You’re just showing you don’t understand basic concepts. You called China’s liberation of Tibet “colonialism”, proving you don’t know the meaning of it. Expansionism isn’t “when borders grow at any time in history”, it’s a tendency of a nation to view its territorial expansion as a desirable goal for the sake of it or for access to resource for example. Austria building an embassy in Tibet would grow Austria’s borders, technically counting as expansionism according to you. You have lib level of politics knowledge and analysis, and it’s hysterical how you try to bend definitions to make things look good for US imperialism
Was China bigger or smaller after taking over Tibet? I think you know the answer is bigger.
Making your country bigger would be doing what with it? I think you know the answer is expanding it.
And I doubt I’m making you laugh or you wouldn’t be making personal attacks.
You’re just showing you don’t understand basic concepts. You called China’s liberation of Tibet “colonialism”, proving you don’t know the meaning of it. Expansionism isn’t “when borders grow at any time in history”, it’s a tendency of a nation to view its territorial expansion as a desirable goal for the sake of it or for access to resource for example. Austria building an embassy in Tibet would grow Austria’s borders, technically counting as expansionism according to you. You have lib level of politics knowledge and analysis, and it’s hysterical how you try to bend definitions to make things look good for US imperialism
So Tibet wasn’t a desirable goal and didn’t give China access to resources? They just did it out of pure altruism?
If it was “expansionism” that China sought, why stop at Tibet?
The U.S. stopped expanding its borders with various Pacific islands in the 1940s. I assume you still consider them expansionist.
No, the US isn’t expansionist, it’s imperialist.
Oh, ok, well then China is also imperialist. I guess we’re done.