• REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml
      12·
      18 days ago

      Overall it was a shitshow. Vietnam also ethnically cleansed its chinese minority and there was fighting at t he border because it was pretty much indefined. Furthermore, Vietnam ahd close ties to the USSR, with which China had recently broken. Thus China saw itself between the allied stated of Vietnam and USSR.

      Fittingly the resulting border war also was a total shitshow. A few PLA divisions pushing into Vietnam, without artillery or air support. Vietnam defended with local militias as its army was in Cambodia. China occupied some border cities, but took severe losses, then it went home. The vietnamese militias were excellent fighters but lacked heavy arms, so all they could do is delay the chinese (which they did admirably). Both sides claimed victory and the relations between the two countries were in the gutter until a few years ago.

      • davel@lemmy.mlEnglish
        4·
        16 days ago

        And still the libs insist that we’re “campist” simps for Xitler and would never allow any criticisms of China.

    • تحريرها كلها ممكن@lemmy.ml
      16·
      17 days ago

      But which one is a lesser evil?

      During my lifetime the US has invaded/bombed and killed thousands [directly or indirectly] in:

      1. Afghanistan
      2. Iraq
      3. Syria
      4. Libya
      5. Sudan
      6. Pakistan

      The US has also facilitated a genocide in Palestine through weapon shipments, intelligence sharing, fleet placement and UN vetoes and is now preparing to invade Venezuela.

      China has not invaded or bombed any country during my lifetime.

      The funny thing about people saying “both countries can be bad” is that they will lose their minds if you tell them “both major parties in the US are bad”. Somehow they only accept “lesser-evilism” for themselves but not for others.

      • Deifyed@lemmy.ml
        216·
        17 days ago

        Kinda hard to compare when china is so good at controlling what information comes out

        • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
          161·
          17 days ago

          “During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”

        • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
          131·
          17 days ago

          “The fact that there is no evidence of adrenochrome baby-eating rings just proves how good they are at hiding it”

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
      15·
      17 days ago

      It’s downright pavlovian how liberals have been trained to recite this mantra, word for word, when the West’s self assigned moral superiority is questioned.

  • ThirdConsul@lemmy.ml
    210·
    17 days ago

    How to fuck has USA caused Russian Civil War?

    By missing terror bombings in Italy I question your methodology. As in - bullshit. And don’t even pretend it’s because you’re only listing “military operations”, because you’ve added CIA operations in Brazil.

  • FoundFootFootage78@lemmy.mlEnglish
    616·
    18 days ago

    South China Sea? Granted building a military base in another country’s waters isn’t technically an attack but … come on.

    Also Tibet. Whether or not it was a legitimate “state” it was definitely an “other nation”.

      • FoundFootFootage78@lemmy.mlEnglish
        310·
        18 days ago

        1. Tibet had a different language, culture, government than the Republic of China.

        2. Didn’t say Tibet was a good nation, just an “other nation”.

        • تحريرها كلها ممكن@lemmy.ml
          161·
          17 days ago

          Tibet has been a part of China longer than Ohio has been a part of the US. It is clear which indigenous people did better and which practically don’t exist anymore.

        • REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml
          151·
          18 days ago

          You first point is such a vapid one. China is a multi cultural state, lots of different cultures and languages. The governemnt of the region back then clearly did not consider it important enough, because they were fine with joining China.

    • REEEEvolution@lemmygrad.ml
      161·
      18 days ago

      The claims in the South China Sea overlap. Some islands are claimed by Brunai, Malasia and the Philipines, others are claimed by the PRC and the Philipines.

      The military bases are less because of claims but because the US is sending its warships through this area all the time in a “nice trade routes you have here, would be sad if someone did something about them…”-move.

      Tibet was a part of China, it was essentially a warlord territory. With the warlord being the Dalai Lhama. It did not consider itself “other nation”, which is obvious from the fact that its regime did agree to join the PRC. Both sides came to an accord regarding the conditions, most importantly Tibet had to abolish slavery within a agreed uppon timeframe. The Lhama regime did not do so, thus peaceful unification was off the table and the PLA did the unifying.