Youtube comments of Covert Puppy Two (@covertpuppytwo3857).
-
93
-
78
-
67
-
60
-
58
-
55
-
52
-
51
-
50
-
42
-
40
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
36
-
35
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@ireneserrano4570 Day 15 into Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Russia has barely taken 15% of the country. Each day cost Russia $20 billion. Then you add all the tanks, jets, helicopters, personnel carriers, etc lost... destruction of Russian military equipment we haven't seen since WW2! Then you have the sanctions... literally, the American penny has more value than the ruble! Then we have the number of Russian troops killed and captured... oh, and there are lots of videos of captured Russian soldiers completely demoralized about the war itself. Thanks to the fighting spirit of the Ukrainians, supplied with weapons by at least 28 countries, the confrontation is not the expected blitzkrieg Russia was clearly expecting.
Russia isn't losing... it already LOST!!!
No matter how the war in Ukraine plays out, Putin loses. Even if Russian forces prevail on the ground and in the air, he loses. Even if he takes Kyiv tomorrow, he loses. Russia lacks the forces (and perhaps the will) to occupy Ukraine in the face of a restive civil society and guerrilla movement. And that would be on top of having already reinforced NATO, awakened Europe, isolated his country, ruined its economy, and alienated many Russians, including his “friends.” If somehow Moscow ends up with a military victory — at a price that will be exorbitant, not only for the Ukrainian people but also for Russian soldiers — this would only be the beginning of Moscow’s difficulties. As America learned through great cost in blood and treasure in the early years of this century, taking a country is one thing, but occupying it is another. But unlike the US... Russia simply can't afford it!
Russia's INVASION considerably strengthened NATO’s attractiveness, since this war is a demonstration of the risk of not being part of it. It will have immediate consequences for countries like Sweden and Finland. The Russian invasion of Ukraine will “change” the national debate on NATO membership, as the Finnish prime minister said on the first day of the offensive. And she was right: Only a couple of days later, a poll showed that a majority of Finns are now in favor of joining NATO! Russia looks certain to become a true pariah state, which will no longer be wanted in trade relations, diplomatic formats, airspace, information space, sports competitions, and all events that make up international life. Putin will of course retain relations with China, Iran, Pakistan, and some other states that are less concerned with the respect of international law and the principles of humanity, but this might not convince the Russian entrepreneurs, athletes, and general population that will pay the price of this isolation. Putin will probably not survive!
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@buddha199115 One sided argument? The US doing to China what China has been doing to the US for decades is a one-sided argument? No, it's fact. I'll address your comments:
1. "China is catching up and surpassing the Americans." - I never said anything that you would require you to make this statement. Yes, China is catching up. But China is catching up by unfair competition such as subsidies, forced technology transfers, ip-theft, etc, etc, etc. But China is not surpassing the US! The US like the trade war, is finally fighting back because the decades the Western world thought it could solve these issues diplomatically with China without fighting, came to nothing!
2. "Remember huawei which were killing the Americans iPhones in technology of 5 and 6 G and sales, so, in order to contain huawei, the Americans asked its faithful lapdog , Canada to do its dirty work by kidnapping huawei FM" - Huawei wasn't killing Apple... nonsense! But Huawei was yet another example of China not being a fair competitor... Huawei was/is subsidized by the Chinese government. Huawei was found guilty multiple times of IP theft and even paid fines. And the CFO of Huawei did in fact break international law when she defrauded Western banks. She even admitted to it and apologized before she left back to China. Anyone doing the shameful kidnapping, that was China with those 2 Canadians!
3. "Just compare how china built hsr, railways, roads, ports, ships,hospitals, airports, renewable energies, hydro dams to the Americans" - Is there a point to this? Yes, China built these things. As did and does many nations all over the world. So what? "Of course you’ll say fake news and say negative things anyway." - Except they never said such a thing!
4. "Now look at NASAspace programs. ISS never allowed china to participate it’s space programs and not permitted to even enter its station because as usual accused China of copying and of course favourite excuse , national security." - Was that joke? China is known throughout the entire world as the "COUNTERFEIT KING" of the world. Heck, even Russia accuses China of stealing their technology to build their fighter jets. And so what if the US doesn't want China to be permitted to ISS... so what? That is America's right since it paid for the BULK of the ISS and is the managing partner. Notice how Russia never had an issue with that stipulation... ever wonder why?
5. "NASA is so envious that the Americans are not invited." - Now that's just comedy gold. I had to take a break after laughing so hard... what exactly is NASA envious of?
Now, you say my original comment was one-sided, but you never really claimed how. You went of in a tangent talking about things that weren't relevant to the topic of the story or anything I said. And some of your comments were in the level of such delusion... that I couldn't contain my laughter!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Ah, yes, Xi Jinping, the paragon of wisdom and strength! Who could overlook his brilliant strategies—like ushering in an era of 'common prosperity' by making billionaires disappear (literally) or showcasing his deep 'respect' for his own people through reeducation camps and internet censorship? And let’s not forget his stellar track record of diplomacy, like peacefully resolving tensions in the South China Sea by building islands where there weren’t any before.
Of course, the West must refrain from interfering! After all, it’s not like China’s domestic affairs—whether it’s Hong Kong’s lost freedoms, Xinjiang’s 'vocational training centers,' or Taiwan’s sovereignty—have any global implications. Clearly, Xi’s leadership is an unquestionable masterpiece, best admired from afar while he selflessly redefines human rights, governance, and what it means to have a free press. Bravo!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@BruceWayne-qe7bs STOP and get yourself an education! The Cuban Missile Crisis was about NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!! And the US did not threaten to invade Cuba, it placed a NAVAL embargo around Cuba. Let me provide some basic facts for you... Russia had an alliance with Cuba, Russia had bases, ports and troops in Cuba. Those troops, bases, ports and alliance with Cuba was before and after the Cuban missile crisis. But the US drew the line when Russia began installing NUCLEAR MISSILES in Cuba. That ultimately was resolved but Russia kept its alliance, troops, bases and ports in Cuba because as I said before, those were not the issue! Russia pulled out of Cuba only after the fall of the Soviet Union... not by threats or demands. The US, NATO and Europe are not installing NUKES in Ukraine or any other Eastern European nations so your notion that somehow the Cuban Missile Crisis is related to the Ukraine situation is COMPLETE NONSENSE! Russia and the Ukraine have an ACTUAL SIGNED agreement dated back in 1994 called the Budapest Memorandum. That agreement called for Ukraine to hand-over all its NUKES (1000+ warheads) in return Russia agreed to respect Ukraine borders and sovereignty. 10 years after Ukraine gave up those warheads, Russia went ahead and invaded anyway!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@araara4746 Oh, where to start with your fascinating WW2 take on history? First, the claim that the U.S. "did nothing and continued to trade with Japan" during its occupation of China is a nice twist of reality. Sure, the U.S. traded with Japan before things escalated, but by 1937, after Japan's invasion of China, the U.S. began imposing restrictions. Ever hear of the 1940 Export Control Act? That little law halted exports of crucial materials like aviation fuel and scrap metal to Japan. And in 1941—before Pearl Harbor—the U.S. froze Japanese assets and imposed a full oil embargo. Hardly the behavior of a country "doing nothing."
Second, let’s talk about this notion that the U.S. refused to help Europe "at all" during Nazi Germany’s occupation. I guess the Lend-Lease Act of 1941, where the U.S. supplied billions of dollars in war materials to the Allies, just didn’t happen in your version of history? That included sending weapons, food, and supplies to Britain and even the Soviet Union long before the U.S. entered the war. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good narrative?
Finally, the idea that the U.S. only acted out of self-interest after Pearl Harbor ignores a little thing called geopolitics. Isolationism was indeed popular before the war, but that doesn’t mean the U.S. wasn’t laying the groundwork to counter aggression in both Europe and Asia. By helping China with resources like military advisors (hello, Flying Tigers) and pressuring Japan economically, the U.S. was already resisting Axis expansion. But sure, let’s pretend the U.S. just sat around twiddling its thumbs until December 7, 1941. Bravo for rewriting history.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
When your 3-day special military operation ends up in 2.5 years of war, over 500,000 death soldiers, over $200,000,000 loses, dozens of top commanders: Generals, fleet commanders, Battalion commanders dead, etc, etc, etc, and now losing parts of your own country.,,,
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@iasonu6368 Here we go again, the noble tale of China’s $29 billion in climate finance since 2016—such generosity! Except, most of that is focused on domestic initiatives or projects tied to their own economic interests, like exporting solar panels and wind turbines. Meanwhile, the $100 billion pledged by developed nations is meant for international climate finance, specifically helping developing countries adapt to climate change. Comparing these two figures is like claiming you’re the biggest donor at a charity event because you bought yourself a fancy suit to attend. Close, but not quite the same.
As for the claim about "unfair competition" against China’s renewable energy technologies—really? China’s success in renewables is partly fueled by its massive state subsidies and dominance over critical resources like rare earth metals, not exactly hallmarks of “fair competition.” Restrictions from other countries? That’s called trying to level the playing field when one team is operating with rules only they seem to know. If China’s renewables are so unstoppable, why the constant victim narrative?
And lastly, the suggestion that countries struggling against China’s “strategic control” should just “do the same”—great idea! Except most countries aren’t running their economies with top-down centralized policies and state-sponsored monopolies. Encouraging fair competition is one thing; trying to emulate a system that stifles dissent and corners markets through strategic coercion is another. But sure, let’s keep pretending it’s all just a West-vs-China sports match.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@userwsyz the United States does not have a formal mutual defense treaty with Israel, like it does with NATO allies or countries such as Japan and South Korea. However, the U.S. and Israel have a very close security relationship, with strong cooperation on intelligence, defense technology, and military aid. The U.S. has pledged to support Israel’s security through various commitments, such as the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding that provides substantial military assistance, but these are not legally binding defense treaties that would automatically require the U.S. to defend Israel in a military conflict.
With regards to your WW2 comment: Ah, yes, because wars are obviously won or lost based on events from 80 years ago. I guess by that logic, China’s military prowess should still be based on its success with spears and bows? History has a funny way of evolving, kind of like military power.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Charles-qe7kc While your perspective acknowledges some factors, it's important to delve deeper into the concerns about China's rise. The issue is not merely Western nations fearing competition, but rather China's problematic trade practices, industry monopolization, and geopolitical tensions that demand a comprehensive approach. China's unfair trade practices, including intellectual property theft and technology transfers, create an uneven playing field in international trade, leading to legitimate concerns. Moreover, China's dominance in critical industries can distort fair competition and international supply chains, impacting the global economy.
Geopolitical tensions arising from China's assertiveness and territorial claims contribute to uncertainty and mistrust. This prompts Western nations to reevaluate their reliance on China in various sectors, extending beyond economic factors. While supply chain shifts are influenced by costs and geopolitics, they're also driven by the need to mitigate risks associated with China's undue influence. China's pursuit of self-reliance is valid, but state-led support for domestic industries can distort global market dynamics and innovation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@araara4746 Oh, the mental gymnastics some people manage when trying to draw comparisons between Israel and Russia. Russia blatantly invades Ukraine, annexes territory, and disregards international laws left, right, and center. Israel, on the other hand, gets attacked by Gaza militants who cross into its territory, purposely target civilians, and—because why not—take hostages for good measure. And somehow, in the land of moral contortions, these situations are "the same"? Really? Do we even live on the same planet?
But wait—there's more! Apparently, facts are optional when it comes to U.S. policies. You’re saying the U.S. is "still buying uranium from Russia"? Cute, but no. President Biden signed the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act into law, specifically banning imports of unirradiated low-enriched uranium (LEU) from Russia and does not purchase uranium from Russia. But sure, let’s ignore that and keep spouting whatever fits the narrative.
And about those sanctions. No, like the US, Europe didn’t completely decouple from Russia overnight—because guess what? Crashing your own economy to make a point isn’t exactly a brilliant policy. But here's the inconvenient truth: by the end of 2023, European imports of Russian energy products dropped from $16 billion a month in early 2022 to just $1 billion a month today. Yes, a 93% reduction. Europe didn’t just sit on its hands; they actively restricted trade with Russia while trying not to throw their own populations into an energy crisis. Clever, right? Something about "responsible governance"?
Meanwhile, China is out here cozying up to Russia and increasing trade because, well, who needs moral high ground when there are profits to be made? Funny how that doesn't get mentioned in these oh-so-enlightened debates or your moral soapbox. So next time someone feels like spinning facts or "forgetting" crucial details, maybe they should do a little homework first. Or at least try harder at hiding the bias.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ It's important to approach history with nuance rather than oversimplifications and mistruths, and your statement contains several misconceptions. While it is true that Eisenhower personally believed the atomic bomb was unnecessary, his opinion was not universally shared among U.S. leadership or historians. Japan’s leadership was indeed exploring ways to end the war, but they were unwilling to accept unconditional surrender, primarily because they wanted to preserve the Emperor’s authority. The idea that Japan was ready to surrender before the bombings ignores the fact that their military was still preparing for a prolonged defense, as demonstrated in the Battle of Okinawa and their rejection of the Potsdam Declaration. But sure, let’s pretend Japan was on the verge of surrender—right up until they weren’t.
The claim that Russia was responsible for Japan’s surrender is a creative twist on history, but unfortunately, it’s not what actually happened. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria in August 1945 (Operation August Storm) was significant, but Japan had long anticipated a Soviet attack and was prepared for a land war in Manchuria. What they weren’t prepared for, however, was the sudden and absolute destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That’s why Japan’s surrender announcement specifically mentioned the atomic bombings and made no mention of the Soviet invasion as the deciding factor. But hey, if we’re rewriting history, why not give the Soviets credit for D-Day while we’re at it?
Additionally, while it is fair to criticize aspects of U.S. education, the idea that Americans have been misled by "Pentagon programs" is a bit of a stretch. Modern history courses actually do discuss Eisenhower’s opposition to the bomb, the ethical concerns surrounding its use, and the role of the Soviet invasion. Historical debate is healthy, but pushing a misleading narrative to fit an ideological agenda isn’t. If anything, recognizing the complexity of these events should encourage a deeper understanding rather than a dramatic rejection of the Pledge of Allegiance, as if that somehow changes historical facts.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Taiwan and China do NOT have common values!!!
Taiwan has a long history and distinct culture that sets it apart from China. The island has a diverse population that includes people of Chinese, Japanese, and Austronesian ancestry, and it has a unique language, cuisine, and traditions. Taiwan has its own constitution, government, and military, and it has a strong tradition of democracy and human rights. Taiwan has held free and fair elections for decades, and its citizens enjoy freedoms that are not present in China, such as freedom of speech and the press.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@carlomikhailreid4365 China might have more modern infrastructure technology than America. America's infrastructure is older... but as far as technology such as in space, computers, semiconductor, military, etc.. China is way behind. That is fact. Sure, you can say for example, China has high-speed rail... but that doesn't mean China is ahead simply because Americans are NOT big fans of high-speed rail. We Americans love our cars. We're talking about commodity technology like semiconductors, ai, space technology, medical technology, etc... and the fact is, China is behind! Answer me this question if you disagree... can you name me 5 technologies that China has invented in the last 50 years that has benefited mankind? I could provide vastly more than just 5 American inventions just off the top of my head, but can you provide me just 5 Chinese technological inventions? And again, 5 Chinese inventions in the last 50 years that has benefitted mankind? Just 5? If not... how could China be way ahead? China is a follower, not a leader!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@wroughtforge7547 The WHO has already stated that they could not and did not have a complete and final review because China wouldn't allow its teams to see the data it requested nor freely speak to the people in China it wanted too. In fact, after the WHO left China, the leader of the WHO made the following comment...
“We are asking, actually, China to be transparent, open, and cooperate, especially on the information [of] raw data that we asked for at the early days of the pandemic,”
World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
Claiming that the WHO declared that there was no leak from Wuhan is a LIE. In fact, because the WHO said they couldn't rule out the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab, China then CANCELLED and FORBID any more investigation in China from the WHO! And here is a fact for you... China is the ONLY nation in the world that hasn't cooperated with the WHO! THE ONLY NATION!!!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ChinaSongsCollection
"you CAN'T just artificially assign yourself the developing country label." - Yes, you actually can. There is no governing body that determines which country is legally a 'developing nations' and which nations aren't! If you disagree, then tell us who or which organization makes such designations!
"in fact, the fact that the US had to have a vote just recently to no longer recognise China as a developing country suggests that the US DID recognise China as a developing country previously despite all the complaints about the label." - Chinese HYPOCRISY... When it's convenient, China portraits itself and behaves as a world superpower. When it's not so suitable, it becomes a developing country in need of assistance and differential treatment. So what you said is basically correct ... because the US is no longer willing to accept China's SELF-APPOINTED status with benefits by calling itself a "developing nation"! The US is taking steps to remove those benefits within the US.
"Clearly, if China wasn't a developing country, and China artificially assigns itself a developing country, the US would not have needed a vote!" - China hasn't been a 'developing nation' for a while now but yes, the US government does things with a vote. Heck, the US can't even BAN tiktok without discussing and voting about it. It's just the way the US system of government works. Unlike China and Russia... the president of the US isn't a TYRANT capable of being above the law or other parties within the government!
"The only definition that matters is the one that countries of the world accept, and that your country acts upon accordingly." - Now you're contradicting yourself... China designated itself as a "developing nation" and it's up to other nations to accept it or not, and that's basically what you just said. That would clearly indicate that nations themselves determine if their developed or not!
"The US accepted China as a developing country according to that definition, and treated China as a developing country accordingly." - Because for a long time China was a developing nation... but that is no longer the case. China itself should have removed that designation but it doesn't want to. So that's why the US itself will change that designation with regards in how the US deals with China. Other nations would have to make that same decision.
"It no longer wants to treat China as a developing country, and therefore the necessity for the recent vote." - I know it might be foreign to you... but voting and discussions within a democratic nation to make sweeping changes is how that government like the US works!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@eIectrostatic Ah, China—the world’s second-largest economy, building a space program to reach the Moon and Mars, expanding the fastest-growing nuclear arsenal, and still calling itself a “developing nation.” Truly inspiring. It’s amazing how they can pour billions into military advancements and space exploration while insisting they’re too “developing” to help fix the climate they’re polluting more than anyone else. Quite the balancing act!
And about those solar panels—sure, they’re cheap, but let’s not pretend it’s charity. China heavily subsidizes their production, not to save the planet, but to dominate the market and edge out competitors. This isn’t about global goodwill; it’s about securing yet another monopoly. Meanwhile, they keep building coal plants at home. Doesn’t sound like the actions of a country focused on “saving the climate,” does it?
As for the claim that the West “outsourced pollution,” let’s be clear: China chose to become the world’s factory, reaping massive economic benefits in the process. Complaining about the pollution now is like someone making a fortune from selling fast food and then blaming customers for the grease. If they’re going to take credit for supplying the world, they also need to take responsibility for the consequences.
The truth is simple: China is the biggest polluter today and the second-largest economy in the world. Calling themselves a “developing nation” to dodge climate accountability while pouring billions into advanced projects is an outdated excuse. If they want to lead the world, maybe it’s time to act like it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Abhijeet_1997 The Western world have been supplying all kinds of weapons like tanks, helicopters, Himars, etc, etc, etc... all to be used defensively in that they cannot be used to attack Russian territory or harm Russian civilians. AMRAAM and A1 tanks would be no different and the restrictions would be the same... used only to defend Ukraine's territory from Russian invaders! Suggesting this is an escalation is nonsense! Now, if China provides weapons, that would be an escalation... why you might ask... because China's weapons would NOT be used for Russia to defend itself inside Russia. China's weapons would be used inside Ukraine, hitting Ukraine cities and killing Ukraine's people. That would be an escalation! And since the UN court of Justice has already said Russia's invasion was illegal, China providing weapons to Russia would also be against international law! I've heard many people like you say, if the US provides this or that, then China should be allowed to provide Russia with weapons. Well, if China is providing weapons to Russia to attack Ukranian cities, then to be fair, the Western world could provide Ukraine with the same weapons to attack Russian cities... now that would be a serious escalation. That's probably another reason why China even with its announced "unlimited" friendship is not going to provide weapons to Russia.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
China and Russia are absolutely trying to create a new world order by going back to the old tactic of imperialism... and it's FAILING!
Initially, European leaders were uncomfortable with Washington’s tougher line on China, insisting on their “strategic autonomy.” This divergence sowed some dissension within the Atlantic alliance. However, Xi’s support for Putin amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has gone a long way toward healing that rift. At a virtual summit in April, ostensibly meant to bolster cooperation between China and Europe, the leaders of the European Union criticized Xi’s pro-Russia stance, warning him against aiding Putin’s war effort.
Then, in June, the leaders of Washington’s four main partners in the Pacific—Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—participated in a NATO summit for the first time to discuss the Chinese threat. This was a sign that a more coordinated or fully united alliance that brought together the democratic powers in Europe and Asia might be possible. In addition, India—usually wary of entangling itself in superpower competition—has become more active in the Quad (a security partnership that also includes Australia, Japan, and the U.S.). This suggests that India sees the group as a potential bulwark against Beijing, which has alarmed Indian leaders by pressing territorial claims along the two countries’ disputed border.
So, it will take China some time to realize they are not living in their new order and that the world is speaking out against their crimes against humanity, their imperial dreams and debt-traps.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@raymondyang2475 You mean not to be evil the US should follow China's footsteps... round up its minorities and place them in concentration camps, threaten its neighbors with war if they don't have over their territory and resources, lie to the world to spread a virus that kills MILLIONS of people, steal as much technology as possible and resell it as your own, force foreign companies to hand over their technology if they want to do business inside the US, dangerously harass foreign ships and planes in international territory, become a police state and now allow the people to protest the government and its decision, forbid free press and freedom of speech, etc, etc, etc? Seems to me, you and I have different ideas about what is evil!!!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chinthengfong1598 Challenging to me what? Are you denying that China invaded Tibet in October of 1950 barely one year after the Communists gained full control of mainland China? Are you denying the bloody Tibetan uprising against the Chinese occupiers where the Chinese began shelling Norbulinka, slaughtering tens of thousands of men, women and children camped outside to prevent their spiritual leader from being kidnapped by China? After the Dali Lama fled to India to escape the PLA, the PLA cracked down on Tibetan resistance, executing the Dalai Lama’s guards and destroying Lhasa’s major monasteries along with thousands of their inhabitants. China’s stranglehold on Tibet and its brutal suppression of separatist activity has continued in the decades following the unsuccessful uprising. Tens of thousands of Tibetans followed their leader to India, where the Dalai Lama has long maintained a government-in-exile in the foothills of the Himalayas. China's invasion and annexation of Tibet was a crime, the manner in which it brutally killed the Tibetans to take the territory was a clear an EVIL act. And yes, in China conquering of Tibet, it killed over 1 million Tibetan men, woman and children!!! Where is the apology for that crime? Are Tibetans allowed inside Tibet to have a museum, monument or play a movie showing China's brutal conquering of their nation? NOPE!!!
Now, let me challenge you... shortly after the CCP came to power, Mao and his policies murdered MILLIONS of Chinese peasants. Where in China can one find a memorial for those Chinese who died at the hands of the brutal Chinese government?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@First-Last_name First of all, he did not "literally ask Russia to attack NATO". Did you actually see the speech the man gave? He was telling (bragging) the audience that he was the one that got NATO nations to begin spending on their defense when he was president SEVERAL years ago when they were not compliment by telling THEM that he wouldn't come to their defense if they didn't live up to the agreement. He was not TODAY asking anyone to invade a NATO nation. Watch the actual video of the man!
Yes, the US enacted Article 5... but did EVERY nation come to the US aid? And I'll remind you that Trump wasn't president when 9/11 happened! So this is a moot point. A NATO nation agreeing to Article 5 but not having the ability to help is absolutely USELESS to the US!
"If we (NATO) is attacked by russia,... " ... you do realize that if you're going to use quotes... you're indicating that is what the man said. So, either you don't know what quotes mean, or you're lying. Trump NEVER said... "if we (NATO) ...". HE NEVER SAID THAT. What he said was... if a NATO member who doesn't live up to their 2% spending is invaded, he would not help and would allow that attacking nation to do with whatever they wanted. Again, if you use quotes, you can't change what the man actually said because then you would by lying!!! And let me be clear, Trump never said "we" or "NATO"... he said a NATO nation that was fulfilling their NATO obligation, then the US has no Obligation to that nation!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MohammedAhmed-md5hj "The Chinese invented the compass which has helped traders navigate the seas and has helped in the discovery of new lands. They invented paper money to make trading and transactions easier. They invented gun powder. And the canon.." ROFL... read my question again... I said, what technology has China invented in the last 50 years that has benefitted mankind... unless you ignorantly believe the compass, paper money, the cannon and etc where all invented in the last 50 years!!! You claim China is FAR ahead of the US then you go one and list technology that was created many hundreds of years before the US even existed!!! I'll tell you what... instead of 50 years, lets make it 100 years! What 5 technologies has China invented in the last 100 years that has benefitted mankind? If you can't answer that question... how can you claim China is "unbelievably far ahead"?
By the way, Apple began moving production out of China. Apple has begun moving Iphones and other manufacturing out of China... for example, India has begun manufacturers Iphones for Apple. Samsung moved 100% of its production out of China. In the last couple of years we have seen MANY manufacturing leave China... GoPro, Nike, Hasbro, etc, etc, etc... The Japanese government has provided BILLIONS to its companies to move manufacturing out of China. And lastly, I'll point out you also couldn't or refused to answer my first question... "And what Chinese technology is Apple, Tesla" are using? I'll tell you since you couldn't... NONE!!! The fact is, China wouldn't have a technology sector if it wasn't for the US! China makes NOTHING that doesn't include American technology somewhere. GET AN EDUCATION, Junior!!!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Dihorse371 UN Office of Legal Affairs? Really? You do realize that the UN office of legal affairs doesn't actually make international laws nor does it interpret UN resolutions, right? The function of the UN Office of Legal Affairs is to assist in legal matters for the Secretariat and the principal of the United Nations... it is NOT the UN nor speaks for the UN!!! How can you claim it speaks for the UN when you FALSELY quote " the UN considers "Taiwan" as a province of China" in some bogus reference? (which btw I believe you are lying)... So, what that office says with regards to UN resolutions and interpretations actually means nothing...because that's not the job it does!!! Let me also state, there is no "Chp VI A. 6.a.3"... not a single reference can be found on it. And even so, you are now claiming (lying) about something completely different. Did you NOT say Resolution 2758 made Taiwan a part of China? YES, YOU DID... but yet when I ask you to quote the line in that resolution where it is stated as such... you come up with something completely BOGUS, irrelevant and not true!!!
Let me remind (educate) you... The CCP understood then that the resolution did not contain the Taiwan conclusions it wanted. Chinese Prime Minister (at the time of the resolution) Zhou Enlai noted that, if Resolution 2758 passed, “the status of Taiwan is not yet decided.” Beijing, through its proxies at the UN, expressed its unwillingness to join the organization if it allowed “‘two Chinas,’ ‘one China, one Taiwan,’ or ‘the status of Taiwan remaining to be determined.’” However, given that Beijing did not enjoy the same level of international influence then as it does today, it did not reject the resolution when it passed. Instead, PRC officials assumed the “China” seat and only later began to leverage their position to promote Beijing’s stance on Taiwan at the UN level. But nations today are NOT buying into these changes... or lies like you now have been telling!!!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@snslifestyleorg You do realize that iPhones are now also made in India, right? TCL moving out China means Chinese manufacturing is not happening in China! TCL didn't move out of China for any supply chain issue! And "begun" means that not all companies have completely left... like Apple... Apple has begun. But companies like Samsung, Nike, Hasbo, GoPro, etc, etc, have completely left China. And they took along with them 10's of thousands of jobs with them! And you keep talking about these componets... what components? For example, China isn't making the components for the Apple Iphone. Most of the components in fact are made in the US. China simply assembles the phones! If anything, Chinese tech companies still HEAVILY rely on American components for their technology. That is fact!
"Since COVID the world realized that it's not a good idea to leave China so they doubled down and increased their inventory level. " - Now that's being willfully delusional! Yes, at the beginning of the Covid and early stages companies stocked up on inventory because they know what was going to happen and it did happen... chip shortages and such because they relied on China!!! They learned their lessons by relying too much on China and now they are diversifying! Saying they now realize that it's not a good idea to leave China truly is you living in an alternative reality! Even the CCP is jumping through hoops trying to keep Western companies in China... but it ain't working!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nonsense. It's true that China has the largest reserves and is the leading producer of natural graphite. However, the U.S. is not entirely devoid of graphite resources. Additionally, many countries, including the U.S., are investing in synthetic graphite production, which can often meet or exceed the purity required for electronics. "Only pure graphite is good for electronics" ... While high-purity graphite is crucial for certain applications, such as lithium-ion batteries and advanced electronics, it is not the sole material for transistors. Modern transistors, especially those in semiconductors, are primarily made from silicon or compound semiconductors like gallium arsenide. Graphite is used in some thermal management applications due to its excellent heat conduction properties, it is not directly responsible for preventing transistor meltdown. Thermal issues in electronics are managed through various materials and technologies, not solely graphite. While China's graphite reserves are significant, their dominance can easily be mitigated through synthetic graphite and alternative materials. Furthermore, the role of graphite in electronics, particularly transistors, is overstated in your claim.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh wow, what an impressive feat of semiconductor wizardry! So in just five years, China magically leaped from 15% to 82% chip self-sufficiency—despite U.S. export bans, a lack of access to cutting-edge ASML lithography machines, and global semiconductor experts repeatedly pointing out that producing sub-5nm chips is the real benchmark for tech supremacy. But hey, let’s not let facts get in the way of this glorious narrative.
I’m sure Huawei’s Mate 60 chip, mysteriously manufactured at 7nm by an isolated SMIC with no ASML machines, is just the beginning of China’s chip independence fairy tale! Never mind that the rest of the world remains highly skeptical about its yield, efficiency, and scalability. And let’s give a big round of applause to Donald Trump, who, according to this totally credible analysis, single-handedly turned China into a semiconductor powerhouse by, um, restricting its access to crucial tech? Genius strategy!
Yes, clearly, all global tech leaders should now take notes on how to grow an industry overnight by relying on, what, recycled motherboards and state-funded PR campaigns? Bravo, truly inspirational stuff!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Because the House doesn't have such power! Let me educate you....
The United States government has a system of checks and balances, and different branches have distinct roles and powers. The House of Representatives, as one of the two chambers of the U.S. Congress, has the authority to conduct investigations, including oversight of the executive branch and its agencies. The House can hold hearings, issue subpoenas, and gather evidence to examine matters of public interest, government activities, and potential wrongdoings. However, the House of Representatives does not have the power to directly charge individuals with crimes. The power to formally charge individuals with crimes lies with the executive branch of the U.S. government, which is headed by the President. More specifically, charging individuals with federal crimes typically falls under the responsibility of the Department of Justice (DOJ), led by the Attorney General.
The issue we have here... it's the president and his family that the house is investigating ... do you see the problem here? All the House can do is expose the case... not file charges.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jinkazama7491 First, it was claimed Russia was the 4th largest economy in the world, and now it’s conveniently "largest based on PPP." While PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) is a valid metric, it’s not the same as nominal GDP, which is the standard for ranking economies by actual market value. For clarity—and to avoid further creative spins—Russia’s nominal GDP is about $2.184 trillion as of 2024, placing it 11th globally. So no, Russia is not sitting with the economic heavyweights like the U.S. or China, despite what the PPP-adjusted wishful thinking might suggest.
As for the USA Today claim about Russia being the strongest military in the world—nice try, but I couldn’t find a shred of evidence to back that up. Maybe you’re confusing "largest stockpile of nuclear weapons" with "strongest military," or perhaps you’ve found a parallel universe version of USA Today that specializes in alternate realities. Either way, let’s try sticking to facts instead of crafting narratives worthy of a movie script. Reality is already entertaining enough.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You should also keep in mind where China and Taiwan diverge. The CCP is an alien organization to China, funded and supported in the 1920s by the Soviet Union. It first followed Marxism, then Maoism and now Socialism with Chinese Characteristics (state market totalitarianism). As a totalitarian far left organization, it promoted a Cultural Revolution in which all vestiges of traditional Chinese culture were removed, including all sorts of buildings, not to mention killing teachers and scientists, among others. It replaced most old books for rewritten Party history books and pamphlets, creating a fake version of history that does not match the version of events acknowledged by the rest of the world, and promoting this version in every school (and recently, in every university).
If anyone claims that CCP is or represents China, or that the CCP promotes Chinese culture, they are most likely to be either misinformed or CCP shills. These useful idiots write any kind of polemicist diatribe to divide and rule social media, even creating fake conversations. These propaganda and disinformation methods were famously used by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Let's admit that there is nothing inherently Chinese about the CCP. It is a totalitarian Communist organization, that aimed and succeeded at replacing the culture of its host nation, forms of which had existed before in other parts of the world (such as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia) and still do exist in others now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yesterday after EU minister meeting...
"The European Union ministers have been advised to take a tougher line on China and see the country as an all-out competitor with limited areas of potential engagement ahead of talks on revising Brussels' strategy towards Beijing, the Financial Times reported on Monday. The recommendation comes as EU foreign ministers are expected to discuss recalibrating the bloc’s strategy towards Beijing on Monday. The document draws a grim picture of the EU-China relationship since 2019, when the bloc verbalised its strategy towards Beijing, followed by trade disputes and sanctions. Beyond the assessment that the “partner-competitor-systemic rival” designations might be outdated, it lists areas of limited potential cooperation with China that are summed up in only one paragraph.
“We were a bit more focused on the partner-part, now we should focus more on the rival-part,” one EU diplomat said.
According to the document, those would include food security, climate change, humanitarian aid, disaster risk reduction, and health.
This represents a significant change in tone compared to the existing policy, which has referred to China as the EU’s “strategic partner in addressing global and international challenges”, according to several diplomats. At the same time, the EU’s diplomatic service advises the EU to “intensify its efforts to reduce vulnerabilities” in technology, maritime and space security, innovation, and by fighting disinformation. The advice comes a few days before EU leaders are set to discuss EU-China relations later this week."
YOU WERE SAYING?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@daytrader-iy5yb China did not 'treat Tibetans with dignity and generosity.' After forcibly annexing Tibet, China stripped Tibetans of their political autonomy, religious freedom, and cultural rights. Tibet remains under strict Chinese control with no freedom of speech, no free elections, and heavy surveillance.
In contrast, Native Americans in the U.S. have recognized tribal lands, freedom of speech, the right to practice their culture and religion, and the ability to elect their own governments. While historical treatment of Native Americans was deeply flawed, their current legal rights and freedoms far exceed what Tibetans face under Chinese rule. Let's be clear about the facts. So, "wakey, wakey"... maybe you should educate yourself and stop lying!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Space programs drive innovation, create jobs, and generate technologies that often benefit other industries, including housing and energy. The US spends around $25 billion a year on its space program and employs approximately 222,300 individuals. Cutting of that funding will not help America solve its housing crisis but instead create others. But unlike some of those other nations you mentioned, the US has changed it space exploration model in government funding and use the strength of capitalism. The U.S. has embraced capitalism in space exploration by partnering with private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin, reducing costs and fostering innovation. Public-private collaborations, such as NASA's Commercial Crew and Artemis programs, save taxpayer money by leveraging competition to develop cost-effective technologies like reusable rockets. This model accelerates achievements, including affordable space travel and plans for lunar and Martian exploration, showcasing how capitalism drives progress while the government focuses on overarching goals.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Rudyjosephjr Filing patents doesn't actually make a product. China holds the most patents that actually never makes it as a product as well! Number of patents doesn't actually say much today! And Huawei doesn't even own HALF of the 5G patents in the world... so yes, it still relies on patents from other companies outside of China. In fact... Huawei and just about EVERY other major Chinese electronic company can't make their products without using some American technology! That is fact!
And why do you clowns not understand that NO ONE country can make an international standard 6G. China might be working on new and/or improved communications system like EVERY other high-end communication company, like Samsung, CISCO, NEC, etc, etc, etc... But again, the international standards are created by the ITU... NOT China, nor the US nor Europe. China can submit technology for review, but it doesn't get to make an international standard! That's why NO ONE country can claim to have invented 5g or 6g or whatever g!!!! If China wishes to say 6G...fine... but it's just propaganda.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@araara4746 First, the claim that the U.S. "did nothing and continued to trade with Japan" during its occupation of China is a nice twist of reality. Sure, the U.S. traded with Japan before things escalated, but by 1937, after Japan's invasion of China, the U.S. began imposing restrictions. Ever hear of the 1940 Export Control Act? That little law halted exports of crucial materials like aviation fuel and scrap metal to Japan. And in 1941—before Pearl Harbor—the U.S. froze Japanese assets and imposed a full oil embargo. Hardly the behavior of a country "doing nothing."
Second, let’s talk about this notion that the U.S. refused to help Europe "at all" during Nazi Germany’s occupation. I guess the Lend-Lease Act of 1941, where the U.S. supplied billions of dollars in war materials to the Allies, just didn’t happen in your version of history? That included sending weapons, food, and supplies to Britain and even the Soviet Union long before the U.S. entered the war. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good narrative?
Finally, the idea that the U.S. only acted out of self-interest after Pearl Harbor ignores a little thing called geopolitics. Isolationism was indeed popular before the war, but that doesn’t mean the U.S. wasn’t laying the groundwork to counter aggression in both Europe and Asia. By helping China with resources like military advisors (hello, Flying Tigers) and pressuring Japan economically, the U.S. was already resisting Axis expansion. But sure, let’s pretend the U.S. just sat around twiddling its thumbs until December 7, 1941. Bravo for rewriting history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's comical the way you and CGTN spread propaganda. I have no idea how much energy the US is supplying to Europe if any. Under Biden, the US stop a large amount of its energy production for climate change. The US today is NOT energy dependent even though it could be. So, if the US has to import energy from others, how in the world do you think the US is having its "dream" come true selling energy to Europe?
But that's not to say America's dream didn't actually come true. As I said even before Russia illegally invaded Ukraine... Russia amassing troops on Ukraine's borders threatening an invasion had in affect been a BIG WIN for the USA... Russia did something for the USA that several prior American presidents couldn't achieve... motivate the Europeans to start taking its security more seriously and invigorate NATO! The fact that with NATO and others helping Ukraine and Ukraine is going to win.. IS JUST PURE GRAVY!!!
And lastly, you like to post another common propaganda line about how the US said its goal was to weaken Russia... and I ask you, what's wrong with that? The US and its European allies have made very clear to the WORLD that if Russia invades, it will not sit by and watch. They clearly told EVERYONE that they were not "neutral" in this fight. And more importantly, the US and Europe told Ukraine even before Russia's invasion that they would not sit by. True, the USA and Europeans never promised troops or a no-Fly zone, but then again, they never said they had an "UNLIMIMTED" friendship with Ukraine... you know, like how Russia and China have an unlimited friendship which today CLEARLY shows that not to be true... apparently there are limits as Russia has to beg North Korea and Iran for help while China say ... NYET!!! ROFL!!!!
Prior to Russia invading Ukraine... Ukraine and China had good working relations that also included a lot of trade. So much so, that many Chinese students went to Ukraine to study. I don't think you should expect that relationship to ever be the same again after Ukraine wins this war. You can just add one more nation to the constantly growing list of nations united to stop China's aggression and bullying! YUP, more of America's dream coming true...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@iasonu6368 Oh yea, how generous of China to "pay $4.5 billion annually in climate finance" while being the largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet. That's like setting your neighbor’s house on fire and tossing them a bucket of water, then patting yourself on the back for being a climate hero. Bravo, truly inspiring! Except, most of that money is spent on domestic projects, not helping other nations as international climate finance requires. But hey, let’s not let technicalities ruin the narrative.
Now about that $100 billion from developed countries since the Paris Accord—fun fact, that’s not cumulative; it’s an annual goal that these countries are striving to meet. Yes, they’ve fallen short at times, but they’re still far ahead of China, which contributes next to nothing to the global fund because it’s technically still a "developing country." Funny how that works when you’re the world’s second-largest economy and a leader in building coal plants abroad. But sure, let’s act like China’s climate contributions are somehow comparable.
So, to recap: developed countries are on the hook for billions annually to help others go green, while China pours its billions into domestic projects and calls it "climate finance." It’s a bit like eating the whole pizza yourself and claiming you’ve contributed to world hunger solutions. But hey, who needs nuance when oversimplifications are this much fun?
2
-
@iasonu6368 The idea that China is a shining beacon of climate finance generosity! Yes, China "spends $4.5 billion annually," but let’s clarify: most of that is on domestic projects that benefit China directly. It’s like setting up solar panels on your roof and calling it charity. Meanwhile, when it comes to international climate finance—the kind meant to help other countries adapt to climate change—China’s contributions are... let’s just say they don’t exactly match their emissions levels. But sure, let’s keep applauding that effort.
Now, about that $100 billion from developed nations since the Paris Accord: that’s an annual target, not a total. While they haven’t hit the mark every year, these countries are still contributing far more to international climate funds than China, which is technically classified as a “developing country.” Yes, the world’s second-largest economy and biggest polluter gets a free pass on paying into the global pot. Convenient, right?
So, to summarize: developed nations are footing the bill to help the world go green, while China focuses mostly on itself and calls it climate leadership. It’s like eating the whole pizza and saying you’ve contributed to solving world hunger—nice try, but no one’s buying it.
2
-
2
-
@iasonu6368 It’s great to see such passionate defense of China’s energy policies, but let’s not pretend they’re spotless. The claim that no one criticizes China for building coal plants is adorable, but far from accurate. The United Nations Secretary-General outright told China to stop building new coal-fired power plants because, you know, coal doesn’t exactly scream “green future.” The European Union has also expressed grave concerns, pointing out that China’s ongoing coal expansion doesn’t align with global decarbonization goals. Even the International Energy Agency has politely said, “Hey, maybe less coal, more action?” So yes, there’s criticism—it’s just inconvenient to acknowledge that when your glossing over China record breaking pollution of the planet.
Now, about China’s supposed "climate hero" status for building green energy plants abroad while spending $890 billion at home. That’s impressive, but when you’re also the largest global emitter and funding overseas coal plants, it’s like baking a salad to go with a buffet of fried food. Sure, you’re adding something healthy, but you’re still clogging arteries on the side. Helping countries go green while simultaneously locking others into coal dependency doesn’t exactly scream climate leadership. It’s more like climate multitasking... with mixed hypocritical results.
And the part about developed nations causing all the problems? Fair enough, history wasn’t kind. But let’s not ignore the fact that China’s current emissions are breaking records every year. Yes, historical context matters, but so do present actions. If China wants to be the global climate leader its defenders claim, maybe it’s time to focus less on PR wins and more on cutting back the coal. Just a thought!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jessicaro You tell me to learn history but clearly you don't know the history yourself nor as I have pointed out... Hamas claims it is about religion. Why do you deny it?
Yes, Jews were expelled in large numbers and their population declined big-time, but there were always Jews there. Who do you think were being killed by Arabs for example in the 1929 Hebron massacre? And people like you seem to forget that Jews lived all over the Middle East for centuries... what happened to the Jews in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, etc? Once again, it was Arab Muslims doing what Arab Muslims do... oppression, massacres, enslavement, etc... it must really annoy people like you that the Jews have finally made a stand and are saying ... NO MORE!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@4411825 Oh, yes, because clearly the real victim here is China—the global Karen of international politics, perpetually crying ‘threat’ while it builds military bases in the South China Sea, harasses neighbors, and throws tantrums over Taiwan. How dare anyone criticize poor, innocent Beijing while it positions spy balloons, makes claims on Japanese islands, and cozies up to regimes in Latin America—right near America's backyard? But sure, tell me more about how the U.S. setting up alliances and bases with willing partners is the 'real aggression.' Pot, meet kettle.
And this claim that America is 'pushing to the Chinese border'? Really? If the U.S. hasn’t 'set up shop' there in over 70 years, maybe it’s not actually happening. Meanwhile, Beijing sets up actual shop everywhere, from Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka to ports in Africa to airstrips on coral reefs that conveniently turn into military bases. But please, do tell me how other countries are the problem when Beijing has been playing landlord to half the developing world.
Oh, and about that 'grave threat'—funny how Beijing sees everything as a threat, except for its own behavior. Build an aircraft carrier near the Philippines? Totally fine. Point missiles at Taiwan? No biggie. But when someone flies near China’s airspace, suddenly it’s 'imperialism.' For a country so confident in its rise, China sure spends a lot of time whining about imaginary slights. Maybe if the PRC stopped acting like the entitled Karen of geopolitics, the world wouldn’t feel the need to push back so much.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wanglei5500 My people are protesting? When and where did "my people" protest China sailing/flying in the artic? China sailing along the coast of Alaska, Hawaii or Guam? What protest are you talking about? The US did not protest, did not harass Chinese vessels nor have American government spokespeople give long winded speech how China is starting the potential for war in doing so... you know, what China has been doing to others for being in Asia in international territory! So, what in the world are you babbling about? And again, what are you talking about with Cuba? Cuba is a sovereign nation. The US doesn't infringe today on Cuba's right as a nation. The US has sanctions on Cuba but that's the US right to do so just like when China does the same with other nations (Australia, Canada, South Korea, etc) nor does the US block or harass Cuban planes, ships, etc from being in international territory... so what in the world are you babbling about? So, if you're going to make a claim... such as double standard... maybe should also explain how!!!!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eIectrostatic Ah yes, China, the self-proclaimed developing nation—home to the 2nd largest economy in the world, the fastest-growing nuclear arsenal, and a space program that’s aiming for the Moon and Mars. Truly sounds like the underdog here. It’s incredible how they can fund all that development while conveniently claiming they’re too poor to help the planet they’re polluting the most. Bravo, China, you’ve cracked the system.
And let’s not forget those solar panels. Oh sure, they’re cheap—because the Chinese government dumps subsidies into their production to undercut competition and corner the global market. That’s not "saving the climate"; that’s called monopolizing an industry while pretending to wear a green cape. If the goal is to help the world, why not stop building coal plants at home and let others compete fairly? Or does the "developing nation" badge come with an exemption for actual environmental responsibility?
As for the argument that the West outsourced pollution—let me get this straight: China voluntarily became the world’s factory, cashed in on trillions of dollars, and now gets to play the victim because making all that money also caused pollution? It’s like someone complaining about getting rich from selling cigarettes while blaming the smokers for their health problems. Genius logic.
The reality is simple: the biggest polluter today is China. Period. Calling themselves "developing" while building billion-dollar military toys and space missions just to dodge climate responsibilities is hypocrisy on steroids. If they’re so focused on fairness, maybe it’s time for the developing superpower to step up like the global leader they claim to be, instead of hiding behind outdated labels to avoid paying the bill.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TSRHelios Again, why?
"USSR is no longer existing, thus Nato should be dissolved as well" - Why? Russia still exists and still bullies and invade other nations and the threat from other nations like China are just as real today as they were during the cold war! There was nothing in NATO charter that stated that NATO ONLY exists if the Soviet Union does! The principle and purpose of NATO still serves the same function today as it did when it was created!
"Those countries that has been bullied by Russia think that they can bully Russia" NONSENSE... how is any of those x-Warsaw nations are bullying Russia? The only one bullying, threatening and invading... is Russia!
"Ukraine is just like Cuba. US will not tolerate missile in Cuba, Russia will not tolerate missle in Ukraine" - You really need to learn history. The Cuban crisis was NOTHING like Ukraine! Not a single ex-Warsaw nation has nuclear weapons nor will they receive them. This was assured to Russia and that included Ukraine if it ever became a NATO member. The Cuban missile crisis was about NUCLEAR WEAPONS only. Cuba had a military alliance with Russia prior to the Cuban Missile crisis and continued its military alliance with Russia even AFTER the Cuban missile crisis. I'll say it again, the Cuban affair was about NUCLEAR WEAPONS not alliances. So where is this NUCLEAR WEAPON danger to Russia from X-Warsaw states? THERE IS NONE!
"Besides, Nato is no longer a defensive treaty meant for countering USSR." - While true NATO began during the USSR period... but the role of NATO was NEVER just about the USSR... suggesting it was, it re-writing history and re-writing the charter of NATO. Have you ever read the charter of NATO? USSR isn't even mentioned!
"Look at what they have done to North Africa, middle east and Balkan" And what exactly do you think NATO has done in these places? And while you explain that, explain Russia's invasions of its neighbors!
Using your logic, WW2 is over... why is China building the largest navy in the world and expanding its nuclear weapons? How did China and Russia get this power to tell other nations what organizations they can and cannot join but refuse to allow any other nation to dictate rules to them? Which nations did NATO invade and then claim their territory as their own? You know, like what Russia has been doing since Putin came to power?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xerxes-the-great4227 Correct, not all Iranians are Persians. Iran is the home of various ethnic groups. Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Lurs, Balochs, Turkmens, Armenians, Georgians, and etc, etc... but it doesn't change the fact that Iran is not and has never been an Arab nation and they still refer to themselves as a Persian nation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@The_S_Soldier "Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital, along the lines of June 4, 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."
This passage shows that while Hamas might accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders as a temporary step, it rejects the legitimacy of Israel (the "Zionist entity") and emphasizes that the full "liberation of Palestine" remains its ultimate goal. What do you think ... river to the sea means? You're not the brightest bulb, did you know that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@albback8176 Your statements are faulty in so many ways:
1. What does US military bases in other nations who INVITED the US to be there... has to do with China taking territory far from its mainland to build bases yet, HYPOCRITICALLY threatening those very same ARTIC nations for being in international waters near China? You're lacking common sense here!
2) economic and scientific research in Asian waters is not military aggression. Nations traveling in INTERNATIONAL WATERS for port visits with allied nations in Asia IS NOT against international law or military aggression! If they were... what do you call when China sails along the Japanese coast with Russian vessels?
3) China's and Russia's militaries are constantly deploying spy planes near NATO and or territory to conduct surveillance. Including sending spy-balloons across other nations. However, China and Russia when encountering other nations crafts in international waters in Asia don't simply "conduct surveillance"... they intentional harass them. Video after video we see Chinese planes and ships cut in front of vessels, shot off counter measures in front of other vessels and at other times, RAM the vessel. Don't see Western nations who are ARTIC nations do that to China... do you?
"Also, consider carefully that China does not conduct military patrols around western countries, such as North America and Europe." - Do you live under a rock? Of course, China conducts military patrols and freedom of navigation around Western and Asian nations!!! Maybe you're not aware of it because those nations don't HARASS Chinese vessels when they do it! China has frequently sailed along the coasts of Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, Japan, etc, etc, etc, You really need to educate yourself!
1
-
1
-
@wisdombites3586 Ah, the "freedom to choose from pre-selected candidates" critique. Yet, in the 2024 election, Kamala Harris’s campaign managed to burn through over a billion dollars—spending $10 million a day—only to lose to Donald Trump, who raised and spent far less. So much for the idea that big money always decides elections. In the U.S., it turns out voters sometimes ignore the cash and big business and choose whoever they want. Imagine that—actual choice, even if it confounds the establishment’s plans.
But hey, maybe you’re right, and we should aspire to a system like China’s, where you don’t have to worry about shortlists at all—because there’s only one "candidate," handpicked by the Party. No need to yell, because nobody’s listening anyway. And no billion-dollar campaigns, just the comforting knowledge that your "vote" has already been decided for you. Truly, the pinnacle of freedom!
1
-
@wisdombites3586 Ah, the "freedom to choose from pre-selected candidates" critique. Yet, in the 2024 election, Kamala Harris’s campaign managed to burn through over a billion dollars—spending $10 million a day—only to lose to Donald Trump, who raised and spent far less. So much for the idea that big money always decides elections. In the U.S., it turns out voters sometimes ignore the cash and pick whoever they want. Imagine that—actual choice, even if it confounds the establishment’s plans.
But hey, maybe you’re right, and we should aspire to a system like China’s, where you don’t have to worry about shortlists at all—because there’s only one "candidate," handpicked by the Party. No need to yell, because nobody’s listening anyway. And no billion-dollar campaigns, just the comforting knowledge that your "vote" has already been decided for you. Truly, the pinnacle of freedom!
1
-
1
-
@vebdaklu Where did the idea of "tens of millions" of Americans being homeless come from? This figure is an extreme exaggeration. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, on a given night, there are approximately 500,000 to 600,000 homeless people in the U.S., with about one-third sleeping on the streets and two-thirds in shelters.
Regarding personal choices, it's true that factors like substance abuse contribute to homelessness for some, but it's also a complex issue involving economic, social, and mental health challenges. Comparing this with China, it’s important to acknowledge that homelessness exists there as well. According to the Borgen Project and other agencies, about 2.6 million people in China are homeless, including nearly 1 million children.
Additionally, economic disparity is significant in China, with over 40% of the population earning less than $5 per day—roughly 600 million people. This income disparity severely limits their quality of life, as reported by SCMP (South China Morning Post).
The U.S. operates as a capitalist system, which rewards hard work and innovation. While not perfect, it allows individuals the opportunity to excel. For instance, Chinese Americans have achieved remarkable success within the U.S., often outperforming other demographic groups. This highlights the potential of the Chinese people, who could thrive even more if their government allowed greater freedoms and opportunities. Imagine what China could achieve without the limitations imposed by its government and freed their people!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Strange wasn't it that there were protests against lock down around China late last year no? " - You know what I find strange? When clowns like to debate something that I said by arguing over something that I never said or ignore the parts of my comment that takes it out of context. Personally, I find that intellectually dishonest and propagandist such as yourself do it all the time. Did I say China never has protest? NO, I DID NOT. Let me quote for you what I ACTUALLY said... "... when those who protest are ALLOWED to protest unlike China and Russia..." - Even in my original comment I capitalized the word "ALLOWED" just so propagandist like you wouldn't miss it... but you did. Yes, the people of China protested. Was it allowed by China? NO IT WAS NOT! The so-called leaders of that protest have been arrested and some of them are now MISSING! Protesting against the government policy has never been allowed in China, suggesting otherwise is either your ignorance or willful lying!
"Japan has something called "Exclusive Economic Zone" which is not internationally recognised" According to who? That makes no sense!
"As for China gone near Hawaii, Guam etc, interesting isn't it, that the one who lives 7000 miles away harassing someone at their border over 1000 times a year with spy planes, jet fighters, nuclear bomber, aircrafts carrier strike groups, warships and when someone else visits a few times it is aggressive?!" - I have no clue what you're babbling about here... but the US and other nations as per-International law are allowed to fly in international territory and not be harassed. The one doing the harassing is China! It's well documented and includes lots of video of China doing so! Did you know that China is NOT an artic nation? The US and Canada are artic nation. But yet China is in the artic all the time... flying and sailing in the artic. China is there even though 1000's of miles away from China's mainland. Does the US or Canada harass China's planes and ships in that region? NO! So, what in the world are you babbling about?
"Ever consider the possibility that someone is rather good at creating propaganda say by provoking someone then just film their reaction? Like recent CNN news with that US anti submarine spy plane incident? Flying near someone's base obviously will be escorted out or flying just 300m towards a warship, what reaction do you expect?! It is obvious set up." - I find it comical that you call it propaganda when Western MSM reports the news about China's bullying, threatening and law breaking. Let's be clear here... INTERNATIONAL LAW clearly states that ARTIFICIAL ISLANDS are not covered like natural islands with a 12-mile distance restriction. China though believes that its artificial islands should be... and the Western world won't allow it and MSM covers China's threats. That is news! And there is really good reasons why the Western world (not just the US) contest these claims of China. Care to discuss those reasons why the West will continually contest it?
"US has been engaged in wars and conflicts around the world near continously for 200+ years." - Whatever... if China ever becomes the superpower the US has become... China will face the same issues the US has. And most of that paragraph of your really goes off the rail in true propaganda form. But let me tell you this and it is FACT... since the US became a superpower... the world has been the most peaceful than it has EVER been since the history of mankind. Has the US made mistake? YES... but the US since the establishment international law, has NEVER fought nations to annex or claim other nations territory as their own! That's imperialism. That is what China and Russia are trying to do TODAY!!!
Reply
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andykerr3803 Why do I need to explain your twisted version of Nortel? It's comical to think that one believes Canada tells lies but you can trust China!!! Too funny!
And this idea that Canada lied about China kidnapping Canadians just days after Canada arrested the criminal Meng? Are you for real? It was 2 Canadians China arrested but the 3 person... the drug dealer Canada DID NOT accuse of kidnapping but shortly afterwards changed the punishment of the drug dealer from YEARS in prison to death... again... they changed their position only after Canada arrested Meng. Do you also remember that those 2 Canadians China kidnapped... China held them in prison, in solitary confinement, held them for over a year without charges and without visitation... Do you also remember that China presented no facts of the case, no evidence, close door trial and found them guilty just before Meng's trial but was willing to trade them right away for Meng...if that doesn't SCREAM scam... then you're either lying or just ignorant!
But answer me this... don't you believe that Western nations should provide the EXACT same type of justice on Chinese citizens that China places on Westerners in their country? No real due process... no providing of evidence... no visitations... basically a closed door trial with very little rights... if it works for you and China... should it be ok to do the same for Chinese citizens?
Who got banned in China? Again, you're either knowingly lying or REALLY IGNORANT! Twitter, Facebook, Google, Vemeo, NetFlix, Kickstarter and many 100's of other Western tech companies!!!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JESUS said: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." Matthew 7:15-20
What are the fruits of Islam? Jihad, terror, sharia law, ignorance, intellectual backwardness and obscurantism, destruction, dictatorship, polygamy, misogyny, war, jealousy, theft and pillaging, deceit, hatred of non-Muslims, injustice, censorship, vengeance, refugees...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brandnew9834 But yes, you are playing dumb here... you're already making judgements without all the facts... you can't get any dumber than that!
"Michael was coerced into agreeing to a conservatorship. He was a kid, he didn’t know what he signed" There are now interviews with both Sean (Father) and separately SJ (son) about the conservatorship. They clearly stated that if Michael wanted to play football at collegiate level (Ole Miss) he needed to be a member of the Tuohy family and the only way to do that was either adoption or conservatorship... adoption wasn't going to work because of his age so they chose conservatorship. They both clearly say Michael was told this. Michael in his lawsuit just says that he was misled by the Touhy's that this would make him legally family... this is the same man who claims it wasn't until he reached his 30's to look up what the word means!!!! Maybe the goalpost was over his head?!?!?!?
"They’re going appearances, writing books, being paid for and they’re not cutting him in on the side stuff" - So what? In the appearances, books, etc... they represent themselves... they had a part in the story as well!!!! Michael also did appearances, wrote books, etc... and he got paid for his part!
"He wants them to stop using his image, name and story to make money that they don’t share with him" - Again, they had a part in the story!!! The Tuohy's did a lot for him and they're story is just as interesting as Michaels... they have a right to tell their story as well as Michael. Suggesting otherwise is NONSENSE! Can Michael tell his story and include the Tuohy's without compensating them for mentioning it? OF COURSE, HE CAN and HE HAS!
"He wants them to stop using his image" Where exactly did the family do such a thing?
"He didn’t even realize that he was in a conservatorship until recently when his lawyer took at the agreement and showed him" Again, even Michael is not making that claim. He said he thought the conservatorship was just like an adoption and didn't understand the difference until 6 months ago... sure, I'll buy that for a dollar!
"They can make financial decisions based off of life" - and they DID NO SUCH THING!!!
"If they come from wealth, why are they taking money out of the pocket of someone who came from poverty? It’s shady." - I suggest you watch the CJ interview... search for it here in youtube. CJ clearly states that all the money the family made will be made public. He mentions what ESPN wrote, that the family each received $225K per family member. But guess what? That money didn't go to the family, it was given to the charity of their choice! CJ mentioned the residual amount promised (2.5% of the gross profit)... he said, that he made till now, between $60 and $70K... said he first received a check $14K and each year the amount of was less and less. Made NO WHERE close to a million!
You need to stop making judgement calls on half facts and spin... that is dumb. CJ in the interview said something very interesting as well... Michael heard the movie made $300 million and got nothing and that bothers him. He tried to go after the movie studio but HE HIMSELF signed away the rights to his story and the case was dropped... so now he's going after the Tuohy's for money... and that is just wrong!!!! As much as you say ... without Michael there was no story... it goes both ways... with the Touhy's there would be no movie as well. The Tuohy's have a right to be compensated for the story as well. It's just a shame that Michael made a poor decision in signing away the right to the movie, BUT HE DID IT ON HIS OWN ACCORD... not on any conservatorship in his behalf!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JB52520 So, what you're saying is... the US bullied Russia into illegally invading Ukraine? The US bullied China into illegally wanting almost the entire SCS and Islands that belongs to Japan and others? Really? And this idea that we're attacking China because we don't want them to have freedom? Now that is just comical... when exactly did the Chinese people have FREEDOM? Imagine if they did that to us? You mean restrictions, banning, etc? China's been doing that to the Western world for decades... but also lying, cheating and stealing. You know, it's been over 20 years now we've been hearing China talking about "opening up" to allow fair competition. Something China promised to do when it joined the WTO. China joined the WTO in 2001... and each year China promises to "open up" and we're still waiting for it to live up to that promise. Though I think the Western world has finally given up! How about you Imagine if China actually lived up to its agreements!!! You know to things like UNCLOS, SINO-UK agreement, One-China policy (the original), UN Charter, WTO, etc, etc, etc...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tkh2944
1. Russia invaded the Donbass with militia and weapons... they in fact were invading Ukraine. What do you expect Ukraine to do, sit back and get bombed because that was what Russia was doing... invading and bombing to steal a huge portion of their nation! "Banning of culture/language is also considered genocide" - that's exactly what China is doing in Tibet, Inner-Mongolia and other territory it occupies, are you going to justify another nation invading China for this genocide?
2. If you don't know what the Minsk agreement was, what it says and who signed it... then why make up facts about it? The fact is, NATO nor the US is party to the agreement, so they didn't break any part of the agreement because it NEVER included them. You're claim that NATO/US broke this agreement is complete nonsense! Unless you think talking out your arse is your superpower? The agreement was between Russia and Ukraine. Both sides agreed to pull back heavy weapons and stop shelling each other. But the shelling continued from both sides!
3. "BTW, what was the reason for NATO expansion despite the end of the Soviet Union?" - NATO was created during the cold war as the USSR was a threat but NATO's creation which is a self-defense treaty was NOT created just for the USSR. Suggesting it was... is complete nonsense and propaganda! For example, Article 5 of the NATO agreement says that if any NATO nation is invaded, all others will come to that nations aid. It doesn't say "if the USSR invades" does it? You can read NATO's founding principles, rules, etc... NO WHERE does it state NATO was created because of the USSR. There is no expiration or a single line that even hints the agreement will end if the USSR does. Besides, it's up to the nations of NATO to decide if the NATO alliance should end or not... not you, not China and certainly not Russia! Can Japan tell China it can't have an alliance with Russia because it concerns them, it threatens their security? If not, why can Russia do this to other nations but not Japan?
"Before you further respond, I am talking about universal values not "USA values". " - What universal values are you talking about? Where did universal values come up in this topic?
"Won't be responding to any further hypocritical propaganda garbage." -- WOW... can you say HYPOCRITE? Every comment you made so far included erroneous facts and/or lies! You're just making things up as you go along.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@schoolofhardknocks4501 "Firstly all wars are cruel when innocent people are caught up in any war or conflict" - Thank you Captain Obvious! China's killing of people in India, Korea, Tibet, Vietnam was about Chinese imperialism, pure and simple. Unlike the US in Afghanistan, the Chinese people weren't being attacked or threatened. With regards to the US nuking Japan, I find it interesting that NO ONE in China took any issue with the US using them at that time which led to China liberation! Tell me, how many nations has China liberated or provided independence too? I'll tell you, NONE! China is and has always done what is in China best interest and what it can achieve for itself. And China called that "win-win"... meaning where China wins twice!
I've been hearing clown-like prediction from false oracles like you about America's pending doom for decades. Don't quit your day job wu mao! If you're looking for doom, China has continuing debt defaults, a stagnating economy, plunging property prices, worsening food shortages and a deteriorating environment, in addition to facing a viral outbreak that is “by far the world’s largest.” Moreover, the country has entered into a decades-long period of steep demographic decline.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Continuation of that same document...
Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction. Afterwards, Baker wrote to Helmut Kohl who would meet with the Soviet leader on the next day, with much of the very same language. Baker reported: “And then I put the following question to him [Gorbachev]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options [….] He then added, ‘Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’” Baker added in parentheses, for Kohl’s benefit, “By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable.”
Again, showing the US agreement about expansion was about GERMANY and not other European countries!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Krill_all_health_insuranceCEOs Gift? No one "gifted" the elected government of Afghanistan $9 billion dollars! Not the US government nor some billionaires. Where exactly did you hear ANYONE "gifted" Afghanistan $9 billion dollars? In the US... the US government each year budgeted BILLIONS of dollars to provide financial support for the Afghan government. This money came as direct aid for the elected government to run their country... pay salaries, build infrastructure, etc... instead of simply handing the elected Afghan government BILLIONS in cash, the money was stored in the US and access was provided to the "elected Afghan government" with American oversight to use those funds to run the country. This was no 'gift', and it certainly wasn't given to the Taliban! Imagine you decided to give monthly to an organization that feed children. You give them your credit card and each month they take $20 for that purpose. Then one day, that organization is taken over by another but instead of feeding Children they do something else that you don't support. Are you going to say they have the right to continue drawing $20 per-month from your credit card because you "gifted" to them? No, I seriously doubt it. You'll stop paying the monthly support because they no longer are using those funds to support what is important to you! Funding the Taliban is NOT important to the American taxpayers who are the ones ultimately paying that money. What propagandist don't like to report...
1. The amount of money being held in donations for the elected Afghan government was actually closer to $10 billion. $7 billion of that is in US banks. The remaining amount are in banks of other nations such as Germany, England, Switzerland, UAE... Like the US, money in those other nations is from those other nations who were donating their own money to the elected Afghan government... and like the US, those other nations stopped providing that money once the Taliban took over! Again, because they don't support the Taliban!
2. The $7 billion the US has in its banks for Afghanistan... the US has already agreed to provide half ($3.5 billion) to a trust fund in the UN to provide FOOD SECURITY for the Afghan people. Almost one billion has been provided today.
3. The remaining $3.5 billion is in legal limbo at the moment... but President Biden announced that he wants that money to go to victims of TALIBAN TERRORISM! But as I said, it's in legal limbo right because the money was already budgeted as financial aid to the elected government and since Congress controls the money, the President needs to work through legal changes. But one thing is clear... neither the president nor congress is going to agree to give the Taliban AMERICAN TAXPAYER money! NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As bad as this was... and i'm not defending this bad cop, things have somewhat improved over the last 20 years. I'm a white male in my 50's now but when I was in my 20's... a check was stolen by someone I knew who forged my signature and stole a thousand dollars from me. When I went to Chase bank and told them the story, they told me that they couldn't investigate the situation and return the money unless I filed a police report. This was in Queens NY and I went to the 109th police department. I was sent to the 2nd floor to speak with a detective. I told the detective the story but, in the end, he said he didn't want to waste his time filing the paperwork and told me to leave. When I argued with him, I was immediately and violently removed from the building. I was with another person so I was outside waiting for that person to leave with me, when another cop came up to me and said he would arrest me for "disorderly conduct" if I don't leave the area and punched me in the face, even though I didn't say anything to him. He left after the punch and I walked across the street. Shortly later another cop saw me and asked if everything was ok. I told him the story and he actually seemed surprised and began taking notes. That's when another officer came to him and said in front me that the officer that punched me was a high-ranking officer. As soon as that cop heard who punched me. He closed his notebook and said, "sorry, I can't help you and left". Ultimately, I went to another police station and got the police report and Chase helped me get back my money. Seeing this video still annoys me but it gives me hope that at least it's not as bad as it used to be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alasan7777
"Aiding China, Russia, and some other European countries during WW2 prior to Pearl Harbor and now Ukraine served US interests" - That interest isn't just the US... but the vast majority of the world... in that the interest is, not allowing stronger nations to invade smaller weaker nations for territorial gains (imperialism). That is also why the UN charter was created to begin with!
"invading Iraq in 2003 without UN mandate for WMD, meddling in Syria, toppling foreign governments considered as "hostile" to the US interest, etc. " - These are not related topic but your understanding on them is absolutely incorrect. The US did have a UN mandate with regards to Iraq and Syria... and toppling foreign governments is a vague claim...
And once again, it is the interest of not just the US that international laws be followed, but that of the world... prior to international laws there was widespread colonialism, imperialism, slavery, genocide, world wars, etc, etc, etc. You make it sound as if the US acted in WW2 and Ukraine today as if it was some lone American interest only, and that is the fallacy of your argument!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sparmentier5775 Patents aren't actual products. Let's put it this way... name me 5 inventions/technology that China created in the last 50 years that has benefited mankind. Just 5... You know, things like Cell Phones, Air-bags, disposable contact lenses, 3d printers, voice-mail, Internet, digital cameras, WiFi, Email, etc.. All those are American inventions just off the top of my head. Your turn... what are these Chinese inventions that came from China since it turned communist?
1
-
1
-
Ah, yes, China's 'cooperation'—nothing says global partnership like covering up COVID-19, silencing doctors, and spreading misinformation while the world suffered. Add in censoring dissent, locking up minorities, and rewriting history books, and you've got the perfect blueprint for being 'good for the world.' America, with its silly ideas of free speech, transparency, and actual accountability, could never hope to match such a masterclass in 'cooperation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justthefacts5008 Always comical when wu mao clowns say " US dishonored Cairo treaty" - the fact is... The Chinese communist government constantly breaks agreements and dishonors itself.... FACT!
The Cairo declaration only called on Japan to return Taiwan, however, the Cairo Declaration does not specify which government represented China, as the Chinese Civil War was still ongoing at the time.
The Cairo Declaration, which was issued in 1943 by the United States, Great Britain, and China, did not mention the Senkaku Islands. The Senkaku Islands, also known as the Diaoyu Islands, were not considered part of Taiwan at the time and were therefore not specifically addressed in the Cairo Declaration.
After World War II, the United States administered the Senkaku Islands as part of the Ryukyu Islands, which were placed under U.S. control under the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951. In 1971, the United States returned administrative control of the Ryukyu Islands to Japan, including the Senkaku Islands, which Japan has since claimed as its own territory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@李小白-x4v You use illogic against others again pathetically. Lets speak with truth!
Can you tell me what international laws the US signed prior to acquiring Texas and California hundreds of years ago that made it illegal or breaks any international law of its day? And explain why Mexico who btw stole the territory themselves isn't pursuing or claiming California or Texas today or challenging the US in International Court? You know, like how China signed UNCLOS but no longer honors that agreement. With regards to Guam... Well, for starters, Guam isn’t an 'occupied' territory; it’s a U.S. territory by mutual agreement. The people of Guam themselves chose to be a US territory, and they are U.S. citizens, elect their own local government, and participate in their unique political relationship with the U.S. If you're trying to compare Guam to, say, an invasion or illegal annexation, that’s like comparing someone renting a room to someone breaking into a house and claiming it as their own. You know, like what China is doing to some of its neighbors!
1
-
@ You use illogic against others again pathetically. Lets speak with truth!
Can you tell me what international laws the US signed prior to acquiring Texas and California hundreds of years ago that made it illegal or breaks any international law of its day? And explain why Mexico who btw stole the territory themselves isn't pursuing or claiming California or Texas today or challenging the US in International Court? You know, like how China signed UNCLOS but no longer honors that agreement. With regards to Guam... Well, for starters, Guam isn’t an 'occupied' territory; it’s a U.S. territory by mutual agreement. The people of Guam themselves chose to be a US territory, and they are U.S. citizens, elect their own local government, and participate in their unique political relationship with the U.S. If you're trying to compare Guam to, say, an invasion or illegal annexation, that’s like comparing someone renting a room to someone breaking into a house and claiming it as their own. You know, like what China is doing to some of its neighbors!
1
-
@李小白-x4v You use illogic against others again pathetically. Lets speak with truth!
Can you tell me what international laws the US signed prior to acquiring Texas and California hundreds of years ago that made it illegal or breaks any international law of its day? And explain why Mexico who btw stole the territory themselves isn't pursuing or claiming California or Texas today or challenging the US in International Court? You know, like how China signed UNCLOS but no longer honors that agreement. With regards to Guam... Well, for starters, Guam isn’t an 'occupied' territory; it’s a U.S. territory by mutual agreement. The people of Guam themselves chose to be a US territory, and they are U.S. citizens, elect their own local government, and participate in their unique political relationship with the U.S. If you're trying to compare Guam to, say, an invasion or illegal annexation, that’s like comparing someone renting a room to someone breaking into a house and claiming it as their own. You know, like what China is doing to some of its neighbors!
1
-
@李小白-x4v "When the islands were sovereign, there was no such thing as the Philippines, a country with the Spanish name, let alone international law." - just like there was no China!
"International law can only prescribe what happens after it is established, which is called "non-retroactivity". Therefore, the South China Sea issue falls under the exception clause of international law, and you obviously have no legal common sense." - But you fail to realize that the Philippines was in fact a nation when international laws were enacted including UNCLOS! Hence the reason why the Hague ruled against China and its false claims. How is it you claim Philippines was not a nation hundreds of years ago but ignore the fact that neither was China but that doesn't stop you from claiming it for China? Chinese hypocrisy?
"As I said earlier, if you use the standard of international law, it is clear that China's sovereignty over islands in the South China Sea is quite reasonable." - The standard of international law is very clear for everyone except China. Why is that? This is just wrong to say international law doesn't apply to China's illegal theft of territory.
"If you use the law of the jungle standard of the U.S. invasion of Mexico, then China can also use strength to speak" - The US didn't invade and annex Mexico! Learn the history. But if we are talking modern day, with modern international laws and other treaties of which China too signed, it would be absolutely illegal for the US to invade any nation and claim their territory as their own. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? You seem to think that modern international laws don't apply if some nation hundreds of years before international law did something. If that was true, all international laws today would be null and voided. You need to work on your common sense!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheBandit7613 Yea... Trump was the first to actually threaten to pull out of NATO and/or decline its obligations to those countries that don't live up it theirs... but Trump was NOT the first to address this issue...it began with the first President Bush! But still remember back in 2011 and the US Defense Secretary gave an amazing speech at NATO where the US really for the first time PUBLICY gave our NATO partners an earful... Here is portion of that speech:
"NATO’s serious capability gaps and other institutional shortcomings laid bare by the Libya operation; The military – and political – necessity of fixing these shortcomings if the transatlantic security alliance is going to be viable going forward; And more broadly, the growing difficulty for the U.S. to sustain current support for NATO if the American taxpayer continues to carry most of the burden in the Alliance."
"To be sure, at the outset, the NATO Libya mission did meet its initial military objectives – grounding Qaddafi’s air force and degrading his ability to wage offensive war against his own citizens. And while the operation has exposed some shortcomings caused by underfunding, it has also shown the potential of NATO, with an operation where Europeans are taking the lead with American support. However, while every alliance member voted for Libya mission, less than half have participated at all, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission. Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can’t. The military capabilities simply aren’t there." ... "We have the spectacle of an air operations center designed to handle more than 300 sorties a day struggling to launch about 150. Furthermore, the mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country – yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference."
"In the past, I’ve worried openly about NATO turning into a two-tiered alliance: Between members who specialize in “soft’ humanitarian, development, peacekeeping, and talking tasks, and those conducting the “hard” combat missions. Between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership – be they security guarantees or headquarters billets – but don’t want to share the risks and the costs. This is no longer a hypothetical worry. We are there today. And it is unacceptable."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@huggybear441 You seem to believe that a document that China created is somehow international law... why is that? China creating documents saying it owns this or that doesn't make it fact! And as I have repeatedly said, the documents the US signed with China... the US in no way shape or form agrees with China that it has sovereignty over Taiwan! Suggesting only China can have authority in military representation of Taiwan is completely BOGUS!!! Hence the reason the US has been supplying arms to Taiwan for DECADES!!! And put simply... it has no bearing what other nations think as well of Taiwan. And finally, saying ONLY Western media paints China as a "villain" is also completely bogus... you seem to miss nations like South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, India, Australia, etc, etc, etc... You do know that international opinion polls of China TODAY shows that not many people in the world think positively of China! Their happy to take China money and buy cheap Chinese products... but that doesn't make people like China and its aggressions, lack of human rights and bullying of its neighbors! And let's not forget the lies it told which caused a pandemic in the world! People aren't going to forget that MILLIONS died, and TRILLIONS lost because ... China LIED the virus it unleashed in the world!!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevenaleshire7941 China’s debt problem is like a giant game of "hide and seek," except instead of kids hiding, it's trillions of dollars buried in shady local government financing vehicles and zombie state-owned enterprises. While the U.S. debt is out in the open, complete with nightly news debates, China’s debt is tucked away behind closed doors, waiting to pop out like a bad surprise party for their economy. Add in a real estate sector that's crumbling faster than a sandcastle at high tide, and you've got a recipe for financial chaos.
To make things more exciting, China’s shrinking workforce and aging population mean fewer people to foot the bill. It's like throwing a party, realizing half the guests left early, and the cleanup crew is nowhere to be found. Meanwhile, their export-driven economy is facing headwinds, as the world starts diversifying supply chains away from Beijing’s grasp. So, while U.S. debt gets the headlines, China’s debt is the slow-brewing drama no one wants to admit is spiraling out of control.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Loose goose canton is just a propagandist... don't ever expect him to say or acknowledge the worldwide American network of alliances, which had come under severe strain, is arguably stronger now than it has been in years—due to much of China's (Xi’s) policies. The more openly hostile China has become to the current international system, the stronger U.S. alliances have grown. Xi’s agenda has persuaded the world’s democracies to tighten their ties to the United States and to one another in order to counter the threat China presents.
Initially, European leaders were uncomfortable with Washington’s tougher line on China, insisting on their “strategic autonomy.” This divergence sowed some dissension within the Atlantic alliance. However, Xi’s support for Putin amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has gone a long way toward healing that rift. At a virtual summit in April, ostensibly meant to bolster cooperation between China and Europe, the leaders of the European Union criticized Xi’s pro-Russia stance, warning him against aiding Putin’s war effort.
Then, in June, the leaders of Washington’s four main partners in the Pacific—Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—participated in a NATO summit for the first time to discuss the Chinese threat. This was a sign that a more coordinated or fully united alliance that brought together the democratic powers in Europe and Asia might be possible. In addition, India—usually wary of entangling itself in superpower competition—has become more active in the Quad (a security partnership that also includes Australia, Japan, and the U.S.). This suggests that India sees the group as a potential bulwark against Beijing, which has alarmed Indian leaders by pressing territorial claims along the two countries’ disputed border.
Putin and Xi's aggression and bullying has actually failed and has made the US along with its allies FAR FAR stronger... but clown-pillow will ignore all that with spin, lies and deflections!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Earthman99999 Oh, how tragic that Hawaii's sovereign kingdom was illegally overthrown, leading to a democratic vote in 1959 where the population—regardless of ethnicity—chose statehood with a measly 94.3% in favor. Surely, the inclusion of non-Native Hawaiians, who legally migrated there over decades, was part of a grand conspiracy to deprive Native Hawaiians of their birthright. But hey, at least Hawaiians get to freely voice their opinions and form sovereignty groups without fear of tanks rolling into Honolulu, right?
Contrast this with China, where Tibet and Xinjiang enjoy the privilege of cultural erasure and reeducation camps to help them understand how much they benefit from Beijing’s guidance. And let’s not forget Hong Kong, where the promise of ‘one country, two systems’ was graciously upgraded to ‘one country, one way or the highway.’ Clearly, Beijing could teach those Hawaiian sovereignty groups a thing or two about suppressing dissent, because who needs sovereignty when you have an iron-fisted central government to make all the decisions for you?
Yes, Hawaii’s current state as a vibrant, multicultural U.S. state where everyone can enjoy political freedoms is truly the greater injustice compared to China's shining example of harmonious governance. Bravo, let’s all take notes!
1
-
@Earthman99999 Oh, how tragic that Hawaii's sovereign kingdom was illegally overthrown, leading to a democratic vote in 1959 where the population—regardless of ethnicity—chose statehood with a measly 94.3% in favor. Surely, the inclusion of non-Native Hawaiians, who legally migrated there over decades, was part of a grand conspiracy to deprive Native Hawaiians of their birthright. But hey, at least Hawaiians get to freely voice their opinions and form sovereignty groups without fear of tanks rolling into Honolulu, right?
Contrast this with China, where Tibet and Xinjiang enjoy the privilege of cultural erasure and reeducation camps to help them understand how much they benefit from Beijing’s guidance. And let’s not forget Hong Kong, where the promise of ‘one country, two systems’ was graciously upgraded to ‘one country, one way or the highway.’ Clearly, Beijing could teach those Hawaiian sovereignty groups a thing or two about suppressing dissent, because who needs sovereignty when you have an iron-fisted central government to make all the decisions for you?
Yes, Hawaii’s current state as a vibrant, multicultural U.S. state where everyone can enjoy political freedoms is truly the greater injustice compared to China's shining example of harmonious governance. Bravo, let’s all take notes!
1
-
@Earthman99999 Oh, what a complicated tale of history! Hawaii's monarchy was overthrown, and decades later, in 1959, the population—comprising people from various backgrounds—voted overwhelmingly for statehood. It’s almost as if democracy allowed everyone living there to have a say, how novel! Meanwhile, Native Hawaiians today can form sovereignty groups and advocate for their beliefs without fear of imprisonment or suppression. That’s the beauty of free expression.
Compare this to China, where regions like Tibet and Xinjiang are governed with policies that some might call 'firm oversight.' Cultural practices are ‘streamlined,’ and political dissent is handled with an efficiency that could rival any system. In Hong Kong, the shift from ‘one country, two systems’ to a more unified approach shows a unique method of governance, one where protests and different opinions are carefully managed to maintain harmony.
It’s fascinating how different paths to sovereignty or integration have unfolded worldwide. Hawaii might not have its monarchy, but at least its residents live with full civil rights, including the freedom to advocate for independence if they choose—an option that’s not always available in other parts of the world (Hint... China).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hendywijaya3213 The US nor the UN has EVER claimed that the Chinese communist government has sovereignty over Taiwan... NEVER! Though I found your comment about how the UN and the US are violating the law... how can the UN violate the law? Is that the same excuse you use when discussing how China illegally invaded Korea to fight UN forces in the Korean war? You should take your own advice and study history! The native people of Taiwan are not Chinese, nor have they ever surrendered their land to China. China was NOT the first country to colonize Taiwan. The Chinese communist government has never in its history ruled or governed Taiwan. Legally, there is no international law that explicitly recognizes China's sovereignty over Taiwan. The United Nations recognizes the People's Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China, but it does not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state...FACT! During the 20th century, Taiwan was ruled by various governments, including the Japanese colonial government and the nationalist government of the Republic of China, which fled to Taiwan in 1949 after losing the Chinese Civil War to the Communist Party. Therefore, Taiwan's history and cultural identity are distinct from mainland China. Politically, Taiwan has been governed as a separate entity from China for over seven decades, with its own democratic government, constitution, and military. Taiwan has held free and fair democratic elections since the 1990s and has established itself as a vibrant democracy with a thriving economy and a strong civil society. Technically therefore, Taiwan has been a nation since 1949!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@miguelito2361
I agree with most of your comment... with the exception of this tidbit: "I'd say they're 3rd again overall."
Claiming Russia has the strongest army in the world—or even placing it "3rd overall"—is quite a stretch given its performance in Ukraine. A military isn’t just about numbers or hardware; it’s about training, strategy, and command structure. In these areas, Russia has been exposed as deeply flawed. The corruption within its ranks, incompetent leadership, and poorly trained troops have turned what should have been a swift military operation into a drawn-out, humiliating slog.
Russia’s military might once have been feared, but Ukraine has revealed its weaknesses for the world to see. What good are tanks and missiles if they’re being used with outdated strategies or by soldiers who are poorly equipped and unprepared? Strong militaries are defined by discipline, innovation, and cohesion—qualities Russia’s military seems to lack. Numbers on paper don’t win wars; effective leadership and training do, and Russia has shown neither.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@userwsyz The US does not in fact have a mutual defense treaty with Israel... that is fact! Now, let me educate you: U.S. and Israel have a very close security relationship, with strong cooperation on intelligence, defense technology, and military aid. The U.S. has pledged to support Israel’s security through various commitments, such as the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding that provides substantial military assistance, but these are not legally binding defense treaties that would automatically require the U.S. to defend Israel in a military conflict. The US choses to support Israel's defense with all those warships that are deployed and has already done so twice when Iran has attack it.
"during ww2 when Philippine was part of US, US troops were defeated by the Japanese in Philippine" -Ah, yes, because wars are obviously won or lost based on events from 80 years ago. I guess by that logic, China’s military prowess should still be based on its success with spears and bows? History has a funny way of evolving, kind of like military power!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kwokholuk8723 Oh, where to begin with this comedy of claims? China and Russia inventing hypersonic missiles? That’s rich. It’s like their equally hilarious claim to have "invented" 5G, despite the fact that American companies like Qualcomm and other global tech leaders laid the groundwork for that technology decades ago. Let’s be real: the U.S. has been tinkering with hypersonic technology since the 1960s, with projects like the X-15 rocket plane achieving hypersonic speeds before some of these nations even knew how to spell "hypersonic."
Now, let’s address the exclusive club myth. China and Russia may have operational hypersonic missiles, but they’re far from alone. The U.S. has demonstrated its own hypersonic missiles, and India is no slouch either, working on the HSTDV (Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle). Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea claim to have hypersonic missiles, but conveniently, we’re still waiting on their proof. Maybe their "advanced hypersonic tech" is chilling right next to North Korea’s "working ICBMs" and Iran’s "invisible drones."
And then there’s the tired trope that the U.S. can’t intercept hypersonic missiles. Really? Let’s not forget that Ukraine has already shot down Russia’s "invincible" Kinzhal hypersonic missile using the American Patriot system. But sure, tell me more about how these missiles are unstoppable. Oh, and let’s not leave out THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense)—a system that hasn’t even been tested against these weapons yet but is designed to handle advanced threats. It’s why the U.S. just set up THAAD in Israel, and it’s exactly why China threw a tantrum when South Korea deployed THAAD systems.
So, please, let’s keep the fairy tales coming. If nothing else, they’re great for a laugh. But when it comes to actual facts and achievements? The U.S. is decades ahead in the hypersonic game.
1
-
@oldkingchuan9799 Oh, the half-truth Olympics! Let's unpack this. Yes, in 2021, General Mark Milley did call China's hypersonic weapons tests 'very concerning' and likened them to a 'Sputnik moment.' But since then, the U.S. hasn’t exactly been sitting around sipping tea. It has tested, developed, and even begun manufacturing multiple hypersonic systems, including the Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM), Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), and the Mako Hypersonic Missile. Shocking, I know.
Oh, and about U.S. hypersonic history—let’s rewind to the X-15 rocket-powered aircraft, developed in the 1950s. It hit Mach 6.7 in 1967, a cool decade before hypersonic missiles were even a twinkle in anyone else's eye. And let’s not forget the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle, which has been hypersonically zipping around the globe since 2010—no warhead needed to flex those speeds.
Now, about your cryptic 'beautiful professional lady hired for U.S. hypersonic research'—no idea where you're going with that, but feel free to enlighten us. Meanwhile, care to explain when China and Russia 'invented' their first hypersonic vehicles? Oh, that’s right—they're still taking notes from a playbook the U.S. started writing in the 1960s. But hey, great storytelling!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While Taiwan was returned to the Republic of China (ROC) after WWII, it’s crucial to note that the People's Republic of China (PRC) has never governed Taiwan. After the ROC relocated to Taiwan in 1949, it has operated as a separate political entity with its own government, military, legal system, and economy. The PRC’s claim over Taiwan ignores this historical and practical reality.
Taiwan’s constitution doesn’t explicitly declare independence, but this is a strategic decision to avoid provoking aggression from Beijing. This doesn’t negate Taiwan’s functional independence—its democratic system, vibrant economy, and self-governance demonstrate that it operates independently of the PRC.
Lastly, the majority of Taiwanese people identify as Taiwanese, not Chinese, and consistently oppose unification with the PRC. Dismissing these realities as "DPP propaganda" overlooks Taiwan's democratic evolution and the clear will of its people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
USA bombing list... What in the world are you babbling about? Most of these nations you mention, the US didn't bomb! Even the first nation... the US didn't BOMB China, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, Kuwait, etc, etc, etc... then you list nations that the US fought to defend... like South Korea, Kuwait, etc, etc! You clearly could use an education!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@linkmeforfun So where are the minutes? The first paragraph talks about the "not one inch eastward"... which isn't the dispute... the dispute is about the context of that comment. The rest of your paragraphs is just heresy and no documents or minutes to the actual meeting. And I would like to remind you that the US itself isn't NATO. Neither the US president nor any other American government official can make unilateral decision for NATO! If they could, Sweden would have been a NATO member MONTHS ago! And why does what you claim completely conflict with what Gorbachev told Russian media... considering it was Gorbachev in these meetings?!?!?!? But I could also provide the same type of evidence you are submitting....
Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador and deputy foreign minister who is now head of the Munich Security Conference, said that agreements on German reunification including the 1990 treaty known as the 2+4 treaty, which formally paved the way for the two countries (East and West Germany) to become one again, made no mention of NATO enlargement. Ischinger is quoted as saying...“Russia has been quite successful in selling the narrative that, in exchange for their acceptance of German unification via the 2+4 Treaty, they were promised that there would be no NATO enlargement,” Ischinger told RFE/RL. “Russia presents herself as the victim.”
"At no point in the discussion did either Baker or Gorbachev bring up the question of the possible extension of NATO membership to other Warsaw Pact countries beyond Germany," according to Mark Kramer, director of the Cold War Studies Project at Harvard University's Davis Center, who reviewed the declassified transcripts and other materials.
So I ask again... where are these minutes of the meetings in which it clearly states that "not one-inch" truly meant that NATO was going to completely re-write the charter of NATO because the charter of NATO says any nation can join NATO if they apply and meet the requirements?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daytrader-iy5yb China did not 'treat Tibetans with dignity and generosity.' After forcibly annexing Tibet, China stripped Tibetans of their political autonomy, religious freedom, and cultural rights. Tibet remains under strict Chinese control with no freedom of speech, no free elections, and heavy surveillance.
In contrast, Native Americans in the U.S. have recognized tribal lands, freedom of speech, the right to practice their culture and religion, and the ability to elect their own governments. While historical treatment of Native Americans was deeply flawed, their current legal rights and freedoms far exceed what Tibetans face under Chinese rule. Let's be clear about the facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@misterhill5598
WOW, you really are one ignorant clown..
"You implied US, UK and NATO had nothing to do with the war between Ukraine and Russia" - No, I said very clearly that Putin started the war due to his imperial dream of re-creating Russia's empire. Just like the US providing HUGE sums of weapons and aid to China during WW2 was not the cause of Japan invading China!
"The majority of Nazi members went to USA and Canada first" - That's just moronic!
"You support both Germany and Ukraine. What does that say about you?" - Just when I thought you couldn't be more moronic, you take it to another level!!!
"They should have peace not war." - Peace would be easy... all Russia has to do is leave Ukraine... but yet you're a ChiNAZI supporter and your idea of peace is for Ukraine to surrender its sovereignty to another NAZI style government... OH THE IRONY!!! If you believe they should have peace, why don't you support Russia to just leave Ukraine? That would bring peace. If you don't do so... you don't actually support peace!
"On top of that, you want China, the one who tries to facilitate pace talk, to die also." - I want to China to die? Why do you clowns like to argue something that is never said or implied? What is it with these propaganda techniques when you have no intelligent debate to stand with?
"You are not qualify to pass judgement on this war. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution" - Oh, the HYPOCRISY!!!! And you qualify to pass judgement on the war but not those who believe Ukraine shouldn't be invaded? You blame the victim instead of the perp and claim those who wish Russia wouldn't break international laws are the problem.... you're a special kind of clown, aren't you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-High-IQ769 No, he said America's history began with "Rebels"... that is not correct. If you ignore American natives (and those before the natives), America's history began with Pilgrims... Pilgrims were NOT rebels! America's history did not begin with the American revolution. Learn history! Also... which country in the world today can you say didn't started with some rebellion to form the government they have today? I can't think of any myself... India, China, Russia, England, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, etc... you can say had rebellion in its history!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@conti-vl6tx Simply repeating a claim does not make it true. The features in the West Philippine Sea that China has developed into artificial islands do not qualify as natural islands under international law. China has no historic or legal ownership of this territory, and neither the UN, Japan, nor international law recognizes Chinese sovereignty over the West Philippine Sea. Even if China or other nations attempt to assert such claims, they do not have the authority to dictate what the Philippines may do within its own territory. Furthermore, the Philippines is not isolated on this issue; no ASEAN nation supports China's extensive '10-dash line' claims, and neither does the UN, international law, UNCLOS, Japan, or most of the global community. Lastly, if the United States sought to exert dominance, it would not have chosen to leave its naval base at Subic Bay when it was asked to do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cpc9563 The US stopped being an empire after WW2. Empires don't give back held territories to become independent nations... the Philippines, Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands, Panama, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc, etc, etc... The US is no longer an empire and has no desire to be an empire, unlike China and Russia who both believe they have a right to be empires by invading and taking territories of others!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The fact that Ukraine has been able to not only beat back a major power like Russia on their border, but seriously cripple and humble the Russians.... that alone is a major victory! When your 3-day special military operation ends up in 2.5 years of war, over 500,000 dead soldiers, over $200,000,000 loses, dozens of top commanders: Generals, fleet commanders, Battalion commanders dead, etc, etc, etc, and now losing parts of your own country.,,, to a nation VASTLY weaker than you... that is no Russian victory!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@frank7119-w5s The West didn't destroy Iraq... Saddam destroyed Iraq when he illegally invaded Kuwait that began Iraq's downfall. Let me guess, you supported that invasion as well? And the West didn't destroy Libya and the West didn't invade Libya... again, you are aware just like Iraq, the UN itself voted and asked for those measures. Did the UN vote and support Russia's invasion? NOT EVEN CLOSE!!! And saying that Russia has no history of invasions, mass murder, mass killings, destroying cities, etc... clearly shows you have no clue what you're babbling about!!!! I suggest you get an education and look at Russia's history more closely... from it's alliance with Hitler to carve up Poland, to Stalin's mass murdering of TENS of millions of people including MILLIONS of Ukrainians, the destruction of Chechen, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and other all under the directive of RUSSIA!!!! STOP TRYING TO REWRITE HISTORY YOU DON'T KNOW BECAUSE YOU'RE IGNORANT!!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaytee4482 You mean like how China today is made up of so much stolen lands, enslavement, genocides of natives, etc, etc, etc... Tell me egg-roll, do you pat yourself on the back by China's history of doing EXACTLY the same thing or are you still of the belief that China's HYPOCRISY is an ancient right? You are aware that China's enslavement of humans was vastly greater and lasted longer as well. Heck, slavery in China ended in 1949! And unlike China, native people in the US have EXACTLY the same rights as American citizens... no is telling them that they can't speak out or even tell their story or even bring the government to court. Natives of China... NO RIGHTS, NO FREEDOMS, NO HISTORY... BRAVO oh little HYPOCRITE one!!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davet9708 Most American technology was stolen from Germany? What? When exactly did Germany invent cell phone technology, Internet, voice mail, 3d printers, MRI machines, air-bags, tablet computers, ABS braking, disposable lenses, etc, etc, etc??? 'Clearly you're not the sharpest tool in the shed'!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RechtmanDon Who's the real polluter says the propagandist... why not show actual pollution: Here's some FACTUAL stats to help answer that question...
CO2 Emission by country (tons)
China 10,432,751,616
USA 5,011,686,400
Now who's the real polluter? China's pollution is TWICE that of the US and unlike China... the US has been reducing its CO2 EVERY YEAR for over a decade... and China? China's pollution to this very day has only gone in one-direction... UP!!!!
Tell me... does climate change due to pollution happen on a per-capita basis or total pollution?
India's annual CO2 emission in tons 1,661,899,264 which makes it the 3rd largest polluter in the world but since it has a huge population like China... it's per-capita is even far less than that of the US and China... using your logic, India isn't a polluter and doesn't need to go green? Really? You need to work on your common sense!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@earthwizz 1929 — Battle of Xiahe, 1933 — Kizil massacre, 1933 — Battle of Aksu (1933), 1933 — Battle of Sekes Tash, 1933 — Battle of Kashgar (1933), 1933 — First Battle of Urumqi (1933), 1933 — Battle of Toksun, 1934 — Second Battle of Urumqi (1933–34), 1934 — Battle of Kashgar (1934),1934 — Battle of Yangi Hissar, 1934 — Battle of Yarkand, 1934 — Charkhlik, Revolt, 1934 — Battle of Tutung, 1934 — Battle of Dawan Cheng, 1927–1937 — Ten Year's Civil War, 1927 — Shanghai massacre, 1927 — Nanchang Uprising, 1927 — Autumn, Harvest Uprising, 1927 — Guangzhou Uprising, 1930–31 — First Encirclement Campaign, 1931 — Second Encirclement Campaign, 1931 — Third Encirclement Campaign, 1932 — Fourth Encirclement Campaign, 1933–34 — Fifth Encirclement Campaign, 1934–1936 — Long March, 1935 — Battles at Luding Bridge, 1931 — Mukden Incident, 1931–32 — Japanese invasion of Manchuria, 1931 — Jiangqiao Campaign, 1931 — Resistance at Nenjiang Bridge, 1932 — Defense of Harbin, 1932 — January 28 Incident, 1931–1942 — Pacification of Manchukuo, 1933 — Defense of the Great Wall, 1933 — Battle of Rehe, 1933–1936 — Actions in Inner Mongolia (1933–36), 1936 — Suiyuan Campaign, 1937 — Marco Polo Bridge Incident, 1937 — Battle of Beiping–Tianjin, 1937 — Battle of Shanghai, 1937 — Beiping–Hankou Railway Operation, 1937 — Tianjin–Pukou Railway Operation, 1937 — Battle of Pingxingguan, 1937 — Battle of Xinkou, 1937 — Battle of Taiyuan, 1937 — Battle of Nanjing, 1938 — Battle of Xuzhou, 1938 — Battle of Taierzhuang, 1938 — Battle of Wuhan, 1938 — Battle of Wanjialing, 1939 — Hainan Island Operation, 1939 — Battle of Nanchang, 1939 — Battle of Suixian–Zaoyang, 1939 — Battle of Changsha, 1939 — Battle of South Guangxi, 1939 — Battle of Kunlun Pass, 1940 — Battle of Zaoyang–Yichang, 1940 — Hundred Regiments Offensive, 1940 — Central Hubei Operation, 1941 — Battle of Shanggao, 1941 — Western Hubei Operation, 1941 — Battle of South Shanxi, 1941 — Battle of Changsha, 1942 — Battle of Changsha, 1942 — Battle of Toungoo, 1942 — Battle of Yenangyaung, 1942 — Zhejiang-Jiangxi campaign, 1942 — Battle of Yunnan-Burma Road, 1943 — Battle of West Hubei, 1943 — Battle of Northern Burma and Western Yunnan, 1943 — Battle of Changde , 1944 — Operation Ichi-Go, 1944 — Battle of Changsha, 1944 — Battle of Guilin–Liuzhou, 1944 — Battle of Mount Song, 1945 — Battle of West Henan–North Hubei, 1945 — Battle of West Hunan, 1945 — Second Guangxi campaign, 1945 — Soviet invasion of Manchuria, 1946–1948 — Pei-ta-shan Incident, July 21, 1945 – August 8, 1945 — Yetaishan Campaign, August 13, 1945 – August 19, 1945 — Southern Jiangsu Campaign, August 13, 1945 – August 16, 1945 — Counteroffensive in Eastern Hubei, August 15, 1945 – August 23, 1945 — Battle of Baoying, August 16, 1945 – August 19, 1945 — Battle of Yongjiazhen, August 17, 1945 – August 27, 1945 — Battle of Tianmen, August 17, 1945 – August 25, 1945 — Pingyu Campaign, August 17, 1945 – September 11, 1945 — Linyi Campaign, August 24, 1945 – August 24, 1945 — Battle of Wuhe, August 26, 1945 – August 27, 1945 — Battle of Yinji, August 26, 1945 – September 22, 1945 — Huaiyin–Huai'an Campaign, August 29, 1945 – September 1, 1945 — Xinghua Campaign, September 1, 1945 – September 13, 1945 — Battle of Dazhongji, September 4, 1945 – September 5, 1945 — Battle of Lingbi, September 5, 1945 – September 8, 1945 — Zhucheng Campaign, September 5, 1945 – September 22, 1945 — Shanghe Campaign September 6, 1945 – September 9, 1945 — Battle of Lishi, September 7, 1945 – September 10, 1945 — Pingdu, Campaign, September 8, 1945 – September 12, 1945 — Taixing Campaign, September 10, 1945 – October 12, 1945 — Shangdang Campaign, September 13, 1945 – September 17, 1945 — Wudi Campaign, September 18, 1945 – September 18, 1945 — Battle of Xiangshuikou, September 21, 1945 – September 21, 1945 — Battle of Rugao, September 29, 1945 – November 2, 1945 — Weixian–Guangling–Nuanquan Campaign, October, 1945 – October, 1945 — Battle of Shicun, October 3, 1945 – November 10, 1945 — Yancheng Campaign
1
-
@earthwizz April, 1947 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Northeast China, November 3, 1945 – November 4, 1945 — Battle of Jiehezhen, December 19, 1945 – December 21, 1945 — Battle of Shaobo, December 19, 1945 – December 26, 1945 — Gaoyou–Shaobo Campaign, December 21, 1945 – December 30, 1945 — Battle of Tangtou–Guocun, January 19, 1946 – January 26, 1946 — Houma Campaign, March 15, 1946 – March 17, 1946 — Battle of Siping, April 10, 1946 – April 15, 1946 — Jinjiatun Campaign, April 17, 1946 – May 19, 1946 — Campaign to Defend Siping, June 22, 1946 – August 31, 1946 — Campaign of the North China Plain Pocket, June 12, 1946 – September 1, 1946 — Campaign along the, , Southern Section of Datong–Puzhou Railway, July 31, 1946 – September 16, 1946 — Datong–Jining Campaign, August 10, 1946 – August 22, 1946 — Longhai Campaign, August 14, 1946 – September 1, 1946 — Datong–Puzhou Campaign, August 21, 1946 – September 22, 1946 — Battle of Huaiyin–Huai'an, August 25, 1946 – August, 1946 — Battle of Rugao–Huangqiao, September 2, 1946 – September 8, 1946 — Dingtao Campaign, September 22, 1946 – September 24, 1946 — Linfen–Fushan Campaign, October 10, 1946 – October 20, 1946 — Battle of Kalgan, November 10, 1946 – November 11, 1946 — Battle of Nanluo–Beiluo, November 22, 1946 – January 1, 1947 — Lüliang Campaign
December 17, 1946 – April 1, 1947 — Linjiang Campaign, December 31, 1946 – January 30, 1947 — Battle of Guanzhong, January 21, 1947 – January 28, 1947 — Campaign to the South of Baoding, April 24, 1947 – April 25, 1947 — Battle of Niangziguan, April 27, 1947 – April 28, 1947 — Battle of Tang'erli, May 13, 1947 – May 16, 1947 — Menglianggu, campaign, May 13, 1947 – July 1, 1947 — Summer Offensive of 1947 in Northeast China, May 28, 1947 – May 31, 1947 — Heshui Campaign, June 11, 1947 – March 13, 1948 — Siping Campaign, June 26, 1947 – July 6, 1947 — Campaign to the North of Baoding, July 17, 1947 – July 29, 1947 — Nanma–Linqu Campaign, August 13, 1947 – August 18, 947 — Meridian Ridge Campaign, September 2, 1947 – September 12, 1947 — Campaign to the North of Daqing River, September 14, 1947 – November 5, 1947 — Autumn Offensive of 1947 in Northeast China, October 2, 1947 – October 10, 1947 — Sahe Mountain Campaign, October 29, 1947 – November 25, 1947 — Campaign in the Eastern Foothills of the Funiu Mountains, December 15, 1947 – March 15, 1948 — Winter Offensive of 1947 in Northeast China, December 7, 1947 – December 9, 1947 — Battle of Phoenix Peak
December 9, 1947 – June 15, 1948 — Western Tai'an Campaign, December 11, 1947 – January, 1948 — Counter-Eradication Campaign in Dabieshan,
December 20, 1947 – June 1948 — Jingshan–Zhongxiang Campaign, January 2, 1948 – January 7, 1948 — Gongzhutun Campaign, March 7, 1948 – May 18, 1948 — Linfen Campaign, March 11, 1948 – March 21, 1948 — Zhoucun–Zhangdian Campaign, May 12, 1948 – June 25, 1948 — Hebei–Rehe–Chahar Campaign, May 23, 1948 – October 19, 1948 — Siege of Changchun, May 29, 1948 – July 18, 1948 — Yanzhou Campaign, June 17, 1948 – June 19, 1948 — Battle of Shangcai, September 12, 1948 – November 12, 1948 — Liaoshen Campaign, October 5, 1948 – April 24, 1949 — Taiyuan Campaign, October 7, 1948 – October 15, 1948 — Battle of Jinzhou, October 10, 1948 – October 15, 1948 — Battle of Tashan, November 6, 1948 – January 10, 1949 — Huaihai Campaign, November 15, 1948 – January 11, 1949 — Battle of Jiulianshan, November 22, 1948 – December 15, 1948 — Shuangduiji Campaign, November 29, 1948 – January 31, 1949 — Pingjin Campaign, January 3, 1949 – January 15, 1949 — Tianjin Campaign, April, 1949 – June, 1950 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Northern China, April, 1949 – June, 1953 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Central and Southern China, May 12, 1949 – June 2, 1949 — Shanghai Campaign, May 17, 1949 – June 16, 1949 — Xianyang Campaign, August 9, 1949 – August 27, 1949 — Lanzhou Campaign, August 9, 1949 – December, 1953 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Eastern China, August 24, 1949 – September, 1951 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Fujian, September 5, 1949 – September 24, 1949 — Ningxia Campaign, September 5, 1949 – March, 1950 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Dabieshan, October 25, 1949 – October 27, 1949 — Battle of Guningtou, November, 1949 – July, 1953 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Northwestern China, November 1, 1949 – November 28, 1949 — Campaign to the North of Nanchuan County, November 3, 1949 – November 5, 1949 — Battle of Dengbu Island, November 17. 1949 – December 1, 1949 — Bobai Campaign, December 3, 1949 – December 26, 1949 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Lianyang, December 6, 1949 – December 7, 1949 — Battle of Liangjiashui, December 7, 1949 – December 14, 1949 — Battle of Lianyang, December 17, 1949 – December 18, 1949 — Battle of Jianmenguan, January, 1950 – June, 1955 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Wuping, January 15, 1950 – May 1951 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Guangxi, January 19, 1950 – January 31, 1950 — Battle of Bamianshan, February, 1950 – December 1953 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Southwestern China
February 4, 1950 – December, 1950 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Longquan, February 14, 1950 – February 20, 1950 — Battle of Tianquan, March 3, 1950 – March 3, 1950 — Battle of Nan'ao Island, March 5, 1950 – May 1, 1950 — Landing Operation on Hainan Island, March 29, 1950 – May 7, 1950 — Battle of Yiwu, May 11, 1950 – May 11, 1950 — Battle of Dongshan Island, May 25, 1950 – August 7, 1950 — Wanshan Archipelago Campaign, August 9, 1950 – August 9, 1950 — Battle of Nanpéng Island, September, 1950 – January, 1951 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Northern Guangdong, September 22, 1950 – November 29, 1950 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in northeastern Guizhou
October 15, 1950 – November, 1950 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in the Border Region of Hunan–Hubei–Sichuan, October 15, 1950 – December, 1950 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Western Hunan, December 13, 1950 – February, 1951 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Shiwandashan, December 20, 1950 – February, 1951 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Liuwandashan, January 8, 1951 – February, 1951 — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Yaoshan, April 15, 1951 – September, 1951, — Campaign to Suppress Bandits in Western Guangxi, 1950-1959 - Kuomintang Islamic insurgency, 1959 – Lhasa Uprising, 1950 – Battle of Onjong, 1950 – Battle of Unsan, 1950 – Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River, 1950 – Battle of Chosin Reservoir, 1951 – Third Battle of Seoul, 1951 – Battle of Hoengsong, 1951 – Battle of Chipyong-ni, 1951 – Battle of the Imjin River
1951 – Battle of Kapyong, 1952 – Battle of Old Baldy, 1952 – Battle of White Horse, 1952 – Battle of Triangle Hill, 1953 – Battle of Pork Chop Hill, 1953 – Battle of the Hook
1953 – Battle of Kumsong, 1967 - Nathu La and The Cho Clashes, 1969 - Zhenbao Island, 1974 – Battle of the Paracel Islands,1979 – Battle of Lạng Sơn, 1979 – Battle of Lao Cai
1979 – Battle of Cam Duong, 1979 – Battle of Cao Bang, 1988 – Johnson South Reef Skirmish, 2020-2021 China-India skirmishes
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@araara4746 "You think that the US helped China during the Japanese occupation..." blah, blah, blah. Oh what a fascinating and fairytale take on history? First, the claim that the U.S. "did nothing and continued to trade with Japan" during its occupation of China is a nice twist of reality. Sure, the U.S. traded with Japan before things escalated, but by 1937, after Japan's invasion of China, the U.S. began imposing restrictions. Ever hear of the 1940 Export Control Act? That little law halted exports of crucial materials like aviation fuel and scrap metal to Japan. And in 1941—before Pearl Harbor—the U.S. froze Japanese assets and imposed a full oil embargo. Hardly the behavior of a country "doing nothing."
Second, let’s talk about this notion that the U.S. refused to help Europe "at all" during Nazi Germany’s occupation. I guess the Lend-Lease Act of 1941, where the U.S. supplied billions of dollars in war materials to the Allies, just didn’t happen in your version of history? That included sending weapons, food, and supplies to Britain and even the Soviet Union long before the U.S. entered the war. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good narrative?
Finally, the idea that the U.S. only acted out of self-interest after Pearl Harbor ignores a little thing called geopolitics. Isolationism was indeed popular before the war, but that doesn’t mean the U.S. wasn’t laying the groundwork to counter aggression in both Europe and Asia. By helping China with resources like military advisors (hello, Flying Tigers) and pressuring Japan economically, the U.S. was already resisting Axis expansion. But sure, let’s pretend the U.S. just sat around twiddling its thumbs until December 7, 1941. Bravo for rewriting history.
1
-
@araara4746 No, I don't think the US helped China during the Japanese occupation. I know that the US liberated China from Japan. My, where to start with your fascinating take on history? First, the claim that the U.S. "did nothing and continued to trade with Japan" during its occupation of China is a nice twist of reality. Sure, the U.S. traded with Japan before things escalated, but by 1937, after Japan's invasion of China, the U.S. began imposing restrictions. Ever hear of the 1940 Export Control Act? That little law halted exports of crucial materials like aviation fuel and scrap metal to Japan. And in 1941—before Pearl Harbor—the U.S. froze Japanese assets and imposed a full oil embargo. Hardly the behavior of a country "doing nothing."
Second, let’s talk about this notion that the U.S. refused to help Europe "at all" during Nazi Germany’s occupation. I guess the Lend-Lease Act of 1941, where the U.S. supplied billions of dollars in war materials to the Allies, just didn’t happen in your version of history? That included sending weapons, food, and supplies to Britain and even the Soviet Union long before the U.S. entered the war. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good narrative?
Finally, the idea that the U.S. only acted out of self-interest after Pearl Harbor ignores a little thing called geopolitics. Isolationism was indeed popular before the war, but that doesn’t mean the U.S. wasn’t laying the groundwork to counter aggression in both Europe and Asia. By helping China with resources like military advisors (hello, Flying Tigers) and pressuring Japan economically, the U.S. was already resisting Axis expansion. But sure, let’s pretend the U.S. just sat around twiddling its thumbs until December 7, 1941. Bravo for rewriting history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Blixey-r9z The principle of “indivisible security” is fascinating—especially when invoked by countries like China and Russia, who conveniently ignore it themselves. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the clearest example of violating another country’s security, and China’s actions in the South China Sea don’t exactly scream respect for neighbors’ interests. If this principle is so sacred, maybe they should try following it first.
On NATO expansion, blaming it for the war is a tired excuse. Ukraine wanted NATO membership because Russia has been threatening its sovereignty for years—see Crimea, 2014, Georgia, etc, etc, etc. Suggesting that NATO’s defensive actions “jeopardize” Russia’s security is like accusing a homeowner of provoking a thief by installing a deadbolt. Sovereign nations have every right to choose their alliances without asking Moscow’s permission.
Every government in the world has the right to remove one of their own elected officials. Russia has done so, China has done so, etc. So once again, you are of the belief that other nations don't have that right without permission of others? Ukraine's president (a single politician) was removed by who? Ukraine's government. That is not a revolution no matter how hard you spin it and it was what their people wanted! BTW, where did that president go? Oh, that's right, he fled to Russia! That's not suspicious, is it? 🤨
As for China’s neutrality, it’s neutrality with an asterisk. Sure, they haven’t sent weapons, but their trade props up Russia’s economy and indirectly supports its war. Criticizing Western aid to Ukraine while ignoring this is a double standard. And blaming the West for “prolonging the war” overlooks the obvious: Ukraine wouldn’t need weapons if Russia weren’t invading. If China and Russia are so keen on “indivisible security,” perhaps they should stop violating it at every turn. It does sound suspicious that the ones pushing for "indivisible security" are the ones taking territory that doesn't belong to them legally. Or perhaps, it's just convenient for them?!?!?!?
1
-
@Blixey-r9z UNCLOS plays a crucial role in assessing maritime entitlements and obligations, making it highly relevant to the South China Sea disputes. In the 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), the tribunal determined that China's nine-dash line had no legal basis under UNCLOS. The ruling clarified that China’s claims extended beyond what is allowed under the treaty's provisions, which does in fact define maritime zones such as territorial seas and exclusive economic zones (EEZs).
Additionally, the tribunal found that certain features claimed by China were not islands capable of generating extensive maritime zones, further invalidating the nine-dash line. It also ruled that China violated UNCLOS by interfering with the Philippines’ fishing rights and resource exploration within the Philippines' EEZ. These findings demonstrate that China’s actions and claims were inconsistent with its obligations under UNCLOS, holding it accountable to internationally agreed maritime principles.
So far, everything that I wrote about is indisputable. No matter how much spin, twists and deflection you wish to add to the comment. WW2, ICC ruling ICC rulings, mango trees or whatever nonsense you wish to bring up... I am ignoring everything that you wrote that is not related to UNCLOS which China signed as you are simply spinning and deflecting from the topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hlbt7307 First of all, there is no specific international law (including the International Convention on the Law of the Sea) that requires naval ships passing through the Taiwan Strait to inform China. The Taiwan Strait is an international waterway, and under the principles of freedom of navigation, ships, including naval vessels, have the right to transit through it without seeking permission or notifying other countries. China demanding no other nation crosses it or informs it is causing trouble! Second, the One-China policy the US signed with China DOES NOT claim the US "recognizes" China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan! NEVER DID... saying otherwise (like you did) is not true! The Potsdam Proclamation stated that Japan was to surrender all territories it had taken by force or occupied, including Taiwan, to the Allies. The proclamation did not explicitly state to whom Taiwan would be transferred to the Chinese communist government... in fact, Taiwan was initially transferred to the US! China claims Taiwan due to history but ignores the fact that China wasn't even the first nation to colonize Taiwan... Europeans did! As I said before, the Whitehouse has NEVER said China has sole sovereignty over Taiwan... NEVER! And finally, with regards to weapon sales to Taiwan... The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) is a U.S. law enacted in 1979 that governs the unofficial relationship between the United States and Taiwan. The TRA obligates the United States to provide Taiwan with defensive weapons to ensure its self-defense capabilities. This commitment is based on the U.S. recognition of the importance of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and the need to deter potential aggression against Taiwan even from the Chinese communist government. I'll remind you that the one-China policy the US and China signed clearly stated that the dispute between China and Taiwan would ONLY be handled in a PEACEFUL means! China agreed to this but since Xi took power, China has since changed its policy and now includes verbiage giving China the right to use VIOLENCE against Taiwan... so I ask, who is breaking the agreement when China continually threatens to invade?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@conti-vl6tx Claiming China has avoided military aggression is almost comical when you look at the facts. China has ‘peacefully’ intruded on the territories of the Philippines, Korea, India, and Vietnam, and has ‘diplomatically’ turned the South China Sea into a militarized zone, claiming waters that aren’t legally theirs. Sure, they might not declare formal wars, but bullying smaller nations to control trade routes and international waters is hardly a display of restraint.
And let’s not pretend that every major power doesn’t protect its own interests—China included. The U.S., unlike China, has pushed for democratic values and human rights around the world, even if it’s had to use military means at times. China’s approach? Subtly rewrite the rules to suit itself, hoping the world won't notice.
So, no, the U.S. isn’t ‘lecturing’—it’s upholding a global order that lets smaller nations live without fear of being overrun. China, on the other hand, prefers to charm with a smile while building military bases in contested waters. If China wants respect, maybe it should stop pushing its neighbors around and start acting like a responsible global power. After all, actions speak louder than propaganda.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinrich5222 "China has never banned these apps, but Google is unwilling to store the data of Chinese users in China" - Again, NOT TRUE!!! Example, Facebook was willing to store Chinese user data on servers in China but China still refused to allow Facebook in China. The fact is and the sole reason for China's banning of Western media services is because the Chinese government would be unable to control what is written on these social media platforms. So instead, they force Chinese people to use Chinese platforms like Weibo, Wechat, and Youku where they have full control to censor, ban and monitor the content. Then also look at other web-services that China bans that aren't social media... like Kickstarter and Netflix. Again, China bans it because they wouldn't be able to control what their people see that might upset the Chinese government... like a Brad Pitt movie, "Seven years in Tibet". For the life of me, I don't understand why China bans Kickstarter but for mysterious reasons, allows Chinese companies to use Kickstarter to sell products but bans its people from buying products on Kickstarter!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@akatosianwatsnachi "trying to make Ukraine"? Try? You do understand that becoming a member of NATO and/or the EU is voluntary? No one is trying to make Ukraine a NATO member. Ukraine like all of Russia's other neighbors asked (even beg) to be a member of NATO. Do you not understand why? It's because of Russia's history of invading them! You asked "an america allow Russia military presence in Cuba or Mexico?"... Are you not aware that Russia has had a military alliance with Cuba for decades even after the Cuban missile crisis? After the crisis, the Soviet Union withdrew its missiles but maintained a military presence, including advisors and support personnel, to assist Cuba's defense capabilities. Also, the Soviet Union, and later Russia, operated the Lourdes signals intelligence facility near Havana, which was one of the largest intelligence-gathering centers outside of Russia 90 miles away from the US. So yes, the US has always allowed Cuba to have a military alliance with Russia as long as it didn't install nuclear weapons. You really should educate yourself. And I'll remind you, NATO had made it very clear to Russia... Ukraine will never receive nuclear weapons. And lastly, why are agreements "useless" just because your side no longer wishes to follow them? If that is true, why should any nation ever have agreements? You really should try using some common sense!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevenaleshire7941 When did Ukraine ever declare itself a military superpower capable of defeating Russia in days? I’ve never seen Ukraine make such a claim. On the other hand, Putin dismissed the invasion as a minor ‘special military operation,’ asserting that Russia’s superior military would take Ukraine within days due to its unmatched weaponry. Now, years later, Russia has faced significant setbacks: hundreds of thousands of military casualties, the loss of dozens of senior commanders, tanks, helicopters, and warships, and even relying on foreign troops from Asia to fill its ranks. Russia began pulling tanks out of their WW2 museums due to it loses. If that doesn’t challenge Russia’s claim to superpower status and a humiliation, it’s hard to argue otherwise even for a low iq clown.
1
-
@stevenaleshire7941 When did Ukraine ever declare itself a military superpower capable of defeating Russia in days? I’ve never seen Ukraine make such a claim. On the other hand, Putin dismissed the invasion as a minor ‘special military operation,’ asserting that Russia’s superior military would take Ukraine within days due to its unmatched weaponry.
Now, years later, Russia has faced significant setbacks: hundreds of thousands of military casualties, the loss of senior commanders, tanks, helicopters, and warships, and even now relying on foreign troops from Asia to fill its ranks. If that doesn’t challenge Russia’s claim to superpower status, it’s hard to argue otherwise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nickl1177 Yes, the old nutmeg... tell me, when China DISCOVERED gun powder, did the US even exist? 🤔 Let me educate you, the US didn't learn Gun Powder from China! But with regards to innovation as you claim... can you provide me with just 5 technologies invented by China in the last 50 years that has benefitted mankind? Just 5! You know like America has such as... the personal computer, Email, MRI, Cell Phones, The Human Genome Project, disposable lenses, 3D-printers, etc, etc, etc... Point is, building on innovation of others doesn't make you the innovator!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
NONSENSE! Putin is preparing to invade Ukraine again—or pretending he will invade Ukraine again—for the same reason. He wants to destabilize Ukraine, frighten Ukraine. He wants Ukrainian democracy to fail. He wants the Ukrainian economy to collapse. He wants foreign investors to flee. He wants his neighbors—in Belarus, Kazakhstan, even Poland and Hungary—to doubt whether democracy will ever be viable, in the longer term, in their countries too. Farther abroad, he wants to put so much strain on Western and democratic institutions, especially the European Union and NATO, that they break up. He wants to keep dictators in power wherever he can, in Syria, Venezuela, and Iran. He wants to undermine America, to shrink American influence, to remove the power of the democracy rhetoric that so many people in his part of the world still associate with America. He wants America itself to fail. And he wants all that so he can remain in power as a TYRANT!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Hamas started this war. We’re talking about [an] organization that does not regard human life. A premature cease-fire today will lead to more violence, certainly to more violence, if we don’t eradicate Hamas now, whatever it takes, even if civilians will die. If we don’t do this today, this time, this war, now. Tomorrow, the violence will be much greater than this. All those clowns coming, speaking on behalf of the Palestinian people. They don’t care for the Palestinian people. They don’t care for Israel. They are a bunch of hypocrites.” -
Palestinian born Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of Hamas founding leader Hassan Yousef, November 2023
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@edz6013 Did you purposely miss the part where it stated... 1959... in the islands the 155,000 registered voters, 140,000 votes were cast, the highest turnout ever in Hawaii to become an American state. The vote showed approval rates of at least 93% by voters on all major islands. Of the approximately 140,000 votes cast, fewer than 8,000 rejected the Admission Act of 1959 to become an American state.
Gee.. I wonder why you forgot to mention that part? But let me educate you even further... in 1898 (over 120 years ago), there was NO SUCH THING as INTERNATIONAL LAWS!!! Yes, the US annexed Hawaii because if it didn't, other nations were going to and there were no laws to stop it. But as I stated and its FACT... after international law, the US gave the people of Hawaii the choice to become an American state and they OVERWHELMINGLY voted YES!!! Now, I ask again... There is now international law and a rule-base order ... why doesn't China follow America's example and allow the people of Taiwan to choose for themselves? I'll remind you that the US has given even Puerto Rico the same right to vote for their own future!!!! Maybe you want to look into that as well. What I find interesting is how many Chinese people think Russia is right in invading a country because it claims that's what the people want but on the other hand, they don't think the people of Taiwan should have the same right. Chinese HYPOCRISY never stops!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abhishekpandey3244 I did read what you wrote, but much of it is either exaggerated or outright false. First, there is no credible evidence that Churchill said, "It doesn't matter if Bengalis starved." This is not recorded in any reliable historical source. Second, the Bengal Famine occurred during a brutal world war, with Britain itself under threat of starvation and invasion. The diversion of supplies to Europe was a wartime decision based on strategic priorities, not an act of racial malice. These were decisions made under extreme circumstances, not as part of a policy to target Bengalis.
Your claim about Churchill saying, "Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet," while shocking, lacks proper context and historical corroboration. As for the quote about Indians being a "beastly people," it reflects the prejudices of his time but does not amount to evidence of genocide or a deliberate intent to harm. Finally, comparing Churchill to Hitler is historically baseless and offensive. Churchill led the fight against fascism, a regime that carried out systematic genocide, while Hitler orchestrated the Holocaust. Equating the two is not only factually incorrect but diminishes the horrors of Hitler’s actions. Criticize Churchill’s policies if you will, but accusations based on distortions and misattributed quotes do not make a convincing argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iasonu6368 Oh, how generous of China to "pay $4.5 billion annually in climate finance" while being the largest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet. That's like setting your neighbor’s house on fire and tossing them a bucket of water, then patting yourself on the back for being a climate hero. Bravo, truly inspiring! Except, most of that money is spent on domestic projects, not helping other nations as international climate finance requires. But hey, let’s not let technicalities ruin the narrative.
Now about that $100 billion from developed countries since the Paris Accord—fun fact, that’s not cumulative; it’s an annual goal that these countries are striving to meet. Yes, they’ve fallen short at times, but they’re still far ahead of China, which contributes next to nothing to the global fund because it’s technically still a "developing country." Funny how that works when you’re the world’s second-largest economy and a leader in building coal plants abroad. But sure, let’s act like China’s climate contributions are somehow comparable.
So, to recap: developed countries are on the hook for billions annually to help others go green, while China pours its billions into domestic projects and calls it "climate finance." It’s a bit like eating the whole pizza yourself and claiming you’ve contributed to world hunger solutions. But hey, who needs nuance when oversimplifications are this much fun?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MidiX2 Freedom is never free! And if I couldn't earn enough to pay for my life-style in the US... I would leave the US. As I I'm free to leave if I want. And btw, 9% of the US population isn't ANYWHERE near 30 million people! And I don't work for insurance... I work because that's what people do in a capitalistic nation like the US! If you want to be a free-loader and have the government, simply hand you a small monthly salary and live on a small means, then you don't want to live in the US! But saying I'm working for Insurance is kinda hyperbole. I work for the things I have in my life... homes, cars and insurance. If you want the best care... you need to pay for it. There's no doubt that the medical care I received and the treatment and experience I had FAR FAR exceeded those in socialist nations! And I myself prefer this system than socialized medicine! There isn't a perfect system out there even in the EU. And like the EU the US can do better... but I don't want a health care system like those in the EU. I don't want to be put on a list, told which doctors I must use, which hospital, no choices of procedures, etc, etc, etc... that is my choice!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marquink "Tuohy mom, I'm an adoptive parent, but never adopted Michael or any child. Whose lying?" - First off, can you provide the source of where Mrs. Tuohy said such a thing? I'm just curious to see that myself. And no, that is not a lie if she in fact said that... you can adopt someone to be a family member in your own family without filing legal paperwork. While it's true that the Tuohy family did not legally adopted Michael Oher, their assertion that they adopted him as a family member carries deep and meaningful significance. Legal technicalities aside, the essence of adoption extends beyond mere paperwork. The Tuohy family's commitment to Michael's well-being, their unwavering support, and the genuine love they shared define the essence of family. Adoption is about creating a sense of belonging, providing care, and nurturing a meaningful connection. In this context, the Tuohy family's stance exemplifies their genuine intent to include Michael as an integral part of their lives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Interesting comments... As an American with no Asian ancestry, I had to translate them all in English. I have mixed feelings about many of the comments because you're all like, yes, let's get America to help us to fight this injustice... and what is happening to the Philippines by China is an injustice, but you are asking Americans to put their lives on the line. Only a few years early you elected a president who didn't say many nice things about America and basically changed sides to China. I remember early on in Durante's presidency the Philippines was courting China for $$$$ in return for some kind of status quo. In comment sections of many Philippine forums I read people saying things like, 'lets see if the Americans can match what China is willing to give' ... as if friendship and respect was for sale. Don't get me wrong, as an American myself I support the defense treaty we have the Philippine's and I really like the people, culture and nation, but that treaty says we would come to the Philippines and fight by her side... NOT FIGHT FOR HER! I don't know how the US escorting the resupply mission will help. If China surrounds American ships to prevent them from getting near the grounded ship... the US will not shoot or ram Chinese vessels. We'll be right back where we started from. As American, I don't support that plan. I think, it's up to the Philippines to decide when it will escalate the situation to enforce its sovereignty by being more aggressive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DavidFoo-kh4ri yes... all of those items, rockets, high speed rail, electric cars and many others that China builds today have either been technology stolen and/or cloned by other nations. This is fact. China stole high-speed rail from Japan, vehicles from Germany and the US, rockets from the US, fighter jets from the US and Russia, etc, etc, etc with its forced technology transfers, hacking, and simply cloning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JESUS said: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." Matthew 7:15-20
What are the fruits of Islam? Jihad, terror, sharia law, ignorance, intellectual backwardness and obscurantism, destruction, dictatorship, polygamy, misogyny, war, jealousy, theft and pillaging, deceit, hatred of non-Muslims, injustice, censorship, vengeance, rapefugees...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jessicaro I never claimed to be Jewish or an Israeli citizen. You claim that religion was never the issue yet groups like Hamas say differently. Have you read Hamas charter? And I'm not sure why you mention "Polish" but let me assure you... prior to 1964, the Palestinians Arabs today didn't call themselves Palestinians... they call themselves Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese... you know, the countries they migrated from when they colonized/squatted the land that was once known as Israel. ""The Palestinian people do not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people." - Zuhair Mohsen, leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), in an interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw in 1977
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@binoemixtv9395 It was hidden in American schools? Again, you must be a child. Why are you ignoring my question? Is it because you don't wish to face the reality or maybe because you're actually Chinese?
But let me educate my little ignorant buddy... NO ONE KNOWS the actual amount of people killed in the war of 1899. According to some estimates, as many as 20,000 American soldiers and up to 200,000 Filipinos died during the war. Other estimates place the number of Filipino casualties at around 1.4 million, including both military personnel and civilians. These estimates vary widely and are difficult to confirm due to the lack of comprehensive records and the complexity of the conflict that took place HUNDREDS of years ago.
What is not in contention... more Philippine's died in WW2 before the US liberated them and gave them their independence. And no other nation has done more for the Philippines than the US! The United States played a role in helping the Philippines transition to independence and provided economic and military assistance to the country during this period and still does today. The U.S. also played a role in helping to modernize and develop the Philippines, and the two countries have maintained a close relationship since independence. No other nation has provided more aid, medicines, disaster relief, education and technology to the Philippines than the US... not even close what China provides except its lies! Can you tell me which people has China EVER in its history liberate and provide freedom and sovereignty too? I'll tell you... NONE!!!! Or did you not learn that in school, or don't they teach that yet in the 3rd grade?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SidemenForLife You claim that Israel has been "preemptively striking in a bid to escalate a regional war" ... that is actually nonsense. Unlike the Arab Muslims, Israel actually wants peace. There are what, over 30 Islamic nations but there is only ONE Jewish nation. They mean keep it and defend it. Funny how Arabs keep talking about how Israel took the homes of Arabs and they have a right to fight Israel... but they never mention how after the Arabs invaded Israel with their claims of "pushing the Jews into the Sea" (Genocide by the way) and lost... what did those Arab nations do? Between the late 1940s and the 1970s, it is estimated that around 850,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries such as Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and Libya. Most of these refugees settled in Israel, where they played a significant role in shaping the nation's early development. These were Jews who lost their homes their families have lived for centuries! Now, they're being told again by Arabs they need to leave. If I was in their shoes... yea, I would fight! And I wouldn't care what others think about it. I wouldn't be kicked out of my lands twice by the same arrogant, oppressive and bigoted people... would you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beproudasian8279
"In what way they are slaves?" - having to work in a locked factory, working 6 days a week, 12 hours a day earning peanuts is modern slavery!
China has homeless, drug addicts, Alcoholics, corrupt politicians, thieves, nonsense nationalism, lie flat culture, non-stop virus released followed by lies, endless counterfeiting and food poisoning... good lord, the list is too damn long. But imagine if the Western world stopped adopting all those unwanted homeless babies? Gee, China would have to take care of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1