this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
12 points (54.9% liked)
Socialism
5201 readers
4 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
Unrelated to China, but why is the Vietnam War listed as Indecisive or unclear outcome?
As far as I know it's because both sides had pretty banal low-level and straightforward stated goals that were all "met" so there wasn't a clear "winner" and a "loser" in those strategic goals. It was really more of a 3 week skirmish than a full war. Vietnam obviously wanted to force China out of their country, and China said they wanted to bat Vietnam on the nose and force them to pull out of and not occupy Cambodia, or Laos or Thailand.
Which China left meaning Vietnamese succeeded in their strategic goals, and the Vietnamese diverted major resources and pulled out of Cambodia and didn't occupy Thailand and Laos meaning the Chinese succeeded. There weren't really any major strategic goals that were stated by either side that showed blatant failure; like China never said they intended to fully occupy Hanoi and create a Chinese puppet state and failed. Vietnam as far as I know never said they intended to continue occupying Cambodia or occupy Thailand and then failed to. So in a way they both got what they wanted and it was a status quo antebellum situation. Thus indecisive in the context of if it weren't 'indecisive' there would have been a winner or loser.
Thailand and Laos were under multi-factional civil wars whose royal governments were also US proxies; so the Vietnamese were also involved there (and involved with their local communist parties), prompting Sino-Soviet-split-related concerns with China since even though both China and USSR provided support to Vietnamese communists; the USSR became the dominant supporter and ally of Vietnam and continued to be. China also had an alliance with Cambodia dating before Khmer Rouge even; which was in part because Cambodia wanted assurance against the larger Vietnam and Thailand. The split in the Chinese Cultural Revolution era between the ultra-lefts and others had half of the CPC supporting the Prince and half of it supporting the Khmer Rouge against the prince. North Vietnam and Khmer Rouge provided support for each other for a while too. The politics were a mess. No idea what other involvements China had with Thailand and Laos other than Sino-Soviet fears.
People overstate the significance of Chinese casualties as meaning a loss when that's not how war works. Strategic objectives are all that matter. The losses (if you average the wildly disproportionate claims from all sides; impossible to actually know when you look at it) were more even than something like The Winter War between USSR-Finland; and though that war had the Soviets suffer disproportionate losses, it was still a complete strategic victory for the Soviets; they got everything they were after which had refused by Finland in previous requested land-swaps, namely gaining the Karelia buffer region.
Immediately thought of Vietnam and Cambodia. OP really doesn't know much history... [Edit: I just checked because I wasn't sure, but China didn't invade Cambodia as far as I can tell. I knew they invaded Vietnam in support of Cambodia, but I didn't know whether some of the Sino-Vietnamese battles also took place in Cambodia, and apparently, no.)]
And OP's comparison pic is nonsense for more reasons than that. The time ranges are wildly different, it's counting starting from 1776 for the US, but it starts counting from 1949 for the PRC
China is occupying Vietnam and Cambodia?
Image says "Has invaded since PRC was founded", not "is occupying right now", don't try to change the terms of the debate when contradicted. You still could've made a point that China invaded much fewer countries than the US, but at least try to have an accurate map or the accurate words.
Portraying minor skirmishes as invasions is the height of dishonesty. Ironic that you would do that while accusing me of being inaccurate.
I don't find it dishonest or inaccurate to say that crossing a border with troops and tanks and occupying cities constitutes an invasion, but I guess it's a matter of semantics. As is calling a conflict with dozens of thousands of casualties a "minor skirmish".
List of wars being involved in is not a list of countries being invaded and occupied, nice try though.
honestly the map is too unserious to merit discussion
Except that it's not. China's development has been overwhelmingly peaceful, and China has played a positive role around the globe helping many other nations develop and improve their standard of living. On the other hand, the US has been at war throughout all of its miserable existence, and is responsible for carrying out countless crimes against humanity around the globe. It remains the greatest threat to human existence today.
See? You could have said that instead of posting falsified maps
african debt traps intensify
I love how you trolls just keep regurgitating the same few tropes that even mainstream western media has debunked
our civilized and altruistic IMF lending vs their horrifying Chinese extortion schemes!!! 😱
my guy your waking life consists of reposting the same 5 talking points
i'd maybe take a moment of quiet reflection
"The results show that Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) sets in motion a process of transformation in the local economy that damages local competitors but – at the same time – benefits local suppliers to the new Chinese firms as well as their local clients."
this is another way of saying that local businesses are destroyed, save from the ones that become functionally chinese subsidiaries
if the west did this you'd be having a meltdown
you know that when a bank restructures a loan for you, it's not out of the goodness of their hearts, right?
and that's when they do restructure a loan for you, rather than just letting you default and having your economy explode like happened with sri lanka
guys they didn't SEIZE a port they merely forced a country to lease it for 99 years at a bargain bin price
ethiopia literally had to default on their debt after this article was published
see above
this is the same as the first link
this is about the port again
this just says "development good" without defining what that is
the same metric would justify european colonialism of africa
except for all the cases where they don't and countries have to default, i guess
this link isn't relevant
The debt they owed to the IMF 😂 https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/imf-ethiopia-reach-staff-level-agreement-first-review-loan-program-2024-09-27/
Oh you mean where actual western debt trap was happening?
No it wouldn't, but I'm not expecting any sort of intellectual integrity from you here.
sure buddy
do you understand how money works? you know it's fungible, right?
even in your cartoon world, china is a member of the imf
and even if they weren't, the largest share of single-source debt was from china
i guess it's easier to defend a worldview if you just like...make stuff up?
said the person who cherry picked like 3 things to respond to, despite spending most of their life accusing others of cherry picking, and responded to them by making stuff up
okay let's pretend it's relevant
selling it services and equipment now absolves a country of guilt
wow, looks like the us is absolved of guilt to a comical degree
Unlike you, I do understand how money and debt works. The discussion is about debts issued by China and their long term impact, which every study shows to be positive. I guess it's easier to make a clown of yourself in public than actually learn about the subject you're attempting to debate.
except the ones you just linked, i guess?
you must have been very unlucky when picking which sources to show me :(
you know people (other people, not me, i'm here for serious discussion exclusively) only keep you off their blocklist because it's really funny watching the fediverse e-clown ply their trade every day, right?
The ones I linked provide a contrast between Chinese lending and IMF lending, but clearly that was too complex of an idea for you to grasp.
I just vastly overestimated your intellectual capacity.
I'd be so insulted by that if I had a shred of respect for you.
again, even in your cartoon world, china is a member of the imf
also you clearly haven't read your sources very recently, because that's not the picture they paint
this is such a reddit tier insult i love it
China being a member of the IMF doesn't mean China runs the IMF or makes decisions for it. Learn how the IMF works instead of making clown of yourself here. The most hilarious part is that you're too ignorant to realize how much of a clown you are.
as a reddit brain you'd know
if the imf is such a corrupt organization, why is china willingly a member?
you really come crawling back to me just to call me a clown again? why are your insults all "clown" or "i'm rubber your glue"?
why are your insults all "clown" or "i'm rubber your glue"?
Because China participates in world trade. Again, learn about the subjects you're trying to opine on that you're quite obviously have no clue about. Absolutely hilarious how you keep doubling down on documenting what an utter ignoramus you are. 👏
so china has surpassed the us, but it's the one being forced into corrupt organizations it would rather not be a member of?
yes this makes sense
Literally why China has been establishing alternative organizations. The ones that all the research I linked shows to be actually helping countries. Try to put at least a bit of effort into your trolling. This is just so embarrassing.
except what you linked literally didn't show that
that's kind of why we're all the way down here
No that's not why we're down here, we're down here because you have poor reading comprehension and misrepresented what the links said. Given that you are just here to troll, I don't see much point continuing. Enjoy having the last word that you so desperately crave.
cool, quote it
Put the Kool-Aid down. Stop uncritically accepting propaganda from neocolonial states and their corporate media.