Tu quoque arguments aren't very compelling. Currently there is only one world power throwing entire populations in internment camps, and that's China. And you're quite naive if you think military bases are required to use threats of military and economic violence to assert a country's desire.
"Re-education camps" which are closer to detainment camps, repeated IP theft from the US, blackmailing US companies into falling in line with CPC policies, and also invading other nations (Hong Kong) with their military.
Characterizing the HK situation as a military invasion is so disingenuous it makes me heavily question whether you are approaching this in good faith. Especially when you are juxtaposing with a nation that has documented military incursions all over South America, Asia, and the Middle East. To have the gall to call destabilizing multiple South American regimes, the Vietnam War, the Iraq campaign, etc. "self-defense" is beyond appalling.
Why shouldn’t a country fight back against US coercion on its soil? And Hong Kong has been a part of China for centuries.
How many countries had the US invaded and is still occupying? How many were threatened into extreme exploitation? How many people are in the ICE run concentration camps?
> How many countries had the US invaded and is still occupying? How many were threatened into extreme exploitation?
The people you’re asking couldn’t begin to answer these questions. They don’t know the uncontested grisly facts of the US empire because they’re not talked about on any of their favorite TV shows.
> Why shouldn’t a country fight back against US coercion on its soil?
What "coercion"? China employs internet commentators to influence online opinion[1] - whereas the US does not (as far as anyone can tell).
> Hong Kong has been a part of China for centuries.
You're misdirecting. China signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration[2], which stated that "Hong Kong's existing capitalist system and way of life would be unchanged for 50 years until 2047"...which China is now blatantly violating, making this an effective invasion - or some form of hostile action - take your pick of words.
> How many countries had the US invaded and is still occupying? How many were threatened into extreme exploitation?
In self-defense. China has no excuse for invading HK, which poses absolutely no threat to them.
> How many people are in the ICE run concentration camps?
Not remotely comparable. ICE detains illegal immigrants for breaking a rather reasonable law - "you don't enter our borders without permission" - and then returns them to their country. China detains existing citizens for thoughtcrime, speaking out against the state, or merely being Uyghur - none of which are reasonable.
> The two countries don’t even remotely compare.
Yes - every shred of evidence paints China as being incomparably worse.
> What "coercion"? China employs internet commentators to influence online opinion[1] - whereas the US does not (as far as anyone can tell).
There are many examples of the US working to influence the internal politics of other countries through media, for instance Radio Free Asia or the National Endowment for Democracy.
I'm not trying to affect an objective morality to say it's "wrong", I'm just saying the US does it too. So let's not get up in arms about supposed Chinese internet commenters or Russian fake news.
Why not get up in arms about it? One is done in support of a flawed nation with democratic and freedom ideals, the other is done in support of a murderous authoritarian regime that wishes to annihilate democracy and freedom. It's perfectly reasonable to be up in arms about it.
Please don't name-call. Even if the person you're responding to is making invalid points, or being aggressive, that doesn't excuse aggression yourself.
