3 ms·

>> Chinese will joke about how they get chips and other secret tech from shell companies in us. They will also joke about how they secretly sell drugs to Americ

by mcny 3y ago

>> Chinese will joke about how they get chips and other secret tech from shell companies in us. They will also joke about how they secretly sell drugs to America to make them useless and make society unstable. > If they’re useless, how are they making chips and secret tech? My reading is they are trying to make us useless but we are not there yet? I assume it takes time, right? In any case, not like the west can complain after what we did in the opium wars? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

mechanical_bear 3y ago
What “we” did? Speak for yourself sir.
azathough 3y ago
[flagged]
chii 3y ago
> not like the west can complain after what we did in the opium wars? the west isn't one entity. Plus two wrongs don't make a right. Just because in the past, there has been atrocities committed, doesn't mean there's justification to do so now.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
  Historically and culturally, the west is absolutely a meaningful entity.
  - rocqua 3y ago
    But the west is far from a single coherent actor. Even just consider that the hegemon that leads the west has changed from great Britain to the US.
- oneshtein 3y ago
  Transportation is much faster now, thus peoples are much closer to each other, so they are united at much larger scale. Few hundreds years ago, two town with few thousands were separate countries. Today European Union acts almost like single 0.5B country. In few hundred years, whole Globe will be united. In transition to Global State, whole continents, or hemispheres will be united first by geographic location, race, or religion.
  - hardware2win 3y ago
    >Today European Union acts almost like single 0.5B country. What makes you think so
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  “Two wrongs don’t make a right” is a moral play. There are definitely cases in history where wrongs made rights, two or more. Some sort of moral balance has to be achieved before two forces can move forward. It will feel reasonable to both sides when it happens.
  - chii 3y ago
    Not really - it certainly is wrong to say that because some other country has done XYZ, so now my country have the right to also do XYZ (where XYZ is commonly agreed to be be bad, such as wage war, genocide etc). Some country might feel that they're justified in what they're doing, because another country previously have done it (and got to a dominant position, perhaps, by doing it). But generally, i dont think this justification is sound, and is an excuse, rather than a real justification. Now of course no country require justification to do what they wish - that is the meaning of having sovereignty, but this also means that other countries must actively stop this sort of practise.
  - trashtester 3y ago
    > There are definitely cases in history where wrongs made rights, two or more. I can quote quite a few cases from history where this kind of thinking has led to the worst kind of atrocities. Especially when one side wants to satisfy a resentment that has been built up over decades or centuries. Including virtually every major case of genocide from the 20th century that I can think of. > Some sort of moral balance has to be achieved before two forces can move forward. It will feel reasonable to both sides when it happens. While, I can think of cases where this would apply when the restoration of balance happens directly after the offense (such as actions taken against Germany and Japan from 1944-1950). However I wouldn't be able to come up with a single example of such "restoration of balance" successfully happening 100+ years after the initial offense in a way that was seen as reasonable by both sides after. Would the relationship between Germany and Israel be restored if Israel nuked Berlin, killing 5 million people? Maybe you can provide your examples?
  - skeeter2020 3y ago
    How has this ever worked out? When I look at the world today every terrible action seems to be the nth wrong to make it right; every terrible active situation looks like continual quid pro quo. For you to say this is necessary over huge time frames with almost infinite players is a bold assertion.
nonethewiser 3y ago
The US did not fuel the opium wars
- klooney 3y ago
  Lots of prominent New England families with their names all over everything got their start that way- Astor, Delano, Cabot, Forbes. "The old China trade" is the phrase to search for.
- gdy 3y ago
  They did. [0] [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12gw8w/what_was_the_united_states_involvement_in_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12gw8w/what_...
- trashtester 3y ago
  They did join the second one, at least.
cscurmudgeon 3y ago
Is “West” a country? Can US blame China for another two hundred years for Pearl Harbor because both China and Japan are the East? The duration between the last US-UK war and Opium wars is much shorter than the Opium wars and the present. During this time, US helped China by opening up its market asymmetrically and being on its side during WW2 and even gave China aid. > President Roosevelt approved $25 million in military aid to China on 19 December 1940, permitting the Chinese to purchase one hundred P 40 pursuit aircraft. By late spring 1941, the United States had also earmarked over $145 million in lend-lease funds for China to acquire both ground and air equipment. https://www.history.army.mil/brochures/72-38/72-38.htm#:~:te https://www.history.army.mil/brochures/72-38/72-38.htm#:~:te.... The aid continues even now: https://www.usaid.gov/china https://www.usaid.gov/china

by mcny 3y ago

mechanical_bear 3y ago

What “we” did? Speak for yourself sir.

azathough 3y ago

[flagged]

chii 3y ago

> not like the west can complain after what we did in the opium wars? the west isn't one entity. Plus two wrongs don't make a right. Just because in the past, there has been atrocities committed, doesn't mean there's justification to do so now.

111111IIIIIII 3y ago
Historically and culturally, the west is absolutely a meaningful entity.
- rocqua 3y ago
  But the west is far from a single coherent actor. Even just consider that the hegemon that leads the west has changed from great Britain to the US.
oneshtein 3y ago
Transportation is much faster now, thus peoples are much closer to each other, so they are united at much larger scale. Few hundreds years ago, two town with few thousands were separate countries. Today European Union acts almost like single 0.5B country. In few hundred years, whole Globe will be united. In transition to Global State, whole continents, or hemispheres will be united first by geographic location, race, or religion.
- hardware2win 3y ago
  >Today European Union acts almost like single 0.5B country. What makes you think so
dclowd9901 3y ago
“Two wrongs don’t make a right” is a moral play. There are definitely cases in history where wrongs made rights, two or more. Some sort of moral balance has to be achieved before two forces can move forward. It will feel reasonable to both sides when it happens.
- chii 3y ago
  Not really - it certainly is wrong to say that because some other country has done XYZ, so now my country have the right to also do XYZ (where XYZ is commonly agreed to be be bad, such as wage war, genocide etc). Some country might feel that they're justified in what they're doing, because another country previously have done it (and got to a dominant position, perhaps, by doing it). But generally, i dont think this justification is sound, and is an excuse, rather than a real justification. Now of course no country require justification to do what they wish - that is the meaning of having sovereignty, but this also means that other countries must actively stop this sort of practise.
- trashtester 3y ago
  > There are definitely cases in history where wrongs made rights, two or more. I can quote quite a few cases from history where this kind of thinking has led to the worst kind of atrocities. Especially when one side wants to satisfy a resentment that has been built up over decades or centuries. Including virtually every major case of genocide from the 20th century that I can think of. > Some sort of moral balance has to be achieved before two forces can move forward. It will feel reasonable to both sides when it happens. While, I can think of cases where this would apply when the restoration of balance happens directly after the offense (such as actions taken against Germany and Japan from 1944-1950). However I wouldn't be able to come up with a single example of such "restoration of balance" successfully happening 100+ years after the initial offense in a way that was seen as reasonable by both sides after. Would the relationship between Germany and Israel be restored if Israel nuked Berlin, killing 5 million people? Maybe you can provide your examples?
- skeeter2020 3y ago
  How has this ever worked out? When I look at the world today every terrible action seems to be the nth wrong to make it right; every terrible active situation looks like continual quid pro quo. For you to say this is necessary over huge time frames with almost infinite players is a bold assertion.

nonethewiser 3y ago

The US did not fuel the opium wars

klooney 3y ago
Lots of prominent New England families with their names all over everything got their start that way- Astor, Delano, Cabot, Forbes. "The old China trade" is the phrase to search for.
gdy 3y ago
They did. [0] [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12gw8w/what_was_the_united_states_involvement_in_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12gw8w/what_...
trashtester 3y ago
They did join the second one, at least.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago

Is “West” a country? Can US blame China for another two hundred years for Pearl Harbor because both China and Japan are the East? The duration between the last US-UK war and Opium wars is much shorter than the Opium wars and the present. During this time, US helped China by opening up its market asymmetrically and being on its side during WW2 and even gave China aid. > President Roosevelt approved $25 million in military aid to China on 19 December 1940, permitting the Chinese to purchase one hundred P 40 pursuit aircraft. By late spring 1941, the United States had also earmarked over $145 million in lend-lease funds for China to acquire both ground and air equipment. https://www.history.army.mil/brochures/72-38/72-38.htm#:~:te https://www.history.army.mil/brochures/72-38/72-38.htm#:~:te.... The aid continues even now: https://www.usaid.gov/china https://www.usaid.gov/china