After seeing how the US performed against the Taliban with trillions of dollars spent, good luck actually 'fighting' against China.

I would argue that the Taliban was different - a guerrilla battle (similar to Vietnam - which we also lost) rather than a direct conflict. I believe that the US, while not very good at the former, is still among the best at the latter - although I would rather not find that out through direct experience...

> similar to Vietnam - which we also lost

Vietnam wasn't lost militarily. It was lost politically due to the war's unpopularity.

If America had been able to win it quickly, then wouldn't the unpopularity not have mattered?

Will you enlist?

Why would anyone need to enlist? We have nukes, they have nukes, there won't be a massive ground war.

It won't be nukes.

It'll be the biggest naval / air / amphibious battle since the Pacific theater of WW2.

Just resolved a LOT faster.

or "frenemies". Analogous to most individuals' relationship with google. We get stuff for cheap, but give up our secrets.

Tu quoque arguments aren't very compelling. Currently there is only one world power throwing entire populations in internment camps, and that's China. And you're quite naive if you think military bases are required to use threats of military and economic violence to assert a country's desire.

"Re-education camps" which are closer to detainment camps, repeated IP theft from the US, blackmailing US companies into falling in line with CPC policies, and also invading other nations (Hong Kong) with their military.

Characterizing the HK situation as a military invasion is so disingenuous it makes me heavily question whether you are approaching this in good faith. Especially when you are juxtaposing with a nation that has documented military incursions all over South America, Asia, and the Middle East. To have the gall to call destabilizing multiple South American regimes, the Vietnam War, the Iraq campaign, etc. "self-defense" is beyond appalling.

Why shouldn’t a country fight back against US coercion on its soil? And Hong Kong has been a part of China for centuries.

How many countries had the US invaded and is still occupying? How many were threatened into extreme exploitation? How many people are in the ICE run concentration camps?

The two countries don’t even remotely compare.

> How many countries had the US invaded and is still occupying? How many were threatened into extreme exploitation?

The people you’re asking couldn’t begin to answer these questions. They don’t know the uncontested grisly facts of the US empire because they’re not talked about on any of their favorite TV shows.

Anyone who’s interested, here’s a short book on one small facet of that history: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1583679065

> Why shouldn’t a country fight back against US coercion on its soil?

What "coercion"? China employs internet commentators to influence online opinion[1] - whereas the US does not (as far as anyone can tell).

> Hong Kong has been a part of China for centuries.

You're misdirecting. China signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration[2], which stated that "Hong Kong's existing capitalist system and way of life would be unchanged for 50 years until 2047"...which China is now blatantly violating, making this an effective invasion - or some form of hostile action - take your pick of words.

> How many countries had the US invaded and is still occupying? How many were threatened into extreme exploitation?

In self-defense. China has no excuse for invading HK, which poses absolutely no threat to them.

> How many people are in the ICE run concentration camps?

Not remotely comparable. ICE detains illegal immigrants for breaking a rather reasonable law - "you don't enter our borders without permission" - and then returns them to their country. China detains existing citizens for thoughtcrime, speaking out against the state, or merely being Uyghur - none of which are reasonable.

> The two countries don’t even remotely compare.

Yes - every shred of evidence paints China as being incomparably worse.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration

> What "coercion"? China employs internet commentators to influence online opinion[1] - whereas the US does not (as far as anyone can tell).

There are many examples of the US working to influence the internal politics of other countries through media, for instance Radio Free Asia or the National Endowment for Democracy.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/analysis/National-Endowment-f...

What's wrong with influence?

There is a thing called Radio Liberty / Radio Free Europe since 1949. It still exists.

I'm not trying to affect an objective morality to say it's "wrong", I'm just saying the US does it too. So let's not get up in arms about supposed Chinese internet commenters or Russian fake news.

Why not get up in arms about it? One is done in support of a flawed nation with democratic and freedom ideals, the other is done in support of a murderous authoritarian regime that wishes to annihilate democracy and freedom. It's perfectly reasonable to be up in arms about it.

Do you want to talk about facts or do you just want to repeat the bedtime stories you’ve internalized?

Please don't name-call. Even if the person you're responding to is making invalid points, or being aggressive, that doesn't excuse aggression yourself.