[Rancid]

OMG I am being called a racist by the anti Western Pakistani immigrant who calls Europeans "white boys"...

Everyone is a racist to some degree, even skinster.

[Patrickov]

Do you or your contemporaries think signing the bill will also prevent the first stage signing of a U.S. and China trade deal in December?

A Chinese spokesman said the the so-called concentration camps for the Muslims are not "camps", but education centers.
HalleluYah

I do not know how my contemporaries think, but I personally believe that the Bill itself has no effect on the Trade Deal in concern. If I interpret correctly, the United States is somewhat in a stronger position and is at least not in a hurry, and they will ultimately decide whether a deal is to be made or not regardless of the bill.

[Hindsite]

I do not know how my contemporaries think, but I personally believe that the Bill itself has no effect on the Trade Deal in concern. If I interpret correctly, the United States is somewhat in a stronger position and is at least not in a hurry, and they will ultimately decide whether a deal is to be made or not regardless of the bill.

I agree. I wish the Democrats and the fake news media here would say the same.

[Patrickov]

I agree. I wish the Democrats and the fake news media here would say the same.

They proposed the Bill, so it seems absurd to suggest that they would claim that Trump signing their bill would jeopardize a chance of Trade Deal.

Therefore, may I ask My Honourable Friend to clarify on this statement? For example, how did they distort the picture in his opinion?

[Hindsite]

They proposed the Bill, so it seems absurd to suggest that they would claim that Trump signing their bill would jeopardize a chance of Trade Deal.

Therefore, may I ask My Honourable Friend to clarify on this statement? For example, how did they distort the picture in his opinion?

A trade deal would be considered a win for the President. That is why Nancy Pelosi has not brought the United States, Mexico, and Canada trade agreement up in the House for a ratification vote. That is also the real reason they are against building a border security wall on our southern border, because it was a campaign promise of President Trump and they don't want to give him a win there in fear he will be reelected in 2020.

[Patrickov]

And the U.S. does much more than persecute/torture whistleblowers. It's the current Empire running around the world destroying or supporting the destruction of one country after another.

E.G.

An update after I have seen the link, which is, consistent with the Member's sharing policy, a Tweet.

May I reassert my point, which was "the United States seems not as keen on 'censoring news or opinions that are against them' as China is".

IMHO the very fact that the shared tweet in concern is still available, is a concrete proof of my point.

[benpenguin]

May I reassert my point, which was "the United States seems not as keen on 'censoring news or opinions that are against them' as China is".

I beg to differ - but the reason why the US and her allies can pursue freedom of speech is because they own all major channels of media of the world and is very adapt at playing that game. You can shout whatever anti-US opinion all day and they will speak a million times louder than you, and when MSM pushes the Washington consensus to become accepted truth, all the mockingbirds follow, and anything else just became minor distractions or conspiracy theories, every damn time. They are caught telling lies too much and they just don't even care - just as much as the Chinese if not more.
Chinese lies however, are caught and exposed every-time by the hostile media opponents - and even their truths get distorted. They have to shut it off to make sure that their own voice dominates, not their enemies', within the firewall.
I mean, seriously, the United States can invade and destroy a hundred nations, and people still see them morally superior to China who bullies a couple neighbors - that's how strong the indoctrination is. Alas... in the end, the truth doesn't matter, it only matters whose truth it is.

[Patrickov]

I beg to differ - but the reason why the US and her allies can pursue freedom of speech is because they own all major channels of media of the world and is very adapt at playing that game. You can shout whatever anti-US opinion all day and they will speak a million times louder than you, and when MSM pushes the Washington consensus to become accepted truth, all the mockingbirds follow, and anything else just became minor distractions or conspiracy theories, every damn time. They are caught telling lies too much and they just don't even care - just as much as the Chinese if not more.

Chinese lies however, are caught and exposed every-time by the hostile media opponents - and even their truths get distorted. They have to shut it off to make sure that their own voice dominates, not their enemies', within the firewall.

I mean, seriously, the United States can invade and destroy a hundred nations, and people still see them morally superior to China who bullies a couple neighbors - that's how strong the indoctrination is. Alas... in the end, the truth doesn't matter, it only matters whose truth it is.

I believe we both agree that both the United States and China make false statements to strengthen their argument or justify their atrocities from time to time, while I also admit whether the United States administrators are morally superior their Chinese counterparts can be disputable.

A more accurate description is that the more open social and political system of America (or the West in general) makes people trust the information released from channels affiliated to them more than information affiliated to, say, Russia, China or Middle East. And being free to release anti-establishment rants without repercussions is indeed very important.

Ultimately, the administrators' morality is related to the social-political system in effect, as well as the check and balance available. China's problem is that there's nothing to correct the administration's fault except the West, and it is rather hard to know when one has offended officials there. For the latter case, the repercussions are often disproportional.

Meanwhile, I cannot think of many in or from America suffering disproportional retribution, except the non-Whites at the hands of the American police (really, HK Police probably learned all those bad stuff from their American counterparts), Julian Assange, as well as Edward Snowden. And IMHO the latter two were persecuted for rather good reasons, although there must be better ways to handle the situations.

[Patrickov]

A trade deal would be considered a win for the President. That is why Nancy Pelosi has not brought the United States, Mexico, and Canada trade agreement up in the House for a ratification vote. That is also the real reason they are against building a border security wall on our southern border, because it was a campaign promise of President Trump and they don't want to give him a win there in fear he will be reelected in 2020.

I had much thinking after My Honourable Friend's comment.

I actually agree that Trump's enemies do not want a deal, at least not now or not something brokered by Trump. However, I also suspect that even Trump or some of his aides / allies are not that interested in striking a deal either. When I said the Bill was possibly not relevant, I was actually guessing that both Trump and his enemies had other plans in their minds.

[benpenguin]

A more accurate description is that the more open social and political system of America (or the West in general) makes people trust the information released from channels affiliated to them more than information affiliated to, say, Russia, China or Middle East. And being free to release anti-establishment rants without repercussions is indeed very important.

Allowing release of anti-establishment rants is a result of media dominance, not of system superiority and benevolence. In countries where the US has less control and low media/internet connectivity, they don't even bother with propaganda and just send drones... do you think the victims all deserve it?

Ultimately, the administrators' morality is related to the social-political system in effect, as well as the check and balance available. China's problem is that there's nothing to correct the administration's fault except the West, and it is rather hard to know when one has offended officials there. For the latter case, the repercussions are often disproportional.
Meanwhile, I cannot think of many in or from America suffering disproportional retribution, except the non-Whites at the hands of the American police (really, HK Police probably learned all those bad stuff from their American counterparts), Julian Assange, as well as Edward Snowden. And IMHO the latter two were persecuted for rather good reasons, although there must be better ways to handle the situations.

Again, I beg to differ - being repressive is a result of weakness. i.e. not being able to control things without strong-handed policies, rather than a systemic deficiency. When things do go out of hand though, law enforcement of the "free world" can be just as brutal - ask the occupy wall street lefties, black lives matter, the black panthers, the yellow vest, so on and so forth.
As for "disproportional", ask the Pakistani folks who got their family droned in their wedding, and the blacks who got shot by trigger-happy police? They haven't even done anything.

I voted for the pan-dems because I too think China's henchmen in Hong Kong needs to be punished for being criminally incompetent. But to compare Xinjiang re-education camps + Hong Kong police brutality with say, annihilating Libya and Iraq - destroying the lives of millions? You must be kidding.

Empires are all evil bastards - the world's no.1 power is strong enough to commit the most heinous crimes, while getting away with it every time - you just allowed the stronger guy's media to tell you who to hate.

[Patrickov]

Allowing release of anti-establishment rants is a result of media dominance, not of system superiority and benevolence. In countries where the US has less control and low media/internet connectivity, they don't even bother with propaganda and just send drones... do you think the victims all deserve it?

In some sense yes. In most of those countries their own people cannot manage their own asses well, so they are bound to wars anyways. The same goes for China (and Russia), it's just that they are too big to defeat outright.

Again, I beg to differ - being repressive is a result of weakness. i.e. not being able to control things without strong-handed policies, rather than a systemic deficiency. When things do go out of hand though, law enforcement of the "free world" can be just as brutal - ask the occupy wall street lefties, black lives matter, the black panthers, the yellow vest, so on and so forth.

Democratic regimes can be held accountable through elections or other means. For example, it is obvious that Macron cannot hold power forever.

Russia and China, on the other hand, do not even have such chances -- we are luckier than other Chinese people in this sense, and that's why we see our remaining rights so important.

As for "disproportional", ask the Pakistani folks who got their family droned in their wedding, and the blacks who got shot by trigger-happy police? They haven't even done anything.

I actually included the African Americans in my previous post, along with Assange and Snowden. In fact, I outright declared that the African Americans are also as disproportionately abused as all those Chinese oppressed by their Government, no less. I beg My Honourable Friend to re-read the post.

... to compare Xinjiang re-education camps + Hong Kong police brutality with say, annihilating Libya and Iraq - destroying the lives of millions? You must be kidding.

Both George Bush and Tony Blair had become pariahs for their actions (although the most guilty person out there was probably Dick Cheney), however I also urge My Honourable Friend to see that many Iraqis also suffer oppression. In fact since the revolution in 1958 they hadn't really been in a very stable state. And Saddam no doubt asked for trouble when he decided to invade Kuwait -- originally he's a very loyal puppet to the United States.

Seriously, I do not think Muammar Gaddafi didn't try -- he even tried to make amends with the West during his later years. But when his country's people are fed up of it, he got killed almost instantly. I do not think the West actually expected or wanted that.

My observation is, Arab / Islamic world are so complicated, and with those in power so corrupt themselves, they are bound to oppression, despair and war anyways. Even Xinjiang is somewhat like that (which means I am not as concerned of the Communist concentration camp as other anti-China people are). Hong Kong is a totally different case.

Empires are all assholes... you just allowed the stronger guy's media to tell you who to hate.

China is the closest great power to us. It is only normal for us to expect it to act more reasonably, and if it refuses or cannot do it, we naturally turn to someone stronger. This is not essentially hate -- this latter feeling can lead to ugly repercussions. I will probably be satisfied if the International Criminal Court is allowed to do the right thing.

[benpenguin]

Gaddafi has support of a majority of Libyans (In Tripoli at least), and has almost won the civil war marching into Bangazi until NATO declared "no fly zone" on his ass, and bombed his army back to stone age. They did so in support of the Jihadists, who did not just "protest", but also threw grenades at police stations. They now make up sob stories of how Ghadafi is a brutal dictator to justify the massacre. Their “democratic” Islamists pets stabbed a bayonet through Gaddafi anus in front of camera, and massacred Sirte and Libyan blacks - such nice people... Well, FYI Libya was Africa's richest economy until that little adventure, and many Libyans are still memorizing Gaddafi and fight for green Libya long after his death. In short, The Libyans managed themselves very well, thank you very much - they had a bit of an Islamist infestation problem, your NATO heroes went in and it is now Islamist hellhole - whom they recruited and sent to Syria. Yes, the West want it - ask Hillary and maybe read her email leaks.
Saddam invaded Kuwait because NATO collaborated with the Kuwait royal family to lower oil price, in order to financially ruin Saddam after his war with Iran - I am not as well read on this but it is obviously a lot more complicated than “they deserve it”.
I see that you are quite well read on mainstream history, but it seems you only saw one side of the story - I found the other side in other sources because I was kind of invested in that time, but as I say, you won't see these stories unless you are willing to spend that effort.
The Western narrative almost always paint all countries outside their sphere as "corrupt and backward", that they "always deserve it" unless told otherwise - and most of the time, people simply bought the package. I think you are too smart to fall for that crap.

Oh yes, a couple years later they will give Bush, Cheney or Hillary a slap on the wrist, or maybe make a couple movies of how they feel bad - and fuckall nothing will happen to anybody, nor the US military industrial complex behind them - Lol. Did the international court intervene then?

How different is Hong Kong? - Well, it's a great power battleground with lots of cameras. The West can't use drones, and China can't just march in guns blazing - but it's the cruel great game nonetheless. You can bash China or ally with the devil all you want, but don't even compare it with the crimes of the liberal imperialists. I am sorry but I find it quite offensive to all the victims.

[Patrickov]

Gaddafi has support of a majority of Libyans (In Tripoli at least), and has almost won the civil war marching into Bangazi until NATO declared "no fly zone" on his ass, and bombed his army back to stone age. They did so in support of the Jihadists, who did not just "protest", but also threw grenades at police stations. They now make up sob stories of how Ghadafi is a brutal dictator to justify the massacre. Their “democratic” Islamists pets stabbed a bayonet through Gaddafi anus in front of camera, and massacred Sirte and Libyan blacks - such nice people... Well, FYI Libya was Africa's richest economy until that little adventure, and many Libyans are still memorizing Gaddafi and fight for green Libya long after his death. In short, The Libyans managed themselves very well, thank you very much - they had a bit of an Islamist infestation problem, your NATO heroes went in and it is now Islamist hellhole - whom they recruited and sent to Syria. Yes, the West want it - ask Hillary and maybe read her email leaks.
Saddam invaded Kuwait because NATO collaborated with the Kuwait royal family to lower oil price, in order to financially ruin Saddam after his war with Iran - I am not as well read on this but it is obviously a lot more complicated than “they deserve it”.
I see that you are quite well read on mainstream history, but it seems you only saw one side of the story - I found the other side in other sources because I was kind of invested in that time, but as I say, you won't see these stories unless you are willing to spend that effort.
The Western narrative almost always paint all countries outside their sphere as "corrupt and backward", that they "always deserve it" unless told otherwise - and most of the time, people simply bought the package. I think you are too smart to fall for that crap.

Oh yes, a couple years later they will give Bush, Cheney or Hillary a slap on the wrist, or maybe make a couple movies of how they feel bad - and fuckall nothing will happen to anybody, nor the US military industrial complex behind them - Lol. Did the international court intervene then?

How different is Hong Kong? - Well, it's a great power battleground with lots of cameras. The West can't use drones, and China can't just march in guns blazing - but it's the cruel great game nonetheless. You can bash China or ally with the devil all you want, but don't even compare it with the crimes of the liberal imperialists. I am sorry but I find it quite offensive to all the victims.

If My Honourable Friend has made the time to study on alternative narratives then surely I am not well informed enough to give a response.

Just one thing: by saying "complicated and corrupt", I do include all the pro-Western rebels out there. If they are so good, things like 1979 Iranian revolution would not have occurred.

This is also why I do not see Obama as good a leader as the mainstream wants us to believe.

[benpenguin]

Well, your opinion did not matter to Obama, and nothing will happen to him ain’t it? The perpetrators all get their golden parachutes, land a job at some board in listed companies, and retire making fat pay checks. They might even make speeches about human rights if they feel like it! Their successors will fight over the election, then do it all over again ruining the next countries, while people thank them for it
And why is the president being accountable in elections so significant anyway? At least a couple thousand perpetrators deserve the electric chair, how does swapping a talking head make any difference? US is in perpetual wars destroying country after country - remind me again which president stopped the war machine?
Remember that each time they decide that a country threatens them needs to have democracy, an entire country will meet a fate wayyyyy worse than Hong Kong “being controlled” by China. I am all for fighting for a better future, but be careful who you look to!

[Hindsite]

I had much thinking after My Honourable Friend's comment.

I actually agree that Trump's enemies do not want a deal, at least not now or not something brokered by Trump. However, I also suspect that even Trump or some of his aides / allies are not that interested in striking a deal either. When I said the Bill was possibly not relevant, I was actually guessing that both Trump and his enemies had other plans in their minds.

It seems to be a complicated affair. If President Trump could get the Democrats to go ahead and vote on ratification of the United States, Mexico, and Canada trade agreement, I believe he would not be as pressured to agree with some type of trade deal with China. He has stated that he wants a trade deal that is better for American than for China this time. But many of our people that do business with China do not like the uncertainty that this trade war with China brings. However, President Trump seems to see it as necessary and beneficial, even if there is no deal with China. But not getting these trade deals finalized before the 2020 election may hurt him with some voters, who would normally vote for him.

[JohnRawls]

Gaddafi has support of a majority of Libyans (In Tripoli at least), and has almost won the civil war marching into Bangazi until NATO declared "no fly zone" on his ass, and bombed his army back to stone age. They did so in support of the Jihadists, who did not just "protest", but also threw grenades at police stations. They now make up sob stories of how Ghadafi is a brutal dictator to justify the massacre. Their “democratic” Islamists pets stabbed a bayonet through Gaddafi anus in front of camera, and massacred Sirte and Libyan blacks - such nice people... Well, FYI Libya was Africa's richest economy until that little adventure, and many Libyans are still memorizing Gaddafi and fight for green Libya long after his death. In short, The Libyans managed themselves very well, thank you very much - they had a bit of an Islamist infestation problem, your NATO heroes went in and it is now Islamist hellhole - whom they recruited and sent to Syria. Yes, the West want it - ask Hillary and maybe read her email leaks.
Saddam invaded Kuwait because NATO collaborated with the Kuwait royal family to lower oil price, in order to financially ruin Saddam after his war with Iran - I am not as well read on this but it is obviously a lot more complicated than “they deserve it”.
I see that you are quite well read on mainstream history, but it seems you only saw one side of the story - I found the other side in other sources because I was kind of invested in that time, but as I say, you won't see these stories unless you are willing to spend that effort.
The Western narrative almost always paint all countries outside their sphere as "corrupt and backward", that they "always deserve it" unless told otherwise - and most of the time, people simply bought the package. I think you are too smart to fall for that crap.

Oh yes, a couple years later they will give Bush, Cheney or Hillary a slap on the wrist, or maybe make a couple movies of how they feel bad - and fuckall nothing will happen to anybody, nor the US military industrial complex behind them - Lol. Did the international court intervene then?

How different is Hong Kong? - Well, it's a great power battleground with lots of cameras. The West can't use drones, and China can't just march in guns blazing - but it's the cruel great game nonetheless. You can bash China or ally with the devil all you want, but don't even compare it with the crimes of the liberal imperialists. I am sorry but I find it quite offensive to all the victims.

Libya is a very complicated subject and not really applicable to Hong Kong. It can be described as an example of Western Imperealism actually. Or to be more specific how 1 Western interest can force others in to action and assist with its Imperealism.

What basically happened in Lybia is that France wanted to get rid of Gadaffi. He was a pest to them due to his certain policies that were hurting their financial interests. Gadaffi also want to actively kick out the French out of the whole region. So when France saw an opportunity, they basically took it.

Once it was decided then the French clued everyone else in. Gadaffi built up enough bad will by now so no other part of the West was necessarily against this. The Germans helped to convince the Russians not to veto. The Americans sent some of their ships to help the French/Italians. And ultimately, in the end, Gadaffis army was bombed while Gadaffi was killed by French special forces masquarading as locals. ( There is actual official documents proving this)

So who do you blame here? The French obviously deserve 80% of the blame for starting and moving this along. Should we blame the Germans for going along with it? (They are EU members so a refusal would have been negative). Should we blame the US for providing assistance through NATO? (What is the point of Nato if they don't help. They have ships in every region for situations like this.) Should we blame the Russians for not vetoing the resolution in the UNSC? (I mean they trusted the Germans and got guarantees from them). Its hard to answer all of these questions. In the grander scheme of things, France just wanted to get rid of Gadaffi and they did it.

Hong Kong on the other hand is more straight forward, there is no benefit for EU or US in Hong Kong having protests. It is actually detrimental to us due to the Financial markets and how investment flows through HK. There is not much economic interest that we have there. I guess the only "interest" that the US might have there is to hurt China. Usually we don't operate under that pretense though. European or US imperealism is related to clear cut economic reasons. If there is something to be gained economically from the conflict then an imperealistic scenario might be possible. But people shouldn't mistake this with if there is some kind of economic interest then it is always going to be an imperealistic adventure for the West.

I would say there is a sub section of idealistic imperealism like spreading democracy but that line died out with Bushes Iraq/Afghanistan adventures and Vietnam before that .

[Patrickov]

I would say there is a sub section of idealistic imperealism like spreading democracy but that line died out with Bushes Iraq/Afghanistan adventures and Vietnam before that .

I must say I still hold this ideology. The flaw here is the use of puppet governments. A more direct colonial government (at least nominally so, with locals doing the daily administration, and the colonial power stepping in for matters cannot be settled easily) would strike a better balance between self-determination and prevention of power abuse.

[skinster]

[foxdemon]

Well, your opinion did not matter to Obama, and nothing will happen to him ain’t it? The perpetrators all get their golden parachutes, land a job at some board in listed companies, and retire making fat pay checks. They might even make speeches about human rights if they feel like it! Their successors will fight over the election, then do it all over again ruining the next countries, while people thank them for it
And why is the president being accountable in elections so significant anyway? At least a couple thousand perpetrators deserve the electric chair, how does swapping a talking head make any difference? US is in perpetual wars destroying country after country - remind me again which president stopped the war machine?
Remember that each time they decide that a country threatens them needs to have democracy, an entire country will meet a fate wayyyyy worse than Hong Kong “being controlled” by China. I am all for fighting for a better future, but be careful who you look to!

I don’t think you understand American power. Is it just propaganda dominance that retains wide support for America even after a series of neocon inspired military debacles?


Here is an odd fact: support for American imperialism is stronger outside the US than in it. Trump and his base, up and coming Democrats like Gabbard, show there is a lot of opposition to the American empire. A significant proportion of the US population does not want it. Correct me if I am wrong, @Hindsite @Rancid .

Outside the US, there is strong support for NATO among Europeans. The idea of independent EU strategy and military organisations faces a lot of skepticism. There is strong support for US involvement through East Asia, from Taiwan, S Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, SG, etc.

Even in the Middle East many people want the Americans to stay involved.

If the Americans are that bad, why is there so much support for America around the world?

I think a big reason is that the Americans are seen as a better alternative than whoever is the regional hegemonic power. The Americans tend to be fairer. We see this in the global maritime security environment they have sustained since the end of WWII. In contrast to the European and Japanese empires they replaced, the Americans fostered a free trade world economic order that avoided the resource distribution restrictions that caused the imperial wars prior to that. Taking Japan as an example, they didn’t need a big navy and all the attendant costs since they could get access to required resources through an open trade system. The US navy and government foreign policy created a system nations could trust enough to focus on economic development instead of military rivalry.

We again see this American fairness in US companies overseas in employment of locals. I use Indonesians as an example, since I have spent a lot of time there. Basically, everyone’s number one goal is getting a job with a US company. The bosses are laid back and maintain a desirable workplace with good pay and conditions. If one can’t land a job with an American company, then one hopes to get a job with a European or Japanese company. The bosses aren’t quite as cool as American bosses, nor is the work environment quite as comfortable, but those companies aren’t too bad. The Dutch are an exception, since they are stingy and harsh. Korean companies are not desired either because Korean bosses have a reputation of being loud and rude. At the bottom of the list are Chinese companies. One only works for a Chinese company if one can not get a job anywhere else. Chinese bosses are like the Dutch but worse. Stingy, bullying, very poor conditions for workers.

So we can see why America enjoys wide appeal while China struggles, dispute US neocons getting America involved is senseless military adventurism. America, much like the ancient Romans, offers an order that many people can get involved in and benefit from. So people accept American hegemony. China will find it very difficult to displace America because they can’t create the same culture of fairness. Instead China is regarded as just another regional hegemony who is basically only out for themselves.

[Rancid]

A significant proportion of the US population does not want it. Correct me if I am wrong, @Hindsite @Rancid .

I wouldn't know the numbers, but yes, there are lots of people in the US that do not want the US act like the world police (i.e. an empire). You can find protests around this point just about in any city in the US. As horrible as the US is, it most certainly allows it's people more freedom when compared to China, like the right to protest/assemble/free speech, etc.

You see people on city street corners with Anti-Trump posters. Would a Chinese person be able to do the same with an anti-Xi Jing Ping poster?

FYI, I'm one of those people that does not want the US to be a global bully.