5 ms·

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 attemp

by 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.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > I never said that I support China invading Taiwan. That would mean I advocate No, stop. I said nothing about you supporting troops. I am talking about support of the moral argument, about how we can, from a moral perspective, disregard their "perspective", when thinking about what is right or wrong, or to get moral advice. If their perspective is that they want to invade that other country, in a moral discussion, I don't care about their perspective, when determining if that is right or wrong. So then, you would agree with me that if they invaded that you would absolutely condemn them, morally, and say that they are wrong and that you don't care about their moral opinion on the matter, as you disagree with it. > I don't believe their desire to retake Taiwan is also a desire to attack the West. Them wanting to invade Taiwan is a good enough reason, in and of itself, to arm Taiwan, and engage in severe economic or political actions against China, if they ever follow through with that. Ideally, they wouldn't do that through, due to our actions in arming the opposition though. Obviously, it would be way better if China simply never invaded, due to our actions, and if we could avoid war, and could avoid anyone being invaded. The best action, is not to give in to their perspective, instead it is to make it so if they ever invaded, they would take a lot of damage, so that they then decide to not do it in the first place, and there is neither any war or invasion.
  - mikem170 5y ago
    Do you really think geopolitics is based on morals? A much better case could be made that wars are really started over greed and fear. And that's what I was talking about originally. This thread started with me objecting to the assertion that a justification for militarily defending Taiwan was to prevent China from attacking the West. I don't think they plan on attacking the West. What do they plan on doing? To know that requires thinking from their perspective. This is what the state department does. This is the level I was talking on. I personally think that the world would be a better place if citizens everywhere better understood the reasons for problems between nations. I don't think that this has anything to do with morality. I didn't bring morality up. I've studies a lot of history, and that doesn't appear to be how these things work. That's why the U.S. does many immoral things, supports many regimes that do immoral things, ignores many others, and changes their mind sometimes. Same as every other country. The bigger and more powerful a country is the more immoral they tend to become. Given all that it hardly makes sense to single out Taiwan for special treatment based on morals. If you want to go on discussing morality in relation to Taiwan you have a lot of contradictions to deal with, our support of Saudi Arabia for example, our abandonment of the Kurds, Afghanistan, etc. Morality is not why wars are fought. Morality is how wars are sold to the masses that have to suffer and pay for them. I apologize if you already know this and we are otherwise miscommunicating. So where do you want to go from here?

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.

stale2002 5y ago
> I never said that I support China invading Taiwan. That would mean I advocate No, stop. I said nothing about you supporting troops. I am talking about support of the moral argument, about how we can, from a moral perspective, disregard their "perspective", when thinking about what is right or wrong, or to get moral advice. If their perspective is that they want to invade that other country, in a moral discussion, I don't care about their perspective, when determining if that is right or wrong. So then, you would agree with me that if they invaded that you would absolutely condemn them, morally, and say that they are wrong and that you don't care about their moral opinion on the matter, as you disagree with it. > I don't believe their desire to retake Taiwan is also a desire to attack the West. Them wanting to invade Taiwan is a good enough reason, in and of itself, to arm Taiwan, and engage in severe economic or political actions against China, if they ever follow through with that. Ideally, they wouldn't do that through, due to our actions in arming the opposition though. Obviously, it would be way better if China simply never invaded, due to our actions, and if we could avoid war, and could avoid anyone being invaded. The best action, is not to give in to their perspective, instead it is to make it so if they ever invaded, they would take a lot of damage, so that they then decide to not do it in the first place, and there is neither any war or invasion.
- mikem170 5y ago
  Do you really think geopolitics is based on morals? A much better case could be made that wars are really started over greed and fear. And that's what I was talking about originally. This thread started with me objecting to the assertion that a justification for militarily defending Taiwan was to prevent China from attacking the West. I don't think they plan on attacking the West. What do they plan on doing? To know that requires thinking from their perspective. This is what the state department does. This is the level I was talking on. I personally think that the world would be a better place if citizens everywhere better understood the reasons for problems between nations. I don't think that this has anything to do with morality. I didn't bring morality up. I've studies a lot of history, and that doesn't appear to be how these things work. That's why the U.S. does many immoral things, supports many regimes that do immoral things, ignores many others, and changes their mind sometimes. Same as every other country. The bigger and more powerful a country is the more immoral they tend to become. Given all that it hardly makes sense to single out Taiwan for special treatment based on morals. If you want to go on discussing morality in relation to Taiwan you have a lot of contradictions to deal with, our support of Saudi Arabia for example, our abandonment of the Kurds, Afghanistan, etc. Morality is not why wars are fought. Morality is how wars are sold to the masses that have to suffer and pay for them. I apologize if you already know this and we are otherwise miscommunicating. So where do you want to go from here?