3 ms·

Are you advocating for attacking civilian targets?

• amalgamated_inc 4y ago
  No, of course, an attack by the communist dictatorship on peaceful, free, and independent Taiwan would be terrible. Nobody's advocating that.
• glogla 4y ago
  Does the concept of civilian even make sense in totalitarian regime, where everyone serves the state equally? In any case, either might makes right, and China can invade Taiwan and run all the genocides they do because they are big - but them it is also fine for US to naval blockade China into collapse and famine, if it so pleases because might makes right. Or there are universal values and human rights, and the West would be evil for destroying China and causing untold suffering, but then China is also evil for attacking their neighbours and for running bunch of genocides. You can't have it both ways!
  • xtian 4y ago
    I am against the US meddling in affairs on the other side of the world not because I believe in any liberal nonsense about human rights or any of the media lies devoid of hard evidence but because a lot of Americans will die in the process of our country’s defeat and it will speed along the collapse in standard of living which is already underway here.
    • SllX 4y ago
      That’s a good argument immediately following World War II prior to the decades of global economic integration and ICBM development. Less so today. Now it is very much our business what is going on in Asia, particularly since the risk is the subjugation of our allies by a totalitarian regime. It is better to have a strong and independent Taiwan, a strong Japan and strong Korea and even strong Philippines and Vietnam to counteract a strengthening PLA Navy, but we also want them to not be hostile to the USA, and we also want it to cost the PRC to even think nukes are the easy way to check the ambitions of their immediate neighbors. That does mean keeping our military promises to Taiwan, Korea and Japan. Simply put, there is no World from where we stand today where unchecked-by-us PRC ambition is an acceptable path forward.
      • xtian 4y ago
        How many American lives would you say it's worth?
        • SllX 4y ago
          Hopefully none, but if we come to blows we won’t have a choice in how many to accomplish our objectives, now will we? That’s the risk of war; so the PRC needs to back down over Taiwan.
          • xtian 4y ago
            They aren't my objectives and they aren't yours either because we don't get a say in deciding them. China will never abandon the One China policy, so you should come up with a real number of how many American sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers you think it's reasonable to sacrifice for this doomed policy of hubris.
            • SllX 4y ago
              No, I don’t think I will. The goal is to avoid war, if possible, and defend Taiwan if we have to, and to make the PRC regret having chosen to invade Taiwan because they couldn’t relinquish their One China position. Deferring to the CCP’s chosen policy is not an option. War costs a lot of lives, but a hot war between adversaries means making the adversarial position suffer more for having taken up arms in the first place. A defensive war over Taiwan and keeping our promise doesn’t need a number on the table in advance to make it worth doing. It’s crass to even ask. How many American lives will it take to sink every boat belonging to or commandeered by the PLA in the Taiwan Strait, shoot down every jet that flies above and mow down every pair of PLA boots that lands on Taiwan’s beaches, and destroy every military shipyard on their coastline? Let’s assume this isn’t purely an American fight, you know, for the sake of argument. If you can figure that one out, you’ll have something close to your answer.
            • amalgamated_inc 4y ago
              50,000 sons 45,000 daughters about the same again in fathers and mothers
    • amalgamated_inc 4y ago
      I am against the CCP meddling in the affairs on the other side of the Strait. If they were to commit this horrible atrocity, it is the unfortunate role of Team America: World Police to support the poor, innocent, independent, free people of Taiwan. I'd prefer no Americans die in the course of this, similar to Ukraine. But certainly the number of Americans worth dying to heroically save a country of nearly 25 Million from genocide and slavery isn't 0.
      • xtian 4y ago
        Will you enlist?
        • amalgamated_inc 4y ago
          While I've seriously thought about it, it wouldn't mean much. I'd be some rear-echelon POG sitting in a cubicle somewhere. So unless it comes to full-scale nuclear war, my personal risk wouldn't be much different than what it is right now.
          • deleted 4y ago
            [deleted]
          • xtian 4y ago
            No big surprise there.
            • Apocryphon 4y ago
              Would you rather they enlist as a cyberwarfare specialist or as a drone operator?
              • amalgamated_inc 4y ago
                I have a very particular set of skills..
              • xtian 4y ago
  • amalgamated_inc 4y ago
    This hypocritical application of different standards to US annoys me too, you see it all the time with Russia. Somehow Russia gets to play "great power politics" (although I think, personally, they must've lost their great power license by now lol). But when the US even helps the country being attacked, it's immoral and we have to stay neutral on moral grounds? Wtf, pick a standard. If Russia gets to play great power politics, so do we.