Your “criticism” was that you imagined it wasn’t a military engagement because you didn’t know what you were talking about, that China should just let India ignore their sovereignty, that china shouldn’t aid the third world in standing up to the global hegemon that’s spent well over a century immiserating and exploiting them. Your “criticisms” are privileged nonsense that you should be ashamed of.
That is not what I said at all. My point was these human beings are being put under an enormous amount of stress which lead to this unnecessary escalation.
Your hand waving of their industrial military complex selling weapons being used by both sides in Africa to kill civilians is disgusting and they should be ashamed of their actions. It is a disgusting example of imperialism.
The US and Russia have and still do this and it is wrong as well. No doubt that it is a violation of human rights.
You mean I respect human rights and recognize China along with other countries violate them constantly.
At this point this is a corporation in China selling death and destruction to Africa for profit. How about you take some responsibility instead of being a apologist for human rights abuses.
What you are is an apologist for the status quo who has a paper thing understanding of political economy and use human rights as a shield to condemn people calling out your nonsense.
Fact, Chinese military industrial complex companies are selling arms to Africa.
You are calling me an apologist… Because I hate the military industrial complex’s business model that grows based on human suffering!? Profits for death.
Let’s turn this around. Why do you defend this practice. How do you rationalize arming people and the resulting civilian death.
This is exactly what the US is doing in Palestine by supplying weapons to Israel. This is exactly what Russia has done in Africa. These countries are playing a bullshit game of imperialism causing untold suffering.
But if China does it, it is okay and we can’t criticize them!? This is what I mean by disingenuous. This is not about idealism. It is about right and wrong and apparently your denialism.
Continuing to show your paper thin moralist understanding of the world.
You are assigning a fixed moral category to the abstract act of supplying weapons while stripping away the concrete political relationship. Arms supplied to an occupying power are not equivalent to arms supplied to a state defending its sovereignty. The relevant questions are: who receives the weapons, against whom are they used, and what political purpose do they serve?
Yes, China exports arms. But supplying Mali or Burkina Faso as they fight US/European bavked jihadist insurgencies is not equivalent to the United States arming Israel or the the RSF (through the UAE). The Sahel’s crisis was intensified by the destruction of Libya and by a regional order shaped by French domination and the CFA-franc system. Treating every arms transfer as morally identical erases the distinction between supporting sovereign resistance and enabling occupation, proxy warfare or mass killing.
China also does not have a US-style, privately dominated military-industrial complex. Its major defence enterprises are publicly owned and directed according to state defence and foreign-policy objectives. Lockheed Martin and similar firms, by contrast, are privately owned institutions whose structural interest is the continual expansion of military contracts, weapons markets and conflict. Which they then “lobby for”, the west’s legalised form of corruption.
You are simply defending the military industrial complex’s killing of civilians for profit. China is now the world’s fourth largest arms supplier by most measures.
The fact that China’s government has compete ownership is even more damning than a government not properly regulating a private defense contractor. At least then they could claim some ignorance to the consequences of arms proliferation.
I find your argument that China sells arms for the right reason both spurious and ideologically driven. It is not what is happening. What is happening is a corporation is making profit off of human death.
I get that you don’t care. You have a million excuses and frankly I am not buying it.
You are not engaging with the argument. You are assigning a fixed moral meaning to the abstract act of supplying weapons while ignoring who controls them, who receives them, and what they are used for. Calling every arms transfer “profit from death” is just an easy handwave to avoid dealing with reality. It is moralism that erases ownership, state power, class interest, and concrete material conditions.
Your “criticism” was that you imagined it wasn’t a military engagement because you didn’t know what you were talking about, that China should just let India ignore their sovereignty, that china shouldn’t aid the third world in standing up to the global hegemon that’s spent well over a century immiserating and exploiting them. Your “criticisms” are privileged nonsense that you should be ashamed of.
That is not what I said at all. My point was these human beings are being put under an enormous amount of stress which lead to this unnecessary escalation.
Your hand waving of their industrial military complex selling weapons being used by both sides in Africa to kill civilians is disgusting and they should be ashamed of their actions. It is a disgusting example of imperialism.
The US and Russia have and still do this and it is wrong as well. No doubt that it is a violation of human rights.
Yes yes you love your idealist nonsense I get it you don’t have to keep telling me about how you don’t take into account material reality.
You mean I respect human rights and recognize China along with other countries violate them constantly.
At this point this is a corporation in China selling death and destruction to Africa for profit. How about you take some responsibility instead of being a apologist for human rights abuses.
What you are is an apologist for the status quo who has a paper thing understanding of political economy and use human rights as a shield to condemn people calling out your nonsense.
Fact, Chinese military industrial complex companies are selling arms to Africa.
You are calling me an apologist… Because I hate the military industrial complex’s business model that grows based on human suffering!? Profits for death.
Let’s turn this around. Why do you defend this practice. How do you rationalize arming people and the resulting civilian death.
This is exactly what the US is doing in Palestine by supplying weapons to Israel. This is exactly what Russia has done in Africa. These countries are playing a bullshit game of imperialism causing untold suffering.
But if China does it, it is okay and we can’t criticize them!? This is what I mean by disingenuous. This is not about idealism. It is about right and wrong and apparently your denialism.
Continuing to show your paper thin moralist understanding of the world.
You are assigning a fixed moral category to the abstract act of supplying weapons while stripping away the concrete political relationship. Arms supplied to an occupying power are not equivalent to arms supplied to a state defending its sovereignty. The relevant questions are: who receives the weapons, against whom are they used, and what political purpose do they serve?
Yes, China exports arms. But supplying Mali or Burkina Faso as they fight US/European bavked jihadist insurgencies is not equivalent to the United States arming Israel or the the RSF (through the UAE). The Sahel’s crisis was intensified by the destruction of Libya and by a regional order shaped by French domination and the CFA-franc system. Treating every arms transfer as morally identical erases the distinction between supporting sovereign resistance and enabling occupation, proxy warfare or mass killing.
China also does not have a US-style, privately dominated military-industrial complex. Its major defence enterprises are publicly owned and directed according to state defence and foreign-policy objectives. Lockheed Martin and similar firms, by contrast, are privately owned institutions whose structural interest is the continual expansion of military contracts, weapons markets and conflict. Which they then “lobby for”, the west’s legalised form of corruption.
You are simply defending the military industrial complex’s killing of civilians for profit. China is now the world’s fourth largest arms supplier by most measures.
The fact that China’s government has compete ownership is even more damning than a government not properly regulating a private defense contractor. At least then they could claim some ignorance to the consequences of arms proliferation.
I find your argument that China sells arms for the right reason both spurious and ideologically driven. It is not what is happening. What is happening is a corporation is making profit off of human death.
I get that you don’t care. You have a million excuses and frankly I am not buying it.
You are not engaging with the argument. You are assigning a fixed moral meaning to the abstract act of supplying weapons while ignoring who controls them, who receives them, and what they are used for. Calling every arms transfer “profit from death” is just an easy handwave to avoid dealing with reality. It is moralism that erases ownership, state power, class interest, and concrete material conditions.