claim it's unfair because of "the imperialists," you can claim any of those things or other things.
What you cannot truthfully claim is that a country which literally expanded its borders by a massive amount in living memory by the same government that is currently in power is not expansionist.
A people's liberation event in 50 years is really all you pro-US-imperialists have to point to as for how evil and militaristic china is. You guys are laughable.
Please do not make personal attacks like that. They violate community rules (rule 5) and you have no idea what my politics are. I am just challenging your claim that China is not expansionist by showing that they literally expanded their borders by a massive amount within living memory.
I'm sorry facts anger you, but they're still facts even if they disagree with your political worldview.
Anger me? Facts? Again, you're making me laugh
Was China bigger or smaller after taking over Tibet? I think you know the answer is bigger.
Making your country bigger would be doing what with it? I think you know the answer is expanding it.
And I doubt I'm making you laugh or you wouldn't be making personal attacks.
You're just showing you don't understand basic concepts. You called China's liberation of Tibet "colonialism", proving you don't know the meaning of it. Expansionism isn't "when borders grow at any time in history", it's a tendency of a nation to view its territorial expansion as a desirable goal for the sake of it or for access to resource for example. Austria building an embassy in Tibet would grow Austria's borders, technically counting as expansionism according to you. You have lib level of politics knowledge and analysis, and it's hysterical how you try to bend definitions to make things look good for US imperialism
That is what the Chinese leadership likes to claim. That it’s cultural, and their culture is one of trade and cooperation, not expansion. And I don’t doubt that they are earnest in saying that. I mean they truly believe themselves to be different. But we know that once a power becomes global, i.e. when its interests and investments extend well beyond its borders, its military presence will also expand, and it will engage in conflict to protect said global interests. Whether it’s the US, Russia, or China, the dynamic at a certain level is the same. China is already growing a more formidable army and expanding into the South China Sea. This is only the beginning.
So basically "China bad because future china bad source: trust me bro"?
The same thing that's made china not have an overt military conflict for the past half century: they're not a militaristic, expansionist country. I know that's inconceivable for bloodthirsty Americans, but really, give it a thought, which country has participated in more overt conflicts in the past half century.
Uh..
The Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia all disagree..
India disagrees.
Nepal disagrees.
Bhutan disagrees.
I could keep going but my train is almost at my stop. China tries their best to keep their conflicts on the quiet-side to prevent sanctions like the west did to Russia.
Thank you for proving me right by bringing as your utmost evidence BBC (the unbiased source that uses the grey "China filter" on videos) reports that "some countries are purportedly sad because of a map". Really, very telling that that's the best you've got. In the meanwhile, NATO bombed Yugoslavia and Libya, and the US outright invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to name just a select few.
You guys are unbelievable.
"Your evidence is overwhelming, so I will point out what I don't like about one source, ignore all others, and then try to use whataboutism to further bury myself in this hole I've created ."
"your evidence is overwhelming"
I explicitly said that all your sources are "western-biased source reports that some government official of a bordering country cries at slight border tensions". By that logic, Spain is a hugely militaristic, imperialist and expansionist regime:
I wasn't doing whataboutism, I was bringing real examples of militarism as opposed to literal news cuts of government officials crying at maps that you provided as "overwhelming evidence".
I'm guessing the Dalai Lama doesn't agree with you on that one.
That pedophile can honestly suck me
Okay, replace him with a large percentage of Tibetans in the world.
Or are they all pedophiles?
Please tell me you have a reliable source on the number of Tibetans in Tibet that want independence from China.
Let's then compare that to Catalonians in Spain, or to Quebec nationals in Canada, or to indigenous colonies in the US
I said "the world" and not "China."
None of those places were conquered within living memory, the thing you said China doesn't do.
(Believe it or not, arguing that they like being conquered and colonized doesn't mean they weren't conquered and colonized.)
"The right of self-determination is only relevant when it's bad for China :("
Tibet was a literal feudal state with absolutist power, where Tibetans worked the land as serfs for their feudal lords as they were legally tied to it. The liberation army liberated the Tibetans from their feudal yoke in a non-colonial way (we can get into the details if you want to).
Ok, hopefully we'll stop hearing the imperialists cry about how much better Tibet was under feudalism in 20 years, when it's no longer living memory.
Again- this was about you claiming China is not expansionist.
You can claim the expansionism was justified, you can claim that the people wanted it, you can claim it's unfair because of "the imperialists," you can claim any of those things or other things.
What you cannot truthfully claim is that a country which literally expanded its borders by a massive amount in living memory by the same government that is currently in power is not expansionist.
A people's liberation event in 50 years is really all you pro-US-imperialists have to point to as for how evil and militaristic china is. You guys are laughable.
Please do not make personal attacks like that. They violate community rules (rule 5) and you have no idea what my politics are. I am just challenging your claim that China is not expansionist by showing that they literally expanded their borders by a massive amount within living memory.
I'm sorry facts anger you, but they're still facts even if they disagree with your political worldview.
Anger me? Facts? Again, you're making me laugh
Was China bigger or smaller after taking over Tibet? I think you know the answer is bigger.
Making your country bigger would be doing what with it? I think you know the answer is expanding it.
And I doubt I'm making you laugh or you wouldn't be making personal attacks.
You're just showing you don't understand basic concepts. You called China's liberation of Tibet "colonialism", proving you don't know the meaning of it. Expansionism isn't "when borders grow at any time in history", it's a tendency of a nation to view its territorial expansion as a desirable goal for the sake of it or for access to resource for example. Austria building an embassy in Tibet would grow Austria's borders, technically counting as expansionism according to you. You have lib level of politics knowledge and analysis, and it's hysterical how you try to bend definitions to make things look good for US imperialism
That is what the Chinese leadership likes to claim. That it’s cultural, and their culture is one of trade and cooperation, not expansion. And I don’t doubt that they are earnest in saying that. I mean they truly believe themselves to be different. But we know that once a power becomes global, i.e. when its interests and investments extend well beyond its borders, its military presence will also expand, and it will engage in conflict to protect said global interests. Whether it’s the US, Russia, or China, the dynamic at a certain level is the same. China is already growing a more formidable army and expanding into the South China Sea. This is only the beginning.
So basically "China bad because future china bad source: trust me bro"?