I’m no fan of the guy, and I’m no fan of the government. That said- Most of the dates given happened before Communist China existed- Before the People’s Republic of China and under empirical China- which hasn’t existed since the early 20th century.
The only one on here that has anything to do with the current Chinese government is the 1979 war with Vietnam. And that wasn’t really a war of conquest on the part of China of else it’s unlikely Cambodia or Vietnam would still be around. For those who aren’t familiar-
This is the simplified version of a countries long and complex history as it applies to the period of the current Chinese government and nation- which didn’t exist before WW2. After a long history of occupation and assault- Vietnam was occupied during WW2 and a resistance sprung up. Post WW2 the country was divided much as Korea was. Much like Korea, the US came in to back the Democratic South. China already backed the Khmer in Cambodia and the communist North of Vietnam- troops, weapon, training, etc. Vietnam and Cambodia were allies against the US and the South- although the US was never officially at war with Cambodia in this period.
So- after the Civil war ended in victory for the communists and the US had withdrawn- Cambodia began to think that Vietnam had ambitions to expand and conquer their territory. Cambodia carried out a series of attacks and massacres along the southern border of Vietnam- Vietnam responded by making its own attacks on Cambodia to force peace talks. It did not work. China stepped in as a leading “nannny” to communism (much as the US likes to Nanny democracy) to hold peace talks- which failed.
Vietnam invaded Cambodia successfully beginning a 10 year occupation. Rebel forces- both those supporting the Khmer and those for a free Cambodia but against the Khmer- worked within the country while international attention was brought to the conflict and the UN came in. A plan was put in place to hold elections under a newly formed non Khmer government- and in this time- Cambodians for or against the Khmer- communism, capitalism- etc. fought and politic’d each other, the UN, the Vietnamese forces still fought and China still was giving support to the Khmer.
In 1979 China invaded Vietnam to force retreat from Cambodia. The 27 day conflict didn’t have the intended results and China- like most who step on Vietnamese soil- was defeated by skilled fighters using. Ad hoc equipment and well refined tactics and tenacity. The attack DID however tax the Vietnamese military and require Tripp’s he recalled from Cambodia- which allowed a resurgence of Cambodian resistance fighters and led to the eventual end of the conflict- the withdrawal of China, the UN, Vietnam- and the formation of a new Cambodian government- and the exile and outlawing of the Khmer (who took refuge in Thailand mostly- an arrangement in exchange for their ceasing support of Thai communist resistance fighters.)
***!!!!! It is critical to note that the Khmer Rouge was a brutal government- under Pol Pot they carried out massive genocide that wiped out around 25% of Cambodians. Muslims, mixed ethnicity or ancestry Cambodians, and general dissenters were all killed in mass graves or sent to labor and concentration camps to die or assassinated/executed. Attempting their own “great leap forward” caused many deaths and starvation, suffering, and misery. In their attacks against Vietnam the Khmer massacred civilians. During Vietnamese occupation the Khmer resistance targeted Vietnamese civilians and massacred them then as well.
It wasn’t NATO or the USA or The U.K. Or China or anyone else who stepped in to stop it. The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia is what ended the Genocides and eventually the Khmer and Pol Pot. Most accounts also hold that Vietnam did not ONLY invade Cambodia to stop attacks- Cambodian refugees and their horror stories (as well as the struggles of dealing with large numbers of refugees) had been flooding into Vietnam for awhile before the war started. So in part most accounts hold that one of the goals of the Vietnamese invasion was to stop the Khmer’s barbarism.
Tl:dr- Khmer Cambodia attacked Vietnam and massacred civilians out of fear Vietnam was going to annex them. Peace talks led by China (who was allied to both nations but supported the Khmer) failed Vietnam invaded Cambodia under the premise of stopping the attacks (and by most accounts the cruelty of the Khmer.) China invaded Vietnam to get Vietnam to leave Cambodia after peace talks for leaving fell through. China was defeated and Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia- and the Khmer government in Cambodia- were ended. NATO forces helped oversee democratic elections and a new Cambodia was born.
We can’t hold the present Chinese government accounting for any of those wars listed except for the 1979 war as the formation of the current government wasn’t until 1949, and the overthrow of the imperial government responsible for those wars happened in the early/mid 20th century. Ideologies asides- we also can’t say that China was any more a conqueror in the conflict than Vietnam was. Conquerer and Liberator are matters of opinion- on principal- the overthrowing of the Khmer and the defense of ones borders is right. But- occupation of another country for “their own good” is something Vietnam has experienced and didn’t care for. So... like much of the history in the region it’s a tad complex and nuanced- and there are seldom “good guys” and “bad guys” more than there are shades of gray.
deleted
· 4 years ago
Uhm, as interesting all this may well be, it's irrelevant in this context, as Chinese Winnie the Pooh didn't say or mean "the People's Republic of China" but referred to historic China.
It’s actually quite relevant. I’ve taken one of the given dates- and shown that China was not “in search of conquest.” I could do them all if you like? Let’s do abridged version- as I don’t know that I have the time nor the servers are up to a detailed military and political history of several thousand years of Chinese history.
“China” as a concept didn’t exist until about 200BC when unified by the Han. That’s a critical point. “China” as a nation is comprised of many ethnic groups and tribes- there were no borders on the map at one point- but for example- the group of people that today we would all “Vietnamese” made up a good portion of early Chinese citizens. From the Northern Steeps to the jungles and deserts and coasts and in between- China covers a large land mass, much of Asia, and we can’t really say those people were “Chinese” before there was a China or they were a recognized part of it- can we?
That being said- we can break most conflicts in China in history down into several categories. Civil wars, defense actions (such as the Mongolians) and so on. Now- here’s where it gets tricky- the unification of China required what we could all conquest- before emperors there were warlords. They fought for territory and resources and power. It was through the defeat and consolidation or surrender and consolidation of these various groups that China cane to exist instead of hundreds or thousands of unique city states, nomads, and tribes- or those groups being annexed by others into an entity that is not China.
But again- it’s nuanced. Did the United States Conquer Louisiana, Alabama, And so on during the civil war? It’s a matter of semantics isn’t it? How can you conquer what is yours? The Confederacy would likely view “The war of Northern Aggression” as a conquest- where as the United States would view it as putting down a rebellion and unifying the United States.
More importantly- we can say the United States didn’t SEEK conquest regardless of wether conquest occurred or not. The United States didn’t go looking for a civil war- the United States wasn’t looking to conquer native tribes- the US was looking for land and resources and would have been very happy if the people who had them just got up and left.
In context to historical China there are two important points there. 1. Wether they conquered or not- SEEKING conquest is a question of motive- not action. So we can’t rightly say that they wanted to conquer anywhere- conquest requires use of military force- given the choice I’m sure they’d rather not have to use military force to get what they wanted in general.
2. In historical context the “divine mandate” of China- a concept similar to other powers in history- essentially stated that by virtue of birth, certain things belonged to China- were ordained to China by greater powers and inherently theirs by right. So from that perspective- it certainly wouldn’t be conquest to claim what is yours- even if you had to fight for it- no more than stopping a home invader would be you conquering your own house right?
But again- that’s a rather tricky thing. No nation exists really- outside isolated peoples- where conquest isn’t some part of their history- and likely if it isn’t- the conquest just predates recorded history as at some point- barring total cooperation and unanimous decision to follow a given leadership- even at a tribal period in ancient human history there would be conquest- If not amongst humans, than humans and earlier ancestors like Neanderthal, or even animals who claimed land before humans settled in as non nomadic peoples.
When one speaks in absolutes- almost always whatever one says will be wrong- as there are almost always exceptions to any standard norm given the right circumstances.
At the end of the day- history is a subjective thing. We can see it in even a simple interaction between two people. A steps on the foot of B- A claims it is an accident and says sorry. B believes it was on purpose, and the “way they said sorry” was clearly meant to make that known. To A- B is combative and wrong. To B- A is combative and wrong. They will each tell the story as they see it. Now- in TRUTH A could have done it on purpose- even subconsciously, but maybe they actually did mean the apology- perhaps A mistook B for someone they disliked but didn’t want to admit that part. Or perhaps A did it on accident- but the apology was insincere. Neither one of their stories will necessarily reflect reality 100%.
But it’s all about perspective. What’s critical there- is that diplomacy- avoiding conflict- requires us to understand the perspective of the other side- even when it seems crazy to us. It is much easier to look at a person and say “they are obviously detached from reality...” but... you can’t really understand lunacy can you? If they are just “delusional” then how would you communicate with them unless you share the same delusion?
This is a critical thing because- people are fragile mentally. We have a vision of what the world looks like- and in truth- we are all a bit delusional. The world I see and understand isn’t the one you do. The world someone sees who is worried about threats from immigration isn’t the same one a person who wants open borders sees- because of it was- we’d both likely agree on what needed to be done- or at least agree on what the problems and particulars are- which in such cases people can’t even agree on what the problem they are trying to solve is let alone the best way to solve it OR the best outcome- the goal.
It is very hard to change a persons world view- because to do so shakes the very core of reality as they know it and casts in to doubt everything they have ever done since it was predicated on what is now false information.
A person generally must decide to change their world view- which is a process usually, coming not from a single revelation or the introduction of facts that they may or may not agree with. That is ideological conquest in essence- but why would one person look at all they believe, and trust someone else more than they trust themselves to contextualize the world for them? Usually we wouldn’t. If someone told you tomorrow that the Nazis were actually the good guys in history- and the best thing for the future is bring back the Reich- and presented compelling evidence and the most moving and logical and actually indisputable argument to support it... would you be willing to take on that perspective? I can say that there are some things that as far as we can use absolutes- I would never see myself buying in to regardless of evidence or logic or anything to the contrary.
So the key here- Tl:dr- is really perspective. We could go through Chinese history one battle at a a time and go over how one could argue that said battle wasn’t conquest, wasn’t seeking conquest, etc etc. from various perspectives- or.... we could save ourselves 150 years of discussion that would take and call it perspective. The reply doesn’t matter- if you agree, we are good. If you disagree- we obviously have different perspectives, and therefore it still proves the point.
@guest_ Even if we ignore the Empirical China, Modern Day China has a tendency to acquire things as well. The current Indo-China debacle is a recent example. There are so many more. Generally India, Tibet, Vietnam, etc are the targets. They can give all kinds of justifications they want, but they are still taking on territories of other nations.
China also has other ways of acquiring territory, by way of loans. Loan out a bunch of money to a vulnerable country you have interest in, and when they inevitably cannot repay you, repossess whatever they used the money on through the business that lent them the money. Plenty of these nations China has an interest in don't own their own roads or airports this way. And on another note, Taiwan is sweating since China is really itching to "reclaim" any errant vassals who think they deserve to independently govern themselves. Bullshit China doesn't want to conquer, the majority of their history is bigger sections of itself eating up smaller parts to add to their size.
@spookykink58- China is a nation of many wonderful people, interesting history and culture. On the whole- especially modern China- is not on my “Santa’s Nice” list of nations- I mean... they’re all pretty bad in some way if you dig- but the way the government acts rubs my freedom lovin American sensibilities the wrong way. They do have “feeedom” but it isn’t the kind I find palatable. And I agree- many if their policies are shit. They are big bullies like us, like Russia, like... odd coincidence... most of the worlds wealthiest/powerful nations.
tarotnathers13th gives a good reply I think- China, like most nations- especially in the post nuclear age- tends to prefer other means to get what they want over conquest. Wether that’s loan schemes, economic manipulation, controlling production or trade/infrastructure, empowering rebels, terrorists etc to proxy combat to weaken or manipulate a country, cyber warfare, propaganda, information warfare, ideological indoctrination of foreigners....
But I mean... if we are going to give China a hard time about consolidating Asian territory into their own... I don’t know when we plan to give Texas or California back to Mexico and if that is before or after we give it back to the indigenous people... and Ireland may have some things to say on the subject to the UK along with Scotland and... Israel is a contentious topic- conquered lands and all that.... but.. the Muslims conquered those lands too. It’s.. complex. What China did in Cambodia we did in South America, the Middle East... the UK too. Russia... I don’t need to mention Russia. Even many “Russians” can’t agree on who is “Russian.”
The fact everyone is wrong doesn’t make it ok to do wrong- but it is important to approach these things with a level of consciousness of ones own position. It just shows that things are a matter of perspective, what we notice and don’t in ourselves and others, the way we see the details and so on.
No one is saying that people of China are bad. The people leading the nation are doing this stuff. And yes, China is a bully and I completely agree with the investment and loan thing. Forget about smaller nations, look at the amount of investment China has in America and India. And about giving territories back- yeah it was a terrible thing that happened to the natives, but those territories are officially part of USA and have been for a long time. (You should have picked a better example like Puerto Rico or Hawaii or something.) America is not capturing territories now, while there are other bad things that they are doing.
And if everyone sucks then it doesn't mean that someone cannot suck more. Some perspectives are universal and one of those is that what China is doing in Asia is wrong. There is no perspective to things here for people. Only people who like to circle jerk or discuss politics.
By no means did I mean or imply anyone was bad mouthing the Chinese people- I’m sorry I wasn’t cleared there. I wanted to preface what I was saying with that, so there wasn’t a misconception that when I spoke negatively on the political situation in China- I was not blaming the citizens or bad mourning China.
As the example- I used Hawaii already in a post about confederate flags so I rotated out. But California did also belong to Mexico even if we don’t want to go as far back as early colonization. But... in the last 4 years the US government rejected the pathway proposed for the Dakota pipeline over concerns it could contaminate ground water- and then rerouted the pipe under a lake used by natives as a primary water source... legally, even though native lands aren’t technically the USA- they belong to the USA- so that isn’t exactly the same thing LEGALLY- but in principal it is the same: take the land, say “sorry our ancestors did that- here is some land. But it’s still ours. And also- we are gonna need that back to build this thing we don’t think is safe to put near peoples water- near your water.”
As for capturing territories- we capture- it’s just more a catch and release- we destroyed the government of Iraq and the military and infrastructure. Then rebuilt it. We went for the same in Afghanistan. We have 28,000+ troops stationed in South Korea acting in behalf of the South Korean Government as a deterrent in their civil war. Germany and Japan being the next largest deployments after that. Now- we don’t claim those territories- but we’ve kept a strong presence full time for going on a century pretty soon here after those wars ended.... and yes. That is for strategic positioning for use of military force in those regions. Full time permanent US bases on foreign soil for almost 100 years.
Late 1800’s early 1900’s we already took most of what we want land wise. Why WOULD we take more? We took Panama Canal Zone in 1904. It’s legally US soil. We took Much of the Southwest in the late 1800’s when we fought Mexico and natives. By the early 1900’s we’d had the last official armed warfare with native tribes. I suppose we could take land from Mexico- but there’s not much border adjacent unoccupied land we want- and current/recent administrations have been trying to keep people out or put people BACK south of the border- so we wouldn’t as policy likely go take a bunch of land with minimal or no resources and roll its occupants up as American citizens.
I suppose we could take the south of Canada. There’s some timber there, minerals, scenic beauty? But- not a lot of tactical or economic gain there. I mean- we seized good portion of an entire continent and only have two neighbors- and we can get almost anything we want from either one cheaper and easier than war at the moment.
That’s the key- at the moment. As you say- we haven’t RECENTLY taken on any new “acquisitions.” But... you mentioned Puerto Rico- our not quite a state but also sorta US citizens but not entirely- they don’t pay federal taxes and can’t vote among other things... so I mean- 1898 till now and we haven’t made them “fully” part of the USA- and it doesn’t seem like a plan to do so. We don’t even want to deal with the territories we have- let alone take on the costs and defense and problems and people and issues of taking new and remote holdings.
Not that we didn’t try. We can’t say what would have happened if we had successfully invaded Cuba- would we have installed a pro us government? Perhaps a puppet state where Washington had veto and final control over decisions as “advisors” etc? Perhaps they’d be like Puerto Rico. We can’t say since it didn’t go that way- but while we don’t tend to keep what we catch- we sure do seem to take territory or whatever else if we want it.
*yes- the history of Puerto Rico is more complex- at various times in history the USA has had popular or government movements to make the 51st state, and something or even Puerto Rico not wanting to stopped it- and at various times Puerto Rico has had popular sentiments or votes for statehood and Washington has said no. But-
That’s the point. We don’t NEED to annex. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? The risks and complications let alone global politics and potential fear and aggression that annexing Japan after the war would have caused outweighed what we saw as the benefits. As it stands we get reasonably favored diplomacy and the primary benefit of annexation- we have a strong military presence in the area- one of the strongest.
So the fact that we don’t conquer much anymore because we already took what we wanted is like saying there’s no point in jailing someone who stole a billion dollars because they don’t need to steal anymore and are set for life. We used our I’ll gotten gains to create an economy and frame work- and military- that allows us to generally have what we want.
I will be frank- and possibly offensive. The USA manages to invade parts of China without causing WW3. Now we have this land an some odd million Chinese- many of whom may not be happy with us- may become spies, terrorists, malcontents etc. we gain... some people, land. Maybe resources? But Chinese factories under US labor laws don’t make $10 coffee tables and $1000 iPhones at x thousand a day so they? We actually lose from a pragmatic and cold standpoint. And culturally- we are now tipping the balance.
Keep in mind- if it isn’t Chinese soil- some other Asian soil- we also now have made aggressive moves really close to several twitchy world powers. When we send in the troops and everything else for our annexation and occupation- legitimate “moving in” stuff with no ill intent- that’s going to cause alarms to go off from countries like China who now have US military massing at thee door steps. Russia didn’t even have to occupy Cuba to almost cause WW3- just be pals and have a military base.
Global power is a complex thing in the nuclear age. Even creating DEFENSIVE ONLY systems to stop nuclear weapons can cause war- since if one nuclear power has nukes and a nuke “shield”- they no longer have to fear another’s counter strike- which would be a tactically advantaged position for war or at the least bullying. When you start invading- you can’t say “no. We promise we will stop here. You don’t have to worry about your country..” Germany and Russia/USSR Already played that hand. It makes folks nervous. It just isn’t in our interests to take.
Again- offensive but true- take... what? India? Again- great people, lovely cultures, much beauty- also impoverished and with a very different cultural perspective on many aspects of life and philosophy. It would be a nightmare- even the government there has trouble with economics, basic sanitation, etc. etc. why would we want to take that on? For what? We use cheap Indian labor for textiles, manufacturing, outsourced labor, etc. what do we get by owning and having to take care of it? We lose most of the cost benefits that push business to India, and take on massive administrative and conversion costs. And we’d need to own the matching set with Pakistan if we didn’t want major trouble- and man. That’s a bag of worms.
Turns out- most of these smaller countries, or less “developed” countries- have lots of baggage. Take Pakistan and Pakistanis and Indians don’t become friends just because Pakistan is US soil do they? You get free enemies with every conquest- and that doesn’t include locals who may rebel or go form/join terrorists. And that’s IF we succeed- because Vietnam was “some tiny undeveloped country” in many peoples minds- and they held off or expelled the major military and technological powers of the world for over 100 years-culminating with an ass kicking of the USA AND China.
Man that's a lot of points. I am gonna be honest here, at the moment I neither have the energy nor the information/knowledge to make an argument, but believe me, I read the whole thing and I understand where you come from and what you want to say.
Afghanistan gets most of its revenue from selling opium- cheap towels and department store dresses are made there. There are enough angry armed folks hiding there that a massive deployment of the worlds largest military spender couldn’t “win” in over a decade trying. You’d never get all the “problematic” folks out- and if you did- you’re surrounded by more problems.
Quibble with the Vietnam point, that also applies to our recent efforts in the middle east and Africa: We could take them with ease and slaughter the nations almost overnight, but we don't have the stomach or stand to benefit from doing so. Which introduces the domestic side of a hypothetical imperial modern US...
And well... sad but true- Events concerning Eastern Europe. Russia/USSR has shown us- such annexations are REALLY impractical without genocide and mass murder. It turns out that one of the major hurdles to American success in our more recent conflicts may just be that we don’t want to line folks up and shoot them in mass graves. Not that we are so good about “collateral damage” but we don’t set out with the intent to massacre civilians- we just are willing to if they are in the way or the wrong place. Long term of course- the whole “massacre/genocide” thing doesn’t seem to work- just creates your future problems- but it has been successful in at least the annexation of territories in or by powers of Eastern Europe.
Tl:dr- America doesn’t need to annex territory- it generally hurts us more than it helps us. We prefer “catch and release.” It is harder to exploit US citizens than foreign ones. The work of keeping and running territory is too much for the gain usually- and it allows us to blame any problems in the territory on the government there and not take it ourselves. We land grabbed at the start of this century and anything really worth taking that was ripe for taking- we took. Almost anything left would cause WW3 or nuclear holocaust.
@spookykink58- thank you- and sorry to overwhelm. I appreciate you reading and replying. I’ve been rather verbose lately, even for me. My SO has left for a month so perhaps being alone and quarantined has driven me to mania- more than usual.
@famousone- unpopular to say- but it’s largely a fact most people get uncomfortable looking at. Yeah. We could at the very least, without nuclear weapons, level these countries completely if we gave up all illusions or aspersions of avoiding “unnecessary casualties.” But like you say- we’d be left with a litter box of cinders and a lot of psychologically scarred guys in the ground doing the sweeping up after.
And there isn’t a practical reason to do it. And shit man. Even if we could snap our fingers and do it without the destruction- just make all the “bad guys” vanish... we don’t want the people who are there. Not saying anything about them as people- but the effort and disruption of getting them up to “speed” on “being American” and all that.... too much work for no practical purpose. More mouths to feed- and capitalism is about what is of use- what use do we have? We already have more people who can’t be put to use than we have things that need doing that are constructive and humane.
I just want it to be known, these are not failures on the military's part. We have not failed, not in Vietnam, not in Central America, not in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Syria, or west Africa. It is the people and the politicians who failed to set victory conditions, and worse, failed to say enough is enough once we've destroyed the enemy we set out to destroy.
The people need to know in their hearts that sending us to fight battles they can't stomach is killing us. They need to feel guilt every time some 19 year old Specialist punches his own ticket in front of a VA hospital because we the people broke our promise to him.
I would agree. The skill and ferocity if the American fighting man and woman shouldn’t be impugned any more than we can say the same of many of the other combatants. Mismanagement, political games, a home public “supporting the troops but not the mission” and of course- corruption has played a major role in US military campaigns of the late 20th century.
The design, operation, and deployment of the M16 was compromised by corruption and politics, carelessness and cutting corners. Bad ammo, bad info, insufficient supplies- this has been true of materiel and equipment for most of our modern fights. More recently bad mags and beat to crap guns, tools not up for the job- and so on. Constant changes in direction or intention from politicians far away and safe- worries about winning elections and not military campaigns.
If we commit our forces- we need to commit. Right or wrong- you can’t pull the pin and pop the lever and then cork it back up. If you think you may need to cancel- you’ve gotta have planned and prepared BEFORE you toss the pin or let that lever fly.
Using our troops in combat as test subjects for new toys, as ways to hand work to your pals, as pawns for elections- not right. Sending them into battle with no damn plan to get them out of the winds change is a last resort- it shouldn’t be SOP. Don’t blame the troops. Blame politicians, blame the process, blame a lack of foresight, integrity, and competence of leaders who act foolishly.
People are generally ignorant when it comes to tactics - people generally don’t know violence or understand it. People are like children- entitled, emotional, fickle. I expect leaders to know this and to act as if it were true. People don’t get a vote on when or who in war. Soldiers suffer when the politicians can’t or won’t tell the people to shut up and let the grown ups do what they are hired to. And if they do- the next slimy SOB riding public sentiment will take their job and cock it up.
So I don’t blame joe and Jane public- but I would, like you, ask them to do better. To remember that their impulsiveness and self centered need for moral validation will get someone killed- most likely an 18yo kid who swore to go where they were told and fight who they were told.
A kid who would much rather be fighting some manifestation of pure evil than involved in a civil war not too many people understand or being a level for tomorrow’s political meetings- or if they’re REALLY wise- they’d rather they didn’t have to fight anyone but are ready to if needed. But that oath doesn’t say “when I feel like it” or “when it makes sense to me.” It says you’ll trust that the people putting you in danger have a damn good reason and will do everything possible to either get you home alive or make sure you died for something that you could be proud of.
That kid didn’t do anything wrong and isn’t part of the politics. He agreed to give up his rights and possibly his life for John and Jane public- and o think the least they could do for him is have HIS back and think about HIS best interests and not what would make them feel less uncomfortable or embarrassed when talking to their international pals.
@guest_ it's alright mate, still had a good time reading your views. And it's cool that at least someone is verbose enough for the entire site. Also, hope your SO comes back home soon.
Lol. Thank you. Gone a month. Bitter sweet. Lots of time for projects and games, still very much missed though. I’ll be happy when they get home- but I’ll focus on the things I can do while they are gone now, and what I can do but can’t now when they get back.
And if everyone sucks then it doesn't mean that someone cannot suck more. Some perspectives are universal and one of those is that what China is doing in Asia is wrong. There is no perspective to things here for people. Only people who like to circle jerk or discuss politics.
The people need to know in their hearts that sending us to fight battles they can't stomach is killing us. They need to feel guilt every time some 19 year old Specialist punches his own ticket in front of a VA hospital because we the people broke our promise to him.