6 ms·

what a great use of our tax dollars!

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> what a great use of our tax dollars! Correct. It shows the world where the real balance of power lays and gives confidence to American allies that America is not a fair-weather friend that can be bullied out of its commitments by loudmouthed tyrants like Xi Jinping. This is excellent for American global interests.
- colpabar 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- woweoe 4y ago
  This is unrealistic from an Asian perspective. The US has actually lost three proxy wars with China on the other side (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan) and what is happening in Ukraine is a total mess that no Asian country wants to be in. The US also did not manage to unite the world (including most of the Asian continent) against Russia. The idea that the US will be willing defend Taiwan fiercely when the US did not do the same for Ukraine, against a foe that is much mightier than Russia, is silly. No country in the world wants to descend to the levels that Ukraine had gone.
  - nradov 4y ago
    The US is not an ally of Ukraine. We never had any kind of commitment to defend them. We give them weapons and other support as a way of knocking Russia down and preventing them from threatening our actual allies. The situation with Taiwan is completely different due to the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, and official policy statements by multiple presidential administrations since then. The US would absolutely defend Taiwan against a major attack. The question is how far that commitment goes? If China uses tactical nuclear weapons at sea, would the US escalate or back off? No one knows what would really happen in that scenario...
    - aerostable_slug 4y ago
      It's also worth pointing out that United States spent a significant amount of effort to prevent Taiwan's indigenous nuclear weapons program from reaching fruition. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2019-01-10/taiwans-bomb https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2019-0... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_Hsien-yi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_Hsien-yi
  - kcb 4y ago
    China did many things during the Korean War but win is definetly not one of them.
- foverzar 4y ago
  > This is excellent for American global interests. Of course it is. It is a very typical pattern of the US external politics. Decompensate some frozen conflict or a status quo situation somewhere beyond the ocean and then enjoy being a safe haven when the rest of the world is burning.
- smcl 4y ago
  I don't think it reveals anything new about the balance of power. We know the USA is currently still the largest economy and we know China is in the ascendancy and is on course to dominate the coming decades. As for giving confidence to allies - East Asia in particular is all to aware of how far the USA is willing to go to advance its interests and ideology in the region, having fought (and lost) two conflicts there since WW2. You seem to be brimming with pride at this gesture, I think this pride is misplaced. I hope nothing bad comes of this, but I cannot fathom the idea that increasing the chance of conflict with China being good let alone excellent.
  - nradov 4y ago
    The conflict is probably inevitable anyway. Appeasing the Chinese Communist Party by acquiescing to their demands won't bring us peace in the long run. Better to do everything we can (short of violence) to humiliate, undermine, and disrespect them. This demonstrates firm resolve and helps to maintain confidence among our regional allies.
    - okasaki 4y ago
      > The conflict is probably inevitable anyway. Appeasing the Chinese Communist Party by acquiescing to their demands won't bring us peace in the long run. Sure it would, but peace was never the goal of the US empire. > Better to do everything we can (short of violence) to humiliate, undermine, and disrespect them. This demonstrates firm resolve and helps to maintain confidence among our regional allies. I wish it was against the HN rules to advocate for public policies that wouldn't be acceptable on HN. For example, if I called you a stupid moron, an amoral cretin who should be thrown in a cell and left to die, dang might have a problem with that. And yet your equivalent suggested policy will pass without concern.
      - coding123 4y ago
        But the words "humiliate, undermine, and disrespect them" in the context of Taiwan is to visit them.
      - 4y ago
- k_sze 4y ago
  The US is literally interfering in the internal affairs of China. Taiwan is legally part of China. They never declared independence. Even the Joint Communiqué between PRC and USA explicitly says recognizes that Taiwan is part of China.
- klpost 4y ago
  The aggressive diplomacy strategy has backfired spectacularly in Ukraine, yet people market it as a success. With a quieter backroom strategy perhaps there would not be a war now. But the U.S. can sell LPG gas to Europe now, so perhaps it is a success for them.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    The invasion of Ukraine is purely the result of Russia wanting to invade
  - nradov 4y ago
    Sure if the Ukrainians had quietly made a backroom deal to be annexed by Russia then there would not be a war now. And then next year it would be Estonia, and so on. Would that be preferable? The Europeans (mainly Germans) wouldn't have to buy so much LPG from the US if they had invested in other energy sources and avoided becoming dependent on Russian fossil fuels. Presidents Obama and Trump specifically warned them about this strategic risk but they didn't listen.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  Nancy Pelosi wasn't elected to engage in foreign policy. She should not be doing actions abroad that have implications for U.S. foreign policy.
  - Kon-Peki 4y ago
    As a junior congresswoman, she walked right into Tiananmen Square and held up a banner that memorialized those that died. Right in front of the Beijing police! She's never stopped poking at China. The fact that she keeps getting re-elected, over and over again, is pretty good proof that she has indeed been elected to engage in foreign policy ;)
    - throwaway654329 4y ago
      I agree that her history of activity really does play a part in being re-elected. I find the parent comment a bit shocking. It seems unreasonable to claim an elected U.S. representative is somehow not allowed to engage in foreign policy discourse by visiting a country or by suggesting that they aren’t representing their constituent’s views because they do political work outside of the (U.S.) country? Shall we hazard a guess about unelected Americans? Are those people allowed to exercise their right to freedom of movement and freedom of speech? Obviously yes and yes, but partisan polarization makes all of these norms, rights even, a point of contention. The Department of State is not the only group of American bureaucrats who are allowed to travel and engage in public actions that are considered political. America isn’t a dictatorship where only specific party members are allowed to engage in foreign policy discussions. When any American is threatened by members of an actual dictatorship (of the proletariat, literally), it might be worth considering that these issues transcend party politics. The parent comment strongly implies that there isn’t a long history of elected American officials visiting other countries, often with controversial media coverage and/or overt political threats from less than liberal societies. That history also extends to normal Americans speaking in foreign parliaments and speaking in public squares. It is a good thing that everyone has these rights, even if everything said isn’t always good. With that said, Pelosi might be provoking world war three, but the reason to argue against her actions isn’t because she doesn’t have the right to travel or speak or engage in politics abroad. As a side note: Taiwan probably should be defended by people who support democracy, though I understand this might not be seen as defense but as unnecessary provocation. Related though and on display in this thread is a kind of cynicism against America doing positive political actions abroad. This is part of a larger trend perceived from inside and certainly outside of America about some Americans: the light of liberty is going out in America, and most of the world has noticed. It isn’t particularly partisan and has really accelerated since 9/11 under both parties in different ways. It is really sad. America should be a light of liberty in the world, we should bring hope to democracies under threat from illiberal societies. I understand that this is now controversial in America in some political circles and it is really terrible. As polarization increases, all sides will find friends in exile or worse - peaceful resolution requires political discourse regardless of geographical location. Put another way: Ensure your political “enemies” have basic rights or you too might find that you are without rights, if and likely when, other people run the show…

> what a great use of our tax dollars! Correct. It shows the world where the real balance of power lays and gives confidence to American allies that America is not a fair-weather friend that can be bullied out of its commitments by loudmouthed tyrants like Xi Jinping. This is excellent for American global interests.

colpabar 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
woweoe 4y ago
This is unrealistic from an Asian perspective. The US has actually lost three proxy wars with China on the other side (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan) and what is happening in Ukraine is a total mess that no Asian country wants to be in. The US also did not manage to unite the world (including most of the Asian continent) against Russia. The idea that the US will be willing defend Taiwan fiercely when the US did not do the same for Ukraine, against a foe that is much mightier than Russia, is silly. No country in the world wants to descend to the levels that Ukraine had gone.
- nradov 4y ago
  The US is not an ally of Ukraine. We never had any kind of commitment to defend them. We give them weapons and other support as a way of knocking Russia down and preventing them from threatening our actual allies. The situation with Taiwan is completely different due to the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, and official policy statements by multiple presidential administrations since then. The US would absolutely defend Taiwan against a major attack. The question is how far that commitment goes? If China uses tactical nuclear weapons at sea, would the US escalate or back off? No one knows what would really happen in that scenario...
  - aerostable_slug 4y ago
    It's also worth pointing out that United States spent a significant amount of effort to prevent Taiwan's indigenous nuclear weapons program from reaching fruition. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2019-01-10/taiwans-bomb https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2019-0... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_Hsien-yi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_Hsien-yi
- kcb 4y ago
  China did many things during the Korean War but win is definetly not one of them.
foverzar 4y ago
> This is excellent for American global interests. Of course it is. It is a very typical pattern of the US external politics. Decompensate some frozen conflict or a status quo situation somewhere beyond the ocean and then enjoy being a safe haven when the rest of the world is burning.
smcl 4y ago
I don't think it reveals anything new about the balance of power. We know the USA is currently still the largest economy and we know China is in the ascendancy and is on course to dominate the coming decades. As for giving confidence to allies - East Asia in particular is all to aware of how far the USA is willing to go to advance its interests and ideology in the region, having fought (and lost) two conflicts there since WW2. You seem to be brimming with pride at this gesture, I think this pride is misplaced. I hope nothing bad comes of this, but I cannot fathom the idea that increasing the chance of conflict with China being good let alone excellent.
- nradov 4y ago
  The conflict is probably inevitable anyway. Appeasing the Chinese Communist Party by acquiescing to their demands won't bring us peace in the long run. Better to do everything we can (short of violence) to humiliate, undermine, and disrespect them. This demonstrates firm resolve and helps to maintain confidence among our regional allies.
  - okasaki 4y ago
    > The conflict is probably inevitable anyway. Appeasing the Chinese Communist Party by acquiescing to their demands won't bring us peace in the long run. Sure it would, but peace was never the goal of the US empire. > Better to do everything we can (short of violence) to humiliate, undermine, and disrespect them. This demonstrates firm resolve and helps to maintain confidence among our regional allies. I wish it was against the HN rules to advocate for public policies that wouldn't be acceptable on HN. For example, if I called you a stupid moron, an amoral cretin who should be thrown in a cell and left to die, dang might have a problem with that. And yet your equivalent suggested policy will pass without concern.
    - coding123 4y ago
      But the words "humiliate, undermine, and disrespect them" in the context of Taiwan is to visit them.
    - 4y ago
k_sze 4y ago
The US is literally interfering in the internal affairs of China. Taiwan is legally part of China. They never declared independence. Even the Joint Communiqué between PRC and USA explicitly says recognizes that Taiwan is part of China.
klpost 4y ago
The aggressive diplomacy strategy has backfired spectacularly in Ukraine, yet people market it as a success. With a quieter backroom strategy perhaps there would not be a war now. But the U.S. can sell LPG gas to Europe now, so perhaps it is a success for them.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  The invasion of Ukraine is purely the result of Russia wanting to invade
- nradov 4y ago
  Sure if the Ukrainians had quietly made a backroom deal to be annexed by Russia then there would not be a war now. And then next year it would be Estonia, and so on. Would that be preferable? The Europeans (mainly Germans) wouldn't have to buy so much LPG from the US if they had invested in other energy sources and avoided becoming dependent on Russian fossil fuels. Presidents Obama and Trump specifically warned them about this strategic risk but they didn't listen.
hackinthebochs 4y ago
Nancy Pelosi wasn't elected to engage in foreign policy. She should not be doing actions abroad that have implications for U.S. foreign policy.
- Kon-Peki 4y ago
  As a junior congresswoman, she walked right into Tiananmen Square and held up a banner that memorialized those that died. Right in front of the Beijing police! She's never stopped poking at China. The fact that she keeps getting re-elected, over and over again, is pretty good proof that she has indeed been elected to engage in foreign policy ;)
  - throwaway654329 4y ago
    I agree that her history of activity really does play a part in being re-elected. I find the parent comment a bit shocking. It seems unreasonable to claim an elected U.S. representative is somehow not allowed to engage in foreign policy discourse by visiting a country or by suggesting that they aren’t representing their constituent’s views because they do political work outside of the (U.S.) country? Shall we hazard a guess about unelected Americans? Are those people allowed to exercise their right to freedom of movement and freedom of speech? Obviously yes and yes, but partisan polarization makes all of these norms, rights even, a point of contention. The Department of State is not the only group of American bureaucrats who are allowed to travel and engage in public actions that are considered political. America isn’t a dictatorship where only specific party members are allowed to engage in foreign policy discussions. When any American is threatened by members of an actual dictatorship (of the proletariat, literally), it might be worth considering that these issues transcend party politics. The parent comment strongly implies that there isn’t a long history of elected American officials visiting other countries, often with controversial media coverage and/or overt political threats from less than liberal societies. That history also extends to normal Americans speaking in foreign parliaments and speaking in public squares. It is a good thing that everyone has these rights, even if everything said isn’t always good. With that said, Pelosi might be provoking world war three, but the reason to argue against her actions isn’t because she doesn’t have the right to travel or speak or engage in politics abroad. As a side note: Taiwan probably should be defended by people who support democracy, though I understand this might not be seen as defense but as unnecessary provocation. Related though and on display in this thread is a kind of cynicism against America doing positive political actions abroad. This is part of a larger trend perceived from inside and certainly outside of America about some Americans: the light of liberty is going out in America, and most of the world has noticed. It isn’t particularly partisan and has really accelerated since 9/11 under both parties in different ways. It is really sad. America should be a light of liberty in the world, we should bring hope to democracies under threat from illiberal societies. I understand that this is now controversial in America in some political circles and it is really terrible. As polarization increases, all sides will find friends in exile or worse - peaceful resolution requires political discourse regardless of geographical location. Put another way: Ensure your political “enemies” have basic rights or you too might find that you are without rights, if and likely when, other people run the show…