• NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I think planning and posturing for their attack on Taiwan can still be counted as military adventurism.

        • NewSocialWhoDis@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          If the Chinese killed them, it’s relevant to a discussion about China. If the US killed them, it’s not relevant unless it caused some reaction within China.

          You cannot engage about the rightness/ wrongness of Chinese domestic policy without stopping to bash the United States. That is Whataboutism.

          Perhaps your goal is really just to point out America’s hypocrisy, but you certainly go out of your way defending China’s actions if that is your goal.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 minutes ago

            If the Chinese killed them, it’s relevant

            If the US killed them, it’s not relevant

            You cannot engage about the rightness/ wrongness of Chinese domestic policy without stopping to bash the United States

            :-/

            As of May 2026, the U.S. has deployed NMESIS (Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System) anti-ship missiles to the Philippines, specifically on islands near Taiwan.

            Why would a country worried about its sovereignty and domestic security be worried about a neighboring territory bulking up its military in their backyard? You can analyze the US policy towards Cuba by considering the Cuban Missile Crisis and its consequences. Why would Chinese politicians not have similar concerns with Taiwan and respond in kind? Why would Chinese policymakers be obligated to ignore the history of Cuba when making their own Taiwanese policies?