RugbyRebels

rowan wrote: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.

cashead wrote:

rowan wrote: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.

rowan wrote:

cashead wrote:

rowan wrote: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...

rowan wrote: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.

rowan wrote: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.

Sandydragon wrote:

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.

rowan wrote:
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?

rowan wrote:

cashead wrote:

rowan wrote: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...

Donny osmond wrote:

rowan wrote:

cashead wrote: 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.

UGagain wrote:

rowan wrote:
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.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

rowan wrote:
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.

rowan wrote:Poland and Finland may disagree there.

So can you provide us with an example of either post-Soviet Russia or China invading countries on other continents, perhaps? You know, the way the British Empire did, and the way America now does with Britain riding along on its coat-tails.

America has 800 military bases in 63 countries spread all around the world. Russia has military bases in 10 countries - less than Britian and France - and all but Vietnam and Syria are bordering countries who were formerly part of the USSR. China doesn't appear to have any military bases in any foreign countries anywhere.

But they're the expansionists...

rowan wrote: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 wrote:

rowan wrote:Poland and Finland may disagree there.

So can you provide us with an example of either post-Soviet Russia or China invading countries on other continents, perhaps? You know, the way the British Empire did, and the way America now does with Britain riding along on its coat-tails.

America has 800 military bases in 63 countries spread all around the world. Russia has military bases in 10 countries - less than Britian and France - and all but Vietnam and Syria are bordering countries who were formerly part of the USSR. China doesn't appear to have any military bases in any foreign countries anywhere.

But they're the expansionists...

Small point, but you've quoted a response to Stalin being non expansionist. That would be the USSR period.

Why does an invasion have to be on another continent to qualify? That's shows the limitations on the ability to project power, not intent.

rowan wrote: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!'

rowan wrote:Also, if you could point out where anyone has lionized and/or immortalized war criminals on rugby rebels that'd be great

I was referring to British society, not anyone in particular on this forum. There are countless examples, of course, and one of the first who springs to mind is the 'Teeth that Saved the World,' which teeth didn't remotely save the world at all, but rather machined gunned the Sudanese, bombed the Egyptians, threw the Anzacs at the Turks, gassed the Arabs & Kurds, fire-bombed Dresden, starved the Bengalis and helped overthrow Iran's first democratic government so that Britain could continue controlling its oil industry (didn't quite work out that way, of course), among other heinous crimes by that particular set of teeth.

Btw, I believe it's the 71st anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing today. http://howardzinn.org/a-veteran-against-war

rowan wrote:why butchering 10s of millions internally is somehow less abhorrent than not doing that externally.


Not what I said, Donny. I simply drew a distinction between territorial disputes over traditional borders and expansionist wars waged in far off countries and other continents. China and post-Soviet Russia indulge in the former, not the latter. The British & American empires clearly engage(d) in the latter. As to which is worse, that would have to be looked at on a case by case basis. But what we can say, is that while disputes over traditional borders may be justifiable in some cases, expansionist wars are always evil - without exception. If that leads you to the conclusion I am defending the purges of the Georgian butcher, you are not paying attention.

Are you, in fact, an Evil British?

Hong Kong-born, New Zealand-raised & 1/4 English - with UK citizenship. U?

rowan wrote:Poland and Finland may disagree there.

So can you provide us with an example of either post-Soviet Russia or China invading countries on other continents, perhaps? You know, the way the British Empire did, and the way America now does with Britain riding along on its coat-tails.

America has 800 military bases in 63 countries spread all around the world. Russia has military bases in 10 countries - less than Britian and France - and all but Vietnam and Syria are bordering countries who were formerly part of the USSR. China doesn't appear to have any military bases in any foreign countries anywhere.

But they're the expansionists...