Eagle367 said:
Again, stop confusing western ideals with imperialist US. The US never gave anything to the middle east, Africa and South America where they invaded. Ni western ideals transferred due to the hegemony of the US nor were they protected. Whether it's chinese rule or US rule, the countries with democracy and freedoms will still have them. |
Just like what is happening in Hong Kong? Yeah, right.
EnricoPallazzo said:
God... I don't even know where to start with all that "imperialism" talk. Blah Blah Blah I dont either love or hate US. They are just the hegemonic power at the moment, and as just as any other during history, it will resort to all means to stay in power. Just like any other in the past. ANY. You want to hate america, alright , go for it if it makes you feel better somehow. If china becomes the dominant power it will do the same or worse. Probably worse. The same goes for Russia. But as I said, I much rather have someone dominating me that respects my sexuality, religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, democracy and etc than a power that will shut it all down and install a black mirror version of the world. At least USA can be criticized, people can go to the streets, presidents can be changed, you can worship the flying spaghetti god and participate on a trans midget furry orgy without being arrested. You think USA is bad? Just wait for China then. Anyway, I'm totally against a war but it seems inevitable. Is the west just accepts everything china is doing, they will be dominated and crushed economically and culturally, probably even losing territory and our life will be miserable. Or the west does not accept, gets their factories out of China which will then make China retaliate against an ally, thus creating a war. My hope is the west can be smart, get the factories out of there, tax them, and if they retaliate against taiwan or hong kong, let it be. If nobody gets involved it will be peaceful. And their economic downturn might generate a change in command. |
Stop confusing western ideals with the US. Again, as I said to the other guy, they won't stop existing whoever is the super power.
Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also
Nighthawk117 said:
Just like what is happening in Hong Kong? Yeah, right. |
Hong Kong is part of China. One nation 2 systems was the tagline. Tell me a nation that is only democratic because of the US being a super power?
Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also
JapaneseGamesLover said:
Yes, he has mishandled corona virus and now this issue with police brutality. He is not for this role, literally ANYONE would do better than him. |
I think you just want to make yourself believe that.
What would the people behind Hillary want,no one knows.
Eagle367 said:
Hong Kong is part of China. One nation 2 systems was the tagline. Tell me a nation that is only democratic because of the US being a super power? |
They promised the UK 50 years on the tagline. Ever heard of Germany and Japan after WW2?
Eagle367 said:
Again, stop confusing western ideals with imperialist US. The US never gave anything to the middle east, Africa and South America where they invaded. Ni western ideals transferred due to the hegemony of the US nor were they protected. Whether it's chinese rule or US rule, the countries with democracy and freedoms will still have them. They have them regardless of the super power. And China won't affect that. If super powers had any affect on that, then countries would be a lot more oligarchic than they are. I don't agree with the notion that a change in hegemony will affect that. |
OK Dude
Eagle367 said:
Again, stop confusing western ideals with imperialist US. The US never gave anything to the middle east, Africa and South America where they invaded. Ni western ideals transferred due to the hegemony of the US nor were they protected. Whether it's chinese rule or US rule, the countries with democracy and freedoms will still have them. They have them regardless of the super power. And China won't affect that. If super powers had any affect on that, then countries would be a lot more oligarchic than they are. I don't agree with the notion that a change in hegemony will affect that. |
The fuck are you saying? I'm talking about my country. US government took over my home country for a few decades and denied us total freedom to govern the country ourselves. It was arguable what kind of government we would have had if they didn't take over. Given the circumstance, it would have most likely been a militaristic authoritarian regime given the personal interest that the revolutionary fighters had.
Even under the rule of the Americans, our bright leaders at that time were able to play by the rules in most cases and rally to fight for that right. Relatively, it was less bloodshed compared to our past struggles. Eventually we were able to get it. If we were governed by authoritarian regimes, shit like this won't fly and there would have been another bloody revolution.
Skip to present day, whatever the clusterfuck that happened that landed my country in the gutter was entirely on us. The citizens that run OUR OWN nation. I would rather have a fucked up present than having an authoritarian regime that makes us believe that we are under a "perfect" governance. So yes, the US government did in fact greatly influence our country to adapt a democratic government which is aligned to the western ideals.
Now with regards to whatever the fuck happened with Iraq is a different set of circumstances. Whether the US government was right on taking down Saddam is a grey area. However, nobody can deny that Saddam is a dangerous person that was increasingly becoming a global threat. If anyone says otherwise, I do not fucking want to talk about it nor argue about this braindead revisionist story that you're propagating.
Last edited by iron_megalith - on 30 May 2020
Nighthawk117 said:
Eagle, quit playing both sides of the aisle for cryin' out loud. Pick a side. |
That is stupid. There is no reason to pick between two evils. And seeing a dichotomy between 'the good guys' and 'the bad guys' is mostly responsible for bad international policy stances. Each country does sometimes good things and sometimes bad things. There is a need to applaud the good things and call out the bad things. If two big countries like the US and China misbehave internationally I will not pick a side but criticize both.
iron_megalith said:
The fuck are you saying? I'm talking about my country. US government took over my home country for a few decades and denied us total freedom to govern the country ourselves. It was arguable what kind of government we would have had if they didn't take over. Given the circumstance, it would have most likely been a militaristic authoritarian regime given the personal interest that the revolutionary fighters had. Even under the rule of the Americans, our bright leaders at that time were able to play by the rules in most cases and rally to fight for that right. Relatively, it was less bloodshed compared to our past struggles. Eventually we were able to get it. If we were governed by authoritarian regimes, shit like this won't fly and there would have been another bloody revolution. Skip to present day, whatever the clusterfuck that happened that landed my country in the gutter was entirely on us. The citizens that run OUR OWN nation. I would rather have a fucked up present than having an authoritarian regime that makes us believe that we are under a "perfect" governance. So yes, the US government did in fact greatly influence our country to adapt a democratic government which is aligned to the western ideals. Now with regards to whatever the fuck happened with Iraq is a different set of circumstances. Whether the US government was right on taking down Saddam is a grey area. However, nobody can deny that Saddam is a dangerous person that was increasingly becoming a global threat. If anyone says otherwise, I do not fucking want to talk about it nor argue about this braindead revisionist story that you're propagating. |
Therein lies the problem. You all keep saying other are a global threat but fail to look at the highest global threat right in front of your eyes. The US is the biggest global threat right now and much more than China. It's laughable you think a small dictator was a bigger threat than the imperialist wet mongering Americans, Russians and the terrorism supporting Saudis. But I do agree with you. I'd rather we live in our own ways rather than what a super power deems perfect. That's why I won't choose China or the US.
The US has taken the choice away from many nations like Iraq. And a foreign nation killing a dictator always makes things worse because no stabilizing power exists and it's always a bad choice. That's why Iraq sucks and slave markets exist in Libya because the most destructive elements take over.
I refuse to confuse western ideals with the imperialist US either. The modern Western ideals are far and away from US ideals and ambitions. The US ambitions are dangerous just as CCP ones are.
Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also
Nighthawk117 said:
They promised the UK 50 years on the tagline. Ever heard of Germany and Japan after WW2? |
Sorry but that wasn't the US. That was a variety of factors including trade with other nations.
Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
