U.S Hong Kong Bill proposed

[spartan max2]

1 minute ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Yes, it is a bad thing. How clear can I make it? it's bad thing because every single time liberal consciences have clamoured for intervention to protect the oppressed people of Z from their ruthless tyrannical government it's resulted in the situation getting immeasurably worse than it would have been if they'd left well alone.

Vietnam: Defending the people of South-east Asia against Communism.

Afghanistan: Overthrowing the fanatics of the Taliban and liberating the oppressed Afghan people.

Iraq:  Overthrowing the tyrant Saddam Hussein and bringing freedom to the oppressed Iraqi people.

Syria: Protecting the Syrian people and minorities such as e.g. the Kurds from a ruthless tyrant. 

It's not a very encouraging record is it.

We put pressure on the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union is gone.

We ignored China for money.

And once again, I'm sure South Korea is very thankful. 

[Piney]

1 minute ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Vietnam: Defending the people of South-east Asia against Communism.

 

Ho would of never went to the Russians if we helped him when he asked. 

[spartan max2]

8 minutes ago, Piney said:

I was one of the AFSC humanitarian aid workers kicked out of Israel for pointing out human rights violations.

There are countries far worse than China junior. 

I agree that their are other problems out there but I'm not going to downplay China's transgressions.

I understand you have no sympathy for HK but I do and this is why 

HK is fighting for everything we claim to believe in and value. 

The right to choose their own leaders. The right to not have their media censored. To be able to criticise their own government without repercussions.

Our leaders should at least be voicing public support for these protesters but instead they say lukewarm things to not upset China.

Showing that our true value is ****en money. We only care about human rights when it does not hurt our God dam money.

This bill is a step towards at least making a statement to world that we actually believe in the things we claim to believe in more then money.

Edited October 11, 2019 by spartan max2

[ExpandMyMind]

5 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Yes, it is a bad thing. How clear can I make it? it's bad thing because every single time liberal consciences have clamoured for intervention to protect the oppressed people of Z from their ruthless tyrannical government it's resulted in the situation getting immeasurably worse than it would have been if they'd left well alone.

Vietnam: Defending the people of South-east Asia against Communism.

Afghanistan: Overthrowing the fanatics of the Taliban and liberating the oppressed Afghan people.

Iraq:  Overthrowing the tyrant Saddam Hussein and bringing freedom to the oppressed Iraqi people.

Syria: Protecting the Syrian people and minorities such as e.g. the Kurds from a ruthless tyrant. 

It's not a very encouraging record is it.

Literally none of those examples were humanitarian missions. They were strategic offenses designed specifically to further geopolitical goals (with possibly the exception of Afghanistan which was just a straight revenge story).

I'm a massive critic of US/UK when it comes to this subject, but just because I see the hypocrisy of 'liberating' one country while supporting, for instance, Saudi Arabia, doesn't negate the potential good that can come from acting.

People often seem to try to use a country's support of one terrible regime as a debate against their criticism of another. I don't see it that way. I say that even if my government supports the Saudis I'd still like to see it intervene in humanitarian crises elsewhere. If they're not going to be perfect then they should at least do something.

[RoofGardener]

42 minutes ago, Piney said:

Why don't you take a good hard look at what the U.S and Britain did to China causing the Opium Wars, and other actions then take a harder look at the U.S,s actions in the Philippines after they took over. This is a pot-kettle award times100. 

Huh ? The USA was involved in the Opium wars  ? Really ? 

[spartan max2]

10 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Literally none of those examples were humanitarian missions. They were strategic offenses designed specifically to further geopolitical goals (with possibly the exception of Afghanistan which was just a straight revenge story).

I'm a massive critic of US/UK when it comes to this subject, but just because I see the hypocrisy of 'liberating' one country while supporting, for instance, Saudi Arabia, doesn't negate the potential good that can come from acting.

People often seem to try to use a country's support of one terrible regime as a debate against their criticism of another. I don't see it that way. I say that even if my government supports the Saudis I'd still like to see it intervene in humanitarian crises elsewhere. If they're not going to be perfect then they should at least do something.

It's like the quote

"Don't let perfect be the enemy of good". 

[Essan]

30 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Maybe it's time to require their officials to follow our standards of basic human rights.

 

if only we could get Americans to follow our standards of human rights and justice     

Number 10 said the prime minister had urged Mr Trump to reconsider the decision to allow Mrs Sacoolas immunity in order that "the individual involved can return to the UK, co-operate with police and allow Harry's family to receive justice".

The teenager's parents have described a meeting with Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab on Wednesday as a "publicity stunt".

Mrs Charles said she felt "let down" by both the UK and US governments, while Mr Dunn's father Tim Dunn said: "I'm deeply, deeply disappointed that they think it's OK to kill a young lad on his bike and they can just walk away."

Following the meeting, Mr Raab said the justice process was "not being allowed to properly run its course".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-49995867

[spartan max2]

4 minutes ago, Essan said:

if only we could get Americans to follow our standards of human rights and justice     
 

Okay. Make a seperate thread for that please. I don't want this thread to get hijacked to become talking about Trump and the U.K. 

It's about U.S foriegn policy towards China. 

[Orphalesion]

17 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

We put pressure on the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union is gone.

And modern Russia is a bigger shithole than it has ever been since the death of Stalin... controlled by crime and corruption and fundamentalist tendencies. Congrats.

Arguably the only time US intervention really helped a native population in the long term and led to stable democracies was Western/Central  Europe and Japan during and after WW 2 and history shows that the factors there were very unique and the same model can't just be transplanted to each and every country and culture on Earth. And I doubt any of that would work out with China...

[SHaYap]

Every time US foreign policy mutters "humanitarian" thousands, if not  millions are sure to be dead by way of collateral damage... 

~

[spartan max2]

10 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

And modern Russia is a bigger shithole than it has ever been since the death of Stalin... controlled by crime and corruption and fundamentalist tendencies. Congrats.

Arguably the only time US intervention really helped a native population in the long term and led to stable democracies was Western/Central  Europe and Japan during and after WW 2 and history shows that the factors there were very unique and the same model can't just be transplanted to each and every country and culture on Earth. And I doubt any of that would work out with China...

A bigger shithole is debatable . It was a pretty big one under the Soviets.

But it's fall at least helped east Germany. 

And cut back on it's dreams of expanding. The USSR had no problem interfering in other countries to change their government. 

Edited October 11, 2019 by spartan max2

[spartan max2]

9 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Every time US foreign policy mutters "humanitarian" thousands, if not  millions are sure to be dead by way of collateral damage... 

~

Sort of like the hundreds of thousands of troops China funneled into Korea resulting in the stalemate that created the lovely nation of North Korea.

[SHaYap]

1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

Sort of like the hundreds of thousands of troops China funneled into Korea resulting in the stalemate that created the lovely nation of North Korea.

You mean the Yankee welcoming committee? 

Could hardly blame them, you know the old saying, the only good commie is a dead commie but a good Nazi is the one with the paper clips... 

Salute those fallen heroes that helped kept America safe, fawn over those that betrayed your country time and time again all you want, this time around it's your kids, the next generation that is filling those graves, ready your shovels and bugles... 

~

[Orphalesion]

7 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

A bigger shithole is debatable . It was a pretty big one under the Soviets.

But it's fall at least helped east Germany. 

And cut back on it's dreams of expanding. The USSR had no problem interfering in other countries to change their government. 

Exchange the Soviets for the Russian Mafia and Putlenin, not really an improvement. Plus it's not like Russia stripped itself of the imperialist goals the Soviets had, just ask Chechnya and the Ukraine. 

Yet the fall of the Soviet Union, and the peaceful revolutions in Eastern and Central Europe had a lot of inner factors (like Chernobyl), the presence of the US was a stabilizing one, but they didn't interfere directly in 1989, the people both in Russia itself and in the various puppet states, liberated themselves. 
 
And you do point out a important factor the Soviet Union, they interfered with and invaded other countries during the Cold War (as did the US during that time) China doesn't. Unless we are talking Taiwan, China has no interest in conquering other nations. They are only interested in China. They are not a global problem.

[spartan max2]

2 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

Exchange the Soviets for the Russian Mafia and Putlenin, not really an improvement. Plus it's not like Russia stripped itself of the imperialist goals the Soviets had, just ask Chechnya and the Ukraine. 

Yet the fall of the Soviet Union, and the peaceful revolutions in Eastern and Central Europe had a lot of inner factors (like Chernobyl), the presence of the US was a stabilizing one, but they didn't interfere directly in 1989, the people both in Russia itself and in the various puppet states, liberated themselves. 
 
And you do point out a important factor the Soviet Union, they interfered with and invaded other countries during the Cold War (as did the US during that time) China doesn't. Unless we are talking Taiwan, China has no interest in conquering other nations. They are only interested in China. They are not a global problem.

That's a reasonable post.

But don't misunderstand me. I'm not advocating for war.

I just believe it's time we call out China's transgressions and look for trading partners who have a greater respect for democratic values and human rights. 

The OP bill is a good step.

[Piney]

50 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Huh ? The USA was involved in the Opium wars  ? Really ? 

"Other actions". 

Quote

The U.S. was involved in a minor concurrent conflict during the war, although they ignored the UK's offer of alliance and did not coordinate with the Anglo-French forces. In 1856, the Chinese garrison at Canton shelled a United States Navy steamer;^[10] the U.S. Navy retaliated in the Battle of the Pearl River Forts. The ships bombarded then attacked the river forts near Canton, taking them. Diplomatic efforts were renewed afterward, and the American and Chinese governments signed an agreement for U.S. neutrality in the Second Opium War.^{[citation needed]}

 

Despite the U.S. government's promise of neutrality, the USS San Jacinto aided the Anglo-French alliance in the bombardment of the Taku Forts in 1859.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Opium_War#Intervention_by_other_states

[+Desertrat56]

2 hours ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

Uncle Sam never can resist interfering in the affairs of other countries can it. 

Yep just like it dear old papa UK.  Where do you think they got that attitude?  Until WW1 the U.S. did mind it's own business.

[SHaYap]

Viva Zapata? 

Quote

April 21, 1914, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson sent a contingent of troops to occupy the port city of Veracruz. This sudden threat caused Huerta to withdraw his troops from Morelos and Puebla, leaving only Jojutla and Cuernavaca under federal control. Zapatistas quickly assumed control of eastern Morelos, taking Cuautla and Jonacatepec with no resistance. In spite of being faced with a possible foreign invasion, Zapata refused to unite with Huerta in defense of the nation. He stated that if need be he would defend Mexico alone as chief of the Ayalan forces.^[23] In May the Zapatistas took Jojutla from the federales, many of whom joined the rebels, and captured guns and ammunition. They also laid siege to Cuernavaca where a small contingent of federal troops were holed up.

• Wiki link

~

[aztek]

lol, didn't we learned from magnitsky act, that it did not do a thing?  so what if some officials can not visit us and uk, they have the rest of the world, they do not give 2 shts about those acts.  not to mention if they really want to they will come in a private jet under different name,   

[spartan max2]

17 minutes ago, aztek said:

lol, didn't we learned from magnitsky act, that it did not do a thing?  so what if some officials can not visit us and uk, they have the rest of the world, they do not give 2 shts about those acts.  not to mention if they really want to they will come in a private jet under different name,   

Any suggestions for more effective responses?

[aztek]

22 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Any suggestions for more effective responses?

yea, mind our own bussnes

[spartan max2]

2 minutes ago, aztek said:

yea, mind our own bussnes

Typical Boomer apathy then.

When our media begins to self censor on behalf of China it is our business. 

[aztek]

1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

Typical Boomer apathy then.

When our media begins to self censor on behalf of China it is our business. 

then our media is the problem. 

[spartan max2]

4 minutes ago, aztek said:

then our media is the problem. 

What are your suggestions for dealing with the media problem?

And of HK?

Do you not care of people struggling for all the things we claim to care about in democratic societies? 

Edited October 11, 2019 by spartan max2

[aztek]

Just now, spartan max2 said:

What are your suggestions for dealing with the media problem?

And of HK?

Do you not care of people struggling for all the things we claim to care about in democratic societies? 

bleeding heart liberals are very entertaining,lol