I'm not sure I see the parallels between an oppressive regime implementing it's policies within it's own territories that's also home to significant portion of already loyal citizenry (Han Chinese), and trying to annex a distant land with no shared borders.

Both try to change the way of life(beliefs, behaviour etc) for the majority of a specific territory.

US didn't try to annex Iraq or AF.

No doubt the Soviets had the same plan long term. And look how it turned out for them.

That didn't turn out well for the Soviets because the USA was secretly funding and arming the resistance, even providing the Stinger surface-to-air missile. It was a proxy war like Vietnam and Korea, but with the superpowers switching roles.

Had the USA stayed out of that mess, the result may have turned out differently. The same applies for China.

BTW, this will really bend your mind: that resistance was none other than Al Qaeda, the same group who later attacked the USA. When the USA invaded Afghanistan, there was some concern that old Stinger missiles might still be operable.

Yes, I knew this history too, and you're right.

It was shortsighted of the US to supply the Talibán. Honestly though, I don't think the Soviets would have had success even without US intervention. Even as an occupying force. Just look at us. Any invading force would be doomed. Same went for Vietnam.

Not worth it. The cure is just as bad as the potential disease.

On top of that, it probably doesn't even work. Time will tell. However the Uighyers felt about the Chinese before, now they will harbor a white-hot rage. This entire generation of adults can never be trusted by the Chinese, they will have to imprison them forever or kill them. That's basically genocide. Yes if you kill or lock all the people up there will be no more problems. Is that really a good solution? And if the boot ever gets removed from their neck, and they get a chance, they will fight back. Misery upon misery.

That is so obviously true, of course it has to be punished.

We have mountains of literature, including by US intelligence couching it in euphemisms, saying basically that about the Middle East and the US. Just think Gitmo. I remember hearing the "argument" a lot, where people admitting that some people in Gitmo might be innocent, but by now have been treated so badly, they can't be released because they'd try to harm the US for sure.

> including by US intelligence...

'US intelligence' is a bit of an oxymoron, TBH. Weren't they going to bring democracy to Iraq? That has gone well for sure. If we really want to keep a constructive attitude towards the Middle East, it's important to keep that goal in mind and stick to it, without pursuing distractions. What the Chinese seem to be attempting is an obvious non-starter for lots of reasons.

US thought the democracy will flourish as soon as the dictators were hanged. That's why both Iraq and AF ended up so messed up. To make it successful US should have assumed a colonial role for at least 20-30 years until people could administer themselves. I guess it's easier to just protect your interests(i.e exploit the oil fields) using military force.

There are what, a hundred people still in Gitmo, not a whole region held in concentration camps or under threat of it.

Scale is kind of besides the point, which is that mistreatment has already been recognized to cause resentment. If anything it should make the comment I replied to even more "obviously true", no?