5 ms·

A bunch of jawjacking in this thread about how the US should "intervene", whatever that means. He's a quick rehash of what the American military has been up to

A bunch of jawjacking in this thread about how the US should "intervene", whatever that means. He's a quick rehash of what the American military has been up to for the last 2 decades: * Fighting a failing (read: failed) counter-insurgency, that has surely atrophied the necessary skills and experience of field-grade and above officers needed to fight great land and sea wars * Mopping up the mess left from the above I don't doubt the fighting ability of the line infantryman (I was one), but this idea that we could do anything about Hong Kong without engaging in a full-scale war is ludicrous. It ignores a) the actual military engagements this country has gotten into for the last 20 years, and b) the actual geo-political situation in the region. Perhaps consider what strategic interest to the United States Hong Kong represents before advocating that we get into yet another endless war with nebulous objectives and mystical thinking about how easy it would be.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> this idea that we could do anything about Hong Kong without engaging in a full-scale war is ludicrous Fighting a land war against China for Hong Kong is ludicrous. Making a second Tiananmen Square painful for Beijing is not. From sanctions, to weapons sales to Taiwan et al, to providing protesters and resistance pockets with intelligence, there are options. Whether they’re worth it is the question.
- remarkEon 7y ago
  I mean, we're already in a trade war with them. I'm struggling to understand why, after 50+ years of trying the same thing over and over again and seeing downright horrible results across 3 continents, people still advocate the tried and true method of "just send in CIA".
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - sametmax 7y ago
    American medias have been singing the power of the US for so long now that their population really believe they are capable fixing everything with their hammer.
  - pas 7y ago
    We don't know what would have happened without sending in the CIA. Maybe the USSR becomes the global superpolice... It doesn't matter how bad its economy is if it controls all the militaries and secret polices! /s
- sametmax 7y ago
  Sanctions didn't work for Russia. 7 millions people in Honk Kong cannot win against 1.3 billions of people from main land, no matter how many weapons you provide. "Making a second Tiananmen Square painful for Beijing is not" could be a good strat, but something tells me they learned from that one and have a plan for it this time.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - luckydata 7y ago
    Was working just fine. Then they figured out how to use Facebook to get themselves a POTUS and we left them off the hook, but sanctions were absolutely working.
    - jedmeyers 7y ago
      > Then they figured out how to use Facebook to get themselves a POTUS One might wonder why didn't Hilliary figure out how to use Facebook. The answer might be, that she did, but just like with the Russia buying their own ads with peanuts money compared to the DNC spend - it didn't really matter. Seeing people parrot the Russia narrative, the same day the Man himself testified that it didn't actually happen, entertains me a bit.
      - pas 7y ago
        Maybe FB propaganda was simply more effective in motivating Rep voting. (Fearmongering about vile brown migrants raping our beautiful white women works better than fearmongering about climate change and the lack of structural health care reform, who knew!?) Anyway, you are completely right about how overused the Russia line is without data on its interference effectiveness.
      - analognoise 7y ago
        Robert Mueller, yesterday: "our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion" So... That did happen.
- underthebus 7y ago
  > Making a second Tiananmen Square painful for Beijing is not That would be in no-one's interests. Immediately after the Tiananmen Square events in 1989 the US sent a high ranking general to Beijing to reassure the Chinese that this changed nothing. The situation has changed because now China is seen as a real rival but the US and the West still have zero interests in going down that route. Not least because China is not a small country, it's the second economy on Earth. I think the events in HK are being spinned and that some people are really losing their sense of proportion. Bluntly speaking: The events in HK are irrelevant globally and are regional news at best. They are not a global issue that deserve international involvement. At the same time, it is very difficult to understand the message and aim of the protesters, and their violence made them lose a lot of credibility.
  - pimmen 7y ago
    Wouldn't China being the second largest economy in the world make it more interesting to make a second Tiananmen Square costly? Because democracy is very important for the stability of the West and having a powerful dictatorship steamroll a democratic movement while we just watch looks really bad for us and the credibility of our governments. And, it also gives the West less credibility internationally. The US has been very clear that it was behind "one China, two systems" since the 80s a dramatic policy change would make every other country think "ok, so why should we expect that any treaty we or alliance we form with the US will hold?". If countries don't trust the West they stop working with the West and that reduces its power by orders of magnitude.
    - underthebus 7y ago
      "One country, two systems" is a domestic policy of China. It's not any other country's business. People seem to be outraged by vague allegations of Russian meddling in other countries' affairs but China should be treated like a colony by the West... That's highly hypocritical (if not racist).
      - pimmen 7y ago
        ”One country, two systems” is originally an agreement between the UK and China before the handover. Violating a treaty with another country makes it an international affair.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> this idea that we could do anything about Hong Kong without engaging in a full-scale war is ludicrous Fighting a land war against China for Hong Kong is ludicrous. Making a second Tiananmen Square painful for Beijing is not. From sanctions, to weapons sales to Taiwan et al, to providing protesters and resistance pockets with intelligence, there are options. Whether they’re worth it is the question.

remarkEon 7y ago
I mean, we're already in a trade war with them. I'm struggling to understand why, after 50+ years of trying the same thing over and over again and seeing downright horrible results across 3 continents, people still advocate the tried and true method of "just send in CIA".
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- sametmax 7y ago
  American medias have been singing the power of the US for so long now that their population really believe they are capable fixing everything with their hammer.
- pas 7y ago
  We don't know what would have happened without sending in the CIA. Maybe the USSR becomes the global superpolice... It doesn't matter how bad its economy is if it controls all the militaries and secret polices! /s
sametmax 7y ago
Sanctions didn't work for Russia. 7 millions people in Honk Kong cannot win against 1.3 billions of people from main land, no matter how many weapons you provide. "Making a second Tiananmen Square painful for Beijing is not" could be a good strat, but something tells me they learned from that one and have a plan for it this time.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- luckydata 7y ago
  Was working just fine. Then they figured out how to use Facebook to get themselves a POTUS and we left them off the hook, but sanctions were absolutely working.
  - jedmeyers 7y ago
    > Then they figured out how to use Facebook to get themselves a POTUS One might wonder why didn't Hilliary figure out how to use Facebook. The answer might be, that she did, but just like with the Russia buying their own ads with peanuts money compared to the DNC spend - it didn't really matter. Seeing people parrot the Russia narrative, the same day the Man himself testified that it didn't actually happen, entertains me a bit.
    - pas 7y ago
      Maybe FB propaganda was simply more effective in motivating Rep voting. (Fearmongering about vile brown migrants raping our beautiful white women works better than fearmongering about climate change and the lack of structural health care reform, who knew!?) Anyway, you are completely right about how overused the Russia line is without data on its interference effectiveness.
    - analognoise 7y ago
      Robert Mueller, yesterday: "our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion" So... That did happen.
underthebus 7y ago
> Making a second Tiananmen Square painful for Beijing is not That would be in no-one's interests. Immediately after the Tiananmen Square events in 1989 the US sent a high ranking general to Beijing to reassure the Chinese that this changed nothing. The situation has changed because now China is seen as a real rival but the US and the West still have zero interests in going down that route. Not least because China is not a small country, it's the second economy on Earth. I think the events in HK are being spinned and that some people are really losing their sense of proportion. Bluntly speaking: The events in HK are irrelevant globally and are regional news at best. They are not a global issue that deserve international involvement. At the same time, it is very difficult to understand the message and aim of the protesters, and their violence made them lose a lot of credibility.
- pimmen 7y ago
  Wouldn't China being the second largest economy in the world make it more interesting to make a second Tiananmen Square costly? Because democracy is very important for the stability of the West and having a powerful dictatorship steamroll a democratic movement while we just watch looks really bad for us and the credibility of our governments. And, it also gives the West less credibility internationally. The US has been very clear that it was behind "one China, two systems" since the 80s a dramatic policy change would make every other country think "ok, so why should we expect that any treaty we or alliance we form with the US will hold?". If countries don't trust the West they stop working with the West and that reduces its power by orders of magnitude.
  - underthebus 7y ago
    "One country, two systems" is a domestic policy of China. It's not any other country's business. People seem to be outraged by vague allegations of Russian meddling in other countries' affairs but China should be treated like a colony by the West... That's highly hypocritical (if not racist).
    - pimmen 7y ago
      ”One country, two systems” is originally an agreement between the UK and China before the handover. Violating a treaty with another country makes it an international affair.