| |
| ▲ | Detrytus 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's interesting, because recently China is definitely trying to paint themselves as the reasonable, stable partner, commited to upholding international law (unlike the US, which is ruled by a madman) . Trying to block this aquisition without good legal argument goes directly against that strategy. | | |
| ▲ | strangegecko 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They're doing a lot that goes against that strategy, you just don't see it in the headlines except in cases such as these or when you dig into how they conduct international negotiations or business deals involving the Chinese market. Not to mention how they are openly expansionist in the SCS and obviously wrt Taiwan. Of course they want to be seen as reasonable, their ideal is to control the international narrative just how they can do it internally in China. | | |
| ▲ | RobertoG 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | So, who would you say that spend more resources 'controlling the international narrative', the USA or China? | | |
| ▲ | nikkwong an hour ago | parent [-] | | China at least does it covertly. The US president broadcasts his madman narrative on Twitter for everyone to see. |
|
| |
| ▲ | burnerRhodov2 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The United States is appearing "More Stable" on the international stage with recent events. Normal people might see it as ruled by a "madman", but on the international stage they know what it is... Projecting dominance and forcing the will of America. People seem to forget Iran murdered thousands of innocent civilians with automatic weapons being fired into crowds... and then you call our president a "madman" for destroying their ability to build nuclear weapons? |
| |
| ▲ | stego-tech 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean, they're just cribbing what America did, and what the British Empire did before that. It's a disgusting playbook, but it's also an effective one if you're a state trying to exert control over important players or entities. | | |
| ▲ | catgary 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think you need to give some concrete examples, considering the US happily let its companies offshore a lot of work to China over the years, and Chinese funds own large chunks of American companies. | | |
| ▲ | pleurotus 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | ? The united states have blocked exports by a Dutch company to China, and somehow got away with it. | |
| ▲ | stego-tech 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Okay! * The US and UK propped up the Iranian Shah to help western oil interests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état * US Export Controls basically handcuff anyone of import involved in creating anything of value to the state: https://www.investopedia.com/u-s-export-restrictions-6753407 * We continue to embargo Cuba instead of letting it succeed or fail on its own merits - while also controlling their own land for a Black Ops prison and having attempted repeatedly to assassinate their leaders or create coups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_... * Our centralization of global finance and status as a reserve currency lets us dictate global policy on everything from Intellectual Property to National Defense, meaning companies generally have to "play ball" or the host country will incur penalties * That time we overthrew the democratically-elected government of Guatemala because they imposed radical ideas like a minimum wage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27état * And that time we overthrew the democratically-elected socialist government in Chile to prop up exploitative labor practices and resource extraction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27état I can go on, but really, Wikipedia is right there. If you're looking for a specific analogue to "we kidnapped CEOs and demanded a foreign company unwind their merger", I don't think I can provide that right away; however, if instead you're looking for examples of "country used threats and force to foment an outcome favorable to its domestic policies", well then, boy howdy are there tons and tons of examples out there just a cursory search away. | | |
| ▲ | JPKab 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You basically just parroted a bunch of Howard Zinn agitprop and didn't cite a single example that was remotely similar to this specific incident, because you literally can't. What exactly is your motivation here, because it's certainly not truth-seeking. | | | |
| ▲ | jujube3 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Since you think Cuba and China are such nice places, perhaps try living there. You'll quickly find out about their "merits" (such as the fact that they execute dissidents). | | |
| ▲ | ebbi 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | True, America just kills outside its borders (~37 million people since the 50s), so it's a lot safer! |
| |
| ▲ | ozgrakkurt 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Also you can add middle east for last 20-30 years. Complete disregard for human life for profit. | |
| ▲ | HDThoreaun 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | None of this is similar to what is happening here |
|
| |
| ▲ | some_random 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not even getting into the more dubious part of this claim, just because the British or Americans did it doesn't mean it's right or acceptable. If you disagree with that, you're implicitly pro slavery, pro penal expeditions, etc. | | |
| ▲ | stego-tech 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Oh, no, it's incredibly reprehensible what China's doing. Just like it was reprehensible that America propped up the Iranian shah to ensure western oil interests were served. And reprehensible that the British Empire got the Chinese addicted to Opium to force more favorable trade agreements. Also reprehensible is the Cuban blockade imposed by America, which has prohibited the country from thriving or failing on its own merits and forced suffering onto its people. It's all reprehensible, and it should all be held up lest folks get this notion that America is this infallible savior who can do no wrong. It's bad, and it should never happen, but it does and it will so long as people keep buying into Nationalist narratives like these. | | |
| ▲ | some_random 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You find it reprehensible but can't _just_ say that, you have to justify it with "and also the Americans and British did it". Yeah right. | | |
| ▲ | owebmaster 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why does that bother you tho? Not having the moral ground changes the argument? | | |
| ▲ | BobbyJo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It just makes it weird. When the US does something bad and people go "but CHINA!" it's also weird. | |
| ▲ | some_random 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because it's very obvious whataboutism. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pishpash 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There is this thing called implicit acceptability. If you really find it unacceptable you might want to start close to your circle of concern. Otherwise, pretty sure you find it acceptable by action. Many, even most people are pro-slavery and pro-whatever as we speak, even paying to see it happen. They only mouth some useless moralizing words. | |
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | dublinstats 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | | | |
| ▲ | godelski 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm really unfamiliar with this playbook and how America has used it. Do you have any examples? I can't seem to find any |
|
|
