[Politics] Nazi China

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

A backbencher for the Australian government drew connections between China and Nazi Germany. And Australia is acting like France in the 1930s

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-australia-49275897/australia-pm-weighs-in-on-china-row-over-nazi-germany-comparison

This is just after Mike Pompeo came over and asked Australia to put US conventional missle in Darwin to help deal with China. Also, just after China deliberately crashed the world economy last week (to continue the game of chicken Xi Jinping and Trump are playing thats hurting everyone else) and got around the soy bean bans by buying from Brazil. Thus destroying part of the US agriculture industry

Pompeo had been asking more countries to step up and push back against the China (similar things have been said about Europe and Russia).

Couple of issue: China is Australia's largest trading partner. One country in this alliance, India, is the one flex into Kashmir and trying to claim it for their own. Which makes them more like Nazi Germany before WW2. Lastly, the TPP was partially about forcing China into recognising intellectual property Rights. And that was destroyed by Trump.

Anyway, way too many of these countries have nuclear warheads. Not impressed with any of their behaviour at the moment

And yet the United States has more prisoners.

China doesn't have the best human rights record in the world, but comparing it to Nazi Germany is rediculous. If we have to compare it to Germany at all, maybe Germany pre-WWI; rising power coming into conflict with established powers. Back then it was the UK and France, now it's the United States.

The comparison is stupid

Also the US has problems finding allies in its trade war with China. At least the EU certainly won't join. And seems to be better off this way even if the economic damage in the two biggest trading partners will hurt somewhat. But if Australia really wants to bind itself to the US, well, that is their decision.

China is authoritarian but not all authoritarians are nazi. China is communist. Thing is, both left and right, when taken to the extreme, become authoritarian.

The TPP was a garbage fire though, it allowed multinational corporations to sue countries. That would basically put corporations on a higher place than governments, since a lot of countries out there have much less money than some multinational corporations.

If Trump ever did one thing that's good, it was killing the TPP.

Dreiko:
The TPP was a garbage fire though, it allowed multinational corporations to sue countries. That would basically put corporations on a higher place than governments, since a lot of countries out there have much less money than some multinational corporations.

If Trump ever did one thing that's good, it was killing the TPP.

Okay, say Lockheed wanted to sue the Australian government. How the fuck is it going to do that? The Australian government will make sure its not breaking any of its own laws - blatantly at least - and then a letter for the Attorney or Solicitor-General will be returned saying 'No Case to Answer'. Which is polite legalese for 'Fuck off'.

And even if its a smaller nation like say, Haiti. What are Lockheed going to do when the government of the nation just crosses their arms and says 'Shan't'? Invade? Petition Congress to go to war?

Gordon_4:

The Australian government will make sure its not breaking any of its own laws - blatantly at least - and then a letter for the Attorney or Solicitor-General will be returned saying 'No Case to Answer'. Which is polite legalese for 'Fuck off'.

IIRC, it isn't about breaking laws, but would allow companies to sue, for example, if a change a country made negatively affected a company's profits - e.g. an increase in labour protections. OTOH it's possible I just dreamed that.

Gordon_4:

Dreiko:
The TPP was a garbage fire though, it allowed multinational corporations to sue countries. That would basically put corporations on a higher place than governments, since a lot of countries out there have much less money than some multinational corporations.

If Trump ever did one thing that's good, it was killing the TPP.

Okay, say Lockheed wanted to sue the Australian government. How the fuck is it going to do that? The Australian government will make sure its not breaking any of its own laws - blatantly at least - and then a letter for the Attorney or Solicitor-General will be returned saying 'No Case to Answer'. Which is polite legalese for 'Fuck off'.

And even if its a smaller nation like say, Haiti. What are Lockheed going to do when the government of the nation just crosses their arms and says 'Shan't'? Invade? Petition Congress to go to war?

If you are found guilty at an international court and refuse to abide by the judgement there's gonna be a host of penalties that the international community can reasonably lever against you until you comply.

This also applies to individuals within these countries, as well. People would be open to be sued for breaking the laws of the countries these corporations are housed in, even if their conduct is legal where they actually live. This is mainly true with things like copyright law, for example, since different countries have different laws, but with the TPP the most stringent law among all countries would functionally become the law every country would have to abide by.

Baffle2:

Gordon_4:

The Australian government will make sure its not breaking any of its own laws - blatantly at least - and then a letter for the Attorney or Solicitor-General will be returned saying 'No Case to Answer'. Which is polite legalese for 'Fuck off'.

IIRC, it isn't about breaking laws, but would allow companies to sue, for example, if a change a country made negatively affected a company's profits - e.g. an increase in labour protections. OTOH it's possible I just dreamed that.

That's not really how would it work. Companies can only sue when countries pass legislations which infringe upon the free trade agreement. Labor laws do not affect free trade, but a country imposing tarrifs or adding legislations making it harder for companies to export goods or services to it would. And that's what most people are afraid of, that current regulations would get broken down or new ones would be impossible to add. A lot of EU countries/citizens feared a trade agreement with the US would force the EU to accept its hormone fed meat or GMO crops. These things could be mitigated by adding the necessary clauses into the deal but it is hard to make clauses that take into account potential future regulations based on future findings.

Hawki:
China doesn't have the best human rights record in the world, but comparing it to Nazi Germany is rediculous. If we have to compare it to Germany at all, maybe Germany pre-WWI; rising power coming into conflict with established powers. Back then it was the UK and France, now it's the United States.

From a military/imperialistic point of view China can very well be compared with pre-WW2 germany. It is claiming territory against everyone's will and against international law, has an ever increasing military strength and is being generally ignored by everyone.

Seanchaidh:
And yet the United States has more prisoners.

Perhaps, but China is culturally cleansing an entire region (Xinjiang). Are all the muslims in "reeducation camps" counted as "prisoners" in the statistics?

generals3:

From a military/imperialistic point of view China can very well be compared with pre-WW2 germany. It is claiming territory against everyone's will and against international law, has an ever increasing military strength and is being generally ignored by everyone.

Sort of...but China's land grabs in the South China Sea are still a far cry away from Nazi Germany outright annexing territory - territory that in the leadup to WWII, it never had a claim to (e.g. Czechslovakia). And similarly, Nazi Germany was stirring up hatred towards Jews, gypsies, and so on. You can point to the Unghyr, but as tragic as that is, it's nowhere near the scale of Nazi Germany's attrocities. "Reeducation camps" aren't Auschitz.

Also, in the context of international law and military strength, are we really putting the US on a pedastal above China? Need I remind everyone that Iraq was an illegal war built on falsehoods that, among other things, created a power vacuum that led to ISIS? Has China outright invaded another country in recent decades?

Dreiko:

Gordon_4:

Dreiko:
The TPP was a garbage fire though, it allowed multinational corporations to sue countries. That would basically put corporations on a higher place than governments, since a lot of countries out there have much less money than some multinational corporations.

If Trump ever did one thing that's good, it was killing the TPP.

Okay, say Lockheed wanted to sue the Australian government. How the fuck is it going to do that? The Australian government will make sure its not breaking any of its own laws - blatantly at least - and then a letter for the Attorney or Solicitor-General will be returned saying 'No Case to Answer'. Which is polite legalese for 'Fuck off'.

And even if its a smaller nation like say, Haiti. What are Lockheed going to do when the government of the nation just crosses their arms and says 'Shan't'? Invade? Petition Congress to go to war?

If you are found guilty at an international court and refuse to abide by the judgement there's gonna be a host of penalties that the international community can reasonably lever against you until you comply.

This also applies to individuals within these countries, as well. People would be open to be sued for breaking the laws of the countries these corporations are housed in, even if their conduct is legal where they actually live. This is mainly true with things like copyright law, for example, since different countries have different laws, but with the TPP the most stringent law among all countries would functionally become the law every country would have to abide by.

The United States is, last I checked, not a member of any international legal body. Primarily because it doesn't want its soldiers tried by anyone other than themselves. So I still don't see how a US company would achieve this unless it joined said legal body.

Seanchaidh:
And yet the United States has more prisoners.

Are we only counting officially known prisoners or are we also including people who have mysteriously disappeared after critiquing China?

Dreiko:
China is authoritarian but not all authoritarians are nazi. China is communist.

China is as communist as North Korea is a People's Democratic Republic.

As in, its in name only.

China is a right-wing fascist country. Same with Russia and North Korea.

You do realice you dont need to be a nazi to do all that? It used to be call imperialism in the good old days.

Saelune:

Dreiko:
China is authoritarian but not all authoritarians are nazi. China is communist.

China is as communist as North Korea is a People's Democratic Republic.

As in, its in name only.

China is a right-wing fascist country. Same with Russia and North Korea.

North Korea is communist too, watch a documentary, they go on about the proletariat all the time.

Communism can be reached in democratic methods too, at least initially. I don't know why you'd think them claiming to be democratic would mean they can't be communist.

Russia is definitely right wing fascist but China and NK are authoritarian late stage communism countries, which indeed look a lot like fascist right wing countries, because the core element in both of those types of government is authoritarianism and lack of freedom for the people, lack of the ability to exercise free speech and being forced to utter compelled speech chiefly among them. (they teach little kids national anthems that deify their leader as soon as they can speak at like age 3 in NK)

Chinese communism is just a means to an end, to maintain social stability and prevent civil unrest. The reason they haven't intervened in the Hong Kong riots(whose population oppose the extradition treaty) is that they prioritize economic interests above all else, and HK is of pivotal importance for Chinese trade with it's independent business litigation and insurance companies. Would a 'communist' country ever operate that way? That Trump tries to strong arm the Chinese with increased tariffs for the supposed trade deficit(in no small part thanks to American companies having outsourced almost it's entire industrial production) only shows the Chinese can't be bullied into submission anymore. Their response however has always been measured and non-escalating. Even with the nuclear crisis in North Korea they have taken the initiative. Sure, mainland China is authoritarian and criticism against the government isn't tolerated but the U.S. still has more people incarcerated. Make of that what you will. The U.S. shows way more military aggression as well, espescially in another attempt to strong arm Iran by blocking the Strait of Hormuz and choking the country with sanctions hoping to provoke civil war because of Trump's Saudi interests.

That Pompeo now has to beg the Australians for support only shows the U.S. is no longer the only superpower. China is becoming an equal rival. Hopefully the U.S won't resort to the divide and conquer tactics Putin is so very fond of. Though the writing is on the wall.

image

Was it something like this?

I'm sorry, I'll step off the stage now.

Dreiko:

Saelune:

Dreiko:
China is authoritarian but not all authoritarians are nazi. China is communist.

China is as communist as North Korea is a People's Democratic Republic.

As in, its in name only.

China is a right-wing fascist country. Same with Russia and North Korea.

North Korea is communist too, watch a documentary, they go on about the proletariat all the time.

Communism can be reached in democratic methods too, at least initially. I don't know why you'd think them claiming to be democratic would mean they can't be communist.

Russia is definitely right wing fascist but China and NK are authoritarian late stage communism countries, which indeed look a lot like fascist right wing countries, because the core element in both of those types of government is authoritarianism and lack of freedom for the people, lack of the ability to exercise free speech and being forced to utter compelled speech chiefly among them. (they teach little kids national anthems that deify their leader as soon as they can speak at like age 3 in NK)

You totally missed my point. North Korea is a dictatorship. Their elections are shams. They are not a Democracy, or even a Republic. Just because they don't call him King, doesn't mean he isn't a monarch, and an absolute one at that. There is no voting him out of power, nor will he ever step down.

Dreiko:

Saelune:

Dreiko:
China is authoritarian but not all authoritarians are nazi. China is communist.

China is as communist as North Korea is a People's Democratic Republic.

As in, its in name only.

China is a right-wing fascist country. Same with Russia and North Korea.

North Korea is communist too, watch a documentary, they go on about the proletariat all the time.

Communism can be reached in democratic methods too, at least initially. I don't know why you'd think them claiming to be democratic would mean they can't be communist.

Russia is definitely right wing fascist but China and NK are authoritarian late stage communism countries, which indeed look a lot like fascist right wing countries, because the core element in both of those types of government is authoritarianism and lack of freedom for the people, lack of the ability to exercise free speech and being forced to utter compelled speech chiefly among them. (they teach little kids national anthems that deify their leader as soon as they can speak at like age 3 in NK)

Does China or North Korea have a government? Yes. Then it's not Communism

Hawki:

generals3:

From a military/imperialistic point of view China can very well be compared with pre-WW2 germany. It is claiming territory against everyone's will and against international law, has an ever increasing military strength and is being generally ignored by everyone.

Sort of...but China's land grabs in the South China Sea are still a far cry away from Nazi Germany outright annexing territory - territory that in the leadup to WWII, it never had a claim to (e.g. Czechslovakia). And similarly, Nazi Germany was stirring up hatred towards Jews, gypsies, and so on. You can point to the Unghyr, but as tragic as that is, it's nowhere near the scale of Nazi Germany's attrocities. "Reeducation camps" aren't Auschitz.

Also, in the context of international law and military strength, are we really putting the US on a pedastal above China? Need I remind everyone that Iraq was an illegal war built on falsehoods that, among other things, created a power vacuum that led to ISIS? Has China outright invaded another country in recent decades?

My other problem is that India is invading right now. They have a jingoistic, patriotic (Trump's patriotism where you only allowed to do what they say) and has been denigrating anyone who isn't Hindu. They've been building up militarily and made a 'defense pact' with Japan. How are they not Germany in this situation.

Because it goes further. France did nothing about Germany because they were super worried about Russia. And Russia definitely had it's very clear issue, like illegalising homosexuality and putting people in Gulag. China is more like Soviet Russia. Worthy of scorn but maybe also be worried about another country

trunkage:

Hawki:

generals3:

From a military/imperialistic point of view China can very well be compared with pre-WW2 germany. It is claiming territory against everyone's will and against international law, has an ever increasing military strength and is being generally ignored by everyone.

Sort of...but China's land grabs in the South China Sea are still a far cry away from Nazi Germany outright annexing territory - territory that in the leadup to WWII, it never had a claim to (e.g. Czechslovakia). And similarly, Nazi Germany was stirring up hatred towards Jews, gypsies, and so on. You can point to the Unghyr, but as tragic as that is, it's nowhere near the scale of Nazi Germany's attrocities. "Reeducation camps" aren't Auschitz.

Also, in the context of international law and military strength, are we really putting the US on a pedastal above China? Need I remind everyone that Iraq was an illegal war built on falsehoods that, among other things, created a power vacuum that led to ISIS? Has China outright invaded another country in recent decades?

My other problem is that India is invading right now. They have a jingoistic, patriotic (Trump's patriotism where you only allowed to do what they say) and has been denigrating anyone who isn't Hindu. They've been building up militarily and made a 'defense pact' with Japan. How are they not Germany in this situation.

Because it goes further. France did nothing about Germany because they were super worried about Russia. And Russia definitely had it's very clear issue, like illegalising homosexuality and putting people in Gulag. China is more like Soviet Russia. Worthy of scorn but maybe also be worried about another country

None of those parallels make any sense. The border dispute over Kashmir goes almost as far back as the British colonial presence. Both Pakistan and India have made incursions, but for decades this has been kept in check through a nuclear balance. Maybe Modi feels particularly confident now that Pakistan is losing U.S. support and forces the regime to cut loose the ties between it's security apparatus and the Islamic hardliners in Waziristan and the Taliban. Without U.S. support for Pakistan there is no one to reel India in, but given the chance Pakistan would do the same. Hell, has done the same both overt and covert.

France(just like Britain) did nothing about Germany b/c Europe was tired of war after the Great War had torn the continent to pieces and decimated an entire generation of young men. France and Belgium in particular suffered lots of trench warfare. It wasn't until the invasion of Poland that Britain realized another war was inevitable. That France was somehow more worried at the time about Russia 'illegalising homosexuality' then German aggression is laughable. Anti-Bolshevism wasn't even a thing until 1942 in semi-autonomous Vichy France.

Seanchaidh:
And yet the United States has more prisoners.

Because the Chinese don't count the many dissapeared or people in concentration... sorry... "reeducation" camps as prisoners.

Baffle2:

Gordon_4:

The Australian government will make sure its not breaking any of its own laws - blatantly at least - and then a letter for the Attorney or Solicitor-General will be returned saying 'No Case to Answer'. Which is polite legalese for 'Fuck off'.

IIRC, it isn't about breaking laws, but would allow companies to sue, for example, if a change a country made negatively affected a company's profits - e.g. an increase in labour protections. OTOH it's possible I just dreamed that.

No you're correct there, TPP allowed for that.

generals3:

Hawki:
China doesn't have the best human rights record in the world, but comparing it to Nazi Germany is rediculous. If we have to compare it to Germany at all, maybe Germany pre-WWI; rising power coming into conflict with established powers. Back then it was the UK and France, now it's the United States.

From a military/imperialistic point of view China can very well be compared with pre-WW2 germany. It is claiming territory against everyone's will and against international law, has an ever increasing military strength and is being generally ignored by everyone.

Seanchaidh:
And yet the United States has more prisoners.

Perhaps, but China is culturally cleansing an entire region (Xinjiang). Are all the muslims in "reeducation camps" counted as "prisoners" in the statistics?

Xinjiang, their treatment of autonomous regions or states like Taiwan, or Hong Kong, and massacres like Kunming (2014) are blights on a country which also boasts a police state that would make Stalin salivate, and policies of cultural cleansing (The Falun Gong, https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/12222014_FH_ChinaReport2014_FINAL.pdf, https://www.cecc.gov/publications/annual-reports/2008-annual-report, https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/world/asia/28china.html) which would shame even some of the worst regimes.

vallorn:

Seanchaidh:
And yet the United States has more prisoners.

Because the Chinese don't count the many dissapeared or people in concentration... sorry... "reeducation" camps as prisoners.

Baffle2:

Gordon_4:

The Australian government will make sure its not breaking any of its own laws - blatantly at least - and then a letter for the Attorney or Solicitor-General will be returned saying 'No Case to Answer'. Which is polite legalese for 'Fuck off'.

IIRC, it isn't about breaking laws, but would allow companies to sue, for example, if a change a country made negatively affected a company's profits - e.g. an increase in labour protections. OTOH it's possible I just dreamed that.

No you're correct there, TPP allowed for that.

generals3:

Hawki:
China doesn't have the best human rights record in the world, but comparing it to Nazi Germany is rediculous. If we have to compare it to Germany at all, maybe Germany pre-WWI; rising power coming into conflict with established powers. Back then it was the UK and France, now it's the United States.

From a military/imperialistic point of view China can very well be compared with pre-WW2 germany. It is claiming territory against everyone's will and against international law, has an ever increasing military strength and is being generally ignored by everyone.

Seanchaidh:
And yet the United States has more prisoners.

Perhaps, but China is culturally cleansing an entire region (Xinjiang). Are all the muslims in "reeducation camps" counted as "prisoners" in the statistics?

Xinjiang, their treatment of autonomous regions or states like Taiwan, or Hong Kong, and massacres like Kunming (2014) are blights on a country which also boasts a police state that would make Stalin salivate, and policies of cultural cleansing (The Falun Gong, https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/12222014_FH_ChinaReport2014_FINAL.pdf, https://www.cecc.gov/publications/annual-reports/2008-annual-report, https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/world/asia/28china.html) which would shame even some of the worst regimes.

Is it time to point out that the Muslims in China arent innocent either. They've been bombing infrastructure and people for a while. Thousands have died.

It doesn't justify what's happening. But it was a very similar reaction to the US after 9/11. An attempt at wiping away a regime they don't like and replacing it with something they can accept. You could claim the US wasn't successful, with the rise of ISIS and the resurgence of the Taliban. But at least China didn't invade countries over it

trunkage:

vallorn:

Seanchaidh:
And yet the United States has more prisoners.

Because the Chinese don't count the many dissapeared or people in concentration... sorry... "reeducation" camps as prisoners.

Baffle2:

IIRC, it isn't about breaking laws, but would allow companies to sue, for example, if a change a country made negatively affected a company's profits - e.g. an increase in labour protections. OTOH it's possible I just dreamed that.

No you're correct there, TPP allowed for that.

generals3:

From a military/imperialistic point of view China can very well be compared with pre-WW2 germany. It is claiming territory against everyone's will and against international law, has an ever increasing military strength and is being generally ignored by everyone.

Perhaps, but China is culturally cleansing an entire region (Xinjiang). Are all the muslims in "reeducation camps" counted as "prisoners" in the statistics?

Xinjiang, their treatment of autonomous regions or states like Taiwan, or Hong Kong, and massacres like Kunming (2014) are blights on a country which also boasts a police state that would make Stalin salivate, and policies of cultural cleansing (The Falun Gong, https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/12222014_FH_ChinaReport2014_FINAL.pdf, https://www.cecc.gov/publications/annual-reports/2008-annual-report, https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/world/asia/28china.html) which would shame even some of the worst regimes.

Is it time to point out that the Muslims in China arent innocent either. They've been bombing infrastructure and people for a while. Thousands have died.

It doesn't justify what's happening. But it was a very similar reaction to the US after 9/11. An attempt at wiping away a regime they don't like and replacing it with something they can accept. You could claim the US wasn't successful, with the rise of ISIS and the resurgence of the Taliban. But at least China didn't invade countries over it

"At least china didn't invade countries" No, they just started mass imprisonment, KGB style surveillance programs, reeducation camps where citizens are beaten, starved etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm no war hawk, but when you begin rounding up your own citizens and putting them in camps...

Looks at thread...

...are we really getting into semantics about what counts as communism and what doesn't? Socialism, communism, whatever, you can discuss a nation without getting into the nitty gritty. Whether NK is truly communist or not doesn't change the fact that it's an authoratarian hellhole.

trunkage:
Is it time to point out that the Muslims in China arent innocent either. They've been bombing infrastructure and people for a while. Thousands have died.

I hope you know how that sounds.

vallorn:

"At least china didn't invade countries" No, they just started mass imprisonment, KGB style surveillance programs, reeducation camps where citizens are beaten, starved etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm no war hawk, but when you begin rounding up your own citizens and putting them in camps...

Don't forget the organ harvesting. Always a fun subject.

Leg End:

trunkage:
Is it time to point out that the Muslims in China arent innocent either. They've been bombing infrastructure and people for a while. Thousands have died.

I hope you know how that sounds.

It sounds like the exact excuse that the West had used to invade Muslim countries. We retaliated. China retaliated in the same fashion

vallorn:

trunkage:

vallorn:

Because the Chinese don't count the many dissapeared or people in concentration... sorry... "reeducation" camps as prisoners.

No you're correct there, TPP allowed for that.

Xinjiang, their treatment of autonomous regions or states like Taiwan, or Hong Kong, and massacres like Kunming (2014) are blights on a country which also boasts a police state that would make Stalin salivate, and policies of cultural cleansing (The Falun Gong, https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/12222014_FH_ChinaReport2014_FINAL.pdf, https://www.cecc.gov/publications/annual-reports/2008-annual-report, https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/world/asia/28china.html) which would shame even some of the worst regimes.

Is it time to point out that the Muslims in China arent innocent either. They've been bombing infrastructure and people for a while. Thousands have died.

It doesn't justify what's happening. But it was a very similar reaction to the US after 9/11. An attempt at wiping away a regime they don't like and replacing it with something they can accept. You could claim the US wasn't successful, with the rise of ISIS and the resurgence of the Taliban. But at least China didn't invade countries over it

"At least china didn't invade countries" No, they just started mass imprisonment, KGB style surveillance programs, reeducation camps where citizens are beaten, starved etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm no war hawk, but when you begin rounding up your own citizens and putting them in camps...

Im not trying to say that China is better than the US. I saying the US keeps committing human rights violantions in other countries and then wonders why other countries commit violations too.

All of them are bad.

trunkage:

vallorn:

trunkage:
Is it time to point out that the Muslims in China arent innocent either. They've been bombing infrastructure and people for a while. Thousands have died.

It doesn't justify what's happening. But it was a very similar reaction to the US after 9/11. An attempt at wiping away a regime they don't like and replacing it with something they can accept. You could claim the US wasn't successful, with the rise of ISIS and the resurgence of the Taliban. But at least China didn't invade countries over it

"At least china didn't invade countries" No, they just started mass imprisonment, KGB style surveillance programs, reeducation camps where citizens are beaten, starved etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm no war hawk, but when you begin rounding up your own citizens and putting them in camps...

Im not trying to say that China is better than the US. I saying the US keeps committing human rights violantions in other countries and then wonders why other countries commit violations too.

All of them are bad.

I dunno man, it sounds a lot like the whataboutery that Soviet sympathizers used to do on the regular.

EDIT:
Also, it's not limited to Xinjiang, you've heard of the Chinese militia groups being used to attack protestors in Hong Kong right? Or the CCP's threats to invade Taiwan if they formally recognize themselves as a sovereign nation? Or the 2000 Falun Gong practitioners who they have murdered since 2009 (that we know of)? Or the Social Credit Score system? Or the massive environmental rape (Gee I wonder why massive communist states always end up with the worst environmental records when the land is owned by everyone)?

Man, China's the kind of country that if people had their heads screwed on straight we'd be imposing sanctions on them that make the Russia or Iran sanctions look like they were written on toilet paper with crayons.

What do you guys think happened in Iraq?

Half a million died in the first few months. Many of them civilians. There was an army policing the streets. If you stood out of line, you were tortured and imprisoned indefinitely in a different country. Innocent people became good targets for terrorists. Civilians were used as spied to weed out terrorists. Most of them were allowed to die by the US. You couldn't become a refugee from Iraq because no one wanted you, even before the invasion.

All over a Bush not liking their leader. Maybe it's not as bad as China but it sure isn't good.

trunkage:
What do you guys think happened in Iraq?

Half a million died in the first few months. Many of them civilians. There was an army policing the streets. If you stood out of line, you were tortured and imprisoned indefinitely in a different country. Innocent people became good targets for terrorists. Civilians were used as spied to weed out terrorists. Most of them were allowed to die by the US. You couldn't become a refugee from Iraq because no one wanted you, even before the invasion.

All over a Bush not liking their leader. Maybe it's not as bad as China but it sure isn't good.

War is War. It's an ugly mess and some things involved are unavoidable.
Furthermore, you seem to have snorted something nasty because your numbers are completely bonkers

Classified US military documents released by WikiLeaks in October 2010, record Iraqi and Coalition military deaths between January 2004 and December 2009. The documents record 109,032 deaths broken down into "Civilian" (66,081 deaths), "Host Nation" (15,196 deaths),"Enemy" (23,984 deaths), and "Friendly" (3,771 deaths).

So nowhere near the "Half a million in the first 6 months", in the space of Five Years there was 1/5 of that.
For a more comprehensive breakdown there's also

Associated Press stated that more than 110,600 Iraqis had been killed since the start of the war to April 2009. This number is per the Health Ministry tally of 87,215 covering January 1, 2005, to February 28, 2009 combined with counts of casualties for 2003-2004, and after February 29, 2009, from hospital sources and media reports.

"there was an army policing the streets". Would you rather they didn't? In vacuums of authority, people tend to start rioting and looting, we see it after national disasters as well. It's the duty of an army in this position to try and maintain some degree of law and order until a more normal police force can be forged.

"You couldn't become a refugee from Iraq", well that's just completely false. Did you bother actually checking before you posted that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_diaspora_in_Europe

Iraqis have become the third largest refugee population after the Afghans and the Palestinians.

The majority of these 2 million refugees have found haven in Jordan and Syria, which have kept their borders open for those Iraqis who want to flee the country. However, neither Syria nor Jordan have signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and address the Iraqis not as refugees, but as "guests" on the basis of Arab solidarity.

Due to the large influx of Iraqis that were arriving to Syrian and Jordan in 2007, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) established that year a resettlement program in Damascus and Amman. By October 2009, the UNHCR reported that it had referred more than 82,500 refugees for resettlement in industrialized countries, 75 per cent of which were resettled in the United States and the remaining 25 per cent in Canada, Australia and a lesser number in European countries.

trunkage:
What do you guys think happened in Iraq?

I thought this was all about China and Australia? Why are we going on "China is bad but the US is also bad"? Why does one country doing stupid shit make it in any way acceptable for anyone else to do stupid shit? You went on about US concentration camps but China actually has concentration camps for political dissidents and religious minorities, and very likely is harvesting organs from such.

What's your end point here?

Leg End:
I thought this was all about China and Australia? Why are we going on "China is bad but the US is also bad"?

One can't discuss the rise of China without factoring in the US. Both countries are vying for influence in the Asia-Pacific, both countries are in a trade war, and how those countries interact inevitably affects the rest of the world.

generals3:
Perhaps, but China is culturally cleansing an entire region (Xinjiang). Are all the muslims in "reeducation camps" counted as "prisoners" in the statistics?

Of course not, they're "Organ Donors".

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here