China isn't militarily supporting Russia or Ukraine. Ukraine's drone army is built from cheap Chinese drones. China is neutral. The argument that it hasn't sanctioned Russia means it is a party to the war on Russia's side is an argument of the form "if you aren't with us, you are against us." But then, you'd think the US would levy the same kind of vitriol at e.g. India.
China is led by a General Secretary of the Communist Party's central committee. Taiwan and China are recognized by the United States by international treaty as one country.
China is "attacking" the US? The US and China are in economic warfare (an economic war started by the United States under the Trump Administration). The reason for this is the US sees China's economic rise as a threat to its global position.
Neutrality in the face of gross violations of international law amounts to tacit support. And yes, I understand that you have addressed this point in your comment, but whataboutism gets us nowhere. If a country is violating human rights, they should be held accountable.
> Taiwan and China are recognized by the United States by international treaty as one country.
A treaty not worth the paper it's written on. It's clear that the United States would defend Taiwan militarily were it to come to that, so mentioning as a reason to punish China that China continues to provoke Taiwan militarily is very relevant.
> The reason for this is the US sees China's economic rise as a threat to its global position.
Ahh yes, of course, this war being entirely the US' fault.
The Guardian piece is one of many quoting US officials who were trying at the time to argue that China was involved in the conflict. The purpose of the timing of these arguments was to put pressure on German Chancellor Scholz before he made an economic interrelations trip to China (https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/scholz-trip-to-c...). Notably that failed to gain the American officials what they wanted, as Europe continues to engage economically with China. That time and the time for that misinformation argument has since passed. We're on to other "assessments".
"Biden calls so-and-so a mean thing" is not evidence of mean thing. Using it as evidence is a logical fallacy ("argumentum ab auctoritate"). To help you understand why the US president said this, leaders call each other mean things (and even sometimes vaguely call of other's assassinations) as provocations, and in order to shape public opinion (yours).
Doesn't this seem at odds with the facts?
China isn't militarily supporting Russia or Ukraine. Ukraine's drone army is built from cheap Chinese drones. China is neutral. The argument that it hasn't sanctioned Russia means it is a party to the war on Russia's side is an argument of the form "if you aren't with us, you are against us." But then, you'd think the US would levy the same kind of vitriol at e.g. India.
China is led by a General Secretary of the Communist Party's central committee. Taiwan and China are recognized by the United States by international treaty as one country.
China is "attacking" the US? The US and China are in economic warfare (an economic war started by the United States under the Trump Administration). The reason for this is the US sees China's economic rise as a threat to its global position.
> China is neutral.
Neutrality in the face of gross violations of international law amounts to tacit support. And yes, I understand that you have addressed this point in your comment, but whataboutism gets us nowhere. If a country is violating human rights, they should be held accountable.
> Taiwan and China are recognized by the United States by international treaty as one country.
A treaty not worth the paper it's written on. It's clear that the United States would defend Taiwan militarily were it to come to that, so mentioning as a reason to punish China that China continues to provoke Taiwan militarily is very relevant.
> The reason for this is the US sees China's economic rise as a threat to its global position.
Ahh yes, of course, this war being entirely the US' fault.
>Neutrality in the face of gross violations of international law amounts to tacit support.
Overall hysterical post but this line was the best by far
China is not neutral
China supporting Russia in massive military expansion, US says. Beijing helping with drone production, space-based capabilities and ballistic missile production https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/12/china-supporti...
China is lead by a dictator
Biden calls Xi a dictator https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-calls-xi-dictator-after-...
Germany's foreign minister called Xi Jinping a “dictator” https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/19/china/china-germany-xi-dictat...
The Guardian piece is one of many quoting US officials who were trying at the time to argue that China was involved in the conflict. The purpose of the timing of these arguments was to put pressure on German Chancellor Scholz before he made an economic interrelations trip to China (https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/scholz-trip-to-c...). Notably that failed to gain the American officials what they wanted, as Europe continues to engage economically with China. That time and the time for that misinformation argument has since passed. We're on to other "assessments".
"Biden calls so-and-so a mean thing" is not evidence of mean thing. Using it as evidence is a logical fallacy ("argumentum ab auctoritate"). To help you understand why the US president said this, leaders call each other mean things (and even sometimes vaguely call of other's assassinations) as provocations, and in order to shape public opinion (yours).
It is like you don't know American history at all.