https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
We can argue over words but frankly the PRC invaded the Socialist Republic Of Vietnam. The PRC would have been much more aggressive had Deng not feared soviet escalation.
I never made one mention of a communist world. I DID say that Vietnam, as proven down the road, was much more amenable to the soviets than the prc.
The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, a pro-china communist government was the last straw in what the PRC viewed as ever increasing soviet control over global communist activity. Hemmed in not only by western allies but hostile communist governments, Mao made a momentous decision that the U.S. and NOT the U.S.S.R., was the future and boy was he right. Just giving credit where credit is due, I am not supporting the cultural revolution or the great leap forward, etc.
But yea, the USSR was a gigantic communist dickbag, even to other communists. Honestly, the example is even the communist countries couldn't even agree on communism, how fucked up is that. The west on the other hand:
Oh yea, we were hypocrits by not supporting the Viet Minh but guess what, thats because the FRENCH our ALLIES, did not want this. See how even though while being hypocrits, we stayed true to our allies. As a superpower, our allies were valued members, not some thing to be used and tossed away when convenient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence#Among_Muslims
Sectarian violence between the two major sects of Islam, Shia and Sunni, has occurred in countries like Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Lebanon etc. This violent conflict has roots in the political turmoil arising out of differences over the
succession to Muhammad.
Abu Bakr, a
companion of Muhammad, was nominated by
Umar and elected as the first Sunni
Rightly Guided Caliph. However another group felt that
Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of
Muhammad, had been designated by Muhammad and is considered by Shia as the first
Imam.
But oh no, its much more convenient to lay the ENTIRETY of blame on the U.S.
I posted many middle east examples as above, but feel free to disagree and ignore because its convenient.
Yes we were dirty, but so was our biggest adversary. What the other side obtains, we must obtain more. I have never disputed this. This is my primary argument of why Russia and China should join the rest of the permanent security council. I mean, the UK, France and the US have been getting along fine. Would europeans be such staunch and dependable allies if we were a nation of shit? The fact that we work together should show the other 2 that if they joined the global power bloc, the whole dynamic and relationship would adapt. Instead of Russia and China suing for gains that ONLY benefit themselves, the 5 working together could make sure everything works more smoothly. But yea, this is an old topic beaten to death.
The USSR wanted to do exactly what you describe. They wanted soviet bases near the U.S. One major problem though, the countries near us wanted NOTHING from the USSR. Their offer ABSOLUTELY sucked compared to ours. NATO worked out pretty well though. The only difference was, Castro, riding on righteous anti-american anger, traded the american pimp for the soviet pimp. Where Batista and his kind took advantage of people economically, Castro was willing to have Cuba glassed, bad deal if you ask me.
BTW, IMO, NATO exists because Russia and China refuse to play ball. NATO simply doesn't buy into the idea that we can trust Russia or the CPC if we essentially disband a strong and quite helpful alliance. They can bitch all they want but at the end of the day, only Russia and China can make NATO irrelevant.
Did you totally ignore what I said about who would end up replacing the U.S. as the world police man? But oh yea, as long the big bad U.S. boogeyman is gone, here comes the utopia.
. Anyway, that you're calling him a psycho makes you a reasonable person.