8 ms·

> Third: It's 23 million people who have built an advanced economy. Being able to siphon that wealth will be a massive boon for the CCP and other parts of China

by xtian 5y ago

> Third: It's 23 million people who have built an advanced economy. Being able to siphon that wealth will be a massive boon for the CCP and other parts of China. Ah yes, the filthy lucre of siphoning an economy with 4% of their own GDP.

chitowneats 5y ago
4% is 4%. They are paying the expenditures to maintain their military. Why would they not be looking for a return on their investment? It's strange we're even arguing about this given that their official position is that they will invade in due time if Taiwan does not unconditionally surrender. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-taiwan-invasion-military-exercise/2020/10/12/291f5d86-0c58-11eb-b404-8d1e675ec701_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-taiw... "In its annual work report this year, the Chinese government removed the word "peaceful" from long-standing references to "reunification" with Taiwan."
- xtian 5y ago
  Their official position is that they will invade if any of a few specific things occur. And China's military spending is less than 4% of their GDP last I checked. That seems pretty good to me given all the geopolitical aggression they're receiving from the country that makes up 38% of global military spending.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". Claiming sovereignty over land you have not controlled for an entire human lifetime quite certainly is. I'll end my participation in this discussion with a quote from the Taiwanese: "We fill fight a war if we need to fight a war, and if we need to defend ourselves to the very last day, then we will defend ourselves to the very last day" https://www.businessinsider.com/taiwan-warns-fight-to-end-conflict-with-china-2021-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/taiwan-warns-fight-to-end-co...
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      >The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". So it was geopolitical aggression for the 40+ years Taiwan couldn't even pretend to be a free democracy? I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        > So it was geopolitical aggression for the 40+ years Taiwan couldn't even pretend to be a free democracy? Yes, it was still aggression. The US opposed it then under the grounds of "containing Communism" rather than "defending democracy". > I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive. If you invade somewhere to take it over against the wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard to understand?
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        >If you invade somewhere to take it over against the wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard to understand? I have no idea what part of my post made it seem like I wouldn't find an invasion aggressive, it clearly would be. I wasn't discussing an invasion at all.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Then I clearly misunderstood this line: > I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive. Would you explain what you meant by it? (And, my apologies for the yelling. I in fact thought that you were saying that an invasion would not be aggression, which... yeah. We both agree that such an idea is wrong.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        That providing substantial military support to a nation bordering an empire is an aggressive act no matter the form of government the border nation has.

by xtian 5y ago

chitowneats 5y ago

4% is 4%. They are paying the expenditures to maintain their military. Why would they not be looking for a return on their investment? It's strange we're even arguing about this given that their official position is that they will invade in due time if Taiwan does not unconditionally surrender. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-taiwan-invasion-military-exercise/2020/10/12/291f5d86-0c58-11eb-b404-8d1e675ec701_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-taiw... "In its annual work report this year, the Chinese government removed the word "peaceful" from long-standing references to "reunification" with Taiwan."

xtian 5y ago
Their official position is that they will invade if any of a few specific things occur. And China's military spending is less than 4% of their GDP last I checked. That seems pretty good to me given all the geopolitical aggression they're receiving from the country that makes up 38% of global military spending.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". Claiming sovereignty over land you have not controlled for an entire human lifetime quite certainly is. I'll end my participation in this discussion with a quote from the Taiwanese: "We fill fight a war if we need to fight a war, and if we need to defend ourselves to the very last day, then we will defend ourselves to the very last day" https://www.businessinsider.com/taiwan-warns-fight-to-end-conflict-with-china-2021-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/taiwan-warns-fight-to-end-co...
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    >The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". So it was geopolitical aggression for the 40+ years Taiwan couldn't even pretend to be a free democracy? I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      > So it was geopolitical aggression for the 40+ years Taiwan couldn't even pretend to be a free democracy? Yes, it was still aggression. The US opposed it then under the grounds of "containing Communism" rather than "defending democracy". > I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive. If you invade somewhere to take it over against the wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard to understand?
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        >If you invade somewhere to take it over against the wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard to understand? I have no idea what part of my post made it seem like I wouldn't find an invasion aggressive, it clearly would be. I wasn't discussing an invasion at all.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Then I clearly misunderstood this line: > I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive. Would you explain what you meant by it? (And, my apologies for the yelling. I in fact thought that you were saying that an invasion would not be aggression, which... yeah. We both agree that such an idea is wrong.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        That providing substantial military support to a nation bordering an empire is an aggressive act no matter the form of government the border nation has.