Why would you consider it bad for "the human species" if China becomes weaker?
Can you explain how any of the points you're making about NATO are relevant to the fact that it's a crystal clear example disproving your theory that smaller countries are automatically more vulnerable?
Or how those points would apply to China given the fact that its own recent history already categorically proves that not only are they capable of cooperating together in the face of foreign threats, but they're able to do so even when they'd just been in the middle of killing each other in a civil war?
There weren't any answers in my post, just three questions.
The specimens in this picture of yours seem to me like the kind of people who would prefer larger, central governments of larger multicultural countries, would promote the idea of imposing a "greater unity" on differing groups for the sake of strength/power, and would be vehemently opposed to things that would weaken a rival of America, like China.
But wouldn't it be foolish of me to spend time answering replies from a FOREIGNER who's interjecting in American politics on an American political forum?
And now you, as the communist shill you are, are attacking a strawman of your own creation, which you are fully aware of. Which is obvious if you look at for instance https://thedonald.win/p/FMlb2xzX/x/c/11Q8JRxwih .
Can a communist shill like you be described as American? As a Trump supporter? You know the answer to that already.
An American and a Trump supporter would definitely agree that people's independence and right to self-determination is far more important than unfounded, irrational geopolitical concerns of overexpansive governments, and definitely wouldn't take issue with a belligerent rival of America being weakened, whatever the circumstances.
Why would you consider it bad for "the human species" if China becomes weaker?
Can you explain how any of the points you're making about NATO are relevant to the fact that it's a crystal clear example disproving your theory that smaller countries are automatically more vulnerable?
Or how those points would apply to China given the fact that its own recent history already categorically proves that not only are they capable of cooperating together in the face of foreign threats, but they're able to do so even when they'd just been in the middle of killing each other in a civil war?
You don't believe your own answer here, communist shill, as usual. It was in many ways foolish of me to spend time on answering your reply.
What are your thoughts on these of your comrades?: https://i.maga.host/nq2Rlx1.jpg .
There weren't any answers in my post, just three questions.
The specimens in this picture of yours seem to me like the kind of people who would prefer larger, central governments of larger multicultural countries, would promote the idea of imposing a "greater unity" on differing groups for the sake of strength/power, and would be vehemently opposed to things that would weaken a rival of America, like China.
But wouldn't it be foolish of me to spend time answering replies from a FOREIGNER who's interjecting in American politics on an American political forum?
And now you, as the communist shill you are, are attacking a strawman of your own creation, which you are fully aware of. Which is obvious if you look at for instance https://thedonald.win/p/FMlb2xzX/x/c/11Q8JRxwih .
Can a communist shill like you be described as American? As a Trump supporter? You know the answer to that already.
So, you don't think they're that kind of people?
An American and a Trump supporter would definitely agree that people's independence and right to self-determination is far more important than unfounded, irrational geopolitical concerns of overexpansive governments, and definitely wouldn't take issue with a belligerent rival of America being weakened, whatever the circumstances.