Hungary’s interior ministry claimed the deal would improve safety in tourist hotspots or during events that attract large numbers of spectators.
But the plan has drawn criticism from those concerned the agreement will be abused by communist China, which has a lengthy record of human rights abuses.
The patrols could be the first step to establishing secret police stations or used to intimidate the overseas Chinese community, they warned.
Not to defend either, but why does the United States. It’s wrong for either. But at least if a country’s leadership invites them in. That’s on the leadership. And while I’m still for basic gun control. Hungary, if you’re listening, don’t let them take all your guns. As much as the cult members in the US babble about nothing. If it ever actually happened, the outcome has never been good.
I dearly love all these down votes. LOL. By being unhypocritical and consistent, it’s somehow enough to piss all of y’all off. Even though I agree that China doing this is bad. Simply because I said it’s bad when the US has done it in the past as well. You all lose your shit.
Actually looking back on this now. I can kind of see how this may have stirred up so many of you. I said China was wrong for doing this. That stirred up the Marxist leninists and tankies. But also pointed out that it’s wrong for America or any other country to do that. Which brought out a screeching horde of neoliberal apologists and imperials. Then I said I supported gun control. Which stirred up the hornet’s nest of conservatives. But said that they should protect their access to guns to defend themselves against what’s to come. Which just pissed off neoliberals again. I guess there’s something mildly heartwarming about it. When you can see groups that so often hypocritically fight against each other so much. Actually be able to come together and attack the same thing/person. Because their shared hypocrisy was exposed.
Do US police patrol the streets of cities overseas? First I’ve heard of it.
Military and military police absolutely have. Afghanistan, Iraq, hell even Japan after the war for a while. There absolutely is a similarly.
Those were countries that lost their sovereignty. The issue with hungary is that they are essentially giving it up. Hell, WW1 started because serbia rejected the demand of Austrian police with police powers in Serbia, exactly because that is tantamount to giving up sovereignty
This lost their sovereignty argument is kind of bullshit though. You recognize that. Don’t you? How did Iraq lose its sovereignty? The United States invaded and killed their leadership. How did Afghanistan lose its sovereignty. That’s all whole story. Russia invaded then America invaded then America invaded again. If being invaded by someone is enough to qualify as a loss of sovereignty and justification for occupation, that’s a very slippery slope.
With this same defense. It would be possible for China to claim that a number of countries lost their sovereignty as well and therefore must be occupied and policed by them. I think there is a bigger defense for it in terms of countries like Japan. Absolutely. Post world war II. The occupation was always a given. But the United States has not always had that same justification. And justifying our actions in that way is dangerous because it could be just as easily applied to another bad actor like China.
That is not my point. My point is that if an external country is granted police access, it means that the country has essentially lost its sovereignty. With Hungary it is especially aggravating, not because it’s their right to do whatever they want with granting police powers (they can do whatever they want), the issue is that they aren’t a country completely anymore, just like every other EU country. The issue is that because of Schengen, those Chinese police can very easily sneak into other EU countries
It was literally one of your points. And a direct, bad response to what I wrote. Which is why it’s what I responded to.
However, if you go up to my first post. You will find you are arguing with someone who agrees with you on the Hungary front. I basically called for the people there to be on guard against their government and China. That as much as many here want to blame China for this, The leadership of Hungary invited them in. So the responsibility is on them.
Y’know, the whole Japan occupation post-war was kinda necessary given the state Japan was in and how deep their evil leadership went lol
Y’know, I agree largely. But that doesn’t really change the overall trend. Vietnam etc. We, America absolutely had the term world police literally coined for us.
I think it was wrong for us to do much of that, as China policing other countries is also wrong. But I’m surprised and find it quite funny how many here are absolutely offended. But can’t offer a single rebuttal to the overall point. Because it’s absolutely true. So they just down vote circle jerk. Even though we pretty much agree. Just because I had the audacity to hold my country responsible too. Though a lot of it could be because of all the disingenuous ML circle jerking going on elsewhere. Criticizing the US and other Western Nations while defending the same actions elsewhere.
Military police? Absolutely. China’s police are in service to the state much like military police. It definitely tracks.
This a great example of “whataboutism”.
No. Whataboutism is when I say “America did it. Therefore China can.” I literally said it was wrong for the US and China. It’s the opposite of whataboutism. I’m not sure if everyone’s reading comprehension is failing them today. But there was literally no what aboutism involved.
The only thing remotely possibly controversial somehow? Was the fact that I said that they had been invited by the leadership of Hungary and therefore pushed the blame to hungary’s leadership? I’m not sure how that’s controversial. It’s a simple fact. They invited China in. But then pretty much all of you down voting are doing it reactionarily and emotionally. Based on things other than what was said.
Here’s The literal first two sentences I wrote. Please point out that whataboutism in it
From the definition of whataboutism linked above, my italics:
You are doing exactly that.
Just to add onto that, whatabautism is not only used to make any bad thing seem better by comparing it to something worse, but it’s also used to distract from the main point.
People are probably not downvoting you because you don’t have a point, but there’s no reason to bring this up here. Make another post criticising Rammstein (the military base) and we can express our disgust with US agencies in foreign countries as well. Easy as that.
Just to add on to that. I wasn’t implying that either was better by comparison. I said it’s bad regardless of who does it. Which was the point of the article. Other countries like China policing foreign countries is not a good thing. Condemning China for it while not also pointing out other nations. Especially more prolific ones and condemning them consistently with it is just hypocritical.
But I know how the circle jerk can be. And I know you all won’t be stopped. With your disingenuous assertions and false claims. I’m apologize for trying to be thorough and accurate lol.
Accusing the critical statement about country A of hypocrisy because what about critical statement about country B is textbook whataboutism. Your “yea, but country B is as bad as country A because …” is exactly that.
You don’t need to imply that country A is better than country B or vice versa, because the point of whataboutism is to relativise the criticism by pointing to another. This article is about China and their actions, your contribution to the discussion was to immediately steer it to “the Americans” - why’s that?
If I defended China it would have been. But I didn’t. What aboutism is a rhetorical tactic to belittle the offenses of one group by pointing out similar enough offenses of another. Fuck China fuck the United States. The United States having done it doesn’t make China doing it any better. Or vice versa. I literally said that in the first couple of sentences.
Simple comparison isn’t whataboutism. Just like your disingenuous attacks are not good faith effort to debate.
No, “whatabautism” is when the response tries to change the subject.
I think people are pissed off because you state your point in such bad grammar that it borders on unintelligible and vaguely sounds supportive of the Chinese action… And then turn around and write 3 paragraphs against the haters instead of formating your original text.