It's not the gun laws, it's the Islamists!

[jared_7]

Would that be the Crimean referendum which was heavily criticised by international observers? I don't see the Crimean Tartars having much of a ball at the moment whilst on that subject.

Russia instigated tension, then used it as an excuse and then tried to justify its actions with a referendum that was blatantly dishonest. If the US had done the same in the Caribbean then you would be up in arms.

Using the same standards that would deem the US election fraudulent?

[Donny osmond]

Jesus wept.

UG: I'm right and everyone else is wrong!

R: Hey, I'm right too

UG: well, we read the same articles on the same websites and come to the same conclusions.

R: I know, check us out, we're so right.

UG: I know

Enter someone who doesn't actually disagree but thinks there may be another side to the story under discussion

R: that guy is so wrong

UG: I know he can't even think for himself. He is disagreeing with us, ffs

R: I know, the very act of disagreeing, while showing he doesn't think in the same way, just shows how wrong he is.

UG: right on brother. Disagreement means you can't think for yourself.

R: you're so right

UG: I know, you too

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[rowan]

Would that be the Crimean referendum which was heavily criticised by international observers? I don't see the Crimean Tartars having much of a ball at the moment whilst on that subject.

Russia instigated tension, then used it as an excuse and then tried to justify its actions with a referendum that was blatantly dishonest. If the US had done the same in the Caribbean then you would be up in arms.

The Tartars have about as much say in Crimean politics as Native Americans to in the USA's, or Aborigines in Australia's. Regrettably, that's how democracy works. The referendum was overwhelmingly in support of returning to Russia. International observers my ass!

Russia instigating tension is a complete inversion of the truth. America instigated the tension by helping overthrow a pro-Russia leader in the Ukraine and replacing him with a corrupt though pro-Western oligarch puppet, instigating a bloody civil war in the process.

Are you referring to the Cold War era when the USSR did exactly the same? How short memories are!


There is no difference either in what China is currently doing in its near abroad. I

Already mentioned the USSR. Worst phase was under Georgian leadership, not Russian. Russia itself is not expansionist, and is mostly occupied with defending what it regards as its traditional borders as NATO surrounds it with military bases. So if you want to talk about the Caribbean, tell me what happened last time the Russians (Soviets) showed up there . . .

Yes, there is a huge difference in what China is doing, and that's why the US is beginning to behave aggressively toward them as well. The Chinese are actually trading with the Third World, not bombing them, overthrowing and murdering their leaders, and planting puppet dictators in their place. You really do have a warped view of the world. Too much BBC, perhaps?

[UGagain]

Hang o past wars in Africa etc.

Are you referring to the Cold War era when the USSR did exactly the same? How short memories are!

When Russia, or the USSR to be more precise but frankly its similar enough to draw comparison, was more powerful it intervened when and when it liked. Now it cant and thus throws stones from its far smaller greenhouse.

There is no difference either in what China is currently doing in its near abroad. Internationally condemned for a land grab, including by an international court, yet still they continue to develop military bases in areas which aren't theirs. Its realpolitik, big nations screw smaller ones, until someone bigger slaps them down.

No, that's imperialism which the British and now the Americans practice while preaching democracy and human rights.

There is no comparison between the US/UK and Russia or China or even the old USSR.

You live in a propaganda fueled fantasy world.

[Lizard]

So Rowan, if the US rightly or wrongly regarded a territory as within its "traditional borders" then seeking to annex that territory would not be expansionist?

How far back can we take this principle?

I assume you would have no trouble with the U.K. invading, say, Calais or India?

By apologising for Russia's adventures in Crimea in this way, you are tacitly approving China's "9 Dash Line" claim as well.

Why should Russia be entitled to claim "traditional borders" as being fixed at some point between 1783 (when it annexed the Crimea the first time) and 1991 when the Ukraine became independent (approved, BTW, by a majority of Crimean voters)? Why not say Russia's traditional borders are those of the Grand Duchy of Muscovy. Or even, radical I know, its current internationally recognised borders?

A "traditional borders" argument is bullshit and collapses under the slightest investigation. We don't need to imagine the sort of shit that would hit the fan if, say, Germany, France and the U.K. all decided they were permanently entitled to "traditional borders."

[Donny osmond]

So Rowan, if the US rightly or wrongly regarded a territory as within its "traditional borders" then seeking to annex that territory would not be expansionist?

How far back can we take this principle?

I assume you would have no trouble with the U.K. invading, say, Calais or India?

By apologising for Russia's adventures in Crimea in this way, you are tacitly approving China's "9 Dash Line" claim as well.

Why should Russia be entitled to claim "traditional borders" as being fixed at some point between 1783 (when it annexed the Crimea the first time) and 1991 when the Ukraine became independent (approved, BTW, by a majority of Crimean voters)? Why not say Russia's traditional borders are those of the Grand Duchy of Muscovy. Or even, radical I know, its current internationally recognised borders?

A "traditional borders" argument is bullshit and collapses under the slightest investigation. We don't need to imagine the sort of shit that would hit the fan if, say, Germany, France and the U.K. all decided they were permanently entitled to "traditional borders."

This is dangerously coherent, Rowan won't like it at all.

[UGagain]

So Rowan, if the US rightly or wrongly regarded a territory as within its "traditional borders" then seeking to annex that territory would not be expansionist?

How far back can we take this principle?

I assume you would have no trouble with the U.K. invading, say, Calais or India?

By apologising for Russia's adventures in Crimea in this way, you are tacitly approving China's "9 Dash Line" claim as well.

Why should Russia be entitled to claim "traditional borders" as being fixed at some point between 1783 (when it annexed the Crimea the first time) and 1991 when the Ukraine became independent (approved, BTW, by a majority of Crimean voters)? Why not say Russia's traditional borders are those of the Grand Duchy of Muscovy. Or even, radical I know, its current internationally recognised borders?

A "traditional borders" argument is bullshit and collapses under the slightest investigation. We don't need to imagine the sort of shit that would hit the fan if, say, Germany, France and the U.K. all decided they were permanently entitled to "traditional borders."

And once again you have ignored the fact that the US instigated the coup in Ukraine which put Crimea at risk. Pretending that Crimea is beholden to the regime installed in Kiev is absurd.

[rowan]

So Rowan, if the US rightly or wrongly regarded a territory as within its "traditional borders" then seeking to annex that territory would not be expansionist?

How far back can we take this principle?

I assume you would have no trouble with the U.K. invading, say, Calais or India?

By apologising for Russia's adventures in Crimea in this way, you are tacitly approving China's "9 Dash Line" claim as well.

Why should Russia be entitled to claim "traditional borders" as being fixed at some point between 1783 (when it annexed the Crimea the first time) and 1991 when the Ukraine became independent (approved, BTW, by a majority of Crimean voters)? Why not say Russia's traditional borders are those of the Grand Duchy of Muscovy. Or even, radical I know, its current internationally recognised borders?

A "traditional borders" argument is bullshit and collapses under the slightest investigation. We don't need to imagine the sort of shit that would hit the fan if, say, Germany, France and the U.K. all decided they were permanently entitled to "traditional borders."

This is dangerously coherent, Rowan won't like it at all.

In fact, this illustrates my point very well. If the UK invaded Calais I would have a problem with that, but I would not regard it as expansionist. Just as I had a problem with Russia's wars in Chechnya (you no doubt assumed otherwise), but I do not consider them to have been 'expansionist.' Britain's original occupation of India was expansionist, however, so any return to that arena would also be expansionist, quite clearly. I think the only problem here is that neither you not Lizard understood the point that was made. There is obviously a vast difference between defending what a country considers to be its traditional borders and an expansionist policy which takes it to far off countries on other continents. That doesn't make wars to defend traditional borders right, necessarily, though sometimes they might be. But expansionist wars are NEVER right, and can NEVER be justified. That's what America indulges in. That's what the British Empire. It is certainly NOT what either China or post-Soviet Russia has indulged in.

[Sandydragon]

So Rowan, if the US rightly or wrongly regarded a territory as within its "traditional borders" then seeking to annex that territory would not be expansionist?

How far back can we take this principle?

I assume you would have no trouble with the U.K. invading, say, Calais or India?

By apologising for Russia's adventures in Crimea in this way, you are tacitly approving China's "9 Dash Line" claim as well.

Why should Russia be entitled to claim "traditional borders" as being fixed at some point between 1783 (when it annexed the Crimea the first time) and 1991 when the Ukraine became independent (approved, BTW, by a majority of Crimean voters)? Why not say Russia's traditional borders are those of the Grand Duchy of Muscovy. Or even, radical I know, its current internationally recognised borders?

A "traditional borders" argument is bullshit and collapses under the slightest investigation. We don't need to imagine the sort of shit that would hit the fan if, say, Germany, France and the U.K. all decided they were permanently entitled to "traditional borders."

This is dangerously coherent, Rowan won't like it at all.

In fact, this illustrates my point very well. If the UK invaded Calais I would have a problem with that, but I would not regard it as expansionist. Just as I had a problem with Russia's wars in Chechnya (you no doubt assumed otherwise), but I do not consider them to have been 'expansionist.' Britain's original occupation of India was expansionist, however, so any return to that arena would also be expansionist, quite clearly. I think the only problem here is that neither you not Len understood the point that was made. There is obviously a vast difference between defending what a country considers to be its traditional borders and an expansionist policy which takes to it far off countries on other continents. That does make wars to defend traditional borders right, necessarily, though sometimes they might be. But expansionist wars are NEVER right, and can NEVER be justified. That's what America indulges in. That's what the British Empire. It is certainly NOT what either China or post-Soviet Russia has indulged in.

So if we invade parts of Northern France then thats OK, despite us having no claim on that land since the middle ages? Small point, but when a country decides to reoccupy a traditional border, which happens to infringe on someone else land, that is an act of war and is generally considered aggressive.

[rowan]

This is dangerously coherent, Rowan won't like it at all.

In fact, this illustrates my point very well. If the UK invaded Calais I would have a problem with that, but I would not regard it as expansionist. Just as I had a problem with Russia's wars in Chechnya (you no doubt assumed otherwise), but I do not consider them to have been 'expansionist.' Britain's original occupation of India was expansionist, however, so any return to that arena would also be expansionist, quite clearly. I think the only problem here is that neither you not Len understood the point that was made. There is obviously a vast difference between defending what a country considers to be its traditional borders and an expansionist policy which takes to it far off countries on other continents. That does make wars to defend traditional borders right, necessarily, though sometimes they might be. But expansionist wars are NEVER right, and can NEVER be justified. That's what America indulges in. That's what the British Empire. It is certainly NOT what either China or post-Soviet Russia has indulged in.

So if we invade parts of Northern France then thats OK, despite us having no claim on that land since the middle ages? Small point, but when a country decides to reoccupy a traditional border, which happens to infringe on someone else land, that is an act of war and is generally considered aggressive.

I just wrote that it was NOT okay. Why did you choose to ignore that? Why pretend I am saying something that I am not? Is this your tactic, pretend someone said something which was the opposite of what they just said, and then lecture them on it like some kind of moral authority? I don't have time for this.

What I wrote, and what has been ignored and twisted and completely turned on its head, is quite simply that there is a difference between wars based on border disputes and maintaining traditionally held terrotories, and expansionist wars of an imperial natural such as those America has been conducting since WWII, and those Britain had been confucting up until WWII.

I suspect the reason one or two people here are so determined to twist words and cloud the issue with nonsense is because this grates so much with them. America & Britain wage expansionist wars, China and post-Soviet Russia do not.

[rowan]

Incidentally, my last post war edited while you were replying to it:


In fact, this illustrates my point very well. If the UK invaded Calais I would have a problem with that, but I would not regard it as expansionist. Just as I had a problem with Russia's wars in Chechnya (you no doubt assumed otherwise), but I do not consider them to have been 'expansionist.' Britain's original occupation of India was expansionist, however, so any return to that arena would also be expansionist, quite clearly. I think the only problem here is that neither you not Lizard understood the point that was made. There is obviously a vast difference between defending what a country considers to be its traditional borders and an expansionist policy which takes it to far off countries on other continents. That doesn't make wars to defend traditional borders right, necessarily, though sometimes they might be. But expansionist wars are NEVER right, and can NEVER be justified. That's what America indulges in. That's what the British Empire. It is certainly NOT what either China or post-Soviet Russia has indulged in.

[Donny osmond]

In fact, this illustrates my point very well. If the UK invaded Calais I would have a problem with that, but I would not regard it as expansionist. Just as I had a problem with Russia's wars in Chechnya (you no doubt assumed otherwise), but I do not consider them to have been 'expansionist.' Britain's original occupation of India was expansionist, however, so any return to that arena would also be expansionist, quite clearly. I think the only problem here is that neither you not Len understood the point that was made. There is obviously a vast difference between defending what a country considers to be its traditional borders and an expansionist policy which takes to it far off countries on other continents. That does make wars to defend traditional borders right, necessarily, though sometimes they might be. But expansionist wars are NEVER right, and can NEVER be justified. That's what America indulges in. That's what the British Empire. It is certainly NOT what either China or post-Soviet Russia has indulged in.

So if we invade parts of Northern France then thats OK, despite us having no claim on that land since the middle ages? Small point, but when a country decides to reoccupy a traditional border, which happens to infringe on someone else land, that is an act of war and is generally considered aggressive.

I just wrote that it was NOT okay. Why did you choose to ignore that? Why pretend I am saying something that I am not? Is this your tactic, pretend someone said something which was the opposite of what they just said, and then lecture them on it like some kind of moral authority? I don't have time for this.

What I wrote, and what has been ignored and twisted and completely turned on its head, is quite simply that there is a difference between wars based on border disputes and maintaining traditionally held terrotories, and expansionist wars of an imperial natural such as those America has been conducting since WWII, and those Britain had been confucting up until WWII.

I suspect the reason one or two people here are so determined to twist words and cloud the issue with nonsense is because this grates so much with them. America & Britain wage expansionist wars, China and post-Soviet Russia do not.

So when China invaded Tibet that wasn't expansionist and was, if not ok exactly, at least not as bad as that time recently when the uk went and planted its flag in foreign soil in the year... um... well, that bits not important. And the recent ruling about China's activities in the south china seas absolutely did not refer to china being expansionist. At all.

All those people killed or maimed in conflicts that aren't expansionist in nature would read your seemingly arbitrary distinction with interest I'm sure. Can you explain whats the difference? Why is one less bad than the other? Has this question been answered on counter punch?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[rowan]

So when China invaded Tibet that wasn't expansionist and was, if not ok exactly, at least not as bad as that time recently when the uk went and planted its flag in foreign soil in the year... um... well, that bits not important. And the recent ruling about China's activities in the south china seas absolutely did not refer to china being expansionist. At all.

All those people killed or maimed in conflicts that aren't expansionist in nature would read your seemingly arbitrary distinction with interest I'm sure. Can you explain whats the difference? Why is one less bad than the other? Has this question been answered on counter punch?

Look at a map, Donny. You might learn something. China & Tibet are geographical neighbors. Tibet was first absorbed by China eight centuries ago during the Yuan Dynasty. So it was a territorial war over disputed borders, similar to those which have been fought by many nations all over the world due to the increasingly necessary imposition of the modern European concept of national borders. & today Tibet is autonomous, btw. That doesn't necessarily mean the invasion was not as bad as the UK planting its flag in foreign soil, however. But it was not an expansionist war in the manner that the British Empire's brutal forays into every other continent apart from Antarctica were. America is also expansionist because it invades far off countries on other continents (invariably under false pretences) and occupies them long term. Post-Soviet Russia, like China, is not expansionist, but concerned solely with attempting to maintain its hinterlands as NATO/US moves closer and closer to its borders in defiance of post-Cold War agreements. The word 'Ukraine' basically translates as 'borderland,' btw, and guess who's running the show there now As for the ruling on the South China Sea, total farce http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07 ... ical-farce & what do you know, the Americans have military bases there too Nah, that's not expansionist...

[Donny osmond]

Oh I see, if we simply revise the meaning of the word expansionist, depending on which country is under discussion, then everything is good. Ok, glad I'm up to speed. Its a little tricky keeping up with where the goal posts are at any one moment, but I'll get there eventually!

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[Donny osmond]

So when China invaded Tibet that wasn't expansionist and was, if not ok exactly, at least not as bad as that time recently when the uk went and planted its flag in foreign soil in the year... um... well, that bits not important. And the recent ruling about China's activities in the south china seas absolutely did not refer to china being expansionist. At all.

All those people killed or maimed in conflicts that aren't expansionist in nature would read your seemingly arbitrary distinction with interest I'm sure. Can you explain whats the difference? Why is one less bad than the other? Has this question been answered on counter punch?

Look at a map, Donny. You might learn something. China & Tibet are geographical neighbors. Tibet was first absorbed by China eight centuries ago during the Yuan Dynasty. So it was a territorial war over disputed borders, similar to those which have been fought by many nations all over the world due to the increasingly necessary imposition of the modern European concept of national borders. & today Tibet is autonomous, btw. That doesn't necessarily mean the invasion was not as bad as the UK planting its flag in foreign soil, however. But it was not an expansionist war in the manner that the British Empire's brutal forays into every other continent apart from Antarctica were. America is also expansionist because it invades far off countries on other continents (invariably under false pretences) and occupies them long term. Post-Soviet Russia, like China, is not expansionist, but concerned solely with attempting to maintain its hinterlands as NATO/US moves closer and closer to its borders in defiance of post-Cold War agreements. The word 'Ukraine' basically translates as 'borderland,' btw, and guess who's running the show there now As for the ruling on the South China Sea, total farce http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07 ... ical-farce & what do you know, the Americans have military bases there too Nah, that's not expansionist...

My previous reply was before I'd clicked on your link. Aren't you embarrassed posting stuff like that? The reply from the Chinese Govt makes a ruling about Chinas expansionism a farce?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[Sandydragon]

In fact, this illustrates my point very well. If the UK invaded Calais I would have a problem with that, but I would not regard it as expansionist. Just as I had a problem with Russia's wars in Chechnya (you no doubt assumed otherwise), but I do not consider them to have been 'expansionist.' Britain's original occupation of India was expansionist, however, so any return to that arena would also be expansionist, quite clearly. I think the only problem here is that neither you not Len understood the point that was made. There is obviously a vast difference between defending what a country considers to be its traditional borders and an expansionist policy which takes to it far off countries on other continents. That does make wars to defend traditional borders right, necessarily, though sometimes they might be. But expansionist wars are NEVER right, and can NEVER be justified. That's what America indulges in. That's what the British Empire. It is certainly NOT what either China or post-Soviet Russia has indulged in.

So if we invade parts of Northern France then thats OK, despite us having no claim on that land since the middle ages? Small point, but when a country decides to reoccupy a traditional border, which happens to infringe on someone else land, that is an act of war and is generally considered aggressive.

I just wrote that it was NOT okay. Why did you choose to ignore that? Why pretend I am saying something that I am not? Is this your tactic, pretend someone said something which was the opposite of what they just said, and then lecture them on it like some kind of moral authority? I don't have time for this.

What I wrote, and what has been ignored and twisted and completely turned on its head, is quite simply that there is a difference between wars based on border disputes and maintaining traditionally held terrotories, and expansionist wars of an imperial natural such as those America has been conducting since WWII, and those Britain had been confucting up until WWII.

I suspect the reason one or two people here are so determined to twist words and cloud the issue with nonsense is because this grates so much with them. America & Britain wage expansionist wars, China and post-Soviet Russia do not.

But us invading France isn't expansionist? Really? Hence by your judgement it's less serious than us invading Iraq.

chna invading and occupying Tibet is just as imperialistic as anything the British empire did.

[Sandydragon]

So when China invaded Tibet that wasn't expansionist and was, if not ok exactly, at least not as bad as that time recently when the uk went and planted its flag in foreign soil in the year... um... well, that bits not important. And the recent ruling about China's activities in the south china seas absolutely did not refer to china being expansionist. At all.

All those people killed or maimed in conflicts that aren't expansionist in nature would read your seemingly arbitrary distinction with interest I'm sure. Can you explain whats the difference? Why is one less bad than the other? Has this question been answered on counter punch?

Look at a map, Donny. You might learn something. China & Tibet are geographical neighbors. Tibet was first absorbed by China eight centuries ago during the Yuan Dynasty. So it was a territorial war over disputed borders, similar to those which have been fought by many nations all over the world due to the increasingly necessary imposition of the modern European concept of national borders. & today Tibet is autonomous, btw. That doesn't necessarily mean the invasion was not as bad as the UK planting its flag in foreign soil, however. But it was not an expansionist war in the manner that the British Empire's brutal forays into every other continent apart from Antarctica were. America is also expansionist because it invades far off countries on other continents (invariably under false pretences) and occupies them long term. Post-Soviet Russia, like China, is not expansionist, but concerned solely with attempting to maintain its hinterlands as NATO/US moves closer and closer to its borders in defiance of post-Cold War agreements. The word 'Ukraine' basically translates as 'borderland,' btw, and guess who's running the show there now As for the ruling on the South China Sea, total farce http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07 ... ical-farce & what do you know, the Americans have military bases there too Nah, that's not expansionist...

Tibet is autonomous! F*cking hell that is pure comedy gold. Have a smiley

Tibet is currently being flooded with ethnic Chinese to ensure that the population balance prefers Beijing to the Dalai Lama, it's colonialism regardless of how it's dressed up.

[rowan]

Look at a map, Donny. You might learn something. China & Tibet are geographical neighbors. Tibet was first absorbed by China eight centuries ago during the Yuan Dynasty. So it was a territorial war over disputed borders, similar to those which have been fought by many nations all over the world due to the increasingly necessary imposition of the modern European concept of national borders. & today Tibet is autonomous, btw.

The same Yuan Dynasty that was actually Mongolian? That Yuan Dynasty?

Also, lol, you think Tibet actually has any autonomy.

Er, yes, Cashhead, the same Yuan Dynasty that ruled most of China at the time. You know, like the Ottoman Empire used to rule Turkey, the Middle East, North Africa and the Balkans...

But us invading France isn't expansionist? Really? Hence by your judgement it's less serious than us invading Iraq.


Again . . . not what I wrote. If a war arose between France and Britain over Calais due to a longstanding territorial dispute I would regard France to be in the right, but I would not accuse Britian of waging an expansionst war. That's not to say it would be less serious, as you (not me) put it.

Tibet is autonomous! F*cking hell that is pure comedy gold. Have a smiley

Wiki seems to think so: Tibet is a region on the Tibetan Plateau in Asia. It is the traditional homeland of the Tibetan ... Today, China governs western and central Tibet as the Tibet Autonomous Region while the eastern areas are now mostly ethnic autonomous ...

Anyway, what is for certain is that neither China nor post-Soviet Russia have gone about invading countries all over the world and murdering millions of people like the British Empire did and the American empire is continuing to do. Sorry that obviously rankles y'all so much...

[rowan]

Would that be the same Okinawa where America has maintained a military base since WWII, despite increasing protests from Japanese civilians due to a number of rapes committed by the US soldiers? Nah, but it's China that's expansionist. Americans are indigenous to every corner of the globe.

[UGagain]

So when China invaded Tibet that wasn't expansionist and was, if not ok exactly, at least not as bad as that time recently when the uk went and planted its flag in foreign soil in the year... um... well, that bits not important. And the recent ruling about China's activities in the south china seas absolutely did not refer to china being expansionist. At all.

All those people killed or maimed in conflicts that aren't expansionist in nature would read your seemingly arbitrary distinction with interest I'm sure. Can you explain whats the difference? Why is one less bad than the other? Has this question been answered on counter punch?

Look at a map, Donny. You might learn something. China & Tibet are geographical neighbors. Tibet was first absorbed by China eight centuries ago during the Yuan Dynasty. So it was a territorial war over disputed borders, similar to those which have been fought by many nations all over the world due to the increasingly necessary imposition of the modern European concept of national borders. & today Tibet is autonomous, btw. That doesn't necessarily mean the invasion was not as bad as the UK planting its flag in foreign soil, however. But it was not an expansionist war in the manner that the British Empire's brutal forays into every other continent apart from Antarctica were. America is also expansionist because it invades far off countries on other continents (invariably under false pretences) and occupies them long term. Post-Soviet Russia, like China, is not expansionist, but concerned solely with attempting to maintain its hinterlands as NATO/US moves closer and closer to its borders in defiance of post-Cold War agreements. The word 'Ukraine' basically translates as 'borderland,' btw, and guess who's running the show there now As for the ruling on the South China Sea, total farce http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07 ... ical-farce & what do you know, the Americans have military bases there too Nah, that's not expansionist...

Tibet is autonomous! F*cking hell that is pure comedy gold. Have a smiley

Tibet is currently being flooded with ethnic Chinese to ensure that the population balance prefers Beijing to the Dalai Lama, it's colonialism regardless of how it's dressed up.

Apparently you're unaware of the conditions the population endured under the previous sectarian dictatorship.

[UGagain]

Already mentioned the USSR. Worst phase was under Georgian leadership, not Russian. Russia itself is not expansionist, and is mostly occupied with defending what it regards as its traditional borders as NATO surrounds it with military bases. So if you want to talk about the Caribbean, tell me what happened last time the Russians (Soviets) showed up there . . .

Yes, there is a huge difference in what China is doing, and that's why the US is beginning to behave aggressively toward them as well. The Chinese are actually trading with the Third World, not bombing them, overthrowing and murdering their leaders, and planting puppet dictators in their place. You really do have a warped view of the world. Too much BBC, perhaps?

Stalin was actually a non-expansionist. It was the Trotskyites who were the 'internationalists'. The USSR was hardly a willing imperial power ever.

Truman and Churchill were responsible for the Cold War and the Warsaw Pact.

[rowan]

And since you have also mentioned civilian protests about their presence, it's actually a lot more nuanced than you seem to understand.

Possibly, but at 3am in the morning I was about ready to go to bed, not sit up all night arguing with you. & now I'm about to watch the Canes either beat the Lions are go down in history as the biggest chokers in all of sports - ever. I'm come back to this when I have time, if that's okay with you.

[Donny osmond]

Look at a map, Donny. You might learn something. China & Tibet are geographical neighbors. Tibet was first absorbed by China eight centuries ago during the Yuan Dynasty. So it was a territorial war over disputed borders, similar to those which have been fought by many nations all over the world due to the increasingly necessary imposition of the modern European concept of national borders. & today Tibet is autonomous, btw.

The same Yuan Dynasty that was actually Mongolian? That Yuan Dynasty?

Also, lol, you think Tibet actually has any autonomy.

Er, yes, Cashhead, the same Yuan Dynasty that ruled most of China at the time. You know, like the Ottoman Empire used to rule Turkey, the Middle East, North Africa and the Balkans...

But us invading France isn't expansionist? Really? Hence by your judgement it's less serious than us invading Iraq.


Again . . . not what I wrote. If a war arose between France and Britain over Calais due to a longstanding territorial dispute I would regard France to be in the right, but I would not accuse Britian of waging an expansionst war. That's not to say it would be less serious, as you (not me) put it.

Tibet is autonomous! F*cking hell that is pure comedy gold. Have a smiley

Wiki seems to think so: Tibet is a region on the Tibetan Plateau in Asia. It is the traditional homeland of the Tibetan ... Today, China governs western and central Tibet as the Tibet Autonomous Region while the eastern areas are now mostly ethnic autonomous ...

Anyway, what is for certain is that neither China nor post-Soviet Russia have gone about invading countries all over the world and murdering millions of people like the British Empire did and the American empire is continuing to do. Sorry that obviously rankles y'all so much...

Once again, you're soooo right. Apart from expanding China's borders into another country in a way that is not expansionist due to the fact that it also happened 800 years ago (weird logic,but keep beating that drum, we'll come around eventually), the 45 million people Mao killed were mostly his own people, so again the clear logic is that the Chinese have never murdered as many people as the UK or US, because internal murders don't count, somehow, as being as bad as external murders, as long as those external murders are done far enough away. Phew, this is getting more complicated, being all right on. Let me know how I'm doing!

Out of interest, whats the ratio? How many Chinese people could Mao have butchered before he becomes as bad as The Evil British.

[rowan]

What makes you think I forgot it? China has territorial disputes over its border, rightly or wrongly. The British Empire invaded countries all over the world, on every inhabited continent, in one of the most horrific examples of human evil in history, and now the American empire is behaving the same way - with Britain's loyal support. But there's no accountability in your culture. Instead, you lionize and immortalize your war criminals then point the finger elsewhere, crying 'What about them!'

[Sandydragon]

Already mentioned the USSR. Worst phase was under Georgian leadership, not Russian. Russia itself is not expansionist, and is mostly occupied with defending what it regards as its traditional borders as NATO surrounds it with military bases. So if you want to talk about the Caribbean, tell me what happened last time the Russians (Soviets) showed up there . . .

Yes, there is a huge difference in what China is doing, and that's why the US is beginning to behave aggressively toward them as well. The Chinese are actually trading with the Third World, not bombing them, overthrowing and murdering their leaders, and planting puppet dictators in their place. You really do have a warped view of the world. Too much BBC, perhaps?

Stalin was actually a non-expansionist. It was the Trotskyites who were the 'internationalists'. The USSR was hardly a willing imperial power ever.

Truman and Churchill were responsible for the Cold War and the Warsaw Pact.

Poland and Finland may disagree there.