When you call opposing China's conquest & oppression
"warmongering", this negativity suggests approval.
Approval? Really? No, it's not approval. I just think that whenever people talk about some other nation being "dangerous," it's usually a precursor for some call for some "action" on the part of the U.S.
Regarding the idea of approval, our own government was apparently on board with Chinese conquests and oppression for several decades now, especially back when they were seen as an ally of convenience against the Soviet Union. So, it isn't like all this conquest and oppression happened yesterday.
All this time, the U.S. government has tacitly approved their activities, and it's only now that they suddenly decide that they're "dangerous"? Doesn't that strike you as the least bit odd? Isn't it suspicious that the government and media are stoking up the anti-Chinese and anti-Russian rhetoric these days?
Why have U.S. companies been doing business with them? For the longest time, I kept hearing people turn the blind eye to China, especially during the 1990s and the early 2000s. I didn't approve of them back then either, but I kept noticing a lot of "free market" and "global economy" types who threw caution to the four winds and jumped right into bed with China. All these people were jumping on the "Go China" bandwagon not so long ago.
It's not that I approve of anything China is doing or has done, but I think this kind of saber-rattling rhetoric is, at the very least, outdated and counterproductive.
I also think it's somewhat hypocritical and inconsistent to condemn a country for "conquests and oppression" when our own government is guilty of same. There are many other governments we've supported which have also been oppressive and authoritarian.
Then there are more practical considerations, such as whether or not China represents a direct and immediate threat to the U.S. If they are, then we should stop doing business with them. If we're going to call them "dangerous" while continuing to go on business as usual, then I would say there's something wrong with this picture.
In all honesty, I really don't expect to see a massive Chinese invasion, with hoards of troops pouring onto our shores and occupying our cities and states - now or at any time in the foreseeable future. Just because I say this, it shouldn't be taken to mean "approval" of China.
I just advocate for a sensible and no-nonsense foreign policy, not all this saber-rattling and other bunkum that has nothing to do with America's logical national interests.
In other words, if you're advocating that America's true purpose in this world is to oppose all conquest and oppression (and also that to fail to do so constitutes "approval"), then you're saddling a big responsibility on America's shoulders - something that all those warmongers have done over the years.
Reminds me back in 2003, some guy was a war hawk, fully in support of the U.S. invasion. He didn't care much about WMDs, but he just thought the "Arabs should have to pay" for 9/11. He didn't seem to care about which countries were which, as it was just one big amorphous mass in his eyes. It didn't really matter that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Towards the end, he was talking about how Saddam's regime tortured women and children, which was true. He said, "So, you're in favor of torturing women and children? We've got to bomb them back to the Stone Age NOW!"
I recognize the rhetoric of warmongers. I've been exposed to it for a long time now, so I know when I see it.
