Time to spool up the spin machine about how China is being provoked and they need to invade to prevent the threat represented by mighty Taiwan. Gotta get the narrative ready!
There must be Nazis there, right? Maybe biological weapons labs? Or a missile or something?
taiwan really needs china to show them how to do things the right way...ccp colonialism to the rescue!
"Taiwan is slightly bigger than the US state of Maryland, or about half the size of Scotland, and has a population of 23 million, which is just over a quarter of Germany's population. And similar to Germany, Taiwan is known around the world for its industrial manufactured goods.
Its highly developed semiconductor industry is as important for Taiwan as the automotive industry is for the German economy. And a comparison with Germany shows how dependent Taiwan is on exports. Around 70% of Taiwan's economic output is attributable to its exports, in Germany it was 47% in 2021.
Time to spool up the spin machine about how China is being provoked and they need to invade to prevent the threat represented by mighty Taiwan. Gotta get the narrative ready!
There must be Nazis there, right? Maybe biological weapons labs? Or a missile or something?
Time to spool up the spin machine about how China is being provoked and they need to invade to prevent the threat represented by mighty Taiwan. Gotta get the narrative ready!
There must be Nazis there, right? Maybe biological weapons labs? Or a missile or something?
The indeterminate and undefined nature of the ârulesâ of the RBO and the failure to consider their relationship with international law has led to the questioning of the reason for the resort to the RBO on the part of the United States. The manner in which the United States has justified apparent violations of international law by its own forces or those of it close friends has inevitably resulted in a cynical, albeit plausible, explanation for the US preference for the RBO.
According to this view, the rules-based international order may be seen as the United Statesâ alternative to international law, an order that encapsulates international law as interpreted by the United States to accord with its national interests, âa chimera, meaning whatever the US and its followers want it to mean at any given timeâ.19 Premised on âthe United Statesâ own willingness to ignore, evade or rewrite the rules whenever they seem inconvenientâ,20 the RBO is seen to be broad, open to political manipulation and double standards. According to Professor Stefan Talmon, the RBO âseems to allow for special rules in special â sui generis â casesâ.21 (...)
There are several reasons that may explain why the United States prefers to invoke a ârules-based international orderâ and not international law.
First, the United States is not a party to a number of important multilateral treaties that constitute an essential feature of international law. It is not a party to the Law of the Sea Convention which means that it is compelled to reprimand China for threatening the ârules-based international orderâ in the South China Sea rather than international law.22 It is not party to a number of fundamental treaties governing international humanitarian law, including the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention. Nor is it a party to the Rights of the Child Convention or the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Inevitably this makes it difficult for the United States to hold states accountable for violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law to the extent that these rules are not considered by the United States to be part of customary international law. (...)
Notorious neoconservative Bill Kristol has just launched a $2 million campaign to prevent more Republicans from jumping off the forever war train and to remind them that true Republicans support Ukrainians by backing unfettered aid and weapons for the conflict.
That is the clarion call promoted in this Washington Post story announcing âRepublicans for Ukraine,â which is designed to provide âcounter-programmingâ to the âpopulistâ strain that has captured the base, particularly on foreign policy. It is the latest advocacy effort by Kristolâs group, Defending Democracy Together, which has been trying desperately to maintain the hawksâ grip on the GOP since Donald Trump began questioning it during his 2016 presidential campaign.
âSupporting Ukraine is in the best interests of the United States and the best traditions of the Republican Party. Now is no time to give up the fight,â declares the Republicans for Ukraine website.
In previous years (and before the Ukraine war) DDT also pushed campaigns like âRepublicans Against Putinâ and âStanding with Alliesâ (which advocated maintaining a U.S. presence in Syria and Iraq). It has leaned in hard on the Never Trump camp, particularly with the super PAC âRepublican Voters Against Trump,â which raised over $10 million in the 2020 election cycle, spending $5.6 million in support of Democrat Joe Biden, and $3.3 million against Trump, according to Open Secrets.
Critics say it has been a long time since Kristol was considered a part of the Republican or conservative movement. Aside from his opposition to Trump, itâs obvious that the populist shift in the base against the Washington war policies of the last 20 years has also driven his estrangement.
Conservatives were quick to point out on Tuesday that Kristol doesnât speak for them or for voters who have soured on the Washingtonâs foreign policy playbook, particularly on Ukraine. That Kristolâs campaign, through its cultivated Republican testimonials, is unabashedly deploying the Manichean language not only of the Cold War and the Global War on Terror, but also the Domino Theory and the Messianic talk he and his friends favored in 2002, makes the gambit even more out of touch. (...)
Seventy-five percent of Americans had a negative view toward China,
while 84% saw Xi at least slightly unfavorably. Some 65% felt China's
government was trying to influence the U.S. election.
The open letter comes amid a growing debate over how to balance Americaâs world-spanning military â which emits more greenhouse gasses each year than most countries â with the Biden administrationâs efforts to fight climate change. Researchers have been able to get reasonable estimates of the Pentagonâs annual emissions, but data on emissions produced by weapons contractors is far harder to come by and often relies on back-of-the-napkin math. Research from Neta Crawford of Brown University suggests that the U.S. military industry may actually emit more than the Department of Defense itself.
The White House proposed a regulation last year that would force all major federal contractors to disclose their emissions and create a plan to reduce them, but lawmakers in both chambers of Congress quietly added carve-outs for the defense industry in this yearâs National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). (...)
