If China wants to set up navy bases in mexico or whatever they’re more than welcome, but they should recognize that their own harassment of shipping hundreds of miles from its shores is why those bases are there in the first place

[–] Landrin201@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You know full well that if China were to attempt to establish a military base in Tijuana then the US would invade Mexico within the month. Don't be dense. The last time a geopolitical rival set up a base near the US we invaded, nearly started a nuclear war, and blockade them for 80 years.

The US is the walking embodiment of "rules for thee, but not for me" in international politics

[–] kitonthenet@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Don’t be dense

I would suggest you start by admitting you know that the entirety of the South China Sea is not Chinese territory, as the Gulf of Mexico and bearing sea is not the US'

a geopolitical rival set up a base near the US

That's a funny way of saying "covertly placed nuclear missiles in range to attempt a decapitating first strike" which is especially weird because you said we're done being dense, I guess you'd be the expert in "rules for thee but not for me"

[–] nonsense_boyo@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"covertly placed nuclear missiles in range to attempt a decapitating first strike"

Ah the nice retcon of history. Cuba missiles were only placed as only covert first strike weapons, while being invaded, having wide spread US state sponsored terrorism, and direct evidence that the US would further esclate soon. Not for a retaliatory strike against expected extreme American aggression- but for covert first strike.

I think youre better off referring to actual "covertly placed nuclear missiles in range to attempt a decapitating first strike" in deployed in Turkey.

[–] Landrin201@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

We have nukes in Turkey, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Italy. All of which are within easy first strike distance of Russia. Especially Turkey. And that's just the ones we know of. I have no doubt there are others we haven't told the public about.

Yet when Russia tried to get nukes in Cuba for the same reason, you're claiming it was definitely for a first strike. The Russians said that the nukes in Cuba were not for a first strike, just like NATO does with the nukes in Turkey. Why do you believe NATO and not Russia? Only one side of the cold war had EVER used a nuclear first strike, and it wasn't the Russians...