Comments by "John Roberts" (@view1st) on "Cyrus Janssen" channel.

Liberation... or conquest? Did the Solomon islanders ask to be liberated? Did they ask the Japanese to occupy them, or the USA to provoke Japan into a war that would involve them? Did they ask to be be colonised and have their indigenous culture forever alerted by contact with Europeans and their offspring in the first place?
2
@CyrusJanssen And the military of the United States is THE biggest polluter.
1
Whatever the words used they all implicitly recognise the Peoples Republic of China de facto as having a legitimate vested interest in the island, an interest that no other country has, and one that supercedes the claims of any other.
1
@ShuCarolina Recognising the Peoples Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China while simultaneously de-recognising the Republic of China certainly strongly IMPLIES that the former has jurisdiction over the latter. Not actual control of the island I grant you, but certainly that it comes under the PRC's jurisdiction. Only by employing such mealy-mouthed weasel words could the Americans get the Chinese to normalise diplomatic relations. Do you really think that if the USA and others had explicitly continued to maintain that Taiwan be the sole legitimate government of continental China and not the PRC that they would have gotten the government in Beijing to agree to anything?
1
@ShuCarolina Look, for geopolitical reasons as well as due to the domestic politics in the country at that time the USA couldn't just explicitly state that the ROC/Taiwan was a part of the PRC. But... as I've already stated it was very strongly implied. Logical necessity compels you to draw that inference; it is axiomatic, a corollary. To wit: — | THE GOVERNMENT OF THE USA MEANT IT TO BE INTERPRETED THAT WAY BY THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA. | — And it t does not have to be explicitly stated because it can be inferred by anyone with a reasonable understanding of logic and basic English Language comprehension. The fact that the communiqué can be interpreted in other ways, or was meant (certainly by the Americans and Taiwanese) to be interpreted in other ways, does not mean that that is the way mainland Chinese interpret it. And were meant to interpret it. Though the wording was purposely ambiguous it must be taken in context. That context was meant to clearly imply to the PRC that... in return for the restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries the USA would recognise China's claims on Taiwan.
1
@ShuCarolina Basically, the United States wanted to have its cake and eat it. It wanted to reestablish diplomatic ties with the People's Republic whilst at the same time still wanting to maintain its hegemony over Taiwan (and by extension China) by continuing to recognise the government in Taipei. The only way it could do that to China's satisfaction was with a strategy of 'strategic ambiguity', appearing to tell China one thing and Taiwan the complete opposite, hence the double speak. So it does, in my opinion, strongly imply (to the Chinese) that Taiwan is a part of China, a part of China that is de facto independent but notwithstanding still falls squarely within the sphere of influence, if not outright control, of the PRC; that it's in effect disputed territory who's final status is yet to be decided. To the Taiwanese, of course, it implies that the United States recognises its de facto independence but not its de jure independence. Anyone who cannot see that to all practical purposes the United States recognises Taiwan as a territory belonging to the Peoples Republic of China is to me being wilfully blind.
1
@ShuCarolina Isn't that "vague attitude" the same as saying that the United States is being ambiguous, using language that can be, and is intended to be, interpreted by China as meaning that the USA might chose to defend the island of Taiwan by military or other means (such as by sanctions or embargo) but, then again, might not depending on circumstances... that it doesn't leave out the military option? If so then I would say that is a clear case of strategic ambiguity on the part of the USA: it is not being explicitly specific in its official position on what its intentions are regarding the Taiwan question. — And I am not meaning to imply that Chinese diplomats are either incompetent or naive, or that they or anyone else were fooled into just what it was they were agreeing to. Like you said, the wording allows China to say one thing and the USA and its allies to say another.
1
Even the CIA need funding and if the USA dollar becomes essentially worthless around the world then they will be hard pressed to do anything. In fact they will probably end up spending most of their money just spying on their own people and suppressing political movements in an attempt to stop the USA taking a left turn.
1
I think his meaning was for Ukraine to resolve the conflict by negotiating a peace treaty with Russia instead of continuing with a war it cannot win.
1
What's the name of your democratic representative? When was the last time you had personal contact with your democratic representative and told them what you wanted them to do on an issue that was effecting you directly? Did they do it? Was the choice a free one or a false choice given to you from a set of choices already agreed on by government? Do you know how your representative votes on given issues, that is, their voting record? How effective is your democracy in ending want and poverty?
1
Your take on things is too subjective and needs more nuance.
1
Unless your an ethnic Russian or Russian speaking Ukrainian or a communist.
1
It is because they are a part of the American empire, as well as being - if they are white and western European - 'of the West'. What this means in the case of the former is that, because the core of the United States economy is essentially built around the military and broadly related hi-tech industries that support it, the country needs constant war and conflict to keep it functioning. I think the term for this is ‘military Keynesianism’ and what we are seeing now is the limits of this approach combined with the unavoidable problems inherent to capitalism itself which are exacerbating things. In the case of the latter, it is the ‘West’ (by which I mean the most economically and technologically advanced countries of western Europe and North America that form the core of the global economy) that is merely continuing to do what it's always done - live as a neo-colonial rentier parasite off the exploitation of the rest of the planet and it's people. And we are increasingly seeing the limits to this approach as well.
1
I second that. 🆗️
1
Capitalism. Eternal expansion without limit, all externalities (problems) deferred indefinitely or dealt with ruthless force.
1
It's all for show really. What they do want, however, is for their competitors in Europe to decouple as much as possible and become reliant on the USA and its designated client states for trade. The strategy is a revival of the cold war isolation of China and Russia.
1
To be honest I think that they will eventually stop demonising China and Russia by pure and simple reason of the success of those countries. The need to adapt in a constantly changing world will force the countries of the West (which I have to say are by and large the English speaking ones as all the others seem to be quite happy working with them) into choosing cooperation over conflict because not adapting to the obvious superiority of the Chinese and Russian models of development will mean they will be left behind and end up having no relevance.
1
I know it's a trite phrase by now but it really is a case of China being 'the lesser of two evils'. Being a 'lesser evil' may have its flaws but, notwithstanding, China is offering a deal that in many cases is a lot better than that offered by the West. A lot better! Never-ending exploitation by the West, or short-term exploitation by China as a necessary and unavoidable step on the long road to self-sufficiency, economic development and political sovereignty over ones own country and its resources. China holds out the prospects of Africa and Asia, Latin America and eastern Europe gaining true independence from the West, decades after they were granted formal independence.
1