5 ms·

> China’s ... support of anti-American political parties in e.g. Cuba and Venezuela is certainly enough to warrant Stephen Colbert's suggested title "frenemy",

> China’s ... support of anti-American political parties in e.g. Cuba and Venezuela is certainly enough to warrant Stephen Colbert's suggested title "frenemy", not to mention their continued international temper tantrums over the status of Taiwan. How can you not see the contradiction in this sentence? You say that China supporting anti-US elements is them being aggressive—sure. But then you characterize China’s opposition to Taiwan, which continues to exist arguably solely because of US support, as a “temper tantrum.” How is this supposed to be Chinese aggression, any more than the Civil War was the War of Northern Aggression? The GP’s point is that it has mostly been the US being aggressive towards China, rather than vice versa. It is definitely possible to argue against, and it is definitely possible to argue that China should try to get along with Taiwan. This I would agree with. But your argument is self-defeating and plain inaccurate. (Also, characterizing the Open Door Policy as not an aggressive action is also plain wrong. Would you characterize Commodore Perry’s expedition to Japan as non-aggressive as well?)

scythe 9y ago
Whether the US's support of Taiwan is aggressive is immaterial; nowhere did I suggest that the US has taken no aggressive actions against China. I responded to a claim by 'coldtea that China has taken no aggressive actions against the US and I make no claims regarding degrees. US aggression towards China does not reclassify actions by China as nonaggressive. China's actions regarding Taiwan are nonetheless absurd because it was basically a colonial possession of the Qing Dynasty, having not been part of China before the 17th century, so China has no serious "historic" right to claim it aside from nonbinding agreements between the US/RoC during WWII. That the PRC would wish for those agreements to be binding is ironic considering their characterization of the RoC as a US puppet state.
- jonathanyc 9y ago
  > China's actions regarding Taiwan are nonetheless absurd because it was basically a colonial possession of the Qing Dynasty, having not been part of China before the 17th century, so China has no serious "historic" right to claim it aside from nonbinding agreements Again, a viewpoint I entirely agree with but one for which you are making an awful argument. What became the US was not colonized before the 17th century, either. We can oppose China’s actions regarding Taiwan because a majority of the Taiwanese people don’t want to be a part of China, not because there is no “historic” claim. If the absurdity lies in the lack of history, then it would be absurd for us in the US to support Taiwanese independence yet not return all our land to the Native Americans. Characterizing China’s position as “absurd” is self-defeating. Also, you write that you’re responding to coldtea’s claim that China has taken no aggressive actions towards the US, but that is not at all what they wrote; rather, they wrote that it has “mostly been western nations doing things to China”.
  - scythe 9y ago
    >If the absurdity lies in the lack of history Well of course it does, because China's claims to Taiwan are fundamentally historical. The US claim to the mainland US is not based on history but on de facto control, so history is not an injuction. But the PRC's propaganda line is "Taiwan is part of China" which is both presently and historically false. China captured Taiwan from the Dutch in 1662 and held it for two centuries before losing it to the Japanese. It is not quite as mad as Argentina's claim to the Falklands, but that's a low bar. With Macau or Gibraltar, a case can be made that they're owed back. With Taiwan it's dumb. >that is not at all what they wrote I responded to this: >For enemy it should have also actually done something I demonstrated "something".
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >The US claim to the mainland US is not based on history but on de facto control, so history is not an injuction. Well, de facto control is no moral claim.
      - scythe 9y ago
        Yes, it is. Accepting de facto control is important to ensuring a lasting peace. There will always be another objection. De facto control justifies the status of Tibet, Hawai'i, Israel, Catalonia etc.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >US aggression towards China does not reclassify actions by China as nonaggressive. It might well reclassify them as defense. At worst, it puts them in perspective. Else, it's like saying "someone fighting back a bully does not reclassify his actions as nonaggressive". >* China's actions regarding Taiwan are nonetheless absurd because it was basically a colonial possession of the Qing Dynasty, having not been part of China before the 17th century, so China has no serious "historic" right to claim it aside from nonbinding agreements between the US/RoC during WWII.* So, the US would for example would easily give away California to Mexico, Hawaii or Puerto Rico to the natives, etc, if it came to some schism, right? After all, they're way younger possessions than a 17th century one. (And it's not just about state ownership -- China itself was divided in many ways over the course of history. It's about common culture and ethnicity, not about it being a part of the "official state" since forever. Taiwanese are settlers from China, and even the previous local (aboriginals) had come from China).
  - scythe 9y ago
    >It might well reclassify them as defense. >At worst, it puts them in perspective. The context is "For China to be considered an enemy it ought to have done something." Defense of any form obviously satisfies this requirement. You are only arguing semantics. But in Taiwan, China is the bully, and the US defends peace. >the US for example would easily give away California to Mexico The US controls California. If we lost it, it would be ridiculous to spend 70 years threatening war against anyone who suggested we should admit it. >Taiwanese are settlers from China Americans are settlers from England.

scythe 9y ago

Whether the US's support of Taiwan is aggressive is immaterial; nowhere did I suggest that the US has taken no aggressive actions against China. I responded to a claim by 'coldtea that China has taken no aggressive actions against the US and I make no claims regarding degrees. US aggression towards China does not reclassify actions by China as nonaggressive. China's actions regarding Taiwan are nonetheless absurd because it was basically a colonial possession of the Qing Dynasty, having not been part of China before the 17th century, so China has no serious "historic" right to claim it aside from nonbinding agreements between the US/RoC during WWII. That the PRC would wish for those agreements to be binding is ironic considering their characterization of the RoC as a US puppet state.

jonathanyc 9y ago
> China's actions regarding Taiwan are nonetheless absurd because it was basically a colonial possession of the Qing Dynasty, having not been part of China before the 17th century, so China has no serious "historic" right to claim it aside from nonbinding agreements Again, a viewpoint I entirely agree with but one for which you are making an awful argument. What became the US was not colonized before the 17th century, either. We can oppose China’s actions regarding Taiwan because a majority of the Taiwanese people don’t want to be a part of China, not because there is no “historic” claim. If the absurdity lies in the lack of history, then it would be absurd for us in the US to support Taiwanese independence yet not return all our land to the Native Americans. Characterizing China’s position as “absurd” is self-defeating. Also, you write that you’re responding to coldtea’s claim that China has taken no aggressive actions towards the US, but that is not at all what they wrote; rather, they wrote that it has “mostly been western nations doing things to China”.
- scythe 9y ago
  >If the absurdity lies in the lack of history Well of course it does, because China's claims to Taiwan are fundamentally historical. The US claim to the mainland US is not based on history but on de facto control, so history is not an injuction. But the PRC's propaganda line is "Taiwan is part of China" which is both presently and historically false. China captured Taiwan from the Dutch in 1662 and held it for two centuries before losing it to the Japanese. It is not quite as mad as Argentina's claim to the Falklands, but that's a low bar. With Macau or Gibraltar, a case can be made that they're owed back. With Taiwan it's dumb. >that is not at all what they wrote I responded to this: >For enemy it should have also actually done something I demonstrated "something".
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >The US claim to the mainland US is not based on history but on de facto control, so history is not an injuction. Well, de facto control is no moral claim.
    - scythe 9y ago
      Yes, it is. Accepting de facto control is important to ensuring a lasting peace. There will always be another objection. De facto control justifies the status of Tibet, Hawai'i, Israel, Catalonia etc.
coldtea 9y ago
>US aggression towards China does not reclassify actions by China as nonaggressive. It might well reclassify them as defense. At worst, it puts them in perspective. Else, it's like saying "someone fighting back a bully does not reclassify his actions as nonaggressive". >* China's actions regarding Taiwan are nonetheless absurd because it was basically a colonial possession of the Qing Dynasty, having not been part of China before the 17th century, so China has no serious "historic" right to claim it aside from nonbinding agreements between the US/RoC during WWII.* So, the US would for example would easily give away California to Mexico, Hawaii or Puerto Rico to the natives, etc, if it came to some schism, right? After all, they're way younger possessions than a 17th century one. (And it's not just about state ownership -- China itself was divided in many ways over the course of history. It's about common culture and ethnicity, not about it being a part of the "official state" since forever. Taiwanese are settlers from China, and even the previous local (aboriginals) had come from China).
- scythe 9y ago
  >It might well reclassify them as defense. >At worst, it puts them in perspective. The context is "For China to be considered an enemy it ought to have done something." Defense of any form obviously satisfies this requirement. You are only arguing semantics. But in Taiwan, China is the bully, and the US defends peace. >the US for example would easily give away California to Mexico The US controls California. If we lost it, it would be ridiculous to spend 70 years threatening war against anyone who suggested we should admit it. >Taiwanese are settlers from China Americans are settlers from England.