6 ms·

"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, n

"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".
      - mikem170 5y ago
        I think that both the U.S. and China do some pretty horrible things in the name of perpetuating their power. Big countries are bullies. My original reply in this thread was that I didn't think that the fear of China attacking the West was worthy justification for the U.S. to go to war with China over Taiwan. I never said that I support China invading Taiwan. That would mean I advocate sending troops to help China, which I don't. That would be like saying that I support the regime in Saudia Arabia because I don't want to go to war with them. Or that the U.S. supported communist China because we built them up through trade, knowing the whole time they wanted Taiwan back. Maybe these are bad examples, I don't mean to sidetrack things. I mentioned perspective because Taiwan used to be part of China and I'm sure they look at it differently than other countries which were never part of China. I say this beause I don't believe their desire to retake Taiwan is also a desire to attack the West. I assume they have something comparable to "American Exceptionalism" and psychologically don't want to permanently loose Taiwan, so they bide their time. Just like the Reconquista - lots of Mexicans want Texas back. That doesn't mean they want to attack Europe! Also I do believe that understanding a country's perspective, China, Taiwan, and the U.S. in this case, allows for better outcomes and less possibility of costly mistakes. On the other hand, in regards to your opinion of this matter, I wonder what would you have thought of Spain attacking the U.S. during the civil war in support of the Confederacy because a re-united U.S. was more of a threat to Spanish control over South and Central America? We eventually went on to treat a lot of those countries like shit, making banana republics of many, etc. Would this Spanish attack have been justified according to the original posters logic, because the U.S. would be an eventual threat to other countries? There's a variety of nuances to this stuff, if one can get past the "we are good, they are evil" version of things. Maybe that's not always possible.

"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".
    - mikem170 5y ago
      I think that both the U.S. and China do some pretty horrible things in the name of perpetuating their power. Big countries are bullies. My original reply in this thread was that I didn't think that the fear of China attacking the West was worthy justification for the U.S. to go to war with China over Taiwan. I never said that I support China invading Taiwan. That would mean I advocate sending troops to help China, which I don't. That would be like saying that I support the regime in Saudia Arabia because I don't want to go to war with them. Or that the U.S. supported communist China because we built them up through trade, knowing the whole time they wanted Taiwan back. Maybe these are bad examples, I don't mean to sidetrack things. I mentioned perspective because Taiwan used to be part of China and I'm sure they look at it differently than other countries which were never part of China. I say this beause I don't believe their desire to retake Taiwan is also a desire to attack the West. I assume they have something comparable to "American Exceptionalism" and psychologically don't want to permanently loose Taiwan, so they bide their time. Just like the Reconquista - lots of Mexicans want Texas back. That doesn't mean they want to attack Europe! Also I do believe that understanding a country's perspective, China, Taiwan, and the U.S. in this case, allows for better outcomes and less possibility of costly mistakes. On the other hand, in regards to your opinion of this matter, I wonder what would you have thought of Spain attacking the U.S. during the civil war in support of the Confederacy because a re-united U.S. was more of a threat to Spanish control over South and Central America? We eventually went on to treat a lot of those countries like shit, making banana republics of many, etc. Would this Spanish attack have been justified according to the original posters logic, because the U.S. would be an eventual threat to other countries? There's a variety of nuances to this stuff, if one can get past the "we are good, they are evil" version of things. Maybe that's not always possible.