3 ms·

I feel like you miss the key argument and context here, I.e. impact of government decisions on population. I am assuming you are of the opinion that this is a n

by cgio 5y ago

I feel like you miss the key argument and context here, I.e. impact of government decisions on population. I am assuming you are of the opinion that this is a non issue, and I am fine with any opinion, as long as it is applied consistently. In this context, you cannot issue pleas for people on the one side and blame countries on the other.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
I don't this this is a symmetric relationship. Since Trump can't into office, the US has taken an extremely aggressive stance towards China and has sought to intensify the conflict over a whole range of areas (initiating the trade war, making wild accusations of genocide, moving towards recognition of Taiwan, pushing conspiracy theories about CoVID-19), while China has tried to avoid escalation and has almost never gone beyond reciprocal actions. Australia has aligned itself fully with the US in most of these actions, leading the charge against Huawei, funding a prominent think tank that churns out anti-Chinese propaganda, pushing the lab-leak conspiracy theory, inserting itself into disputes in the South China Sea, etc. I think there's a clear aggressor in this situation. The US believes that China is a threat to the unipolar order that has prevailed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and has embarked on a confrontational policy towards China. Australia, caught between its military ally and its top economic partner, has decided to throw itself entirely behind its military ally.
- cgio 5y ago
  Thank you, we agree not on opinions, but on concepts. That was my argument even if not perfectly articulated, I,e. That this is what you call above a symmetric relationship, and unfortunately humanitarian pleas will take the back seat from both sides and also there will be reluctance to find common ground, I.e. I cannot deny I view your individual positions as extremely disagreeable, that’s a sign of directionality.

by cgio 5y ago

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago

I don't this this is a symmetric relationship. Since Trump can't into office, the US has taken an extremely aggressive stance towards China and has sought to intensify the conflict over a whole range of areas (initiating the trade war, making wild accusations of genocide, moving towards recognition of Taiwan, pushing conspiracy theories about CoVID-19), while China has tried to avoid escalation and has almost never gone beyond reciprocal actions. Australia has aligned itself fully with the US in most of these actions, leading the charge against Huawei, funding a prominent think tank that churns out anti-Chinese propaganda, pushing the lab-leak conspiracy theory, inserting itself into disputes in the South China Sea, etc. I think there's a clear aggressor in this situation. The US believes that China is a threat to the unipolar order that has prevailed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and has embarked on a confrontational policy towards China. Australia, caught between its military ally and its top economic partner, has decided to throw itself entirely behind its military ally.

cgio 5y ago
Thank you, we agree not on opinions, but on concepts. That was my argument even if not perfectly articulated, I,e. That this is what you call above a symmetric relationship, and unfortunately humanitarian pleas will take the back seat from both sides and also there will be reluctance to find common ground, I.e. I cannot deny I view your individual positions as extremely disagreeable, that’s a sign of directionality.