673
Top 50 defederated instances
(lemmy.basedcount.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
673 points (97.9% liked)
Fediverse
28103 readers
327 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yes Tibet was a theocratic slave state. But China still invaded and annexed them.
Was the US invasion of Iraq justified because Saddam was a dictator? If we annexed Iraq and didn't make them speak English it would be fine?
Forget it. He is too far gone. We are just Strangers on the Internet, and he lives inside a paranoid nightmare. I tried my best but got nowhere.
I can see his side because Tibet was a Theocratic slave state. But he pretends China didn't invade.
He's clearly a tankie. I wonder if lemmy.zip is just as bad as lemmygrad or lemmy.ml.
I know why I went to kbin though. I just have no desire to directly support those developers.
Lmao I wouldn't go that far. But we can't all see eye-to-eye ig unfortunately.
Again, the popular Tibetan revolutionary party fought the feudal rule and welcomed Chinese intervention; their views were in line with the rest of China, and the autonomous nature of the region while being part of China reflects that.
Not even comparable. There were no popular pro-US movements fighting Saddam's rule, and Iraq was destabilized in the first place because of US sanctions, not Saddam's decisions unlike the feudalism in Tibet. This was purely a strategic invasion to set up military bases and secure oil and resources by making up false claims of WMDs.
If they were popular, they wouldn't have needed China to invade. China was supporting them just like the US supported revolutionaries that overthrew their governments.
The Kurds.
Their are no us military bases in Iraq and all the oil money goes to Iraq.
Why wouldn't commoners in a feudal slave state not want help from a nearby government whose views match their own?
The US overthrew democratically elected popular governments, like Mosaddegh's in Iran, or Salvador Allende's in Iraq, replacing the latter with a military dictatorship, because their policies benefitted their own countries instead of the US.
...What? There are still military bases in Iraq even now, and the economic dependence on the US that Iraq is now in is exactly what the US wanted/wants. ExxonMobil, Chevron etc. extracting oil for cheap from a war-torn country that doesn't have a choice; even CNN admits it.
Yes many wanted it. But if it was popular, Chinese invasion would not have been necessary. Nor would 1.2 million Tibetans need to have been killed.
There are 2500 US troops in Iraq today compared to 300,000 Chinese troops in Tibet today. The US did not annex Iraq or the other countries you mentioned.
Iraq Balks at Chinese control of their oil:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/iraq-balks-greater-chinese-control-its-oilfields-2022-05-17/