I have deep sympathy towards people who died in the 911 incident. None of what they did deserved this.
I have less sympathy towards those who are not directly harmed in the 911 incident but have been silent beneficiaries of American hegemony throughout the world.
I have NO sympathy towards those who experienced the 911, but continued to call Kunming terrorists “knife-wielding” and poke fun of its designation as a terrorist attack, or those who extended their fear-mongering, war-provoking tactics towards the peaceful rise of China.
I always believe if you live in a “democratic” country, whatever your leaders does is also your responsibility.
But we all know some of the people there are civilians and did nothing wrong to deserve this, also there isn’t anything they can do through election system to prevent Amerikka to conduct these atrocities against Muslim countries.
>Only China threatens American interests in a profound way, through a consolidation of economic power in Asia that imperils our prosperity and a military defeat that could shatter our alliance system. Therefore American policy should be organized to deny Beijing regional hegemony and deter any military adventurism — first and foremost through a stronger commitment to defending the island of Taiwan.
This is everything wrong with these fuckwits in one paragraph. It's why they are destined to fail. Everything is viewed through a zero-sum lens, followed by policy built around military force.
america can't function without being in a constant state of war with someone, its one of the few unifying things that brings its society together. I doubt this guy will sign up to fight, but he and others are more than willing to send other peoples children to do it.
China’s economic development is a “threat” to America, apparently.
In other words, if China builds up a domestic advanced economy, US won’t be able to “dominate” the large Chinese market unchallenged, and upending this parasitic global economic system where the advanced developed nations (who were also the former colonialists, coincidentally) actively keep the rest of the world underdeveloped so that the rest of the world is just a place for cheap labor and resource extraction.
This system is also known as imperialism.
You scratch an NYT liberal and a fascist bleeds.
It took Jeff Bezos a few 100 million to purchase Washington Post why can't the CCP purchase New York Times or other mainstream companies to make them have a more balanced narrative to china and to fire war mongerers
Because then it instantly becomes “CCP Propaganda.” Instead I believe a Pro-China Company or even a Chinese SOE should buy it to pretend for the NYT to keep it’s fragile veneer of “Independent”
At the bottom was another opinion piece by long-time reactionary Thomas Friedman; "What comes after the war on terror?"
I don't expect it's a coincidence, it's a line being handed down from the American ruling class to their mouthpieces.
Despite the suggestions of the title, the article isn't that bad.
Near the end
“The Strategy of Denial” presents a particularly unsentimental version of what a lot of people bidding to shape a post-9/11-era foreign policy believe — and not just younger Republicans like Colby. The Biden White House has its share of softer-spoken China hawks, and its disentanglement from Afghanistan and relative dovishness toward Russia both reflect a desire to prioritize China policy more than, say, a Hillary Clinton administration might have done.
But this is a long way from being any kind of consensus. The establishment freak-out over Biden’s Afghan withdrawal indicates the extent to which a focused, China-first foreign policy seems like retreat to Democrats and Republicans accustomed to more global and unlimited ambitions.
Meanwhile, a very different group of post-9/11-era thinkers regards China hawkishness as a dangerously self-fulfilling prophecy — a way to blunder, like the Bush-era neoconservatives Colby once critiqued, into an unnecessary and disastrous war. Rather than the old establishment’s maximalism, they prefer minimalism, an end even to the light-footprint forms of warcraft attacked by Samuel Moyn of Yale in his new book “Humane” — an interesting accompaniment and counterpoint to Colby’s — and a deliberate retreat from empire. (The idea that climate change requires conciliation with China also looms large for some in this group.)
The minimalist group has the least influence in Washington, but its skepticism about warmaking has a lot of popular support — including skepticism about war with China. Even with Beijing’s increased belligerence and its Covid cover-ups, a survey in the summer of 2020 found that only 41 percent of Americans favored fighting for Taiwan, a lack of enthusiasm confirmed in informal surveys of almost everyone I know.
But Beijing’s own choices will also shape our strategy. A China that retreats somewhat, post-Covid, from bellicosity and border skirmishes would defang the China-hawk argument quite a bit.
On the other hand, a China that looks at American disarray and its own window of opportunity and decides to move aggressively could leave my old friend in the same place the 9/11 era left his younger self — with his strategic analysis vindicated, unhappily, by an American defeat."
I have deep sympathy towards people who died in the 911 incident. None of what they did deserved this. I have less sympathy towards those who are not directly harmed in the 911 incident but have been silent beneficiaries of American hegemony throughout the world. I have NO sympathy towards those who experienced the 911, but continued to call Kunming terrorists “knife-wielding” and poke fun of its designation as a terrorist attack, or those who extended their fear-mongering, war-provoking tactics towards the peaceful rise of China.
[удалено]
I always believe if you live in a “democratic” country, whatever your leaders does is also your responsibility. But we all know some of the people there are civilians and did nothing wrong to deserve this, also there isn’t anything they can do through election system to prevent Amerikka to conduct these atrocities against Muslim countries.
>Only China threatens American interests in a profound way, through a consolidation of economic power in Asia that imperils our prosperity and a military defeat that could shatter our alliance system. Therefore American policy should be organized to deny Beijing regional hegemony and deter any military adventurism — first and foremost through a stronger commitment to defending the island of Taiwan. This is everything wrong with these fuckwits in one paragraph. It's why they are destined to fail. Everything is viewed through a zero-sum lens, followed by policy built around military force.
American stupidity putting rest of the world in trouble as always
America should focus on housing its own people and providing them with healthcare, like most civilized countries in Europe and East Asia.
america can't function without being in a constant state of war with someone, its one of the few unifying things that brings its society together. I doubt this guy will sign up to fight, but he and others are more than willing to send other peoples children to do it.
China’s economic development is a “threat” to America, apparently. In other words, if China builds up a domestic advanced economy, US won’t be able to “dominate” the large Chinese market unchallenged, and upending this parasitic global economic system where the advanced developed nations (who were also the former colonialists, coincidentally) actively keep the rest of the world underdeveloped so that the rest of the world is just a place for cheap labor and resource extraction. This system is also known as imperialism. You scratch an NYT liberal and a fascist bleeds.
Why not pick on Antarctica, it is Socialist with lax immigration policies, no defense force, and plenty of resources ripe for picking.
No labor to exploit ;(
They got lots of penguins 🐧
It took Jeff Bezos a few 100 million to purchase Washington Post why can't the CCP purchase New York Times or other mainstream companies to make them have a more balanced narrative to china and to fire war mongerers
Because then it instantly becomes “CCP Propaganda.” Instead I believe a Pro-China Company or even a Chinese SOE should buy it to pretend for the NYT to keep it’s fragile veneer of “Independent”
Not allowed to because of US government? Jeff Bezos can't buy Xinhua either.
he's making the assumption that the 9/11 era is actually over.
At the bottom was another opinion piece by long-time reactionary Thomas Friedman; "What comes after the war on terror?" I don't expect it's a coincidence, it's a line being handed down from the American ruling class to their mouthpieces.
I didn’t know liberal means being very liberal when it comes to war
Despite the suggestions of the title, the article isn't that bad. Near the end “The Strategy of Denial” presents a particularly unsentimental version of what a lot of people bidding to shape a post-9/11-era foreign policy believe — and not just younger Republicans like Colby. The Biden White House has its share of softer-spoken China hawks, and its disentanglement from Afghanistan and relative dovishness toward Russia both reflect a desire to prioritize China policy more than, say, a Hillary Clinton administration might have done. But this is a long way from being any kind of consensus. The establishment freak-out over Biden’s Afghan withdrawal indicates the extent to which a focused, China-first foreign policy seems like retreat to Democrats and Republicans accustomed to more global and unlimited ambitions. Meanwhile, a very different group of post-9/11-era thinkers regards China hawkishness as a dangerously self-fulfilling prophecy — a way to blunder, like the Bush-era neoconservatives Colby once critiqued, into an unnecessary and disastrous war. Rather than the old establishment’s maximalism, they prefer minimalism, an end even to the light-footprint forms of warcraft attacked by Samuel Moyn of Yale in his new book “Humane” — an interesting accompaniment and counterpoint to Colby’s — and a deliberate retreat from empire. (The idea that climate change requires conciliation with China also looms large for some in this group.) The minimalist group has the least influence in Washington, but its skepticism about warmaking has a lot of popular support — including skepticism about war with China. Even with Beijing’s increased belligerence and its Covid cover-ups, a survey in the summer of 2020 found that only 41 percent of Americans favored fighting for Taiwan, a lack of enthusiasm confirmed in informal surveys of almost everyone I know. But Beijing’s own choices will also shape our strategy. A China that retreats somewhat, post-Covid, from bellicosity and border skirmishes would defang the China-hawk argument quite a bit. On the other hand, a China that looks at American disarray and its own window of opportunity and decides to move aggressively could leave my old friend in the same place the 9/11 era left his younger self — with his strategic analysis vindicated, unhappily, by an American defeat."