China Joe

Such a struggle for him to get words out. Trump would have been attacked mercilessly.

 

I’ll bet knees started knocking in Taiwan after that little speech. Sounds like he supports the one China policy.

 

As Robert Gates said, he’s been wrong on every foreign policy decision.

 

Let’s see Bubba and Husker come defend genocide as “cultural.”

 

I am guessing we won't see them here in this thread again
They usually disappear when facts or reality come into play

 

The day Biden was certified POTUS Taiwan knew they were doomed. CCP will come for them one day soon and Uncle Joe won't honor our treaty to support and defend them....

 

They do? I submit they just spew more BS. Especially the guy from the artsy love festival place. They lie like George Costanza.

 

When I first read this I was trying to fit the reference to Kamala into the sentence and was failing. Then I realized you meant knees, not Knees Harris, and it made a lot more sense.

 

Wow! What an embarrassment. Sad day for America. Makes it obvious that open borders isnt about human rights as China Joe says but all about getting more dem voters.

 

"Never underestimate Joe's ability to f things up"

Might be the only thing I agreed with Obama on.

 

Sadly, Biden is correct. There is a cultural difference. Some cultures think it's morally defensible to incarcerate or even murder a minority ethnic, racial, or religious group, especially if it's a pain in the *** to the majority group. We don't think so, but at least a significant part of Chinese culture clearly does think so.

The big change is that the United States and Western countries usually haven't shown any respect to that sort of cultural difference. Apparently, we do now. He's talking about it the way you'd talk about them eating with chopsticks instead of flatware.

The One-China policy has been US policy since the 1970s. However, it is clear as mud. Officially, we recognize only one Chinese government - the one in Beijing and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. However, we don't recognize China's control over Taiwan but also don't recognize Taiwan's sovereignty over itself.

Basically, our policy is "There's only one China, and it's controlled by the Beijing regime, but they really suck, and we informally support and arm the remnants of the regime that we wished controlled China and are currently exiled on the island of Formosa, which may or may not be within the jurisdiction of China."

 

The leader of the free world giving the okay to genocide is unacceptable and despicable. Surely you weren’t saying differently.

 

IMHO, Nixon had a very good reason to cozy up to post-Mao China. It was a key part of a broader global strategy to triangulate and isolate our big adversary at that time--the Soviet Union.

Today, China is our big adversary. We should cozy up to India (the Orange man did) and other anti-China nations. Obviously, we remain cozy with Japan and S. Korea--and we must deliver Japan those F-35s. Deep down inside the Red Chinese psyche, I think they fear Japan much more than they fear us.

 

Pretty much agree. We were right to triangulate China from the Soviet Union, but in the '90s we should have either disengaged from them or really put the screws to them. We did neither. Instead, we let the corporate class exploit the cheap labor, and now we're stuck. It's ridiculous.

 

I wasn't saying differently.

 

Ha, perhaps you can argue we were not then the leader of the free world but we sure ok’d genocide against the Native American Indian.

 

We didn't officially commit genocide. We gradually forced them off of land, and obviously many were killed in that process. Like I've mentioned in another thread, throughout history the acquisition of land and the expulsion and killing of people in that pursuit has been common. Western culture frowns on that now, but that's largely a product of the last 120 years. We were right to change our mentality on it, and we should condemn it when we see it.

 

More Indians died from disease than yankee or Ranger bullets. The ones who moved lived. Ok, they moved from Texas to Oklahoma, but that is not genocide

 

It's not?

 

48 hours later.... crickets

 

It would go something like “George Floyd was a good guy and was murdered by police so cultural genocide is ok.”

 

Sorry but there was definitely genocide. Several “wipe them out” edicts were enforced.

 

Turn Texas BLUE, no matter what it takes...

 

Nash, ordering that people you've been fighting be killed isn't genocide. Consider the Holocaust, which most would agree was a true genocide or at least attempted and almost successful genocide. There was an official policy and deliberate plan to basically murder every Jew within the grasp of Nazi Germany for the purpose of making the entire Reich (expected to reach basically from Eastern France to the Ural Mountains, so a huge area comparable to the modern United States) completely free of Jews. That started with death squads in occupied areas that just rounded them up and shot them and eventually evolved into the more coordinated effort of deporting them en masse to killing centers (such as Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc.) in occupied Poland. Those who survived did so only by leaving, hiding, or just slipping through the Nazis' fingers. I'm not aware of any comparable plan in the United States.

We conquered the land from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. We killed lots of Native Americans in that process. However, we also gave those who survived those wars citizenship and substantial amounts of land where they enjoy great autonomy while also receiving a lot of federal money. I'm not saying it was morally right. I'm just saying it wasn't a genocide. Let's put it this way. There are about 5.2 million Native Americans in the United States today, and they're a bigger percentage of the population than they were in 1890. There are about 70 million in the American continents. If that was a genocide, it wasn't very successful.

 

My recollection is the “wipe them out” orders followed Indian attacks on settlers that killed women and children. Basically, the very definition (or manifestation) of tribalism (on both sides). So, tribalism yes, genocide no.

By the way, skirmishes between the white man and Indians started from the beginning. I learned just a few years ago that there was a massive Indian attack on the Mayflower settlers a few years after landing that killed or injured one-third of the settlement.

 

Ok, won’t argue but only say that there are tribes that were here that no longer exist and there were indeed “kill them all” man women and child degrees. Were they retaliatory? Not all. But I’ll concede to you. Personally I do not think the belief was universal that they all would survive relocation. I’m confident the ‘trail of tears’ was not a humanitarian gesture.

 

The big Guy gets 10 %

 

I don't disagree that this is generally true and that it was wrong. I'm just saying it doesn't constitute a genocide.

 

Genocide by any other name .......
And the disease bit, well we certainly were generous with the small pox laden blankets weren’t we? No matter, call it what you want. I’m not going to quibble. Just my opinion anyway.