6 ms·

So your justification is that so we can continue to dominate and bottle-up China, because we are good and they are bad? Do you really think they have plans to a

So your justification is that so we can continue to dominate and bottle-up China, because we are good and they are bad? Do you really think they have plans to attack the west? Remember that they were colonized/humiliated by the west, then occupied by Japan, up until Mao secured their independence. The foreign supported force fled to Taiwan. Do you think they might look at their situation differently than we do? EDIT: changed 'foreigner force' to 'foreign supported force'

ChemSpider 5y ago
"The foreigners fled to Taiwan" - What foreigners? The KMT, also known as the Chinese Nationalist Party, fled to Taiwan. It is China that is bullying Taiwan, not other countries bullying China.
- mikem170 5y ago
  Thanks, that was a mistake, I meant to say 'foreign supported'. I edited my comment. > It is China that is bullying Taiwan, not other countries bullying China. That's not their perspective. Hard to argue effectively against someone without understanding where they are coming from.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > That's not their perspective. Hard to argue effectively against someone without understanding where they are coming from. So what? Who cares? I have no delusions that they are going to be convinced of what is wrong with wanting to invade and take over a country. Why bother trying to convince them of anything? Country to country interactions, in the context of war and invasions, aren't really solved in the marketplace of ideas, of rousing debate, to totally prove that the other side is wrong. Instead, such problems are solved with power. The way to stop an invasion from china, is to put in disincentives. Arm up opposing forces, establish treaties, trade relations, and economic sanctions, such that an invasion would cause china a huge of amount of damage, if they did decide to do that. And if they ignore that, and go through with the invasion, then you follow through on your threat, and actually cause as much damage, in terms of economics, PR, and lives as you can get away with, while reducing the same from your own side.
    - mikem170 5y ago
      > So what? Who cares? If you don't understand their perspective you are at a disadvantage. You won't be able to do a good job predicting what they will do. You may unnecessarily start a war. You may be manipulated into starting a war. You may start a war that you can't win. You may be wasting resources. You may be operating out of emotional fear rather than calculated reason. Wars are lost over such misunderstandings. In the case of the United States that would include Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Lots of blood and treasure wasted. One might also add the cold war, given what is now known about how the maliciousness and capabilities of the Soviets were vastly overestimated, meaning we wasted a vast amount of resources there, also. In this case I suppose it would be important to understand their motives and capabilities. Are they posturing for domestic consumption? They have said before that they are not in a rush to reclaim Taiwan. Is that still true? How do they feel about the trade-offs involved in a war? How would the war most likely be started and fought from their side? And can we stop them? Are we willing to make the trade-offs that would be involved. I'm wary of anyone who calls for war and hasn't looked into these things. Blood and treasure for wars doesn't grow on trees.
      - stale2002 5y ago
        No, you are rephasing thing, and pretending like you weren't trying to excuse their actions, Which is what I was responding to. I was responding to your attempt to excuse or justify china's actions, not have some tactical discussion of the best way to defeat them. The original statement that you responded to, was this "It is China that is bullying Taiwan, not other countries bullying China." And you responded to that statement, by saying that it is "not their perspective". By responding to that point, in that way, you are basically saying "Well maybe china is right!". They aren't right on that. They are wrong on that specific point, and it doesn't matter if from their perspective, they think they are correct, except as it comes to defeating that perspective. So, to rephrase your original statement, instead of saying "thats not their perspective", you should have instead said "Yep, they are totally wrong, and should be stopped, but we need to figure out the best way to stop them from invading taiwan", or something like that. You also said this "because we are good and they are bad". Which is a true statement, but you are being dismissive about it. Yes, their actions are bad, if they include invading Taiwan. And by saying that, you are basically disagreeing with that idea, by saying it dismissively. So, please, don't do this bait an switch, where you are now pretending like you care about, uhh, the most effective way to stop China's bad actions, when instead you were quite clearly, quitely obviously, attempting to excuse their actions. That is what you are doing, when you say this "because we are good and they are bad". You are dismissively attempting to excuse their actions, to support them invading Taiwan, because, well, according to you, "its just their perspective".
cynusx 5y ago
China is acting as an aggressor in the region, the US is only providing shields and containment to nations that seek their assistance. The US strategy is to enforce peace through strength which is what you can expect from a democratic country and which is widely supported by allied nations. Dictatorships tend to seek external enemies to boost a rally-around-the-flag narrative that boosts centralized control. It's a very old playbook that works everywhere (also in US domestic politics). The Chinese communist party will need these distractions more and more as the GDP growth will stall due to internal corruption (they rank lower than Ghana and Tunesia in corruption indexes). I think we can agree that whatever the communist party thinks it needs to stay in power should not lead to WWIII
- mikem170 5y ago
  I would say that the U.S. is an aggressor in the region, also, with deployed military forces and its own agenda. I agree about external enemies. I think that both China and the U.S. are playing that dangerous game. I also agree that the Chinese communist party will come under more pressure domestically. besides the things you mentioned are also some tough demographic changes coming up. I also assume that the communist party in China doesn't want WWIII.
  - cynusx 5y ago
    US often bases troops on request of their allies. China claims 80% of the South China Sea as "ancestral lands" and they are actively building capability to take it by force. How would you feel if you are in charge of Indonesia or the Philipines? Which territory does the US claim?

ChemSpider 5y ago

"The foreigners fled to Taiwan" - What foreigners? The KMT, also known as the Chinese Nationalist Party, fled to Taiwan. It is China that is bullying Taiwan, not other countries bullying China.

mikem170 5y ago
Thanks, that was a mistake, I meant to say 'foreign supported'. I edited my comment. > It is China that is bullying Taiwan, not other countries bullying China. That's not their perspective. Hard to argue effectively against someone without understanding where they are coming from.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > That's not their perspective. Hard to argue effectively against someone without understanding where they are coming from. So what? Who cares? I have no delusions that they are going to be convinced of what is wrong with wanting to invade and take over a country. Why bother trying to convince them of anything? Country to country interactions, in the context of war and invasions, aren't really solved in the marketplace of ideas, of rousing debate, to totally prove that the other side is wrong. Instead, such problems are solved with power. The way to stop an invasion from china, is to put in disincentives. Arm up opposing forces, establish treaties, trade relations, and economic sanctions, such that an invasion would cause china a huge of amount of damage, if they did decide to do that. And if they ignore that, and go through with the invasion, then you follow through on your threat, and actually cause as much damage, in terms of economics, PR, and lives as you can get away with, while reducing the same from your own side.
  - mikem170 5y ago
    > So what? Who cares? If you don't understand their perspective you are at a disadvantage. You won't be able to do a good job predicting what they will do. You may unnecessarily start a war. You may be manipulated into starting a war. You may start a war that you can't win. You may be wasting resources. You may be operating out of emotional fear rather than calculated reason. Wars are lost over such misunderstandings. In the case of the United States that would include Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Lots of blood and treasure wasted. One might also add the cold war, given what is now known about how the maliciousness and capabilities of the Soviets were vastly overestimated, meaning we wasted a vast amount of resources there, also. In this case I suppose it would be important to understand their motives and capabilities. Are they posturing for domestic consumption? They have said before that they are not in a rush to reclaim Taiwan. Is that still true? How do they feel about the trade-offs involved in a war? How would the war most likely be started and fought from their side? And can we stop them? Are we willing to make the trade-offs that would be involved. I'm wary of anyone who calls for war and hasn't looked into these things. Blood and treasure for wars doesn't grow on trees.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      No, you are rephasing thing, and pretending like you weren't trying to excuse their actions, Which is what I was responding to. I was responding to your attempt to excuse or justify china's actions, not have some tactical discussion of the best way to defeat them. The original statement that you responded to, was this "It is China that is bullying Taiwan, not other countries bullying China." And you responded to that statement, by saying that it is "not their perspective". By responding to that point, in that way, you are basically saying "Well maybe china is right!". They aren't right on that. They are wrong on that specific point, and it doesn't matter if from their perspective, they think they are correct, except as it comes to defeating that perspective. So, to rephrase your original statement, instead of saying "thats not their perspective", you should have instead said "Yep, they are totally wrong, and should be stopped, but we need to figure out the best way to stop them from invading taiwan", or something like that. You also said this "because we are good and they are bad". Which is a true statement, but you are being dismissive about it. Yes, their actions are bad, if they include invading Taiwan. And by saying that, you are basically disagreeing with that idea, by saying it dismissively. So, please, don't do this bait an switch, where you are now pretending like you care about, uhh, the most effective way to stop China's bad actions, when instead you were quite clearly, quitely obviously, attempting to excuse their actions. That is what you are doing, when you say this "because we are good and they are bad". You are dismissively attempting to excuse their actions, to support them invading Taiwan, because, well, according to you, "its just their perspective".

cynusx 5y ago

China is acting as an aggressor in the region, the US is only providing shields and containment to nations that seek their assistance. The US strategy is to enforce peace through strength which is what you can expect from a democratic country and which is widely supported by allied nations. Dictatorships tend to seek external enemies to boost a rally-around-the-flag narrative that boosts centralized control. It's a very old playbook that works everywhere (also in US domestic politics). The Chinese communist party will need these distractions more and more as the GDP growth will stall due to internal corruption (they rank lower than Ghana and Tunesia in corruption indexes). I think we can agree that whatever the communist party thinks it needs to stay in power should not lead to WWIII

mikem170 5y ago
I would say that the U.S. is an aggressor in the region, also, with deployed military forces and its own agenda. I agree about external enemies. I think that both China and the U.S. are playing that dangerous game. I also agree that the Chinese communist party will come under more pressure domestically. besides the things you mentioned are also some tough demographic changes coming up. I also assume that the communist party in China doesn't want WWIII.
- cynusx 5y ago
  US often bases troops on request of their allies. China claims 80% of the South China Sea as "ancestral lands" and they are actively building capability to take it by force. How would you feel if you are in charge of Indonesia or the Philipines? Which territory does the US claim?