this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
66 points (92.3% liked)
Memes
4365 readers
25 users here now
Good memes, bad memes, unite towards a united front.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
@yogthos Ummm... What about Tibet and Taiwan? Do we count civil wars? Could we also ask the indians (1962), the vietnamese (1979), and russians (various border disputes during soviet era).
What about Taiwan? Has Beijing already liberated Taiwan and we just haven't heard of it? What exactly are you referring to? If anything the Taiwan situation shows an incredible amount of restraint on their part. Any other country would not be so patient if a vital strategic part of its national territory was allowing hostile foreign powers to militarize and occupy it. China continues to insist on peaceful reunification.
And what about Tibet? Didn't Tibet sign a treaty acknowledging it's a part of China? Were you expecting China not to defend itself against British and American armed violent separatists trying to re-establish a feudal theocracy? Next you'll tell me China is aggressive because it doesn't allow ISIS to establish a caliphate on its territory. A week long police action against separatist insurgents hardly counts as a civil war.
It's telling that you had to go back to before 1980 to find a conflict China was involved in. And none of those wars were started by China, unlike the US's wars of choice. Even in 1979 when China was, in the opinion of most of us here, on the wrong side, they still technically only responded to an attack on one of their allies. The fact that they picked the wrong ally is sad but it doesn't exactly show aggression on their part.
With regards to India, again, China showed incredible restraint. India helped the British and Americans arm violent separatists in Tibet and then launched incursions into Chinese territory. China defended itself and could easily have stayed in the parts of South Tibet they briefly occupied in that skirmish. Yet despite having a very legitimate claim to that territory China made the good faith gesture of pulling out of South Tibet and giving it back to India.
As for the Sino-Soviet border disputes, who exactly are you blaming for them? Are you saying they were all provoked by China? And what did those actually amount to? Basically nothing happened, they were the result of stupid political tensions, nothing more. To compare these nothing-burgers to the US's full fledged wars, regime changes and sponsorships of terrorist insurgencies and brutal military dictatorships is beyond dishonest, it's ridiculous.
You are clutching at straws here bringing up history that many of us here weren't even born when it happened. Show us anything in the last 40 years where China behaved even remotely similar to how the Americans and their Euro lapdogs have done and continue to do.
Taiwan is literally a province of China last I checked. Meanwhile, very brave of you to support slavery.
https://www.historicly.net/p/tibet-china-and-the-violent-reaction
@yogthos even if we exclude that conflict as a civil war. Thats not addressing the other examples. Reducing Tibet to the Dalai Lama also seems somewhat inappropriate.
It's not, Tibet was a theocracy where everyone was a slave of the religious caste. The fact that you keep doubling down on this shows profound lack of morals on your part. Meanwhile, the graphic clearly starts in the 80s. And the amount of conflicts China did have since the revolution can be counted on a palm of your hand. Meanwhile, Burgerland has been at war for its entire deplorable existence.
Agreed. It is indeed extremely inappropriate to reduce Tibet to the Dalai Lama and his fellow feudal theocrats. Which is why we don't consider the conflict waged against that tiny ruling elite to be an aggression against Tibet as a whole. It's why we celebrate the liberation of the overwhelming majority of regular Tibetans from feudal serfdom as the liberation of Tibet, because it is they who truly represent Tibet, and not the former ruling caste.
@cfgaussian say I grant the violent incursion on tibetan land as "liberation" (which I do not), that would still leave the Sino-Indian and Sino-Vietnamese wars. Or do we redefine those away on a technicality as well? Were they maybe not long enough? I dont ask you to defend western imperialism. Its inexcusable. I do ask you to see the PRC for what it is, which includes its flaws and mistakes.
It was indeed liberation. Otherwise you should say you support the slave-like feudal society.
So you love slavery. Good start.
India dicked around, China put them to their place and the war ended in extremely amicable terms.
There was one (1), so no "wars"(plural), a war(singular). It was a limited border conflict because Vietnam and the PRC ended on different sides of the the Sino-Soviet split.
They happened before the timframe covered by the picture. Tibet happend under Mao, as did the Sino-Indian one. The war against Vietnam happened under Deng. The timeframe covered by the pic is post-Deng. Since then the PRC did, factually, not wage any war.
My god, both occured before the time frame explicitly stated in the image.