←back to thread

Tiananmen Square 1989 death toll was at least 10,000 according to UK documents

(www.bbc.co.uk)
362 points ComputerGuru | 10 comments | 23 Dec 17 12:36 UTC | HN request time: 2.305s | source | bottom
Show context
mutteraloo ◴[23 Dec 17 14:29 UTC] No.15994264[source]▶
Lest we forget, this is still the same government that mowed down 10,000 innocent lives, that still runs China today. They've gotten better at hiding behind marketing, propaganda, and strong arming other countries, but they're still ruled by a small, powerful group of elders that control every aspects of Chinese people's lives.

It's sad that we keep feeding this dangerous psychopath which threatens democracy and freedom worldwide. This psychopath will eventually cause harm to a few countries (Taiwan, South Korea) when said and done, maybe enable North Korea to strike a few nuclear missiles into Los Angeles or Tokyo, who knows.

replies(12): >>15994438 #>>15994478 #>>15994496 #>>15994498 #>>15994637 #>>15995088 #>>15995095 #>>15995437 #>>15995624 #>>15995762 #>>15996117 #>>15996647 #
yongjik ◴[23 Dec 17 18:57 UTC] No.15995624[source]▶
I object to this line of thoughts.

I hope I don't sound like a China apologist: the Chinese government has done a terrible crime, and it's a shame that not enough Chinese people are demanding justice, and sooner or later they will have to look back and recognize what happened, hopefully sooner rather than later.

However, packaging that as "the threat of China" is a self-serving narrative that will harm people. I guess you mean well, but in the end that justifies America interfering with other small countries and supporting their dictators, because, hey, otherwise China will be doing the same and at least "our guys" won't be as bad as "their guys". (Just don't look too closely at what our guys are doing.)

More personally, as a South Korean, America having such an opinion basically means my country is forced to "choose side", hurting our economy and destabilizing military balance in East Asia. The only benefactors are military complexes of China and the US.

replies(3): >>15995653 #>>15995890 #>>15996304 #
1. mutteraloo ◴[23 Dec 17 19:01 UTC] No.15995653[source]▶
you do realize that China is the only reason North Korea is still operating, right? The North Korea that threatens your home country and brutalizes many of your relatives in North Korea?
replies(2): >>15995729 #>>15995828 #
2. yongjik ◴[23 Dec 17 19:18 UTC] No.15995729[source]▶
You do realize North Korea "not operating" means either a civil war between military factions with access to nuclear weapons, or South Korean/American forces dragged into a military operation right up the nose of China? So you would rather prefer that my relatives die in fire?

See, this is what I mean when I say I object to such reasoning. People are so bold, they're always willing to sacrifice other people's lives to defend freedom.

replies(3): >>15995760 #>>15995827 #>>15995912 #
3. mutteraloo ◴[23 Dec 17 19:23 UTC] No.15995760[source]▶
You do realize that there are other scenarios, such as North Korea launching nuclear strike into Silicon Valley or New York? Would you prefer that? or North Korea failing quietly like the collapse of USSR?
replies(1): >>15995854 #
4. dforrestwilson ◴[23 Dec 17 19:34 UTC] No.15995827[source]▶
Yet the U.S. is at risk right now, simply for supporting South Korea militarily in both past and present.

Alliances are double-edged swords. I'm curious, what would be your perspective if the U.S. decided that South Korea was no longer worth defending and pulled it's troops back to Guam and Okinawa?

replies(1): >>15995917 #
5. __name__ ◴[23 Dec 17 19:34 UTC] No.15995828[source]▶
What about Russia?
6. yongjik ◴[23 Dec 17 19:38 UTC] No.15995854{3}[source]▶
You've been hoodwinked by clickbait media. North Korea won't strike Silicon Valley or New York, ever. If you want to worry about that, you might as well worry about China or Russia striking New York: after all, there's a chance Putin will be alive after nuclear war, but there's zero chance Kim Jong Un will be alive after nuking America.

But you can't sell prospect of a nuclear war against China, because people have iPhones made in China, so they know it's absurd: why would China want a nuclear war? A threat has to be believable to sell to people. So we talk about North Korea. Nobody in the US has bought anything from North Korea: they are a dark, evil, and mysterious people, and it's easy to believe they can be also suicidal.

(Yes, the North Korean regime is evil: they're so evil that they make China look like boy scouts. But they aren't suicidal.)

replies(1): >>15996533 #
7. totalZero ◴[23 Dec 17 19:49 UTC] No.15995912[source]▶
> People are so bold, they're always willing to sacrifice other people's lives to defend freedom.

South Korea's forces had lost 70,000 men in five days before the USA came to your aid in 1950. In the fighting that ensued, 37,000 Americans perished to defend your country. Please consider that.

8. yongjik ◴[23 Dec 17 19:50 UTC] No.15995917{3}[source]▶
> what would be your perspective if the U.S. decided that South Korea was no longer worth defending ...

You mean, what if the US decided that keeping an air force base within 1000 km of Beijing isn't worth the cost?

Well, it that case, it sucks, because our national defense budget will likely have to increase a lot. But an independent country cannot outsource its defense to others forever, so South Korea should have contingency plans for such a case, or at least I hope so.

As you said, alliance goes both ways. The military ties to the US did help us tremendously in the past. But the US is not stationing thousands of soldiers out of goodwill: they're doing it because South Korea is located at a really convenient position in America's game of global dominance. I think it's mutually beneficial (for now), but if America decides it isn't, well then that's it.

replies(1): >>15996558 #
9. squarefoot ◴[23 Dec 17 22:11 UTC] No.15996533{4}[source]▶
> But you can't sell prospect of a nuclear war against China, because people have iPhones made in China

There are other reasons why going to war against China wouldn't be that advisable.

http://www.businessinsider.com/navy-chinese-microchips-weapo...

https://www.wired.com/2011/11/counterfeit-missile-defense/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fake-parts-in-hercules-aircr...

10. fastball ◴[23 Dec 17 22:18 UTC] No.15996558{4}[source]▶
What does the US get out of having a military presence in South Korea? Sure, we have a base that's closer to our "enemy" than we would if we were just in Japan. But at this point, the US isn't going to win a war with a land army, so even if it was for aggressive military purposes, it wouldn't be nearly as effective as you think it would be.

Hint: maybe we keep military bases in SK to defend South Korean, because over the past 67 years of our alliance, South Korea has become a fantastic trade partner and we want to ensure that such a mutually beneficial relationship continues far into the future.