Last I Checked

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Huh? 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/7/2019 at 3:27 PM, Zhong Lu said:

The Taliban is still fighting in Afghanistan, North Korea still has nuclear weapons (and is launching missiles willy nilly), China has not reached a trade agreement with the US, and Iran is enriching uranium.  

Lots of big talk from Trump and his supporters about "winning."  But where are the results? 

You seem to have a very short memory. Things are much cooler than they were under Obummer. 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

No, nothing's changed much since Obama.  Under Obama there was fighting in Afghanistan, and North Korea had nuclear weapons, just like under Trump.  The debt and the deficit continue to grow (under both presidents).  The rich continue to get richer, and everyone else muddles through.   What's changed? 

Edited August 12, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[JR EWING + 123]

19 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

What rules has the US broken? You should enjoy making that list!

Is the US presence in Syria legal, no its not. its a direct contravention of the UN charter. An aggression no less against a country that never in history raised as finger to the US. It was and is 1 of the famous 7 wars in 20 years against 7 MS countries deemed in some way a threat to US interests, Iran is next.

Was the US war in Iraq legal, no. It was direct contravention of the UN charter based on fabricated lies about WMD. Those lies were fabricated by the US to generate reason for war. The US had set its course in 2001, and nothing including full inspection of the so called sources of WMD would stop you all on the race to exterminate more than half a million Iraqi civilians.

The US intervention in Libya, Nicaragua, I could go on but what's the point in talking to people who feel above the law on every level.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

17 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

If you think US policing is bad, wait until you see the alternatives. 

The alternative was loudly on display in Beirut, Lebanon some years back.  Everyone was shooting at everyone else, and blowing up the entire town, reducing a lovely city to total rubble.  

That is what happens when the US leaves and there is no policeman. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

15 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

No, I live in America.  Xi is pretty shitty, but compared to past Chinese rulers he's fine.  I mean, he's better than Mao, significantly worse than Deng Xiao Ping, worse than Hu Jin Tao, and better than Jiang Ze Ming.

The only Chinese leader besides Deng that I'm fond of is Hu Jin Tao and that's because he gave up power voluntarily.  

I like talking shit about Trump because he deserves it.  But that doesn't mean I like Chinese leaders.  

 

14 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Japan should protect itself against the threat of China.  When the Vietnamese sent their dinky patrol boats to confront the giant Chinese navy, I was like "Go Vietnam" and "Yup, standard Viet behavior vs Chinese aggression."  The Vietnamese have been colonized before by China so they know their history.  

I think China's expansion into SE Asia seas is shi-.  Don't like it at all.  

Look, just because I think Trump is shi- doesn't mean I don't think China can be shi-, too.  As I said before, I'm not on anyone's side except my own (and possibly the Vietnamese).  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2019/08/07/south-china-sea-vietnam-has-a-smart-strategy-to-stop-china/#2c24e6302f3c

I disagree with your assessment of Trump, but only because I think Trump has strategic reasons for being an ass.  I.e. you make a fair point about his behavior deserving ridicule, but I think that's intentional on his part. 

[specinho + 467]

uuhhh......... Dear Commies............ Found something to be shared here:

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 8/11/2019 at 5:21 PM, Zhong Lu said:

Oh. China is just behaving like America 150 years ago. Remember Trail of Tears, Manifest Destiny, putting Native Americans on reservations, slavery, and colonizing the Philippines? 

There isn't anything China is doing now that America hasn't done itself in the past.  

The slaughter of Chinese and others by Chinese is so far greater than what American's have done to anyone it makes us look pure. Our Civil War created the most bloodshed and it was largely to free the slaves and save the union of the country. Even its bloodshed is nothing compared to what Mao did. 

[Marcin + 519]

On 8/11/2019 at 2:33 AM, JR EWING said:

No country disobeys the rules more so than Israel but its defended by the US in doing so on routine basis. Not to mention the US breaks the rules to suit itself im many arenas. The trump admin doesnt give a hoot about rules unless they are benefiting their pockets or end.

I could go on and make a list but why bother. 

Police man. What a joke

You may not like US, but it is the best policeman world ever had.

US is way better than was British Empire before.

US balance in last 100 years (since around WW1 it was global hegemon, although till 1930s in self induced isolation)

is still about +35 million human beings.

At least 40 million saved ( 10+ million WW1, 30+ million in WW2 by the way of all nations, Chinese were major beneficiaries)

-2 million Korea, -2 million Vietnam, -1 million 21 century adventures in Middle East (and only the last -1 million was only out of oil greed, earlier in Korea, Vietnam were justified geopolitical ventures to save nations from red peril).

Balance of British Empire is over -100 million in 18-19 centuries.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Um, but the other half was fighting the war to keep the slaves that they had.  

The larger point is that it's pretty hypocritical of the US to criticize China over its treatment of Uighurs.  If the American government and press can find moral justification for its maltreatment of Native Americans I'm sure the Chinese government and press can find moral justification for its maltreatment of the Uighurs, too.  

Edited November 5, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 8/11/2019 at 2:32 PM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

If you think US policing is bad, wait until you see the alternatives. 

The reality, the hard, raw truth, is that there is no alternative to the United States Army.   Period. (OK, and the Navy, USAF, USMC). 

You either have the US Army using its overwhelming might and firepower to deter aggressors, or you will have wars of conquest, mass murder, and expulsion migration all over the planet.  It is not a pretty picture.  The illusion of stability is a construct that exists only because the US taxpayer is prepared to foot the bill for world peace, notwithstanding the gripes sent its way. Who else is up to the task:   Denmark? 

It's the Americans or nothing.  The Americans may not be perfect, sure they can screw it up, but overall, the Americans were the guys who stood nose to nose at Checkpoint Charlie, and flew in the supplies to keep Berlin free in a spectacular display of American determination against the tyrants.  You folks crab about the Americans?  Shudder to behold the alternative.

[El Nikko + 2,145]

On 8/12/2019 at 12:53 PM, Jan van Eck said:

The alternative was loudly on display in Beirut, Lebanon some years back.  Everyone was shooting at everyone else, and blowing up the entire town, reducing a lovely city to total rubble.  

That is what happens when the US leaves and there is no policeman. 

I say let them work their own differences out instead of keeping a state of perpetual conflict unless you are ok with your own kids being sacrificed for fighting other peoples wars and getting no thanks afterwards. All this 'intervention' has led to the decline of the US from the world stage and it's looking quite similar to what took down the Soviet Union. I wonder where the Taliban or other groups got their weapons, I'll bet everyone was supplying them to keep the US bogged down in stupid and pointless wars...would anyone doubt that China/Russia/Iran/Pakistan or just about anyone wouldn't have chipped in to bleed America dry?

 

[El Nikko + 2,145]

7 hours ago, Marcin said:

You may not like US, but it is the best policeman world ever had.

US is way better than was British Empire before.

US balance in last 100 years (since around WW1 it was global hegemon, although till 1930s in self induced isolation)

is still about +35 million human beings.

At least 40 million saved ( 10+ million WW1, 30+ million in WW2 by the way of all nations, Chinese were major beneficiaries)

-2 million Korea, -2 million Vietnam, -1 million 21 century adventures in Middle East (and only the last -1 million was only out of oil greed, earlier in Korea, Vietnam were justified geopolitical ventures to save nations from red peril).

Balance of British Empire is over -100 million in 18-19 centuries.

The British Empire killed 100 million people?

Any chance of some source material for that please?

Also how do you calculate US involvement in WW1 saving 10 million lives?

Thanks

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Even its bloodshed is nothing compared to what Mao did. 

 And it was nothing compared to the murders of the obscure Pol Pot in the even more obscure Cambodia. 

The Khmer Rouge used instant murder as their personal satisfaction of their psychopathy. And there was a lot of psychopathy.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

8 hours ago, Marcin said:

You may not like US, but it is the best policeman world ever had.

US is way better than was British Empire before.

US balance in last 100 years (since around WW1 it was global hegemon, although till 1930s in self induced isolation)

is still about +35 million human beings.

At least 40 million saved ( 10+ million WW1, 30+ million in WW2 by the way of all nations, Chinese were major beneficiaries)

-2 million Korea, -2 million Vietnam, -1 million 21 century adventures in Middle East (and only the last -1 million was only out of oil greed, earlier in Korea, Vietnam were justified geopolitical ventures to save nations from red peril).

Balance of British Empire is over -100 million in 18-19 centuries.

We ALL seem to be missing the point!

The US is NOT the world’s policeman! Everybody jumped with joy when Reagan proclaimed this years ago!

The US has friends and allies and will treat them as such. If the rest of the world want’s to blow themselves to pieces, by all means do so!

[Marcin + 519]

4 hours ago, El Nikko said:

The British Empire killed 100 million people?

Any chance of some source material for that please?

Also how do you calculate US involvement in WW1 saving 10 million lives?

Thanks

WW1: US was instrumental in breaking German 1918 offensive and quick success in 2018, but it is only very rough and hipothetical estimation, take 5 million WW1 and 35 in WW2 total is the same: without US involvement Japanese would be able to butcher any number of East Asians, and Germans any number of Europeans.

As far as British Empire successes are concerned:

"Britain was responsible for the deaths of 35 million Indians, according to Shashi Tharoor.

The Congress MP made the claim in an article for Al Jazeera and also called on the Victoria Memorial in Kolkata to be turned into a museum about British rule.

…Nor is there any memorial to the massacres of the Raj, from Delhi in 1857 to Amritsar in 1919, the deaths of 35 million Indians in totally unnecessary famines caused by British policy,” he added.

I would elaborate about 1 event in Bengal in 1943 because it was under war hero Prime Minister WInston Churchill.

from Wikipedia:

The British government gave preferential treatment in the distribution of supplies to the armed forces, civil servants and other "priority classes". These factors were compounded by restricted access to grain: domestic sources were constrained by emergency inter-provincial trade barriers, while access to international imports was largely denied by Churchill's War Cabinet, arguably due to a wartime shortage of shipping

The provincial government denied that a famine existed, and humanitarian aid was ineffective through the worst months of the crisis. "

Outcome 2.1-3 people died out of hunger and associated diseases."

So 35 million for India.

The second on the list is China in Opium Wars time, make your own count.

At the end of the day, you are probably right, I am deeply sorry.

It was irresponsible to state 100 million casualties of British Empire.

I should have done meticulous studies, who knows maybe it was -80 or -130 million.

I only wanted to say US has much better track record.

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Marcin
spelling

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

42 minutes ago, Marcin said:

from Wikipedia:

Oh if its on Wikipedia it has to be factually correct then?

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Oh if its on Wikipedia it has to be factually correct then?

 

What? You doubt some of the information presented on Wikipedia? HEATHEN!!!

...and an Indian MP, being interviewed by Al Jazeera would not be biased to any degree.

[James Regan + 1,776]

5 hours ago, Marcin said:

WW1: US was instrumental in breaking German 1918 offensive and quick success in 2018, but it is only very rough and hipothetical estimation, take 5 million WW1 and 35 in WW2 total is the same: without US involvement Japanese would be able to butcher any number of East Asians, and Germans any number of Europeans.

So based on this and the rest below (not worth copying), you don't really have any reasonable evidence of your BULLSHIT you are spouting......

Edited November 6, 2019 by James Regan

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 11/5/2019 at 6:16 PM, Jan van Eck said:

The reality, the hard, raw truth, is that there is no alternative to the United States Army.   Period. (OK, and the Navy, USAF, USMC). 

You either have the US Army using its overwhelming might and firepower to deter aggressors, or you will have wars of conquest, mass murder, and expulsion migration all over the planet.  It is not a pretty picture.  The illusion of stability is a construct that exists only because the US taxpayer is prepared to foot the bill for world peace, notwithstanding the gripes sent its way. Who else is up to the task:   Denmark? 

It's the Americans or nothing.  The Americans may not be perfect, sure they can screw it up, but overall, the Americans were the guys who stood nose to nose at Checkpoint Charlie, and flew in the supplies to keep Berlin free in a spectacular display of American determination against the tyrants.  You folks crab about the Americans?  Shudder to behold the alternative.

On that note, I don't see the US footing the bill in the future.  Half its population is vehemently opposed to the military-industrial-congressional complex, and the other half is exhausted from 18 years of fighting other people's wars.  All of the terrible things you mention could happen today - in some cases, they are happening today - and US citizens wouldn't notice. 

That raises the question: why hasn't the US completely withdrawn?  Who is profiting, and how? 

[JoMack + 549]

On 8/11/2019 at 4:57 PM, Zhong Lu said:

No, I live in America.  Xi is pretty shitty, but compared to past Chinese rulers he's fine.  I mean, he's better than Mao, significantly worse than Deng Xiao Ping, worse than Hu Jin Tao, and better than Jiang Ze Ming.

The only Chinese leader besides Deng that I'm fond of is Hu Jin Tao and that's because he gave up power voluntarily.  

I like talking shit about Trump because he deserves it.  But that doesn't mean I like Chinese leaders.  

I'd say you're very lucky to be in America since in China I wouldn't want to see what happens when you make shitty comments about Xi.  Perhaps, we wouldn't hear from you at all?