RugbyRebels

rowan wrote:A couple of interesting stats for you:

1/ Terrorism is actually on the decline in Europe. It peaked in the 70s & 80s when separatist groups such as the IRA & ETA were at their most fearsomely violent.

Not to mention NATO's Gladio terrorist operations.

Donny osmond wrote:

rowan wrote:A couple of interesting stats for you:

1/ Terrorism is actually on the decline in Europe. It peaked in the 70s & 80s when separatist groups such as the IRA & ETA were at their most fearsomely violent.



2/ Toddlers with guns have killed more people in America over the past year than Islamic terrorists.

1st stat is great, the world is getting better all the time, its nice to see you giving out the stats that prove it.

2nd stat... what to say? America is a messed up place, esp when it comes to gun control. I won't be going there any time soon.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Most dangerous thing you can do in any country, including Central America, Brazil & South Africa, is cross the street or drive a car in traffic. It's also very dangerous to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol and do drugs in those countries.

... the bit you constantly leave out is that those crimes are also no different from the crimes committed by Russia or any number of middle eastern countries. That's my point. You're also a denialist and apologist, just on the other side.


But that's just a diversion tactic, the psychopathic serial killer pointing the finger at shoplifters, which is why I call you a denialist and an apologist. There is nothing else on this planet remotely on the same scale as what American is doing. In fact, Russia quite clearly is not expansionist. The Soviet Union was, undeniably, and mostly so while under the leadership of a Georgian (not a Russian). But since the break up of the USSR, Moscow has been concerned mostly with retaining certain territories which it considers to be part of its natural borders - rightly or wrongly - which is very different to trying to take over the entire world and destroying nation after nation in the process. In this respect Russia is not even in the same ball park as the United States. Nobody is nor has been since the British Empire crumbled in the dust of WWII.

UGagain wrote:

rowan wrote:A couple of interesting stats for you:

1/ Terrorism is actually on the decline in Europe. It peaked in the 70s & 80s when separatist groups such as the IRA & ETA were at their most fearsomely violent.

Not to mention NATO's Gladio terrorist operations.

rowan wrote:... the bit you constantly leave out is that those crimes are also no different from the crimes committed by Russia or any number of middle eastern countries. That's my point. You're also a denialist and apologist, just on the other side.


But that's just a diversion tactic, the psychopathic serial killer pointing the finger at shoplifters, which is why I call you a denialist and an apologist. There is nothing else on this planet remotely on the same scale as what American is doing. In fact, Russia quite clearly is not expansionist. The Soviet Union was, undeniably, and mostly so while under the leadership of a Georgian (not a Russian). But since the break up of the USSR, Moscow has been concerned mostly with retaining certain territories which it considers to be part of its natural borders - rightly or wrongly - which is very different to trying to take over the entire world and destroying nation after nation in the process. In this respect Russia is not even in the same ball park as the United States. Nobody is nor has been since the British Empire crumbled in the dust of WWII.

UGagain wrote:

rowan wrote:A couple of interesting stats for you:

1/ Terrorism is actually on the decline in Europe. It peaked in the 70s & 80s when separatist groups such as the IRA & ETA were at their most fearsomely violent.

Not to mention NATO's Gladio terrorist operations.

I wouldn't waste your breath on Donny. Nothing gets through. Can't even pretend to think for himself.

rowan wrote:... the bit you constantly leave out is that those crimes are also no different from the crimes committed by Russia or any number of middle eastern countries. That's my point. You're also a denialist and apologist, just on the other side.


But that's just a diversion tactic, the psychopathic serial killer pointing the finger at shoplifters, which is why I call you a denialist and an apologist. There is nothing else on this planet remotely on the same scale as what American is doing. In fact, Russia quite clearly is not expansionist. The Soviet Union was, undeniably, and mostly so while under the leadership of a Georgian (not a Russian). But since the break up of the USSR, Moscow has been concerned mostly with retaining certain territories which it considers to be part of its natural borders - rightly or wrongly - which is very different to trying to take over the entire world and destroying nation after nation in the process. In this respect Russia is not even in the same ball park as the United States. Nobody is nor has been since the British Empire crumbled in the dust of WWII.

UGagain wrote:

rowan wrote:A couple of interesting stats for you:

1/ Terrorism is actually on the decline in Europe. It peaked in the 70s & 80s when separatist groups such as the IRA & ETA were at their most fearsomely violent.

Not to mention NATO's Gladio terrorist operations.

Russia sis quite clearly not expansionist.

Aside from Crimea. And bullying the states closest to it.

Give it a rest mun. Russia is trying to reassert itself after a decade or so of insignificance. Its a big country and its pushing around smaller ones. Nothing new in that at all. Its Realpolitik and everyone does it. I would suggest the difference is that Putin is better at playing the long game.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:... the bit you constantly leave out is that those crimes are also no different from the crimes committed by Russia or any number of middle eastern countries. That's my point. You're also a denialist and apologist, just on the other side.


But that's just a diversion tactic, the psychopathic serial killer pointing the finger at shoplifters, which is why I call you a denialist and an apologist. There is nothing else on this planet remotely on the same scale as what American is doing. In fact, Russia quite clearly is not expansionist. The Soviet Union was, undeniably, and mostly so while under the leadership of a Georgian (not a Russian). But since the break up of the USSR, Moscow has been concerned mostly with retaining certain territories which it considers to be part of its natural borders - rightly or wrongly - which is very different to trying to take over the entire world and destroying nation after nation in the process. In this respect Russia is not even in the same ball park as the United States. Nobody is nor has been since the British Empire crumbled in the dust of WWII.

UGagain wrote:





Not to mention NATO's Gladio terrorist operations.

Russia sis quite clearly not expansionist.

Aside from Crimea. And bullying the states closest to it.

Give it a rest mun. Russia is trying to reassert itself after a decade or so of insignificance. Its a big country and its pushing around smaller ones. Nothing new in that at all. Its Realpolitik and everyone does it. I would suggest the difference is that Putin is better at playing the long game.

Regaining the Crimean Peninsula, which voted by an overwhelming majority to return to Russia (after the CIA orchestrated a coup in Ukraine, igniting a civil war and bringing a corrupt oligarch to power) is by your definition "expansionist" ?? Talk about grasping at straws. You're comparing this to America's wars right across the Middle East & North Africa, it's hundreds of military bases in scores of different countries all over the world - including Russia's back doorstep Eastern Europe, even though it had pledged not to do this at the end of the Cold War (silly Russians to believe anything an American president says) - and its past wars in South East Asia and covert operations through Latin America & Africa?? This really is the psychopathetic serial killer pointing the finger at shoplifters. You've merely confirmed the very point I was making by bringing up such a pathetic example.

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.

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.

Sandydragon wrote: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?

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

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?

Sandydragon wrote: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.

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."

Lizard wrote: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.

Lizard wrote: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.

Donny osmond wrote:

Lizard wrote: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.

rowan wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Lizard wrote: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.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:
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.

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.

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:
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

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...

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

rowan wrote: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

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:
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.

rowan wrote: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.