Because what you said is understood by no one as it is nonsense. You cannot understand me but I still counter everything you say just so other readers know how inferior you are at debate.
No joke. Everyone who likes my comments know what I'm talking about. We are all in the same bubble and you are free by yourself, right? LOL You have no common sense because you have no reality checks...
It's my hobby embarassing trolls like you. Lots of people find it interesting (check my ratings) but of course the troll doesn't. Deer don't enjoy the hunt like lions do
I think you have me confused with someone else again... I'm the person who said that it is very difficult to compare national power and find equality or whatnot but seeing American desperation, it shows that China is in a better position to grow and likely to surpass the US.
It is boring how you cannot understand my English so you cannot progress in the argument. I assure you, the problem is not mine.
It is not a matter of strength or weakness but a natural reflex. I would not have made a judgement either way since the sanctions on both sides are pointless. But with your argument, calmness is weakness and reciprocation is also weakness, which makes you incoherent.
Surely I do. If your country is becoming stronger and its goals are being achieved like China, then your calmness is based on strength. If you just lost 20 soldiers but don't dare escalate a military conflict like India, then the calmness is based on weakness. USA has no calm cus it's freaking out about its future.
Yet everyone finds it much higher than yours...
You are far repetitive here than I am. I always debunk your arguments and you just repeat them again without support.
You cannot define what is overreacting and you also don't know what China should have done even though "nothing" and "recirpocate" both seem like weakness to you because you have no idea what to do.
From above:
Here is good article that debunk the myth of CCP is bad but Chinese people is good
The ‘Communist Party evil; Chinese people good’ myth
The notion that there is a neat division between the ruling party and everyone else in society is enticing
by July 10, 2020
A float featuring the Communist Party of China passes through Tiananmen Square in Beijing during the parade to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. Photo: AFP Forum via Sputnik / Anna Ratkoglo
Writing in mid-March, Josh Rogin, a columnist for The Washington Post, the importance of pushing back against Beijing’s rewriting of the history of the coronavirus crisis, but not in a way that fuels racism against Chinese citizens or Asian-Americans, something still pertinent four months on.
“The key to accomplishing both goals is to separate the way we talk about the Chinese people from the way we talk about their rulers in Beijing,” Rogin wrote.
Echoing the views of many academics and commentators around the world, he said, “We must all be specific in blaming the Chinese Communist Party for its actions. It was the CCP that hid the virus outbreak for weeks, silencing doctors, jailing journalists and thwarting science.
“The Chinese people are heroes in this story. Chinese doctors, researchers and journalists risked their lives and even died fighting the virus and warning the d.
“The Chinese are also victims of their own government’s draconian measures, which caused massive extra suffering.” In short, he concluded, “Our beef is not with the Chinese people. Our problem is with the CCP.”
One cannot be sure how pervasive such a view is. But the “CCP bad, Chinese good” sentiment appears common. Having lived in or reported from many authoritarian countries, I know the notion that there is a neat division between the ruling party and everyone else in society is enticing.
Moreover, when trying to defend a group from racism, one walks a fine line between defense and patronizing. Often that group is instead held up as perfect and infallible, though without responsibilitfor their actions.
This thinking is problematic, though. Take Li Wenliang, the late Wuhan doctor and “whistleblower” who is now regarded as something of a “dissident” by some in the West because of his revealing of information about the coronavirus that causes Covid-19 before his death in early February.
He was no doubt someone Rogin had in mind when he wrote about the “heroes in this story.” Yet he was a member of the CCP since university. A great number of China’s most famous and coherent dissidents were once party members, too.
As Kerry Brown, professor of Chinese studies and director of the Lau China Institute, noted in an for Oxford Political Review back in April, “for the great supporters of a neat division between Party and population, the thorny issue is that the Party is part of society, and its members are, unsurprisingly, more often than not typical Chinese people.”
He went on, “The Party deliberately sets out to integrate and reach deep into society. The most prudent thing one can say about the relationship between the two is that they are very complex.”
And he added, “And if you want to start deploying language like ‘evil’ about the Party, then you are going to have to start labeling a good number of Chinese people that way too. Party members are Chinese people, after all, not some separate species.”
While there are a tiny minority of some 3,000 senior party apparatchiks, there are around 90 million members of the CCP, according to estimates. But this doesn’t tell the whole picture of how not only the CCP pervades all areas of society, but also of how hundreds of millions of people are directly or indirectly tied to its fate.
Aside from the apparatchiks, there are millions of scientists, technicians, economists, academics and other experts who advise the government.
Added to this are the academics, journalists, editors commentators whose job is to defend the party. Indeed, the party apparatus and the sweeping bureaucracy are increasingly drawn from the ranks of urban, middle-class and university-educated, many of whom most probably don’t share the party’s ideology but know opportunistically or realistically that working with it is the only way to get ahead in life.
Many of the heroes of China’s economy also owe much to the party’s patronage. And then there are the tens of millions of ordinary people who have been lifted out of poverty and offered the promise of prosperity because of the CCP’s guardianship of the economy.
Yet this throws up another problem. Just because so many Chinese people are tied to the fate of the CCP, it doesn’t mean it is the legitimate representative of the Chinese people, given there has been no free election in China for decades, and certainly not since the creation of the People’s Republic in 1949. It is impossible, as a result, to conclude that the Communist Party is, first, popular, and, second, the legitimate representative of the Chinese people.
But this reasoning comes with a logical conclusion that many commentators do not want to concede: The Chinese people will never have a legitimate government until there is either true democratic reform or regime change in Beijing. In this case, those of us who believe that China must have a democratic future must not battle with China, but for China.
Kerry Brown blushes at this. He writes sarcastically of the “heroic statement that we, outside of China, with our enlightened ways, are those who will be key in delivering this salvation. We are on our way. Freedom is nigh.”
One shouldn’t be so skeptical, however, about expressing the moral certitude of the democratic world, not just by Westerners, but also people from China’s neighbors like South Korea, Japan and, dare one say, Taiwan. Arrogance is wrong, but moral relativism is worse.
Yet if one does wish for democratic change in China, then the sort of thinking that “our beef is not with the Chinese people; our problem is with the CCP,” as the columnist Rogin put it, is counterproductive.
Like it or not, most tyrannical states don’t fall from the noble and courageous protests of ordinary citizens. The Soviet Union wobbled because of a decades-old mismanaged economy, but it finally crumbled after Moscow refused to put down protests in the Warsaw Pact nations, an attempted military coup flopped, leaders in the Socialist Republics on the USSR’s periphery broke away, such as those in the Baltics, and then the center caved in when Boris Yeltsin called for Russian independence.
The US was using the China card against the Soviets, they didn’t know China would become such a strong competitor today if they had know they wouldn’t have done so(they have always underestimated China). As for trade there is a lot of money involved the rich and elites in the US has substantially profited from the rise of China.
So naive & cute. Almost unbelievably naive.