There are no "good guys". The world is not divided into good vs. evil, as much as our Western worldviews are conditioned that way. There is zero moral difference between supporting businesses backed by Beijing or Washington.
There is a moral benefit to not being wildly xenophobic on the internet, however.
Try going to live there and hold up a protest sign against whatever is the biggest anti-govt issue of the day. In any of the first three, you'll end up in jail for a fortnight to a decade, depending on the climate. In Washington, The worse you'll get is a "move along" if you are blocking traffic.
Or try being a neighboring country, like Taiwan. Right this minute, China is threatening it with its air force, navy, and army all harassing or doing target practice in it's direction. Hong Kong has lost ALL of the freedoms that were internationally agreed. All other neighbors are under varying degrees of threat & coercion. Meanwhile, Mexico, Caribbean islands, or Canada have trivial border checks and even Cuba have zero worries of any invasion.
The world really is divided between autocracy and democracy.
It may or may not be "good vs evil", but there is an absolutely critical difference. There are people who want to live a self-determined life free of coercion, and want a government determined by the people and not some tyrant. There are others who want to on a local level, be the bully and steal your lunch money, and on a geopolitical scale, rule and take everything.
This is a fight everywhere from the local level to be free, to the national level where abusers, bullies, crooks, and autocrats try to take over the reigns of democracy (and they recently succeeded in Hungary, Turkey), and internationally where the autocracies like China, Russia, Iran, NK, etc. are in expansionist.
Vladimir Lenin had a term for people who didn't understand the difference — "Useful Idiots". People who don't get it, and will happily do things helpful to their autocratic intentions, out of what they think are good intentions. You are in this territory, and should stop deluding yourself.
The US does not recognize Taiwan as a country
> Cuba have zero worries of any invasion
Because the US already invaded Cuba and occupies Guantanamo Bay there, despite the Cuban government demanding the US leave for over 60 years (incidentally the US "renditions" and tortures Arabs in Guantanamo Bay in a manner that is against even US law).
Not officially, but in every way but officially
>>the US already invaded Cuba and occupies Guantanamo Bay there
That should not make Cuba feel less worried, but more, but the fact is, that over six decades later, the US has done nothing of the sort. Meanwhile, just look at what China has done to Hong Kong and Taiwan in the last year. Or the cultural genocide of Tibet and the Uighers.
Again, while absolutely no country is perfect, if you are trying to equate the nations defending democracy vs autocratic countries, you are either deeply misinformed or are deliberately lying.
(and no, just because you can point out that what you said is an isolated fact does not mean you aren't lying, misleading is another form of lying, whether you are doing it intentionally or merely because you are deliberately or gullibly misinformed).
Bay of Pigs invasion? Cuban missile crisis blockade? I could go on...
If you had a clue about actual history, you might know that the issue in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the blockade was NOT against Cuba, it was against Russian military gear, specifically nuclear missiles which could strike the entire East and Gulf coasts with near-zero warning. Kennedy announced the quarantine on October 22 and warned that U.S. forces would seize “offensive weapons and associated matériel” that Soviet vessels might attempt to deliver to Cuba. That is NOT an action against Cuba, but against the Soviets, who were using Cuba as a military base with it's permission.
Again, this attempt at false equivalence is nonsense.
You are either playing the role of a Useful Idiot, cluelessly spreading misleading arguments supporting authoritarian states, or are knowingly and willfully doing so. Which is it?
You are not well informed.
Yes, the US are in territory formerly ruled by the Syrian dictatorship. The US are:
1) opposing Russia (remember Syria is a client state of Russia, another autocracy, & Assad survived protests from his people only due to Russian intervention),
2) keeping a lid on ISIL resurgence, and
3) supporting the Kurds who have lived in that area for centuries and have been seeking to maintain self-determination, despite having been overrun by multiple dictators.
The IS destroyed most of the oil infrastructure when they were there. The US helped defeat them. To the extent that the US has helped rebuild the infrastructure, yes, the Kurds are benefiting, and yes, their territory also extends into northern Iraq. The Kurds have a better claim to any of these resources than either the dictatorial regimes of Assad/Putin, or of ISIL.
You think that we should simply withdraw and leave the Kurds to whichever of two murderous regimes, Assad/Russia or ISIL, can murder them and take the oil first? Or are you just taking cheap shots mischaracterizing the situation?
Even a casual glance at the situation shows that someone should be in there helping the Kurds, and keeping the lid on authoritarian regimes. I'd be happy if they can do it alone, or if someone else could help in our place.
But again, it is key to be better armed, prepared, and allied than authoritarians if democracy is to survive. The Kurds are key regional allies (and the US under Trump did screw the Kurds badly, in this area). Helping them is important to maintaining democracy.
It certainly is not as simple as your ill-informed pot-shot 'argument'.
Russia, in territory formerly ruined by the Kiev puppet regime, are
1) opposing Washington/NATO (remember Ukraine is a client state of Washington, another plutocracy, & Kiev survived protests from its people only due to American intervention),
2) keeping a lid on neo-Nazi/fascist resurgence, and
3) supporting the ethnic Russians who have lived in that area for centuries and have been seeking to maintain self-determination, despite having been overrun by multiple dictators.
It is absurd to pretend that Washington has any moral high ground over Russia.
The main difference between the two is that Ukraine is on Russia's doorstep. What business does Washington have arming the Kurds or Banderites, on the opposite side of the planet?
The world is obviously not divided into "good" and "evil", or even the poorly-defined "democracy" and "autocracy". That is a childish belief, like believing in Santa. The United States has engaged in horrendous atrocities, consistently, since its founding, including the largest ethnic cleansing program in human history that later inspired the Holocaust.
One moral difference is that you can protest and public object to what Washington does and not disappear: it's possible to judge them against a moral standard which they profess to have, and note when they fall short. Try holding an anti-government/leader rally in Beijing.
There used to be an old Cold War joke: In both America and Russia we both have free speech. But you Americans have freedom after speech.
The OP is literally about a recent successful anti-lockdown protest movement in China, albeit with ample spin and speculation.
Yes there are. Harder to find in aggregates though. (And in complexities.)
And incidentally, I have seen that "good guys" argument used very recently to undermine the idea of "moral authorities", through the device of abstracting the set of actors as only including the institutional ones. But the Moral Authority is in individuals.
And no "flattening" (or "twoweightstwomeasures" shout) is an excuse for deeds.
> xenophobic
That was in reply to a poster that stressed the concept of "money is power and vote", and expressed no aversion of strangers as strangers.