Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "Can AUSTRALIA help to STOP CHINA? (BIDEN's latest move) - VisualPolitik EN" video.

First off, China's lack of battle-hardened soldiers pretty much is just another way of saying they haven't been waging war all over the place like the Americans have. Is that supposed to be a bad thing, that they haven't been waging war constantly? Secondly, apparently Chinese military capabilities are a myth based on pure speculation, while the American military is still to be respected as the worlds' most capable despite being beaten off by a bunch of poor guerillas multiple times. Interesting perspective lol...
20
@CharlesNauck Funny that their people seem to support them far more than any western govt. has the support of its people then. You'd expect their people to hate them for that, right? And no, that's not a Chinese govt. claim - it's verified by none other than Harvard university (look up Understanding CCP Resilience). And no, you can't put that down to fear, as the people weren't being ratted out to the govt. (it's an American study, as if they'd cooperate with the CCP lol). Of course this finding would confuse any western observer, even though there's nothing unusual about it - you'll find the same is true in other oppressive societies like Brunei (even more totalitarian than China) or even the also communist Vietnam. Why? One word - development. Not everyone lives by the American credo of 'give me freedom or give me death'. And that's not my take - that's Harvards' take.
11
@CharlesNauck I'll take an academic study done by professionals over the idle theorizing of a rando on the internet anyday thanks. Especially since it isn't even unusual (I wonder if you even know where Brunei is, or if this is the first time you've ever heard of the place). Hell even my own country (a well-established democracy) currently has a would-be demagogue in power, and he has widespread public support, having won a thumping majority in the last elections. People aren't as simple as libertarian fundamentalists like you like to think of them as - unlike you, they're capable to making realistic choices and even compromises. It may seem unbelievable to you that the Chinese could possibly approve of their govt., but to someone with a bit more imagination it's not all that strange.
9
@CharlesNauck Oh I'm well aware of the Chinese threat. I'm not here trying to make China look good. I'm just not falling for the usual western 'you're either with us or against us' rhetoric. My point isn't that China is good, it's that you guys aren't either (btw, spare me the debt diplomacy nonsense - I can skewer that narrative easily). We have the 4th strongest military on Earth, precisely because we know China is a threat BUT also we know you guys suck as 'allies'. Did you know we pulled off the largest military surrender since WW2 a few decades ago, in war with Pakistan? 93,000 troops laid down their arms and Bangladesh was born. Do you know what the Americans were doing at the time? They had their fleet in the Bay of Bengal, threatening us (held off only cos the Russians were on our side). Do you know what they did when we developed nukes as a defense against, ironically, China already having them? Sanctioned us. Did you know we had our own trade corridor planned that would counter China's BRI? It was scuppered cos of your stupid sanctions against Iran (we have no issues with Iran, you do). And did you know who America was favoring until this very year? Pakistan, all in an effort to save face for its dumb war in Afghanistan. And so on and so forth. I'm not here cos I like China. I'm here cos you guys suck too, and yet keep pretending you're the heroes.
9
@gottagofastest Reminder that the US military was far less experienced that their European counterparts when entering the world wars. In any case, the point was that while that may be a strike against the Chinese military capabilities, it's practically praise for the Chinese state (which I'm pretty sure wasn't intended). As regards capability, you can dock points from China for being inexperienced, but you can't not also dock points from the US for losing multiple times. And Australia is even less capable lol.
7
@ImCurrentlyNaked India won't be fighting a war anywhere but on our own borders, if they're threatened. We aren't American vassals like the UK or Australia. And no one in the region wants a war, cos we all lose from that since we're actually IN the region. Only the Americans do, cos they always fight far away from their home and so can run away if things go south (like they just did in Afghanistan). They haven't faced the horrors of war on their home turf for literally over 150 years. A great example of the above is Taiwan - there's FAR more rabid support for Taiwanese independence in the US than in Taiwan itself. Their own surveys show less than 10% of the population favours an immediate declaration of independence (and around 50% 'at some point in the future'). In contrast, most Americans support it. Why? Cos the Taiwanese know they can't just run away, they have to live with the consequences. They've got a good thing going right now, and don't want to ruin it. America has NO stakes, for them it's all upside - they get an excuse to put down a rival power without facing any damage to their homeland. Unlike everyone else in the region, America has no skin in the game. It never does. Even the current rise in tensions was heavily precipitated by an orange gorilla getting into the Oval Office and going on a crusade (which his successor has continued), not any new claims on Taiwan by China (they've had this claim for 70 years now - and yet today China is still Taiwans' largest trade partner, think on that (and contrast it with Cuba for the US)). The most likely trigger for war in the region would be the US, as usual, because it has little to lose.
5
@CharlesNauck "Do you believe that India has always done the right thing?" - Far more so than the US I'll wager. We haven't gone around invading countries. In fact we've fought 5 major wars since our independence and none of them were expansionist, rather they were defensive. And you underestimate how vicious the west has been. We haven't even been the worst sufferers of the wests' actions - Africa, South America, the Middle East and South East Asia have had it way worse. By comparison China doesn't even have that kind of reach, even today. China can't invade Panama even if it wanted to. This isn't unusual - most militaries aren't built for long range operation. But the US already has intervened in Panama, as well as Vietnam on the other side of the world. That's why when Gallup asked the world who they thought was the greatest threat to world peace, the US won by a thumping majority - it was literally 4 times China's score. Unsurprisingly, they didn't run that survey again the next year. And there's no such thing as 'natural allies'. That's a term the US and UK keep using to describe their relationship, but it's hardly true in general. We've had a far better history with Russia than we ever had with the US. Meanwhile Vietnam, which lost 3 million people to American viciousness (and prior to that even more to French viciousness) is turning to America as an 'ally' despite that (and despite itself being communist) cos of cold hard geopolitics. Whatever alliance is formed will be one of convenience, nothing more. You've got a long history to overcome for anything else to be even a remote possibility. Not just with us, but with the world as a whole. The west underestimates how much the world 'forgives' only because they're still strong.
4
@LuisRomeroLopez Both Australia and the US only stand for democracy within themselves lol. They certainly haven't stood by it in their foreign policy, with a litany of autocratic allies and democratic subversions to both their names (Timor Leste for an Australian example, Chile for a US one - and there's many more btw).
3
@CharlesNauck Our first act? Lol, you must be one of those people who keep parroting the 'you're independent now, so why aren't you developed already?' line of thinking. They're a dime a dozen in the west. We'd be here all week if I had to educate you on the legacy the British and other Europeans left behind. Hell most of your ilk at least talk about countries at least a few years removed from colonialism, and here you are dissing us for the very day of our independence lol. The only one indoctrinated here is you, into the idea of western moral superiority. And it didn't even take any state propaganda to do it - no, you people readily repeat that belief to yourselves all the time because it caters to your own egos. As for Russia, I said nothing about them in general, only in relation to us. Nice strawman there. As for the Vietnamese hating China, so what? What does that have to do with what I said? Do you turn to your abuser for help just cos you don't like this other guy either? They still lost millions to completely unjustified aggression by the west (first France, then America) and the only reason they're turning to the US at all (rather than, say, Brazil) is because the US is strong. Trust me, if the west wasn't strong, you wouldn't be allowed to get away with a tenth of the shit you guys do. The only being disingenuous here is you, with blatant strawmen. I like how Arthur 'Bomber' Harris put it wrt WW2 - he freely admitted that had the Allies lost the war, he'd be rightfully convicted as a war criminal. He knew what he was doing, and was willing to admit to its horror. He got away, cos the Allies won. That isn't an aberration. The world only holds accountable the weak. If that is ever the west one day, you'll start seeing just how much shit you've piled up against you. Finland or Costa Rica or Bhutan may be nice places, but the US and western Europe's records are caked in guilt. Lastly, I didn't confuse shit. You just suck at reading, likely intentionally. And disingenuously. China can't invade Panama even now. Cos they, like MOST countries, don't have an army designed for it. Not cos they're nice, but cos it's bloody expensive. You people go on about their border disputes all the time without realising how typical that is. There are hundreds of border disputes around the world. You know what's not typical? Fighting FAR from your borders, and that too without any territorial ambitions. The US and western Europe are almost the only empires in history to ever do that. China's disputes, as irritating as they are, aren't strange. It's your behaviour that's the aberration. Something like the Vietnam or Iraq wars - killing millions in countries you don't border or even claim territory in - is what stands out as wierd. So why do you keep doing it? Cos modern power isn't based on territory, but hegemony. But China is still in no position to do that to countries as far away as Panama, nor are they even building the capability for it since, as I said, it's bloody expensive. How expensive? Consider this - the US doesn't just spend more on its military than the next 10 nations combined, it's also the second highest (Israel is first) in military spending PER CAPITA (which adjusts for economy size). You know where China is on that metric? 58th place, behind Azerbaijan lol! Russia is 25th btw, for context. This despite the US being in one of the most geopolitically safe positions in the world (unlike first place Israel). China doesn't have nearly a thousand military bases around the world either, the US does. Even its growing navy is almost entirely designed for close range operations, while the US Navy is heavily blue water i.e. long range oriented. And so on. The world voted the US as the greatest threat to world peace based on strong historical and current precedent. But it's not like an American to introspect I guess. Just toss out strawmen instead.
2
@ImCurrentlyNaked Bruh, I AM Indian. I know very well about our border skirmishes. But we still aren't American stooges to be dragged into a war that isn't about our issues. We'll only join a war if it takes place because our borders are threatened. Don't forget that we were one of the founding nations of the Non-Aligned Movement - and this was when we were much weaker. And the only 'future Chinese land' here is the very disputed territories. Both nations know full well they have no capability to control the other - hell America couldn't even do that for Afghanistan, what chance do you think China has with us? As for Taiwan, I didn't say different. Indeed I admitted a lot of them want independence - my point was that they're more circumspect about it. More cautious. Cos they have to be. Even if the war were lost and Taiwan obliterated by China, America loses little but prestige. But the Taiwanese lose everything. The US isn't risking it's own neck (apart from its soldiers) - that was my point. They can still return to largely untouched homes. And that has been the case for over a century now.
2
@CharlesNauck Ah, another strawman. Cute.
2
@ImCurrentlyNaked It's got little to do with our govt. Look at our position - we also have a hostile neighbour (with nukes) to our west. You want us to risk our necks for YOUR cause? Why should we? We don't even have a great relationship with America - they've burned us many times before - so why would we be willing to follow them into a war that puts us at greater risk than they themselves are? As for Taiwan, of course they won't roll over. But China has been claiming Taiwan for 70 years now, and yet today is their largest trade partner. Contrast that with Cuba, over which the US has no territorial claims and yet has already embargoed, sanctioned, blockaded and even invaded before. So who's treated their island neighbour worse huh? China already has American bases close to it, as does Russia, why would they allow Taiwan to become yet another US asset in the region? They've been okay leaving well enough alone for 70 years - resulting in both nations prospering - so what do they gain from capturing a bombed out wreck of an island with a rebellious population? Security, that's what. The security that America can't have it. But America doesn't have it - yet. As long as it looks like that's going to continue to be the case, I don't see why they should upset a good situation. If it changes, then all bets are off. Even Russian aggression in eastern Europe constantly talks about NATO bases nearby, not the nation's they're actually attacking. When America had a base put next to it in Cuba, they flipped out - and have punished Cuba ever since (against pretty much the entire world's wishes btw - the world has voted against the sanctions at the UN for decades now). Basically of course Taiwan won't roll over, and will accept US help, but this war isn't even necessary. The situation has stayed largely peaceful for 70 years, and it's possible it can remain that way. But it won't if you keep poking around. Even the current tensions really started from 2016. Nothing changed in China then. But something did change in America. The Chinese, if they're sensible, won't want a bombed out wreck over a rich trade partner. But they will absolutely not tolerate another western proxy right off their shores. The US didn't either after all, in Cuba. So why would they? As for those ideals that nations apparently fight for, that's cute. But the US' own record works against you here - it has readily allied with and even assisted autocrats and democrats alike as suits their interests. It's right now seeking an alliance with a communist country (Vietnam) against another 'communist' country (China). It's helped put dictators into power (Chile, for one example) and even supplied autocrats in war (KSA in Yemen, for a current one). Where was the US when Indonesia was mass murdering Timor Leste under a dictator? They did so with the US' leave. The biggest democratic force in the Middle East - the Muslim Brotherhood - is of grave concern to America, because they don't like the US. Even Taiwan and S. Korea, the supposed bastions of democracy in the region that the US is defending, both received American support when they were themselves autocracies (and this was for decades). So forgive me if I don't buy into the rhetoric that America will fight for higher ideals. They've never let their ideals interfere with their interests before, so why now? Those ideals are typically just a convenient way to role people up for a 'just war'. A moral crusade, as it were. There's precedence for this - ye olde 'white man's burden'. Never a bigger hypocrisy has there ever been than that idea. But it's not dead. The west just keeps remixing and reinventing it every century to suit the times. But it always ends up conveniently serving their interests. And, for the ordinary people, at least feeding their egos.
2
@EhEsDeeEf It is actually. Compare the death tolls for Xinjiang with those of Afghanistan or Iraq. The US is killing way more people, it just gets away with it not being called genocide cos of a technicality as they were untargeted war casualties. Cold comfort to the victims tho. You're also supporting other wars and suppressive activities in, ironically, autocratic states who just happen to be allies (Yemen, for example). You aren't good by any stretch of the imagination.
2
@badluck5647 "There is nothing in Afghanistan that is horrifying" - I dunno man. Hundreds of thousands of dead Muslims sounds pretty damn horrifying. Good luck finding numbers like that for Xinjiang...
2
@LuisRomeroLopez Ironic that you bring up Nicaragua. China has never actually fought that country, but the US has. And saying the US modifies its foreign policy as circumstances change doesn't really constitute much of a defence. Cuba is another case in point - the US loved its original dictator (Batista), but hated his successor (Castro) - and tried to play that off as some sort of concern for democracy lol. And these are far from the only countries, and it's not just ancient history (KSA is a current autocracy that's actively waging a war in Yemen with American weapons, for instance). Hell, much like with Cuba, some countries that're played off as principled stands for democracy by the US today were anything but at the time - for instance, both S. Korea and Taiwan were themselves autocracies when the US intervened in and extending support to them. Point being the rhetoric is just that - rhetoric. The US has never let a pesky thing like principles get in the way of its national interest.
2
We're already knee deep in some shady business with the jets they're selling us lol.
1
@FC-vp9ej Bruh, we still have border disputes, which I don't see going away anytime soon. The US didn't manufacture those, they're entirely Chinese claims. I didn't say China and India would never fight, just that neither can fully take over the other country. That doesn't mean they'll never fight over those borders. We've already fought a war with a nuclear nation btw - in 1999, with Pakistan. Nukes don't guarantee no conflict, they only constrain how big the conflict can get.
1
@ImCurrentlyNaked I didn't downplay anything, I simply didn't mention it. As to why, because the reverse is usually the case - China's crimes are highlighted, America's are ignored. Consider it pushing against an imbalance. Like I've said elsewhere, America shouldn't even be able to play the good guy here without being laughed at, but they are. China doesn't need more villification, it already gets plenty. It's America that doesn't get enough. The only thing America does get attacked for appropriately are the things Americans themselves find controversial, like racism and slavery. American foreign policy is usually only consistently brought up by the far left, who're typically just called communists and thus dismissed from consideration. The country has got away with a lot because of being the reigning superpower. The same can't be said for China - just ask yourself how plausible you find it to think China could sell itself as the hero in this contest. I think that should tell you why I'm focusing more on America than China here. After all, even this very video takes it as a given that China is the enemy, so what need is there for me to pile on top of that? Biden is trying to frame this as the great contest of the century between democracy against autocracy, rather than just US against China - why is he even able to sell that story with the US' history? That's why I didn't say much about China - there's just no need to, but there is for the US. The narrative is currently highly imbalanced. As for alliances, India cares about allies it can count on. The US isn't one of them. We've had to fend for ourselves for the most part. On numerous occasions the US has worked against our interests, so why should we count on them now? We liberated Bangladesh while the US fleet was sitting just off our coast threatening us. They only didn't attack because of an ally we have a FAR more reliable history with - Russia. We developed our own nukes because we already faced a nuclear threat, ironically from China - and the US sanctioned us for it. Even recently the US' interests in Afghanistan led it to give us the cold shoulder in favor of Pakistan, which ultimately achieved nothing for them anyway. We had our own trade corridor plans in cooperation with Iran, which fell through thanks to US sanctions (we don't have issues with Iran, America does). And so on. We have little reason to trust the US is going to be a reliable ally, so might as keep this transactional. If America looks out for itself, we will too. There are other countries we have relationships with, which don't have such a chequered history. I mentioned Russia above, for instance. And let's be real here - just as the US is able to court Vietnam, despite having bombed them to kingdom come a few decades ago, because it's strong, so too will a good deal of our assistance come based on our relative importance. How much help is Yemen getting right now? Barely any. What did they do to deserve such cold treatment? The main reason Yemen isn't on the top of everyone's minds right now is cos Yemen doesn't matter all that much. It's weak and poor. Ditto the Congo. Etc. India will get help as long as we matter, even if we don't join in on this fight. And if one day we don't, I don't expect us to be treated any better, regardless of our participation here. That's the cold logic of geopolitics. Just ask the Kurds. They would know, having been beaten around and used by multiple powers over their history, most recently by the US - who hung them out to dry as soon as they'd outlived their usefulness. I would not have my country suffer the same fate as them. Helping others is nice, so long as you don't fool yourself into thinking you can rely on them. That kind of trust has to be earned. And the US is far from earning our trust.
1
@CharlesNauck The only tool here is the person being driven to support war. But then your ad hominem tactics on the other guy make it clear you're not really here to have any meaningful discussion, so whatever.
1
@tdepp1178 Thanks. And merry Christmas! :)
1
@CharlesNauck "I don't think you are intelligent enough" - lol, if that isn't a r/iamverysmart comment, I don't know what is. Tell me, do you also do narrations of the Rick & Morty meme? You know, the "You Have To Have a Very High IQ to Understand..." speech. I'm sure you'll be really good at it lmao!
1
@CharlesNauck Lol. Keep those aspersions coming friendo. With every one you just further advertise how full of yourself you are to everyone. xD
1
@CharlesNauck Oh, you're neither insulting me nor complimenting yourself, not genuinely at any rate. You're just trolling. You think I didn't realize that lol? Why do you think my replies have shortened so much? I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine. No point expending extra effort for that. We'll see how long you chase after the last word.
1
@CharlesNauck Weak comeback. Troll. Your turn. ;)
1
@EhEsDeeEf Are buzzwords the only tool you have? Try looking up that word on wikipedia for a change. Unlike your preferred echo chamber, they actually have an entire section of the page dedicated to the criticisms of it. It's a lame label used to avoid owning up to your crimes. Oh and you're right it's not a close parallel - your numbers are way higher.
1
@badluck5647 Btw, if the number you bring up is the 1 million people in prison figure, then let me stop you right there. The total for China as a whole is 1.6 million (and that's from western sources). That's for a population of 1.4 billion. America has only 330 million people - a quarter of China. How many people in prison? 2.3 million. Yeah...
1
@LuisRomeroLopez As for China, funnily enough them lending support to autocrats wouldn't be hypocritical, since they aren't trying to claim any kind of moral high ground here by claiming to stand for democracy in the first place. Reprehensible sure, but not hypocritical. The US tries to have it both ways - they want to pretend to follow principles while never losing out on any opportunity to cement their hegemony even if that means sacrificing said principles.
1
@badluck5647 And you say all that based on? Some China Uncensored crap? And btw, I never claimed the Chinese were a model for anyone - India has almost the same population yet only a third of their prison numbers. This doesn't make China look good. Rather it just highlights how bad America is - they don't just lose to China, they stand out from the whole damn world.
1
@EhEsDeeEf Lol, here's a funny thought - propaganda is needed to convert those may doubt. But you don't even need propaganda. You're a zealot already, needing no further convincing. Apparently even wikipedia isn't a neutral enough site for you lol, but of course it is. Anything that doesn't reinforce a cultists' beliefs is automatically wrong in their worldview.
1
@LuisRomeroLopez It isn't black and white, no. But that's certainly not how it's being framed. As long as the US is able to take the moral high ground in such conflicts, it remains the bigger issue. Because that means it hasn't been vilified enough, while China has despite not even having gone to war for decades. This should really be framed as a rivalry between two shitty superpowers, and yet somehow one of them is able to make it look like a moral conflict between the 'champions of democracy' and the 'evil empire'. I'm not gonna be conscripted into that narrative. We've already seen this before, with the Europeans being able to pretend their colonial empires were a great gift to the world even to this day. Not falling for that again. China's reach is limited. And if it's a choice between a villain pretending to be a hero and much more straightforwardly colored villain, I'd rather focus on revealing the 'hero' for what he is first. A wolf in the distance isn't as dangerous as a wolf in sheeps' clothing.
1