considine

As someone who has lived in China for many years, including now, I have to say it's really not great for accessing the World Wide Web. Within China, the accessible internet is basically a Chinese national intranet. Which is not terrible if you are a native Chinese speaker, I guess. They censor because the US sending out massive propaganda. But China's government is producing a lot of domestic propaganda, too. Different goals - the US to destabilize and take over, China to stabilize and maintain support for the system.

As I have lived here many years, I've put in a great deal of effort to learn the language. Unfortunately, with limited results. Learning to read and write in Chinese requires a structured learning environment and about 10 years of focus for most people. Due to illiteracy in Chinese I can't just switch to using the Chinese intranet. And the government keeps cracking down on VPNs. It can be very frustrating accessing the internet outside the GFW. And frankly there is a lot of useful and interesting content that exists outside the GFW.

Author's name from the first part?

Instead of setting up dollar swaps to deepen their ties to the US failstate, they should get in on CIPS and alternative trade settlement systems. These things exist and would gain a great deal of credibility if Gulf states joined.

Also they should kick out the US bases and thereby make their countries a lot safer.

It only sings a sweet burbling song of coffee to me each morning. And afternoon.

I subscribe to it but I don't find enough content on it that keeps me coming back. Do you mind sharing the channels you like watching?

It does say over 18"

Now I want a giant plate of pancakes with a giant pat of butter on it.

When WikiLeaks blew open US corruption, war crimes and human rights violations they went after the whistle blowers, Julian Assange, and Chelsea Manning.

United States "The leader of the free world" and Israel "The only democracy in the Middle East" in action.

What I'm arguing for? Logical consistency. Moral consistency. If the reason to sanction DPRK is that they acquired nuclear weapons without the consent of the current nuclear powers, then all states which do the same should be sanctioned. If the reason to sanction DPRK is because they might wreak havoc with massive weapons, then countries that are already wreaking havoc with massive weapons should be sanctioned. Your argument is that Israel and the US should not suffer the consequences of sanctions because they aren't sanctioned. My argument is that there is not logical or moral consistency in sanctions.

And no, I don't accept that this is an argument for nuclear weapon proliferation. Those countries that developed nuclear weapons pulled the gate shut behind them, forbidding any other countries from getting them. We can see the hypocrisy in that. But then when a US ally like Israel, or a strategic partner like Pakistan acquires nuclear weapons it is ignored. Only DPRK or Iran could possibly be dangerous because... well because they aren't cooperating with the US.

Oh, so the UN decided that DPRK nationals aren't allowed to work abroad. That seems fair. Like, if Israelis worked abroad, sent money home, and then that money was used for genocide. Or if US citizens worked abroad, sent tax money home, and that tax was used for genocide. Kinda like that. Or any country that maintains a nuclear arsenal, that isn't part of the the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Like Israel. Or Pakistan.

I think what you are showing is that far right parties often incorporate one or two left-wing policies in order to gain popularity. Cherry-picking those and putting them together does not create a realistic profile of right wing opinions.

Very interesting that Petro has ordered the replacement of Colombian diplomatic personnel dealing with China. It shows how insiders can sabotage agendas even when the leader has a progressive plan. In the UK, Jeremy Corbyn's government was constantly being sabotaged by Labour inisders, too.