They abhor liberal democracies and seek to extend their domineering control over as many people as they can.
The CCP is an absolutely tyrannical organization that denies their own citizens the rights that you and I take for granted. Why would they ever desire their neighbours to have what they deny their own people?
Look no further than Hong Kong and North Korea to see what China wants for their neighbours.
South Korea only exists as it does today because Western forces repelled Chinese supported North Koreans from conquering it.
Japan only exists today because of American rebuilding after the destruction of Imperial Japan during World War 2.
Taiwan only exists as it is today because of American support.
China would have subjugated these entities and destroyed any chance of prosperity and independence that they had if not for the efforts of people who believe in individual autonomy and liberal democratic values.
China only has the power that they do to day because of authoritarians in the west who tricked the world into thinking that globalism means that we should engage in trade with undemocratic societies.
It's so funny to read stuff like this and compare it to the united states which during my lifetime has invaded so many different countries and killed countless people across the world. Not saying China is great, but come on man if you had to pick one country that is invasion happy it's not china...
I'm not saying they're not trying to expand their sphere of influence. I just think they're not quite as gung-ho about it as western powers. They work slower and less aggressively, invasions are a last resort.
As severe as... say starting the largest war in Europe since WW2 right at our doorstep? Or as damaging our critical infrastructure? Or manipulating our democratic processes?
It's time the West pulls its head out of its ass. We're already at war, whether we want it or not.
I don't think I have a cause. I'd like to not be constantly attacked by foreign adversaries, is that a cause? But if attacks happen, we can't just ignore them because hitting back might make the abuser more mad.
Am I missing something, or do you post peacenik appeasement demands under every HN submission? It's such a radically stupid position that I'm legitimately starting to think you're a Russian propagandist. Why would any rational country appease a madman? Because people like you write internet comments about pissing your pants?
If we reach the "to [sic] late YOLO" stage it won't matter what options we picked. That's why appeasement is a fundamentally pointless idea that the US has refused for decades. If you even once play the "give a mouse a cookie" game you will end up surrendering everything to a power that can threaten you with nuclear terrorism. Only a moron would appease Russia in this scenario.
I could be anyone except you. I don't see the relevance in speculating about that.
The US have no qualms appeasing Netanyahu. Biden and his party was even fine arguably losing the election over it. I don't see any contradiction there.
Russia and the US from time to time more or less arbitrarily bombs or invades some other country.
I guess Russia's Holywood need to make better movies depicting their own soldiers as victims of their own wars. Still glorying though. There is work to be done there for sure. The two I've seen depicted soldiers as pathetic losers.
I mean, trying to economically, socially and culturally isolate the US would probably make it wreck even more mayhem over the world than trying to have cultural exchange, be nice, and what not. And when this fails not throwing yourself on a spike might be preferable.
The US didn't give Israel Mandatory Palestine - Britain did. America selling arms to Israel is a moot point, and if we want to compare like-to-like then Russia is guilty of the exact same thing with India. But neither situation is an appeasement in the first place, so it's a plainly facetious argument.
> Russia and the US from time to time more or less arbitrarily bombs or invades some other country.
America hasn't arbitrarily invaded any country since the Philippines. Comparing bombings to occupation of a sovereign nation is a faux-pas that reveals you aren't arguing in good faith. They are drastically different things and anyone with a serious perspective of military escalation understands this. I pity you for not recognizing that these are incomparable situations and suggest that you reflect on whether or not this kind of judgement is worth sharing online. Every comment I've read from you repeats the same fearful tone without suggesting a serious response besides giving Russia what they want. You are either falling for propaganda or a blatant mouthpiece yourself.
> trying to economically, socially and culturally isolate the US would probably make it wreck even more mayhem over the world than trying to have cultural exchange, be nice, and what not
A perspective you could only possibly possess if you were economically, socially and culturally isolated from the rest of the world. Or is India and Iran enough to keep Putin company? Some world "superpower" Russia is.
The US didn't give Israel Mandatory Palestine - Britain did.
Well, Britain didn't quite "give" all of Mandatory Palestine, or any of it technically, to the Zionists.
What it did do was first, proactively set a firm date -- at midnight on April 14/15 1948 -- for the Mandate to expire (which it needed to expire soon anyway as the UN was poised to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the League of Nations). And agree to a pull-out of its forces around the vicinity of the date. Which, while not amounting to a transfer of sovereignty as such to the Zionists, amounted to telling them "have at it", basically.
It had also provided the Zionists with a "moral" mandate that there be some kind of "Jewish home" in Palestine, though that came earlier through various steps (including of course the Balfour declaration). By that time though, the Zionists strill controlled only something like 13 percent of the territory as such.
Because honestly, on a societal level, why should we give a damn about the not-so-poor? Why optimize for the extreme that's already comfortable? Why not concentrate on the average case and on making the other extreme less awful? Who gives a shit if the rich can't buy a third sports car?
> "You're living life wrong" pretty much sums up all "advice" I get from Austrians when I point out any problem with Austria.
Have you considered that they might just have a point?
Or in a slightly more friendly way - Vienna has the highest standard of living, but your personal preferences do not mash with it and if the Viennese lived like you would like to, it would no longer be as livable?
Being attractive to entrepreneurs has little to nothing to do with quality of living though. It's about stuff like public transport, cleanliness, access to art and culture, safety, housing etc etc.
I lived in Vienna for 20 years - I've lived in many top tier cities around the world since. Every time I go back to Vienna I feel like "this is what a city should be".
If you are wealthy enough to leave Vienna, you're not seeing the real Vienna when you're here.
(Disclaimer: I've also lived in many top tier cities around the world. Vienna is still a lot better than most of them, but don't kid yourself that its because they worked anything out beyond taxing the living daylights out of anyone who tries to build things..)
What is the "real" Vienna, in your opinion? My entire family lives there and i have dozens of friends there. Are they not real people? They live cheaply in subsidized housing and generally live very comfortable lives.
Sure they're real, and sure they live comfortable lives. But this doesn't mean that Vienna isn't a welfare state which buys the happiness of its citizens through heavy, heavy taxation.
It's tuition-free and the state provides room and board. Part of the admission criteria is that you have to be from an underprivileged community and you take an oath to go back to serve that community.
They have accepted folks from poor parts of the US, as well.
Yes, we are. 1-2 pound(s)+ (dried flower) is very easily achievable outdoors from a single plant with most strains. 4 or 5 pounds+ dried product from a single plant is not unheard of. Cannabis can get extremely large.
(this is actually inconsequential to the point of the article I just wanted to point it out).
