Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "How does BIDEN hope to CONTROL ASIA-PACIFIC? - VisualPolitik EN" video.

That's a rather ironic take, since the US is the most economically aggressive nation on Earth, sanctioning the most nations. If anyone has weaponized its economy, it's America. It even does it by extension, as for instance with Cuba, where it doesn't just block them from the US economy but even forces other nations to sanction them by having a blacklist for entities that trade with Cuba to block them from its (far larger) market). By contrast China is Taiwan's largest trade partner, despite it too fraternizing with the enemy. Those sanctions have received global condemnation for decades btw, even by its allies. But Cuba is just one example among many.
30
@WinterGK Bub, read some history. The US' wars have literally killed millions (Vietnam alone was 3, and even their more recent wars in the ME have killed more people even individually than Russia has in all its wars in the same period combined). They not only have allies that're dictators, but have supported several of their wars and repressions (Indonesia in East Timor, Pakistan in Bangladesh, KSA in Yemen, etc.) and even helped installed autocrats themselves (Gautemala, Chile, etc.). Their sanctions also have little to do with your childishly naïve view of the world. For instance, Cuba was sanctioned for fraternizing with the enemy, not being under a dictator - their previous dictator Batista was loved by the US, as he was friendly to their business. India has been sanctioned too, despite being the largest democracy, and the US instead spent most of the Cold War on the side of the military dictatorship of Pakistan. Etc. Also consider all the states they haven't sanctioned, even now. KSA and UAE aren't, for instance, despite both perpetuating the war in Yemen (a war the US itself was involved in a few years ago). Instead what did the US get upset by? One WSJ reported being murdered. Do you know how many people were starved by the sanctions on Iraq? It certainly didn't hurt Saddam. Even the west has opposed how callous America's sanctions can be - there's been a global vote at the UN for decades for resolutions condemning the Cuba sanctions, which overwhelmingly are lost by America with even its western allies voting against them. Meanwhile Israel, widely accused of human rights violations, not only isn't sanctioned but actually is the biggest recipient of US support. It's wars aren't celebrated much either, outside of the west. Iraq for instance was literally called illegal by the UN, who they claimed to be there for. I can go on. There's little, save all the loud PR and rhetoric, to back up the idea that they fight for human rights and the rest of the crap you spew. Their record is abysmal, only rivalled by the USSR. Also, it isn't your business to be deciding things for other people anyway. Your own attitude is just more of that nonsensical 'democracy on the wings of a B-52' cliche. The west has a long history of coming up with excuses for why its hegemonic rule was somehow good for the world. In Europe they called it the 'white man's burden', in America 'manifest destiny'. Regardless of the wests' plentiful hypocrisy and doublespeak, even the rhetoric itself is self-serving, egoistic, condescending and high-handed. You are NOT the global moral police - no one elected you to the position, nor would they given your absolutely terrible track record running back centuries. The last thing the west needs is even more moralist self-justification that treats itself as the pinnacle of civilization destined to shape the world in its image. Your heads are big enough as it is. You claim to like diversity so much right? Well then get it through your thick heads that other people aren't just mini-westerners under an iron boot and so don't automatically see everything as you do. Quit remixing the 'white man's burden' each century and feeding your egos all the time. Just stop it. The world doesn't belong to you or your ideals. You have your corner. Stick to it.
12
@WinterGK Oh and btw, did you know the US literally sanctioned a prosecutor of the ICC, the ultimate arbiter of human rights, for daring to suggest an investigation into human rights violations in Afghanistan (a war that's killed well over a hundred thousand people)? Yep, look it up. Talk about irony. Also not only are they not a signatory to it, but also maintain a law that justifies literally attacking the Hague were it to ever dare to prosecute an American, a step beyond even other non-signatories. Under CAATSA they also sanction nations simply on the basis of who they trade with. Yeah, very much the champions of the light alright. Lol.
8
India literally founded the Non-Aligned Movement, and will not be forced to 'choose a side'. Besides, you wouldn't want that. We have a pretty bad history with the west, which is why we're so friendly with Russia which has been much nicer to us. And we can handle China well enough on our own if America won't help - we maintain one of the worlds' strongest militaries for just that purpose.
7
@davidford3115 The Iraq war has over half a million deaths and the Afghan war around a quarter million, even as per American estimates (see Cost of War for instance). Make all the excuses you want for that (blaming it on the locals is a favorite tactic) but that's way in excess even individually than all Russia's actions in the same period. Far from precision bloodless conflict.
5
@craigkdillon Japans' military is weak, as even this channel has covered before. And that's on purpose, as their public is vehemently opposed to increased militarization. But also, what're they supposed to defend? There's no Japanese invasion planned. The US wants strong militaries in the region to support its own activities in the area, but Japan can't take offensive action. South Korea has a strong army, but that army can't be moved out as it's meant for the north, so no help there either. India is similarly dedicated to its own defense, not the American agenda. They can and will defend themselves with or without the Americans, as they have for all their history, and won't be led along by the US for its actions in the South China Sea. Oh and India has been a truer ally to its actual allies (Russia, among others) far better than the US has ever been. The US is courting India now against China, but it used to have sanctions against it and before that sent warships to intimidate them during the Bangladesh war where they sided with Pakistan (and again sided with Pakistan during the Afghan war in order to try to shore up their failing campaign there). Comparing American diplomacy with India's is a joke - the country literally killed over 3 million Vietnamese and is now trying to become bosom buddies with the very party it fought against.
4
How is the US a reliable ally when it hasn't sent a single soldier to fight for Ukraine lol? NATO has always revolved around the US, so this is nothing new. The US has never been seen as a reliable ally by anyone outside of its existing network of client states, so if anything this makes the nations in the Asia-Pacific (besides Japan) far less confident in the US. Taiwan doesn't like that the US is forcing them to relocate their key business to America. Korea has always relied mainly on itself which is why it has such a huge army. The Philippines swings either way as it attempts to balance between the US and China. Vietnam has hardly forgotten what the US did to it - killing 3 million people - and simply uses it as a diplomatic weapon to ward off China. And India has similarly tasted US antagonism before - both sanctions and military aggression - and maintains a strong military of its own independent of America.
3
@osamabagdadi5789 "Any war between two nuclear state will likely result in a nuclear war" - bub, you're talking out of your hat. We've literally HAD a war with a nuclear state already, something the west can't boast of. Both India and Pakistan are nuclear, and fought each other when so. No nukes were fired. We aren't as scared as you think both you and your rivals are. Oh and you did have a peer to fight during the Cold War - but didn't. ;) Instead you bullied poor Vietnam, and many others.
3
@osamabagdadi5789 The US doesn't have room to maneuver because what it wants are partners in war, not places to defend. None of those nations wants a war with China, and most of them are quite capable of defending themselves even without American support. They won't come rushing to the side of American military action in the area. Half of them don't even trust America to begin with, certainly not Vietnam and India (two of the three strongest in the region). South Korea guards against the north and so doesn't want any other wars. That leaves Japan, which is both much weaker and prohibited from offense. And the Philippines, which is even weaker and the most averse to a war. The US will be almost entirely fighting on its own. Indeed Americans tend to forget how privileged they are - war doesn't concern them only cos it always happens far away. For nations for whom it happens in their own turf, it's far less of a game. They'd rather have a prickly peace than outright war, a mindset Americans will never understand cos of how spoiled their nation is (it isn't a superpower just cos of its people lol).
3
@osamabagdadi5789 You're right this isn't worth debating, since you have no points to speak of anyway. All you're doing is dismissing real world evidence that doesn't agree with your beliefs and assumptions.
2
@iche9373 Lol, you're repeating yourself bub.
2
@iche9373 Lol if the UN is the supposed 'world police' then what is the US doing going around invading places? The UN itself has called American invasions illegal. So much for 'multilateralism' lol. Other guy is right - all you do is silly wordplay.
2
@osamabagdadi5789 Also btw, you don't know what a "full blown war" even is. Most wars are NOT 'full blown wars', or what is otherwise known as total war. WW2 had 'full blown war' and you can see lots of pictures of what that actually looks like. Nations are utterly destroyed in total war. A war in the South China Sea will result in neither the conquest of the US nor China. There is no existential threat to either, and hence plenty of reason to not escalate by firing nukes. Most wars are like the recent one between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in which neither was destroyed.
2
@osamabagdadi5789 If you say so. At least that still sounds more impressive than emojis, which seems to be your specialty.
2
@WinterGK Lol. You admit this is all new to you and yet you're so confidently spewing bullshit. Fatou Bensouda and Phakiso Mochochoko are prosecutors of the ICC, sanctioned in September 2020. Good luck squirming out of that. The "govt." killed? You invade and occupy the country and palm off the death toll to the govt. you replaced it with? Yeah, real slick. I guess the 3 million Vietnamese of that war were also not your fault. In that case let's just palm off blame for others wars or repression onto separate entities as well. You sound like the Russians calling their current war a 'special military operation' now lmao. Your war, your deaths. "Not America vs Vietnam." - lol, you DID do it! Yeah it was a war between the north and south aka none of your business. No one's buying that that war wasn't also American bub. Your pathetic attempts at worming out of responsibility for your crimes may be enough for you, but I don't owe you anything and certainly don't care if that imperialist mind of yours can accept it. And speaking of imperialist minds, as I explained at length to you in my closing paragraph, I don't give a shit about the moral justifications you use to claim the right to interfere and shape the world to your liking. We've seen it in one guise or another for centuries. You don't have that right, regardless of how much you want to give it to yourself. You aren't heaven's army here to bulldoze everyone else in the name of your paradise. So keep inventing ever more rationale's for why everything you do is justified, and all the suffering isn't your fault, it won't sell. We've heard it all before. Your precious egos are of little value to us. That applies to however you choose to twist 'democratic values' to suit yourself fyi. Just tell yourself whatever you want to hear - you'll never be convinced otherwise anyway so I'm at least not going to do that for you.
2
@Sean Ryan Lol, are you stalking me? How do you know my comment history? China doesn't pretend to have the moral high ground, or at least sucks at doing so, the US does. I have far more intimate knowledge of China and their shitty behavior than anyone in the west does. We've actually fought a war with China, over actual territory, while the US waves sticks at them despite not having been touched by them (hardly unusual, almost all the nations they've invaded never attacked America first). Hence why I take down westerners that love pretending they're the moral arbiters of the world, like the above. I have other words against the Chinese, where applicable, but that doesn't mean I'm going to blindly go on to stroke your egos. I have more reason to dislike China than arrogant Americans do, and yet they tend to revel in their crusading fervor more than the people who actually have to deal with them. Even the Taiwanese don't tend to be as combative. Oh, and I don't dislike "the west". My distaste is for three western nations in particular - the US, UK and France. I quite like most western nations, just not those 3. And in all three cases, it's for plenty of reason (mostly the same ones for the US and UK, for France it's about Africa). That you saw me criticizing America and jumped to the conclusion that I hate 'the west' only speaks to how narrow your conception of that term is. As for listening, the info is freely available online. I don't expect jingoists who're convinced the US is a moral paragon to ever be convinced otherwise. For anyone else, they can easily verify it online. You people happily criticize China for taking on Australia, while going along with all the places you yourselves pick fights with - including China. And then get upset when someone like me comes along and points out how blatantly biased you're being and blind to your own actions and hypocrisy. That doesn't reflect poorly on me, mon ami. You defend Saudi Arabia conducting their equivalent of 'special military operations' in Yemen (see above), which btw the US was also involved with a few years ago, while getting outraged when Russia does it. No, I don't have to let you indulge your hypocrisy just cos China is a thorn in our side. I don't tend to push back so vehemently against westerners who can acknowledge their own myriad crimes and hypocrisies, but the guy above is the polar opposite of that. I don't see why I should let his self-serving supremacism go unchallenged. If you call that bias, it only shows yourself as such.
2
@_Mohit_Joshi Bhai only about 10% of Sri Lanka's debt is to China, most of which isn't even due. They owe more to Japan, though in reality the vast majority of their debt isn't to either - it's private bondholders, most of whom are western.
2
@davidford3115 They have absolutely viewed them as client states. Japan literally had a major economic reorientation forced on it by America cos they couldn't stand the Japanese outcompeting them in the world markets. India meanwhile has been treated not even as a client state but virtual enemy, facing both American sanctions and the American navy threatening it. The warmer relations between them now is merely the latest chapter, and a cool one at that as the US still holds sanctions over India as a potential threat due to its ridiculously high-handed CAATSA law (as well as disliking India's relationship with Russia)
2
@iche9373 First off yes, as a matter of fact. Since you seem ignorant of history, war was how the US gained the Southwestern states and Texas. Hawaii is another example of capture. Just cos the US has only two weak neighbors with whom it settled its borders long ago it allows you people to assume they've never done it. There aren't any claims the US has anymore, hence why it stopped. They got everything they wanted - they've extended from ocean to ocean already. And apparently you think it's okay to invade countries so long as you don't annex territory. Lol! America doesn't even have borders to fight over with any nations except Canada and Mexico, with whom it settled those issues long ago (including via war). It also doesn't have any sort of ethnicity to base claims on, unlike most other nations. Almost all of America's many wars have not been about territory. Indeed this actually makes America look WORSE, not better - because it doesn't have territory to fight over, and isn't in any imminent threat of being invaded itself, and yet still finds so many reasons to go to war. Border wars are not the exception, they're the norm. Most wars throughout history have been border wars. America is one of a handful of nations (most of the others being the former colonial powers) that finds reasons to attack nations far away from its home. Vietnam for instance didn't even involve America, it was a local conflict in which neither side bordered the US. The US got involved anyway, simply due to its geopolitical contest with the USSR. The US should be one of the most peaceful nations of all, as it has the least reason for war - clear borders, security, resources, you name it. Instead it's been at war all over the world for most of its history. I don't care what you think of Russia, a nation in far different circumstances. But America's behavior is embarrassing given how fortunate its position is. War is not magically okay just cos you don't grab land.
2
@khai96x Nah I'm sick of the bot accusations. It along with other forms of ad hominem like CIA troll, 50 cent army and the like are all killing online discussion these days. I choose not to use those excuses to dismiss other points of view.
1
@osamabagdadi5789 Lol you people think there's either no war or nuclear war. Nukes aren't going to fly over a war in the South China Sea. That wouldn't just be terrible, it'd be terribly stupid. Vietnam and especially India don't need the US to hold off China, so they aren't going to be bossed around by them (as we're already seeing with Russia). And both nations, as well as China itself, have far longer histories of 'grit and determination' than America does lol. The US was literally built on the backs of slavery and expropriation, besides having large chunks of its territory simply ceded to it by their previous colonial holders. But besides that, the country has resources, farmland and two giant oceans to run behind whenever things go bad in its myriad wars abroad. Americans love hyping up their people while taking their situation for granted. Even those people were a gift, being relatively skilled Europeans and then others leaving trouble back home, it had much less to do to leverage them. Vietnam for instance has had to face down a much stronger nation for thousands of years and has held its own - America has literally never done that since its independence war, as it only ever picks on weaker states. Even then, the Vietnamese fought and beat the Americans despite 3 million losses while it took barely a few tens of thousands of deaths to drive the US back home. And in Afghanistan it took an order of magnitude even less for them to just give up and run.
1
@osamabagdadi5789 Because they're afraid of a nuclear war, why else? Just cos you share in their fear doesn't mean it will actually happen. If people think god will flood the world if they blaspheme, does that mean it's true? They'll still avoid doing it, but you won't know if he actually will strike unless someone tries it (and in this case someone has btw). What kind of silly logic is this, using fears as 'proof' of a fact? Not that I'm in favor of such a war anyway. But I don't much care for the west pretending nukes are the only things they have to be worried about. It treats them as effectively infallible, save for the end of days itself.
1
@iche9373 No I talk like I don't want anyone lording over the world, including your supposedly 'good guy' America (which a lot of people all over the world would scoff at, with plenty of history to back it up). And fortunately no one else, not even China, is in any position to do that. So it's really just the US that needs to be cut down to size. THAT would leave us with a multilateral world order.
1
@pmc7105 The situation with China is also worse. It's literally moved even closer to conflict than even Trump managed, but of course you people actually celebrate that lol.
1
Forget about Pakistan as we can handle them fine. The US itself is an issue for India. Under CAATSA for instance, they've given themselves the right to sanction India simply for the 'crime' of who we procure our equipment from. That's not how you earn trust. The Russians have been FAR more reliable and equitable partners than the US, even aiding us against them in the 1971 war.
1
@iche9373 Bub the US has a long history of interventions, so save your multilateralism claims cos few outside the west buy it.
1
@davidford3115 Lmao! Nice try bub. Go look up the death tolls from the Afghan and Iraq wars. Literally hundreds of thousands, even by American researchers. Now look up the death toll from Ukraine war - the UN maintains a running tally. Orders of magnitude less. Just cos you people barely think about the poor brown Arabs who died because of you doesn't mean the locals do. And those aren't even the only wars you were in - the US was active in Yemen before too for instance, a war that's still going on at the hands of a US ally. But guess what they got upset about - one WSJ reporter being murdered lol. Cos who cares about all the poor brown Yemenis right? This isn't to say the Russian war is bloodless, far from it. Just that American wars are far from bloodless themselves. I didn't even bring up Vietnam, whose tally is millions.
1
@samthesuspect In Vietnam? Sure. The Sino-Vietnam war killed about 50k people on both sides combined. The American Vietnam War killed over 3 million Vietnamese alone, and also left so much ordinance on the ground and chemicals in the foliage that more die every year to this day. Lol, nice try. America has killed way more people than China through war, most of China's infamous death toll is thanks to the disastrous domestic economic policies of Mao, not warring all over the world. Nor has America changed its ways, while China left Mao's dumb economics behind decades ago. Did you know America has even caused more Muslim deaths than China? Yep, there's a reason Xinjiang has to be called a "cultural" genocide - cos you can't find enough actual deaths to outdo the horrendous death tolls of Iraq and Afghanistan, which are both almost entirely Muslim (but you get away with it cos they're 'collateral damage' lol). Plus ironically the Chinese too were responding to terrorist attacks from the region, much like America for Afghanistan. Did you know that not only does the US spend the most on its military, it spends the most on it military PER CAPITA (which accounts for economy size differences)? Do you know where China is in military spending per capita? Not in the top 10 (even Russia isn't btw). Not even in the top 20. It's all the way back closer to 50, behind Azerbaijan lol. That's how militarized the US is, despite having little need to be. And ofc there's those 800+ foreign bases, etc. None of this is to say that China is nice, just that the US has less reason to be as shitty as it is to the world (and it's own people, as they did with the native Americans but get away with just cos it happened further ago). You see Canada up north? That's what America can afford to be like. Most other nations on Earth (including China) aren't anywhere near as lucky in their circumstances, be it in having clear and settled borders, massive geographical defenses (two giant oceans), no ethnic diaspora to be tangled up with, weak neighbors, plentiful farmland and tons of resources. America has the least reason to go to war, and yet it's used it's military more than anyone else. That's just plain embarrassing tbh. Meanwhile it has the highest poverty rate among developed nations, despite having been the richest nation on Earth for over a century. While China, starting from a state of destitution, has raised nearly 3 times the US' entire population out of poverty in just a few decades.
1
@shanep.7184 India was always democratic, but that didn't stop the Americans from sanctioning it and even using their navy to intimidate it. Indeed democracy is irrelevant here, it's just the standard PR rhetoric America always uses. They have a long history of having autocratic allies and even supporting their wars (Indonesia in East Timor, Pakistan in Bangladesh, KSA in Yemen, etc.), not to mention even installing autocratic regimes themselves (Chile, Gautemala, etc.). We aren't blind to the US.
1
@ragglefraggle9111 He's certainly trying. Literally said 'this isn't over' after the ruling lol.
1
@lakshaysingh9743 Japan handled China just fine before the US neutralized it in WW2 so they do have the capacity to be strong enough, and South Korea is still strong. As for the client state bit, look up the Plaza and Louvre Accords. Japan even experienced an economic crisis after signing it, and has had a continuous decline ever since.
1
@iche9373 Fyi, since you're bringing up the UN, the Iraq war was literally called "illegal" by the UN Secretary General himself. The head of the ICC was also sanctioned by the US for daring to suggest investigations into war crimes in Afghanistan. And they maintain a law justifying aggressive action against the institution if it were to ever prosecute an American, which is beyond even what other ICC non-signatories do.
1
@lakshaysingh9743 Sure bhai sure...
1