If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Foreign Policy Double Standards
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
From the Beeb
The BBC is reporting that the US is 'concerned' that China isn't being 'transparent' enough about its military spending, and needs to be clearer about its intentions.
:banghead:
:banghead:
I shouldn't be surprised by the double standards and the arrogance these days, but its still both worrying and infuriating.
The BBC is reporting that the US is 'concerned' that China isn't being 'transparent' enough about its military spending, and needs to be clearer about its intentions.
:banghead:
:banghead: I shouldn't be surprised by the double standards and the arrogance these days, but its still both worrying and infuriating.
0
Comments
You talk of double standards, I talk of only one perspective being reported.
Nothing new from the US govenrment there. Do what I say, not what I do.
I mean that the US Govt is has more leaks than a sieve and so of course you will hear about their double standards.
The Chinese Govt, on the other hand, keeps it's opinions guarded.
Therefore you will hear about one set of double standards but not another.
The real story here, in this thread, is about how people jump on the US about anything because of their own prejudice towards that Govt.
Of, put another way, "you mustn't invade Iraq but don't talk to us about Tibet"
What? Name one country that China has intervened in militarily that is outside its region, or beyond its bordering states for that matter.
Then I'll name you at least five that the US has in the past 20 years.
What does it even matter what China's "intentions" are? It comes down to power, and thats it. While the US seems more powerful, China ain't going to admit that it wants to conquer the world, or nuke the US, is it? To be honest, if they really wanted to, they could probably destabilize the US to the point of collapse economically anyway.
The point is that the US knows its power is now on the wane. This will most probably be China's century, and possibly the rest of human history will be too. Hopefully the US won't bring everyone down with them when it becomes obvious to all. Hopefully China will not become an aggressive civilization (not that it ever has been), but it wouldn't suprise me if they were provoked into it once the resource wars start to escalate.
Rubbish; I'm sorry but this 'Anti-Americanism' stuff is absurd, and its doesn't stand up to the evidence of the actions of this administration that uses the rhetoric of freedom and democracy but opposes and moves to strike down dissent. Whose support for all the underpinnings of the constitution go out the window as soon as it becomes a problem. I'd like to give some recent examples of this being the case, theres evidence in spades;
1) Bush approving $4billion dollars worth of military aid to Columbia, when Amnesty and the UN are both stating that the atrocities being perpetrated against Trade-Union members and other groups is done by the Sixth Brigade Right-Wing Paramilitaries, who are directly armed and directed by the Columbian armed forces (Source: New Statesman; Amnesty)
2) The recent support for Paul Wolfowitz; a man whose friendship with Suharto has not lessened despite the fact that (along with the UK) the US were arming Indonesia to committ atrocities in East Timor. Faith in him being a 'good guy' is supposed to dissuade us of a lifetime of dodgy dealings and support for repressive regimes (Source: Chomsky, N; Manufacturing Consent; 1992)
3) (This didn't make the News) The flouting of the Geneva Convention in Fallujah; hospitals raided, patients and medical staff arbitrarily tied up for hours in case they were 'with the insurgents'. At the same time this was going on, all men between the ages of 15-40 were turned back when fleeing Fallujah (as the US had ordered them to do), in case they were 'enemy combatants'. They returned to a city which was without sanitation, water or electricity because the US led forces had cut it starve out the insurgents. Spending has sky-rocketed on legal consultations in Washington into ways in which the US can absolve itself from responsibilities under this treaty (Source; Chomsky, N; Failed States, 2006)
4) A huge fuss was made when Hugo Chavez called president Bush 'the devil', yet the CIA supported the coup that ousted this democratically elected leader. Republican politicians publically decried the fact that he had not been assassinated, live on Fox News. (Source: Pilger, J; The War on Democracy, 2007)
I've done these references from memory, I'm more than happy to give you the background to their research for your satisfaction. These aren't pub facts and I'm prepared to back them to your satisfaction, because I honestly believe that based on the evidence the US is carrying out an Imperial project to secure resources and strategic ground. Don't believe me, check this out;
Project for The new American century
Their words
Signatories to their founding document, or statement of principals include;
Dick Cheney (Vice President)
Donald Rumsfeld (former Secretary of Defence)
Lewis "Scooter" Libby (recently indicted and jailed following the Valarie Plan case)
Dan Quayle
and.... Paul Wolfowitz (head of the World Bank!)
This isn't anti-Americanism this is the truth, in their own words.