• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

US House overwhelmingly (470-1) approves Uighur Act calling for sanctions on China's senior officials

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,617
4,254
1,640
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/04/us-house-approves-uighur-act-calling-for-sanctions-on-chinas-politburo-xinjiang-muslim

The US House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved a bill that would require the Trump administration to toughen its response to China’s crackdown on its Muslim minority in Xinjiang, drawing swift condemnation from Beijing.

The Uighur Act of 2019 is a stronger version of a bill that angered Beijing when it passed the Senate in September. It calls on the president, Donald Trump, to impose sanctions for the first time on a member of China’s powerful politburo even as he seeks a trade deal with Beijing.

Last week Trump signed into law legislation supporting anti-government protesters in Hong Kong despite angry objections from China.
Bipartisanship. Doesn't it feel good?
 

btgorman

Member
Jul 26, 2009
1,779
1,206
905
This version that the House passed contains changes to the Senate version that was passed. Now it seems to go back to the Senate.
Who the hell was the 1 against?
Looks like it was this guy
Not sure why he voted No, but he seems to have voted No in other foreign engagement bills. Maybe he thinks it's none of our business? That's a defensible train of thought.
 
Last edited:

Sejan

Member
Sep 28, 2018
75
58
190
This version that the House passed contains changes to the Senate version that was passed. Now it seems to go back to the Senate.

Looks like it was this guy
Not sure why he voted No, but he seems to have voted No in other foreign engagement bills. Maybe he thinks it's none of our business? That's a defensible train of thought.
his stance is that messing with the affairs of other countries invites them to mess with ours.

 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
3,145
2,628
1,055
Remember, China makes decisions and policies based on 50 year stretches. We change the head of our Executive Branch every 4 to 8 years. In order to even make a difference with China means that both the Executive and Legislative branch need to be lock step in keeping pressure on China. Doing that will also signal to our allies that this is the right course of action, by presenting a united front and putting petty politics aside. It's a no-brainer, and the sacrifices made in the short-term pale in comparison to what will happen if we don't. I understand and respect Thomas Massie's opinion and vote on this; he is standing by his convictions.
 

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,575
2,363
615
Said while he probably has a house full of items "Made in China"
Of course he does, and it doesn't change his point. I disagree with him but understand his point. You have to be ready to lose all the shit made in China to really take them on. Its why they are where they are today. He sounds like he isn't into that fight. So for him to have China made stuff is irrelevant, but it is relevant for those ready to bash him for his opinion.
 

teacupcopter

Member
Sep 1, 2005
1,340
50
1,320
A lot of the anti-America shit they’re pushing benefits China whether intentional or not
yeah but so does a lot of the anti NATO and anti EU talk trump pushes and others push also. Helps Russia too.

Anything that disrupts the US at number one (or jostles that position a bit in bargaining etc) or western hegemony at large is good for our enemies.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Ornlu

matt404au

Cyberbully
Apr 25, 2009
16,092
27,342
1,415
Australia
yeah but so does a lot of the anti NATO and anti EU talk trump pushes and others push also. Helps Russia too.

Anything that disrupts the US at number one (or jostles that position a bit in bargaining etc) or western hegemony at large is good for our enemies.
I wouldn’t frame the US asking its allies to pay the agreed upon proportion of GDP as “anti-NATO”. What would benefit China and Russia is if total NATO spending were reduced. If the US can get its allies to pay their share, it can then reduce its own spending while not reducing total NATO spending. This would benefit the US but not Russia or China.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,475
1,756
480
yeah but so does a lot of the anti NATO and anti EU talk trump pushes and others push also. Helps Russia too.

Anything that disrupts the US at number one (or jostles that position a bit in bargaining etc) or western hegemony at large is good for our enemies.
We could also take that logic a few steps further and say that NATO and the EU are parasitic toward the US, and not putting skin in the game at remotely the same levels as the US; therefore they are weakening our position at #1 and are good for our enemies. It all depends on where you draw the line in that mode of logic.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
17,256
34,056
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
yeah but so does a lot of the anti NATO and anti EU talk trump pushes and others push also. Helps Russia too.

Anything that disrupts the US at number one (or jostles that position a bit in bargaining etc) or western hegemony at large is good for our enemies.
Europe is guilty -- to an absurd degree -- of "jostling" their own position in the Western hegemony through excessive bargaining and compromises. The USA is right to criticize the EU and does so from a position of superior accomplishment and from a position of far more experience at running a union of states (sorry Holy Roman Empire). We are the result of some of Europe's brightest minds.

When Germany bargains with Russia for more gas and oil, isn't that "good for our enemies"? When EU leaders welcome in large volumes of islamic immigrants and then stunt their ability to properly assimilate into Western society, isn't that "good for our enemies"? As the EU dangles by a Brexit thread and nation-states bicker with one another, isn't that "good for our enemies"?

Everyone likes to blame the USA, but that's only because we hold the most influence and do the most. We are living through a modern marxist tantrum (hopefully the last big one), where educated social-engineers rage at the mean ol' USA for refusing to go along with the global scheme. NATO was made to protect European allies from the Soviet Union. It has allowed Europe to peacefully rebuild after you blew yourselves up twice in a 30-year span. Most of the international wars over the past 100 years are due to the breakup of the Ottoman empire and ownership under European lords (Britain and France, mostly) or the destabilization of former European colonies (Vietnam, almost every country in sub-saharan Africa). USA was happy to profit off the carnage, playing mercenary, chewing our cigar.

Or as O Ornlu put even more succinctly:

We could also take that logic a few steps further and say that NATO and the EU are parasitic toward the US, and not putting skin in the game at remotely the same levels as the US; therefore they are weakening our position at #1 and are good for our enemies. It all depends on where you draw the line in that mode of logic.
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,873
2,121
755
Not sure why he voted No, but he seems to have voted No in other foreign engagement bills. Maybe he thinks it's none of our business? That's a defensible train of thought.
He's a Ron Paul guy. If Ron Paul hadn't retired a few years ago and was there to vote on this, I wouldn't be surprised if he also voted No. I think Paul set some kind of record for losing votes XXX-1 in which he's the one. I'm a big Ron Paul guy too, and while I myself probably would have voted Yes on this, I 100% see where people like he and Massie are coming from regarding foreign affairs issues like this.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
2,252
2,633
550
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE

I agree with this guy. Countries comdemnation of atrocities are usually pretty politically selective. Where is the congress unanimous vote to support protesters in Chile? In Bolivia? More have been killed there in a few weeks than in the whole HK thing. But of course the US administration, instead, already claimed support towards the Bolivian government. This is all selective and calculated political BS, nothing more.
 

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
14,434
1,587
1,385
This isn't about the Uighurs, this is about poking China in the eye with a sharp stick until they learn whatever lesson you're trying to teach or they take the stick away from you and beat you to death with it. Flip a coin, politicians.