this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
26 points (60.3% liked)

Socialism

6092 readers
4 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 25 points 10 months ago (1 children)

the map is far more accurate than it is not though

Come on, Yog, we can hold ourselves to a higher standard than this. It'd be so easy to just color in Vietnam and then you'd be set, but by posting it in its current form you are actively lying.

[โ€“] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think there's a difference between invasion/occupation and a minor border skirmish. Like yeah it could've been more accurate, but it does get the point across. ๐Ÿคท

[โ€“] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If I was just complaining about border skirmishes, then I'd mention India or something. The attack on Vietnam was more than just a "minor border skirmish".

[โ€“] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well, feel free to explain how the attack on Vietnam constitutes an occupation. Are you suggesting China's military action was carried out with the intent of annexing a part of Vietnam?

[โ€“] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Come on, you're more well-read than this. You know that military occupation and annexation are not the same thing.

[โ€“] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You still haven't answered what you think the intent of the military action was. Do you claim any military confrontation is occupation?

[โ€“] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'd more say that the military occupation was done for the sake of confrontation (this is similar to the official Chinese line). It was a really senseless invasion, as far as I can tell (and I disagree with the Vietnamese line that the war was expansionist).

[โ€“] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago

I think we can agree on that