Miscellaneous News

[voyager1]

Wow, based Colombians

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1398474974491557894

 

[Norinco_81]

I don't really see anything wrong with that US recruitment ad. Why? Because the fact is the US has a lopsided body count in wars not because their men are a bunch of Rambi and are more masculine. It's because they have the technological edge against the adversaries they fight. Most of the casualties they inflict comes from the many stand-off weapons platforms the US has. They don't send in troops until they believe they've softened up the enemy for it to be safe for them to go in. You hear stories that they make into movies of a handful of US soldiers fending off an army of Taliban or Vietnamese. That's because the US has artillery and air support. And remember many Westerners look at Asian men as not being masculine and when they lose to Asians they're even more angry. I'm sure training helps but when it comes down to man-to-man, the ratio of casualties on both sides narrows.

I was showing these videos to my cousin and he was also all pumped for the Russian and Chinese ads. We both had to stop at the "two moms" part because we already got sick of the US one. That ad shows so much wrong with the US and if normally vile Youtube comments are any indication, the vast majority of people praise the Russian and Chinese ads and shit on the US one. All the shit that the US talks about having the most powerful , most badass military in the world, ads like that undermine that image and perception. Militaries should not be bastions for social justice experiments. Then again, anything that undermines the US, we should be all for it right?

And yet superior technology alone doesn't win wars either. Despite the technological edge and firepower, America still didn't win in Korea, Vietnam nor Afghanistan. Operation Red Wings is one good recent example of how even an elite SEAL team can get nearly wiped out by a less trained, less hi-tech but better equipped non-Taliban ACM (Anti Coalition Militia) with every tactical advantage to their side. Not to mention the QRF (Quick Reaction Force) helo full of SOF operators gets successfully shot down with an RPG.

Westerners only know how to talk tough, but countless times I've seen them not back it up. Some of the biggest war hawks you'll see in the MSM or online have never served a single day in their lives. So many spineless cowards I've come across that will back down under pressure. And now that wokeism and cancel culture is the mainstream with such little pushback, I look at them as less manly myself. Yes they get triggered when I don't kiss their ass and push back even harder. And they think they can call themselves masculine? LMAO

Imagine the horror when they go up against a foe that can do the same In return.

Damn right! I would love to see all these anti China hawks grow some nuts and actually sign the dotted line. See how masculine they really are going up against the modern PLA with equivalent capabilities themselves.

 

[Norinco_81]

China thinks that if it doesn't interfere, the interference game will stop

This is wrong. If you are playing chess and your opponent quits does that mean you have to quit as well? No.

The game is being played even if China refuses to participate. The West can keep interfering with zero or little consequences due to their advanced CIA-level operations and media controlled by the West.



And this is how China will be negatively affected by not participating in the interference game. So how many millions and billions are we talking about here...

This is why Africa is such an unreliable place to invest. I understand that China is willingly taking this risk, but lets not forget that these billions could also be invested domestically and improve the lives of so many poor Chinese

There's already brain dead muricans that believe that China financially backs BLM and hacked the 2016 elections too. As much as I despise BLM, China should be supporting groups that undermine the US.

China needs to foment and support independence movements among true natives of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa, etc...

 

[voyager1]

There's already brain dead muricans that believe that China financially backs BLM and hacked the 2016 elections too. As much as I despise BLM, China should be supporting groups that undermine the US.

China needs to foment and support independence movements among true natives of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, Samoa, etc...

Yesm Republicans are already hating China to the bone and want it destroyed. Democrats seemed like they would take a more pragmatic view but with all this propaganda they are promoting around the world, it seems they are also.moving towards the Republicans position of destroying China

So if both sides are determined to destory China I dont see why China shouldnt start throwing billions towards destabilizing the US

Drugs, Racism, Inequality, Politicians, Dem-Rep hate, lower living standards, people getting evicted soon (eviction ban ending soon...), anti-intellectualism, moral/social/work ethics, separatism etc

America has many many weaknesses that China can take advantage of and promote instability into the US. A good first step would be subsiding drug sales to the US, $1 for 1gr.

Lets make the whole US a drug addict in 1-3 years and see if the US "Elites" would continue the propaganda against China.

 

[solarz]

That does not answer the question. The question is how China's system puts the regulation in the hands of the masses more than any Western/capitalist system. The community is no more a dictator in China than the West and the people follow the leadership in China just like in the West.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the basis of the PRC Constitution. You are free to disagree with the reality of it, but then all you are really doing is questioning the legitimacy of the CPC. It doesn't change the fact that the CPC believes itself to be ruling China through Marxist principles.

The Chinese people are more and more hungry for personal success and wealth. They had given up when China was fully socialist under Mao; now you have people dying to get rich and eager to buy luxury items to show it off. This is clearly a cultural trend towards capitalism.

Again, nothing says you can't strive for wealth in Socialism.

You responded that function is more important than size as SOEs control the crucial functions. I rebutted that those crucial functions have always been state-controlled; they are just smaller now in economic proportion so that is still drifting away from collective hands into private hands. You did not rebut.

Size is irrelevant. SOEs serve as a means for regulating China's economy, in accordance with Socialist principles.

You responded that private wealth accumulation does not go against socialism. But you also said that the main goal of socialism is to close the social inequality gap. I am rebutting now that that means that private wealth accumulation of epic proportions such as in the form of billionaires, then does in face go against socialism because creating billionaires is creating social inequality.

Look, here's a simple question: is China in 2021 a more or less equal society than China in 2001?

That is the only criteria that matters. If I did not feel that China was a far more equal society today than it was 20 years ago, I would not be here arguing with you about China being socialist.

In fact, I would argue that the wealth gap has peaked. With the elimination of absolute poverty and the rise of the Chinese middle-class, we will see in the coming years a sustained reduction of the wealth gap.

No it does not. It does not fit the definition, as we are discussing, because the masses hold no special control in China that is not present in the West; if anything the masses have one less mechanism in China than they do in the West which is voting out representatives. China's modern trend also does not fit the spirit of socialism, which, as you said, is to close social inequality, and if you let the hyper-rich boom in China, that antagonizes social equality. It might be better than in the early 2000's, but a slow closing of the wealth gap up to a certain point is normal for a relatively free market as it matures and becomes more regulated.

I do not accept that argument because the closing of the social inequality gap, as you define it, is really just the natural advancement and improvement of society in general. It is not a socialist thing; Western capitalist economies also had periods where people were getting cancer and poisoned by the chemicals dumped into the environment and times where miners/workers left their families for prolonged periods for work exhausting hours at dangerous jobs, phenomenons which are all vastly reduced now due to improved scientific understanding and improved regulation. What you describe is natural evolution of society that is independent of economic/political model.

The main determinant of social inequality today is still the wealth gap and with the boom of Chinese uber rich and private enterprise, the wealth gap is not being addressed in a way that is adherent to basic socialist philosophy.

First, Capitalism and Socialism exist on a spectrum, therefore it is expected that many self-professed capitalist countries have socialist policies to regulate the worst depredations of capitalism. That is what your "maturing free market" and "natural evolution of society" means.

Speaking of natural evolution, Socialism is the natural evolution of Capitalism. Unions, environmental regulations, anti-trust laws, labour laws, these are all socialist policies. In fact, many so-called capitalist countries are closer to the Socialist end of the spectrum than to the Capitalist end. Therefore, just because some capitalist countries also do something doesn't mean what China did is not socialist.

Second, the Chinese people have far more control over their country than people in the West have over theirs. For one thing, the Chinese government answers to the people and only to the people, while Western politicians answer only to their corporate overlords.

The most important difference between a capitalist country and a socialist country is simply who is in charge. Is it the Capitalists, who control the politicians through lobbyism and campaign donations, or is it a party of 90 million people, drawn from all walks of life, answerable only to the people whom they serve, and who has demonstrated that service through national emergencies?

 

[2handedswordsman]

@manqiangrexue I wont get into long debates with you, because i'm bored but we have to distinct some things. Of course markets played a huge role to human societies but in the pure essence is not the cooperation as you said (lol for the mental gym) but profit and expoitation. That's a wrong drive. That's not cooperation, cooperation is between equals. Back on the paradigm to solarz. You, as a wheat grower, whom crop destroyed by locusts, you have to plant more wheat and work more than you actually need to make the extra production to be able to repay me. With that capital i gather, i invest it to other misfortuned people and yes, i became a modern slaveowner without whip and chains. This is not cooperation. Cooperation is when the community as a whole protect you and other misfortuned subjects from predatory behaviours of people like me.

De-evolution is loughable, you see, no one socialist country returned to caves or else. In contrast, USSR was a major contributor to world's science and technology. PRC's first priority was the industrialization.

In your narratives for Cuba, DPRK, Venezuela you forgot to mention the embargoes, containments, and wars against these little socialist states. Are you somekind of Imperialist's lawyer?WTF? Cuba has better better performance in education, health, life expectancy and birth mortality, even under the inhumane embargo. What "socially at a terrible deficit" are you talking about...Look at the rich neighbours of Cuba (USA) how they treat their poor neighbouring nations(Bananias, embargoes), their own poor people, their own minorities, their own sick people. ROFLMAO

 

[Gatekeeper]

Wow, based Colombians

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1398474974491557894

This has been going on for a few weeks, and with more violence than Hong Kong, but not surprisingly. It has very little coverage from the western MSM.

 

[Norinco_81]

Yesm Republicans are already hating China to the bone and want it destroyed. Democrats seemed like they would take a more pragmatic view but with all this propaganda they are promoting around the world, it seems they are also.moving towards the Republicans position of destroying China

So if both sides are determined to destory China I dont see why China shouldnt start throwing billions towards destabilizing the US

Drugs, Racism, Inequality, Politicians, Dem-Rep hate, lower living standards, people getting evicted soon (eviction ban ending soon...), anti-intellectualism, moral/social/work ethics, separatism etc

America has many many weaknesses that China can take advantage of and promote instability into the US. A good first step would be subsiding drug sales to the US, $1 for 1gr.

Lets make the whole US a drug addict in 1-3 years and see if the US "Elites" would continue the propaganda against China.

Don't get it twisted, both sides have always hated China, Russia and any other country that doesn't bow down and kiss Uncle Sam's ass. Democrats are true racists and warmongers worse than the GOP, they've just hidden their true colors in plain sight for the longest time. Trump winning back in 2016 has truly exposed them for the vile, racist, degenerate hypocrites that they really are. And no Im not defending the GOP either as they are corrupt, spineless against leftist wokeism and the biggest supporters of Zionist Israel. It is good to see that you understand at the end of the day both sides are for US supremacy.

China flooding the US with cheap opium? I love it and they should do the same to the fucking UK and the rest of the Commonwealth as well. China definitely needs to stop playing nice and respond in the way that only whites can understand.

 

[voyager1]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

New Zealand is joining the dispute as a third party, which means that it is supporting Australia as a matter of principle over fair trade rules, wishing to uphold the international “rules-based trading system”. New Zealand was not asked to join, but has chosen to do so.

And here is NZ's trade minister explanation:

“New Zealand was not asked to join as a third party, however we have been a third party in over 60 WTO cases since 1995 and it’s not unusual for us to join actions disputes when we see challenges to international trade rules

Valid explanation by NZ but it is still siding with Australia at the end of the day

 

[voyager1]

Pakistan what are you doing...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Pakistan National Security Advisor, Moeed Yusuf, is not only familiar with the US through his long engagement with the US politics as associate vice president for Asia at the Institute of Peace, a US government-backed institution in Washington DC, but has been a long-time advocate of forging better ties.

Lol nevermind. Does Pakistan not have any unbiased qualified person for such an important position. Did they really picked a person who worked in a US propaganda "institution"...

Ever since coming into power, the incumbent Imran Khan government has taken a lackluster approach to the CPEC. In fact, soon after coming to power in 2018, his government has found loopholes to stall the CPEC and expressed intentions to “review” it.

This is true. CPEC has repeatedly faced long delays due to Imran Khan insistence on renegotiating, reviewing it, stalling implementation etc

I dont know why he has delayed CPEC for so long and thus undermining Chinese trust on Pakistan (lol on renegotiating every deal). He should keep in mind though that for every year that CPEC is delayed is a year later that Pakistan would start earning back all these investments from CPEC