|
The Number Of Uyghurs Has Tripled – The U.S. Calls It A Genocide – Propaganda Fails To Explain It
After being bashed with 24/7 "Trump is bad" news we are now punished with 24/7 of "Biden is great" news.
Actions which were an outrage when taken under Trump are now sold as rational endeavors when argued for by Biden acolytes.
To cover for the turnabout media are getting a bit in a twist and have to make up stupid excuses.
Consider this New York Times piece that now justifies a last minute action the former Secretary of State Mike Pompous took when he falsely declared that the Chinese development of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region is a 'genocide'.
China’s Oppression of Muslims in Xinjiang, Explained
On the final full day of the Trump presidency, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that China was carrying out a genocide against Uighurs and other Muslim peoples, the toughest condemnation yet of Beijing’s crackdown against its far western region of Xinjiang.
…
The incoming Biden administration has indicated its general agreement with the designation. A spokesman for Joseph R. Biden Jr. said during the presidential campaign last year that Beijing’s policies in the region amounted to genocide.
…
Here’s a look at the Xinjiang region, China’s crackdown there and what the genocide declaration could mean for the global response.
Uh oh – the 'good Biden' endorses something 'bad Trump' has done. Some mumble is needed to explain that!
Thus follows a number of inaccurate descriptions of the historic and current situation in Xinjiang:
Xinjiang, in the far northwestern region of China, has large numbers of Uighurs, Kazakhs and other mostly Muslim groups. It is culturally, linguistically and religiously more similar to Central Asia than the Chinese interior.
…
Uighurs have long bridled at Chinese control of the region, which has seen an influx of ethnic Chinese migrants and an increase in restrictions on local language, culture and religion. Minority groups in Xinjiang say they aren’t given jobs or contracts because of widespread racial discrimination.
The resentment has sometimes boiled over into violence, including attacks on police officers and civilians. In 2009, nearly 200 people, mostly Han Chinese, were killed in riots in Urumqi, the regional capital.
Most of Xinjiang has been under 'Chinese control' for more than 2,000 years. It has always been a mixed region with several ethnic groups including a significant Han population. It has also seen fast population growth caused by high birth rates and migration following strong economic development:
In the early 1800s the population under the Qing (Manchu) Dynasty was roughly 60% Turkic and 30% Han. In 1953, a People’s Republic of China census registered 4.87 million of which 75% were Uyghur and 6% Han. In 1964 the census documented 7.44 million of which 54% were Uyghur and 33% Han. After the beginning of the economic reforms, Xinjiang registered 13.08 million of which 46% were Uyghur and 40% Han. In terms of the 2000 census, Xinjiang’s 18.46 million people are 45.21% Uyghur and 40.57% Han. The current population situation is similar to that of the Qing when many Han lived in the area.
In 1953 there were 3.6 million Uyghur in Xinjiang. In 2,000 there were 8.4 million. Wikipedia says that in 2018 Xinjiang has a total population of 25 million of which 11.3 million are ethnic Uyghur.
It is quite weird to claim that such a consistent population growth of an ethnic group is somehow a 'genocide'.
This sentence from the above quote is especially interesting:
Minority groups in Xinjiang say they aren’t given jobs or contracts because of widespread racial discrimination.
It is followed a few graphs later by this claim:
In addition, the authorities have pushed work programs in Xinjiang, including the transfer of workers within the region and to other parts of China, that critics say most likely involve coercion and forced labor.
Which is it?
Are the Uyghur excluded from labor or are they coerced to labor?
The Times won't explain that contradiction so we will have to do that.
There has been high economic growth in Xinjiang for several decades. The state owned Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, which was founded 64 years ago to develop the region, has seen above 10% growth rates in its industries over several decades.
Some of this growth has been in rural areas with extensive cotton farming. There are also large coal, oil and gas reserves in Xinjiang that have been developed. Another growth factor has been a rapid urbanization within the province.
Cotton farming, unless highly mechanized, requires a lot of seasonal workers to pick the cotton. These often came from Han provinces. A 2009 report in the NYT said:
The first wave of workers has arrived in the annual migration to China’s restive western region of Xinjiang this year to pick cotton, according to a report on Friday by Xinhua, the state news agency.
The workers are mostly ethnic Han and are the first large batch of migrant workers to make the journey to Xinjiang since deadly ethnic rioting broke out this summer.
A Reuters piece from 2014 tried to use the fact that Han migrants came to do such work to justify Islamist terrorism in Xinjiang:
URUMQI, China (Reuters) – Hundreds of migrant workers from distant corners of China pour daily into the Urumqi South railway station, their first waypoint on a journey carrying them to lucrative work in other parts of the far western Xinjiang region.
Like the columns of police toting rifles and metal riot spears that weave between migrants resting on their luggage, the workers are a fixture at the station, which last week was targeted by a bomb and knife attack the government has blamed on religious extremists.
“We come this far because the wages are good,” Shi Hongjiang, 26, from the southwestern metropolis of Chongqing, told Reuters outside the station. “Also, the Uighur population is small. There aren’t enough of them to do the work.”
Shi’s is a common refrain from migrant workers, whose experience finding low-skilled work is very different to that of the Muslim Uighur minority.
Employment discrimination, experts say, along with a demographic shift that many Uighurs feel is diluting their culture, is fuelling resentment that spills over into violent attacks directed at Han Chinese, China’s majority ethnic group.
It is correct that some employers preferred Han workers as they were schooled and spoke the main countrywide language. But the Chinese government had long recognized that a large part of the local rural population was still underemployed and already had taken measures to change that:
The Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region, China's prime cotton-growing area, plans to pump some 20 billion yuan ($3.2 billion) into its textile industry to create jobs and maintain social stability, local officials in its Beijing representative office said on Friday.
"The push for textile development will create more jobs in the sector," said Yan Qin, a top official of Urumqi. "It is not only a matter of economic returns and social benefits, but also a political issue."
…
Local officials said the policy focus will favor the underdeveloped southern part of the region. The southern Xinjiang city of Aksu, one of the major cultivation areas, is one area where the government aims to improve employment.
The move is part of Beijing's call to attract more labor-intensive textile manufacturers from the eastern cities to Xinjiang to open up employment opportunities for local people.
In 2016 Reuters reported on the success of Beijng's development policy:
AKSU, China (Reuters) – The Youngor cotton spinning factory is one of the biggest employers in Aksu, an agricultural town on the edge of the Taklamakan desert in China’s restive Xinjiang region.
Youngor, one of China’s largest shirt-makers, opened the plant in 2011 to be closer to the main cotton-growing region in Xinjiang. Soon it will be joined by others: Beijing wants to create 1 million textile jobs in Xinjiang by 2023.
…
Almost all of the 520 employees at the Youngor factory are Uighurs. The average factory floor salary is around 3,000 yuan ($463.18)a month, and comes with food and lodging – compared with roughly 4,000 yuan for textile workers in the southern China factory belt.
“There are still a lot of people to come out of (Xinjiang’s) countryside,” said Xu Zhiwu, general manager at Youngor’s Aksu factory, referring to government data that show 2.6 million rural residents sought work in Xinjiang’s cities in 2014.
Xinjiang Youngor Cotton Spinning Co Ltd, a unit of Youngor Group, is planning to expand its factory, built among apple orchards on Aksu’s outskirts, Xu said.
Beijing's development policies were successful. The seasonal cotton picking campaign is no longer done by Han migrant worker but by locally recruited people:
The replacement of Han labor migrants from eastern China with local ethnic minority laborers who are mobilized through labor transfer schemes is taking place in all cotton-growing regions in Xinjiang. In 2018, of 250,000 cotton pickers in Kashgar Prefecture, 210,900 were locals (via labor transfer policies), 39,100 came from other regions of Xinjiang, and only 6,219 or 2.5 percent hailed from other parts of China.
The report notes the numbers of cotton pickers from other parts of China are declining. In the same year, the number of cotton pickers in Aksu Prefecture who were organized through the labor transfer mechanism increased by 21 percent. In 2020, Aksu needed 142,700 cotton pickers; of them, 124,500 were locally organized (likewise via state-arranged labor transfers).
Karakax County in Hotan Prefecture sent out more cotton pickers mobilized through labor transfer – an increase from 40,600in 2017 to 54,000 in 2018, mobilizing 15.7 percent of its population aged 18-59 years to pick cotton in other regions. A 2020 news article from Aksu explains that counties with more cotton plantations request labor from those with fewer plantations, stating that as a result the region “no longer needs to attract cotton pickers from elsewhere.”
The 'labor transfer policies' are in fact state sponsored local recruitment campaigns for well paid seasonal work. This local recruitment is what the Times calls "coercion and forced labor".
When, years ago, Han migrant workers came to Xinjiang to pick cotton and for other work 'western' media complained and used that to justify Islamist terrorism.
After China introduced a better development policy and the companies started to recruit from the local Uyghur population for cotton picking and other textile industry work the very same 'western' media complain about "coerced labor".
Instead of explaining the successful development the New York Times is using it to argue that an ethnic group, which over the last seven decades more than tripled in size, is under threat of genocide.
There is nothing that China could do to end such silly propaganda.
Posted by: Smith | Jan 25 2021 4:22 utc | 225
No, the Right of Resistance does not involve land-grab from neighbor countries.
Yes it does, specifically when neighbouring countries are using the same strategy of land-grab (e.g the US in Korea, Phillipines, Japan etc …).
If your opponent is grabbing strategic land that can be used to attack you, you grab land that will help you defend. Simple, right?
China is using national security (America encirclement) as an excuse to land-grab, which is very similar to America’s logic of invading Iraq.
Are you delusional? American encirclement is not an *excuse* it is a *reality*. Are you saying the American encirclement is imaginary?
Explain what China should do in response to the *real* American threat, I want to hear what absurdisms you can come up with …
The Qing dynasty tried to ban Opium, but also they tried to ban any attempts to modernize and reform, and instead they huddle among themselves, arrogantly thinking they
were the best and thus cannot be defeated by the westerners.
So what you’re saying is the Qin:
a) Banned Opium trade and told the white people to FOAD and stop trying to make crackheads of the Chinese.
b) Tries to ban what *the white man considered modernisation* (which meant becoming hooked on opium – the white man’s notion of “modernization”)
c) Stayed within their fences, like good neighbors should, telling all those nice white people not to come visiting.
That’s the equivalent of a rape victim covering up modestly, refusing the advances of a rapist (Just Say “NO”) and refusing to engage in further conversation with the rapist!
Your moral reasoning is broken beyond repair, dude. Get psychological help, quickly!
The British Empire was the empire of its hayday, but after all the colonies got deposed, just like China back-then, they got reduced to nothing, that’s the price of
imperialism and arrogance.
Wrong on multiple counts.
The loss of Empire was the price of poor managemnt of Empire, not Empire in itself.
Not only does Britain still retain hundreds of years worth of ill-gotten profit from the Empire, but it enjoys an overblown position in world affairs due to it’s imperial history.
It was *never* reduced to nothing, although that would have been nice. The British Empire was reduced to a level that the British could sustain.
Profits were certainly made and are still in posession of the British ruling Elite.
we can blame the victim if the victim does stupid shit that makes it easier to get raped, the fact the rapist is evil doesn’t stop the stupidity of the victim.
No. Rape is wrong under all circumstances.
In addition, you have failed to prove what China (the victim) did during the century of humiliation to deserve blame, your points above are rubbish.
And in this era, the “stupidity of the victim” would be not making sure they are armed and allowing an Imperial Power (the US) to get too close to their shores.
If that means land grabs, so be it.
And no, I do not make excuse for imperialism, that’s why I don’t believe that the victim who got raped (China) now has the right to rape others.
You just did. your entire screed was a justification for why a victim of imperialism is to blame for their situation.
Further, there is no imperialism being carried out by China in any part of the world, this is a falsehood you are spreading that is not supported by the facts.
Posted by: Arch Bungle | Jan 25 2021 4:51 utc | 226
Posted by: Smith | Jan 25 2021 5:05 utc | 227
No, the only force that tries to illegally land-grab in Asia are USA, China and India, which are all big powers. All other countries try to solve the matters diplomatically.
You are purveying falsehoods. Vietnam, Taiwan, Phillipines, Malaysia, Brunei are also occupied in ‘Imperialism’ (using your definition) in the Spratleys, for example:
In the 1970s South Vietnam occupied three of the Spratly Islands (including Spratly Island itself) to ‘forestall a Chinese occupation’.
Troops from Taiwan remained on Itu Aba. The Philippines then moved forces onto seven of the remaining islets and built an airstrip (1976) on Pagasa Island.
Vietnam is building islands in the Spratleys, just like the Chinese are accused of.
But we don’t hear so much about these because people like yourself, Agent Smith, amplify the Anglo-American Empire’s narrative about “Imperial China”.
So as you can see, if we use your logic the world becomes an absurd, Alice In Wonderland kind of world where Asia is a conglomerate of Imperial nations vying for power.
China’s taking of the Paracels for example, was reasonable given the fact that American advisors were assisting Vietnamese forces in strengthening their position on islands which had previously belonged to China (as recognised by France):
It takes more than a “land grab” to be an empire, or else we can call ‘israel’ the Zionist Empire of Judah, can’t we?
Again, no, American encirclement is real, but it does not excuse China trying to use it as land-grab.
Yes. It does. encirclement is a *profound* reason for seizing tactical land for self defense.
No nation would tolerate being surrounded by a gradually encroaching cordon of bases – that’s just idiocy.
What China can do instead is solidarity with other asian nations and together fight the americans,
Which is *exactly* what it’s been doing: ASEAN, RCEP, BRI, SCO etc.
And these projects have been *spectacularly* successful!
NOT using the american threat for expansion. That will instead make more asian nations fall towards the american.
Again, you are living in an imaginary world where you think China is ‘expanding’, like an empire, but you have no facts to prove this.
In fact, the facts contradict you: China is no expanding geographically at all.
They have successfully concluded most of their border disputes with their neighbours, and are in process of negotiating the remaining ones.
Just like almost every other state in the world with any kind of borders.
Unless you are under the delusion that contested borders mean imperial expansion?
If you are that is a false notion, as I’ve shown above that land grabs and contested borders are a common activity in Asia and have nothing to do with Imperial expansion.
The Qing tried to block Sun Yan Sen and various attempt of modernization by chinese intellectuals,
they were a corrupt dynasty that is hated by the populace at the time.
And no, their stupidity does not excuse the white men’s evil.
So you agree that nothing the Qing did has anything to do with the imperial evil brought on them by the Europeans, Russians and Japanese?
Well, Britain is on its way to be reduced into nothing, and will be even more reduced if the scots and irish want to leave. I’d say their imperial loot is running out.
Wrong again.
With whatever remains it will be a country like any other country that is not an empire, fitting and peaceful end for a dark era.
It is well capable of providing for it’s own needs if it governs itself wisely, with or without the scots or irish.
No, rape is wrong, but I do not believe the idea that the victim is always innocent.
So, according to your moral logic: “No, paedophilia is wrong, but I do not believe the idea that the victim is always innocent.”
Right? Give some examples where the victim of paedophilia and rape “are not always innocent”.
In case of China, their powerful dynasty got reduced to rubble due to foreign invasion as well as their corrupted and backwards ruling class.
It would have made not a jot of difference if the Qing had been are pure as angels and loved by their population.
The divide, corrupt and conquer strategy of Imperial Britain, USA, France, Russia, Japan and Germany would have resulted in the same.
All the holy uncorupptedness in the world would not have saved the Qing under the onslaught of not one but SEVERAL empires AT THE SAME TIME.
It was not called “The Scramble for China” for nothing!
So no, your argument is B.S, like the rest of your reasoning.
And no, where did I justify imperialism? I did not say China “deserved” to be raped, I just say the fact China got raped doesn’t mean they have the right to rape others.
You did not have to say they “deserved” to be raped. All you needed to do was make equivocations of the kind where the victim was also to blame for being victims by virtue of simply existing – that is the essence of what you said.
In this, you come down on the side of imperialism without even needing to say it directly. That’s what happens when you make such equivocations.
And no, China is using their own history to grab parts of the SEA Sea and of course the tension with Japan.
Rubbish. None of this was an issue until the US began it’s “Pivot to Asia” and made it clear that it would focus on the SCS and make a Threat of China.
That’s when China used the foil of the 9-dash line to illustrate that it was quite capable of opposing US attempts to dominate it’s region and threaten it’s shores.
That was a very reasonable and expected response.
Are you aware of the history between Japan and China? You must have heard of Imperial Japan’s Rape of Nanjing and other atrocities? Do you think the tension may have something to do with that?
Further, what’s your position on the many bases, including nuclear missile bases hosted by the USA in Japan?
Do you think this might be a contributing factor to the tension? I’m really interested to know …
If China is just, they would stop using history as an excuse.
As I said in the beginning, this is not a game of Good vs. Evil, or “Just” vs. “Unjust”. Nobody on planet earth is playing that game right now.
History is a fine excuse when life and death are in the balance.
and ally with these countries in solidarity instead of inflaming tension and make these countries turn towards the USA.
You didn’t notice by response about ASEAN, RCEP, SCO, BRI, did you? Try to pay attention.
… but the moment it land grabs, no force in the world can justify it, it would be just another empire.
You have a broken notion of what an empire is.
Seizing strategic ground in response to clear, present and dire threats does not make an empire.
If that were so a dozen or more ’empires’ would suddenly appear out of nowhere.
Normal countries do this to defend their weak areas, as does China – and China ONLY seizes land where it is critically vulnerable.
Posted by: Arch Bungle | Jan 25 2021 7:11 utc | 232
Posted by: Smith | Jan 25 2021 9:23 utc | 240
What a joke, the only ASEAN nations that host US troops are Thailand (which actually has deep China ties), even the Phillipines have told the US to piss off.
Your reading comprehension is defective – that’s the real joke.
My exact sentence was:
ASEAN nations like Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, Phillipines and India should stop hosting US military installations *and/or*
carrying out military exercises around China to begin with. SK in particular should remove the THAAD system – it’s a permanent gun to the head of China.
Think long and hard about what the phrase “should stop hosting US military installations *and/or* carrying out military exercises ” means.
Consider that it was specifically phrased to ommit the term “bases”
Why? Because I predicted, based on your bias, you would jump to the standard pro-Imperialism defense of “But But … we got no bases there!”.
Clearly you cannot distinguish between a base and a facility.
Yet, even in your lie, you are factually wrong since there are *bases* hosted by these Asian countries:
– Japan hosts many American bases,
– the Philipines rotates US Navy continuously through Subic bay,
– Singapore has a US military base,
– South Korea as well,including THAAD installations
– at least 4 bases in Australia.
It matters not whether these countries are core members of ASEAN or associated members – the point remains the same.
So, do you admit that the Facilities are there and the *exercises* DO take place? Or will you deflect, sidestep or otherwise just ignore real facts and spout fact-free B.S as you have been doing so far?
(I have laid my bet already – $50 …)
Instead of using this opportunity to mend relationship and build strong stable allies, China instead doubles down on the 9 dash line, knowing that no maritime ASEAN nations are
gonna accept that.
What are you talking about? Why are you going in circles making the same claims over and over again even when they’ve been demonstrated to be false.
a) China is ALREADY “using this opportunity to mend relationship and build strong stable allies”, as I repeated twice or more: ASEAN. RCEP. BRI. AIB etc …
b) They expend daily efforts in requesting the US to push off out of the SCS.
c) They have stated to the affected nations that they’re willing to negotiate the 9-dash line with each nation involved.
d) All the ASEAN nations have similar claims in the SCS, some valid some invalid. The 9-dash line is a straw man, it’s a response to “The Pivot to Asia”.
And no, the only thing that will stop the USA attempt of divide and conquer is China respecting its neighbors.
You are ignorant of the meaning of “divide and conquer”. By implication it involves dividing the united and exploiting weaknesses in nation. The Imperialists have done this regardless of relations between countries.
The Problem Is The Imperial Powers, not China.
China has shown more respect to it’s neighbours than any of the western imperialists have.
Often, more than it’s neighbours have shown each other and more than it’s neighbours (e.g Japan) have shown it.
The fact China itself views itself as “big country” and dictating terms means the USA will always have some support in the region to deter China,
in turn giving China’s casus belli to ramp up their military.
And no, USA is a straight out empire, while China has imperial aspirations, the proof is that they refuse to step down and work with their neighbors.
Agent Smith, you are straight out lying now.
Prove to me that China has “Imperial Ambitions”? You cannot. This is more stuff you puled from your rectum.
Prove to me that they refuse to step down and work with their neighbors? I can point to research proving the exact opposite.
Deals like RCEP, ASEAN, BRI and AIIB prove that you are lying about this point.
Posted by: Arch Bungle | Jan 25 2021 11:18 utc | 250
Posted by: Smith | Jan 25 2021 15:43 utc | 274
China is militarizing islets, has fishing fleet and coast guards running all over the SEA sea, and regularly get into trouble with Vietnam, Phillipines and Indonesian ships.
.
.
.
How is any of that NOT violating the other countries’s EEZ?
Study more. Stupid Less. Go study what an EEZ is that will answer your persistent stupidity you demonstrate above.
Although, you show a glimmer of intelligence as efforts of people on this site to educate you begin to sink in by your ‘self correction’ below:
Self-correction, the 9-dash line is claimed by China to be “traditional fishing zone” not exclusive, which means they can go there and fish any times they want.
Their own definition is very vague and they never want to clarify, another sign of treachery.
Now do you understand why your visions of ‘violation’ are figments of your imagination?
And no, it’s not about Survival or Death, USA can nuke China with or without the SEA sea, and vice versa.
it’s Imperialism or Respect. Do you choose to respect your neighbors, or do you want to squat on their pond?
China always uses the USA as reason, but everybody knows that’s an excuse.
China would rather be an empire to usurp the USA, but not an ally with respect for other nations.
No.
It is about survival and death. The last 200 years of Chinese history has demonstrated that. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
And no, the fact that both possess nukes doesn’t change the fact that:
a) the US will attempt to contain and constrain China by conventional means.
b) There are those who *believe* that ABM will protect the US from a Chinese nuclear strike AND those who believe China will fold without a nuclear strike, choosing instead to save themselves and become vassals rather than risk a nuclear war.
c) The US may embargo and constrain/dominate the region around China to a degree enough to severly disadvantage China while not raising the threshold of response to nuclear level – slow starvation as is the strategy with North Korea and was the strategy with the USSR.
d) The US may imagine that an invasion, coupled with an attempt to neutralise the Chinese nuclear chain of command from infiltration within may have the desired effect, and proximity would serve that purpose.
This debunks your above argument. To be clear, your reasoning here is defective in this way:
a) You assume that possession of nuclear weapons precludes a purely conventional war where both parties decide to fight it out without nukes.
b) You assume the possession of nuclear weapons is sufficient to prevent strangulation tactics
You also engage in logical fallacy here by creating something which is commonly called a “false choice”:
Imperialism or Respect
The two have nothing to do with each other. You are proposing a choice between Chickens and Apples.
These are mistakes a rank amateur makes.
Also, people will always say those who Viets who are anti-China as South Vietnam, but if you come to Viet Nam, you would know the northerners have the biggest beef while the South is full of Hoa people. The hatred of chinese comes from their racism and disregard of their neighbors, not any kind of propaganda, where they regard their neighbors as inferior to take land from.
So, let’s delve deeper into this. Which part of the vietnamese political ethnic mix are you from?
Posted by: Arch Bungle | Jan 25 2021 17:37 utc | 281
In fact, let’s go on and debunk the NECESSITY argument, as proposed by Arch Bungle:
a) the US will attempt to contain and constrain China by conventional means.
And?
These attempts will fail IF China works with its neighbors instead of antagonizing them.
b) There are those who *believe* that ABM will protect the US from a Chinese nuclear strike AND those who believe China will fold without a nuclear strike, choosing instead to save themselves and become vassals rather than risk a nuclear war.
Belief is not factual, if the US believes that, they would hit China a long time ago.
c) The US may embargo and constrain/dominate the region around China to a degree enough to severly disadvantage China while not raising the threshold of response to nuclear level – slow starvation as is the strategy with North Korea and was the strategy with the USSR.
These attempts will fail if China works with their neighbors, namely ASEAN. Meanwhile, China acts as if its neighbors do not matter at all, thus creating tension and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
d) The US may imagine that an invasion, coupled with an attempt to neutralise the Chinese nuclear chain of command from infiltration within may have the desired effect, and proximity would serve that purpose.
Yeah, imagination. There’s no realistic scenario of that drawing out without the complete destruction of the US fleet and US military bases in Asia, and that’s why they haven’t tried it yet.
This debunks your above argument. To be clear, your reasoning here is defective in this way:
a) You assume that possession of nuclear weapons precludes a purely conventional war where both parties decide to fight it out without nukes.
b) You assume the possession of nuclear weapons is sufficient to prevent strangulation tactics
How does it debunk my argument? Nukes alone is the deterrent of conventional warfare, it’s the force which makes any imperialist (China included) trembles, because there’s no verifiable or plausible way to counter them yet. And in a case of China-US conflict, nukes would be on the table, make no mistake.
And the second, strangulation tactics is only possible because you refuse to work with people close to you. China sees ASEAN as the enemy, and thus enemy shall it become.
So, let’s delve deeper into this. Which part of the vietnamese political ethnic mix are you from?
I’m a Vietnamese nationalist/communist with Marxist leaning.
And William Gruff
If anyone other than China somehow achieves control of the South China Sea, that just means that the American Empire has control over the resources present in the South China Sea. There are no scenarios in which Vietnam or the Philippines gets that control.
No, ASEAN will continue to develop and thus will have their own tech to extract these resources, no need for either American or China.
You are using imperialist tone, because it’s there, I must get it. That kind of logic does lead to war and suffering, and it comes from a greedy mind.
Posted by: Smith | Jan 25 2021 22:41 utc | 294
|
