Jump to content

Why are the American authorities silent about human rights issues in the east?


Recommended Posts

The American nation is rightfully considered the guarantor of human rights and freedoms in the world. Why doesn't US interfere in the affairs of Afghanistan and China, on the genocide of the Hazaras and Uighurs?

As far as I know, there is no official US position on these issues, moreover, Turkey is doing this at least under the pretext of protecting Muslims in relation to the Uighurs.

Edited by altaylar2000
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, altaylar2000 said:

Were they protecting the Hazaras at the time?

No, they were protecting the dollar. That's what they always do.

That's what makes this so funny.
 

16 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

The American nation is rightfully considered the guarantor of human rights and freedoms in the world.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

By the way, I think the police in the United States are generally doing well. Low level of corruption, good professional and physical training. A police officer cannot risk his life, constantly thinking how not to cross the threshold of political correctness. I live in Russia, and here 90% of police officers have no training at all and believe that they work there in order to earn money on bribes, and no one will even consider what happened to an African American a violation. Once at a police station, a large policeman hit me with all his might about 10 times in the chest. But all I thought about was just getting out of there. This would have consequences only if an official or a deputy or his entourage were subjected to violence, and so on.

The fact that there is case law in the United States, weapons are allowed and enough freedom to defend themselves and protect homes suggests that the law enforcement and judicial systems work well there compared to other countries

35 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

No, they were protecting the dollar. That's what they always do.

And what exactly do you mean by this, in the context of Afghanistan?
As far as I remember, there was no direct involvement of the United States at all, there are only rumors that they allegedly helped the anti-Soviet side. But in fact, it was not even an anti-Soviet side, the USSR invaded to overthrow Amin's party of communists, who did not agree with Brezhnev's course

The USA kept only peacekeepers there, or am I mistaken?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a limit to what any country can do when it involves actions inside of some other nation. Plus you had a recent administration that apparently liked authoritarian actions abroad and applauded human rights violations instead of working to eliminate them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2021 at 4:04 AM, John Cuthber said:

No, they were protecting the dollar. That's what they always do.

That's what makes this so funny.
 

 

It seems the English and Americans value money unless the Brits were just there to complain.    🙂                                                                                                    

image.png

Edited by JayTony
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2021 at 2:47 AM, altaylar2000 said:

Why doesn't US interfere in the affairs of Afghanistan and China, on the genocide of the Hazaras and Uighurs?

They’ve joined allies across the EU, imposed sanctions, and called it out in clear terms as genocide so international courts can investigate and level charges. 

Beyond that, the only other options involve sending in bombs and soldiers. Is that what you’re recommending?

If not, then what ARE you suggesting they do? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like it or not, countries generally have a fair amount of autonomy to terrorize their own people. The rest of the world is reluctant to get involved, for fear of creating a larger global conflict. It's only when countries start terrorizing people from other countries that swift action is taken. Otherwise, it's mostly trade embargoes and the like. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Ericchiriboga said:

Like it or not, countries generally have a fair amount of autonomy to terrorize their own people. The rest of the world is reluctant to get involved, for fear of creating a larger global conflict. It's only when countries start terrorizing people from other countries that swift action is taken. Otherwise, it's mostly trade embargoes and the like. 

Economically it is a circus measure. It is clear from the economy that China is completely subordinate to the United States; it is the main sponsor of the American government. If China was not a US colony, it would have invested in his own economy

Edited by altaylar2000
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, altaylar2000 said:

It is clear from the economy that China is completely subordinate to the United States;

This clearly depends on the measure being used. Since, however, you said “completely,” what is also clear is that you have no idea what you’re talking about and aren’t worth listening to. 
 

1 hour ago, altaylar2000 said:

If China was not a US colony, it would have invested in his own economy

Like here, again spouting trivially false nonsense suggesting China hasn’t invested in its own economy. You post often here and seem to like including laughable fictions essentially every time you do. 


You also still haven’t answered my direct question:

11 hours ago, iNow said:

the only other options involve sending in bombs and soldiers. Is that what you’re recommending?

If not, then what ARE you suggesting they do? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Like here, again spouting trivially false nonsense suggesting China hasn’t invested in its own economy. You post often here and seem to like including laughable fictions essentially every time you do. 

 

Are you trying to find solace in the word "completely"?

Let not completely LOL

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

the only other options involve sending in bombs and soldiers. Is that what you’re recommending?

If not, then what ARE you suggesting they do? 

They know better how to do it most effectively.
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

It's kind of obvious that it's impossible not to invest in own economy at all, then everyone will die of hunger.

I tend to agree, which is why you look so extremely and irreparably foolish saying ridiculous things like this:

 

2 hours ago, altaylar2000 said:

If China was not a US colony, it would have invested in his own economy

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, iNow said:

I tend to agree, which is why you look so extremely and irreparably foolish saying ridiculous things like this:

The language is not perfect, I mean profit without taking into account the costs of production and life support

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, altaylar2000 said:

The language is not perfect, I mean profit without taking into account the costs of production and life support

Language isn’t the problem here. Comprehension, understanding, and intellectual honesty are. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

the problem is "autistic" formal interpretation of informal text

For you, for me, or for both?

Actually, you know what? Never mind. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, altaylar2000 said:

China puting almost all profit in US Government,

Your ignorance on so very many topics is a remarkable thing to behold and truly seems to know no bounds. 

 

https://www.bloombergquint.com/quicktakes/unraveling-the-mysteries-of-china-s-multiple-budgets-quicktake

Quote

The biggest expenditure category in the general public budget is education, followed by social welfare. But the finance ministry doesn’t release details. Bloomberg has calculated the chart below based on a general breakdown from the ministry, but it’s unknown how this money is actually spent or which department spends it. For example, the government earmarked 1.2 trillion yuan for defense in 2019. <...> Outside the main budget, big-ticket expenditures include costs related to infrastructure - demolishing old buildings, relocating residents and preparing land for development projects

1200x-1.png

 

https://hbr.org/2020/02/how-much-money-does-the-world-owe-china

Quote

When adding portfolio debts (including the $1 trillion of U.S. Treasury debt purchased by China’s central bank) and trade credits (to buy goods and services), the Chinese government’s aggregate claims to the rest of the world exceed $5 trillion in total. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All this is nonsense, practically the same yuan coverage system works there asit was in the Bretton Woods system, only without golden promises and more flexible. To fill its budget, China is forced to export goods to the US and Europe, otherwise it will not print the yuan and collect taxes for the budget. Their can not print own money, only exchange on western actives

This was standard system of British Empire, currency board

yes, they hold another debts too, but it change nothing principially

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

All this is nonsense, practically the same yuan coverage system works there asit was in the Bretton Woods system, only without golden promises and more flexible. To fill its budget, China is forced to export goods to the US and Europe, otherwise it will not print the yuan and collect taxes for the budget. Their can not print own money, only exchange on western actives

This was standard system of British Empire, currency board

The gold standard was forgotten, when we understood that we could just print money; and not eat gold...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The gold standard was forgotten, when we understood that we could just print money; and not eat gold..

It doesn't matter, under the gold standard there was no real gold plating, even officially there was a fractional reserve of 1 in 10 or so, and there wasn’t even that. It was just a formality

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, altaylar2000 said:

It doesn't matter, under the gold standard there was no real gold plating, even officially there was a fractional reserve of 1 in 10 or so, and there wasn’t even that. It was just a formality

Do you understand anything?

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.