3 ms·

So China has stated its intent on Taiwan. But the US actually did it: Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s not nobody should talk about China, it’s that it literally ha

So China has stated its intent on Taiwan. But the US actually did it: Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s not nobody should talk about China, it’s that it literally hasnt done anything worth talking about compared with a whole host of countries… If you think the view is myopic… how about you challenge it? Who’s disturbed more foreign nations than the US? Like in the history of civilisation. Myanmar was not run by a junta, it was a democracy and they did invite the US and are desperately asking for help right now… just like Vietnam did. So what is different? I would say because the US only wants to fuck with China and couldn’t care less about these other nations. Which you also admit is the case. What is “strategic” about protecting the Philippines? The answer is China, most specifically “containing China” - but why “contain” a country that has never expressed ill will towards you? Is the US also containing India? It is like people purposely pretend the US are the “Good guys” and ignore any other possibility. If you point this out, it’s whataboutism (a made up term pretending to be a fallacy used generally to justify American exceptionalism)

_djo_ 2y ago
The US was rightly condemned for its invasion of Iraq, and more should have been done by the world’s nations to prevent it. We have that opportunity with China and Taiwan now, and letting it happen just because other major powers have done stuff too would be a mistake. The USSR (and now Russia) and China have ‘disturbed’ just as many foreign nations as the US. Both have long pursued interventionist foreign policies, covertly and overtly supporting sub-national groups that worked in their interests. Even in the most recent years we have Russian intelligence causing a string of coups throughout Africa and funding and supporting disruptive extremist groups, and China has been caught spying on the African Union’s governance structures in order to influence continental policy and coerce leaders. It’s less publicised and less visible because, unlike the US, neither Russia nor China have a free and unfettered press and civil society who can obtain and report on leaks and other embarrassing information. It’s not enough that Myanmar was a democracy, because soon after winning elections that administration launched a genocidal campaign against the Rohingya. There’s also no strategic interest for the US there. As I said earlier, alliances happen when the two align. The US’s strategic interest in that area is not to ‘fuck’ with China, but to preserve a rules-based order that’s open for international trade. If China is allowed to take over the entire South China Sea and other surrounding areas they can close it to any traffic whenever they want, they’ll be more easily able to take over Taiwan and maybe even countries like the Philippines, and there’ll be nothing stopping them from annexing more and more territory. We saw in the 1930s what allowing this sort of thing can lead to. I’d say it’s in all our interests, not just the US’s, that China not be allowed to simply annex more territory. I’d similarly be opposed to the US or any other country trying to annex territory by force.
- onethought 2y ago
  China has been rightly condemned for "speaking" of invading Taiwan. What would you like the world to do for this "thought crime" given no invasion has occurred? Surround the country in military bases? We've done that, has that helped defuse the situation? China have pursued interventionist policies? You are going to need to cite that. Which African leaders did China coerce? Your reasoning for "less publicised and less visible" doesn't make sense... couldn't the "free press" of the US shine a light on it? Taiwan has a free press...? I think you need to understand Myanmar better, it was the military that launched the genocidal campaign, and it was the military that overthrew the democracy. Converting a state that shares a land border with China to be an ally of the US feels way more strategic than the Phillipines... or even Taiwan for that matter (sans the microchip manufacturing capacity). "Rules based order" - Wow, straight out of "Western nations' talking points". You honestly sound like the communists quoting Mao from the little red book. Is the US following this rules based order? Seems to me China is following those rules more than the US ever did. Which rules is china breaking? Like when the US signed the treaty that said space would not be militarised, then it created the "space force", and banned china for the ISS. Or that it wouldn't imprison people unfairly (according to both its own constitution AND its international treaties), so it created prisons on foreign soil to imprison them unfairly. Or that it helped establish the United Nations but then lied to them, and ignored them when it invaded Iraq... well and Pakistan... which no one even mentions. When it established the five-eyes then used that infrastructure to spy on its own allies. Did you mean domestically? Like how it impeached its last president twice, has since convicted him as a felon... so he can't vote? But can still run as president? That rule based system?
  - _djo_ 2y ago
    > China has been rightly condemned for "speaking" of invading Taiwan. What would you like the world to do for this "thought crime" given no invasion has occurred? Surround the country in military bases? We've done that, has that helped defuse the situation? Has it been? Where are the peace campaigns arguing against an invasion? The urges to use diplomatic methods and to win over the Taiwanese public for a peaceful 'reunification' if that's what they want? > China have pursued interventionist policies? You are going to need to cite that. Which African leaders did China coerce? Through both espionage[0][1][2] and economic and political coercion.[3][4][5] >Your reasoning for "less publicised and less visible" doesn't make sense... couldn't the "free press" of the US shine a light on it? Taiwan has a free press...? Do you think Chinese officials or whistleblowers involved in those programmes are going to speak to American or Taiwanese media? Seriously? These leak in democratic countries because there is a domestic free press that people can speak to. Russian and Chinese officials are not going to pick up the phone to the New York Times or the Washington Post... >I think you need to understand Myanmar better, it was the military that launched the genocidal campaign, and it was the military that overthrew the democracy. Converting a state that shares a land border with China to be an ally of the US feels way more strategic than the Phillipines... or even Taiwan for that matter (sans the microchip manufacturing capacity). The US and other Western countries condemned the coup and instituted sanctions against the military officers involved. What more do you want them to have done, invade? >"Rules based order" - Wow, straight out of "Western nations' talking points". You honestly sound like the communists quoting Mao from the little red book. Is the US following this rules based order? Seems to me China is following those rules more than the US ever did. Which rules is china breaking? This is not an American concept, it's a global one created in the aftermath of WW2's immense destruction, aiming to encourage countries to resolve disputes peacefully though diplomacy and the use of international institutions like the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. And that violent interventions should follow international law and be channeled through the United Nations Security Council where the immediate principle of self defence doesn't apply. The United Nations Secretary-General often refers to the term and concept.[6][7] The US broadly follows it, though as I've said before I regard the invasion of Iraq as being contrary to it and a black mark on the US's history and credibility. I'd say that secret CIA 'black sites' and extraordinary rendition fall in the same category and are rightly condemned. China is not following it in many cases, including Tibet, its encroachment on Bhutan, its threats and promises to invade Taiwan, and its takeover of the South China Sea. It's following a traditional 19th century view of 'might makes right' and annexation by force. Once again, this is not a 'US good, China bad' debate as you seem so eager to turn it into. We can and should condemn any country that acts this way, whoever it might be. [0]https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN28Q1EA/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN28Q1EA/ [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_China–African_Union_espionage_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_China–African_Union_espio... [2]https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/ajicl.2022.0393 https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/ajicl.2022.03... [3]https://www.aspi.org.au/report/chinese-communist-partys-coercive-diplomacy https://www.aspi.org.au/report/chinese-communist-partys-coer... [4]https://www.diis.dk/en/research/the-myths-and-realities-of-chinas-economic-coercion https://www.diis.dk/en/research/the-myths-and-realities-of-c... [5]https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-political-significance-of-chinas-latest-commitments-to-africa/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-political-significanc... [6]https://operationalsupport.un.org/en/world-needs-commitment-to-rules-based-order-secretary-general-guterres-tells-un-assembly https://operationalsupport.un.org/en/world-needs-commitment-... [7]https://press.un.org/en/2018/ga12062.doc.htm https://press.un.org/en/2018/ga12062.doc.htm

_djo_ 2y ago

The US was rightly condemned for its invasion of Iraq, and more should have been done by the world’s nations to prevent it. We have that opportunity with China and Taiwan now, and letting it happen just because other major powers have done stuff too would be a mistake. The USSR (and now Russia) and China have ‘disturbed’ just as many foreign nations as the US. Both have long pursued interventionist foreign policies, covertly and overtly supporting sub-national groups that worked in their interests. Even in the most recent years we have Russian intelligence causing a string of coups throughout Africa and funding and supporting disruptive extremist groups, and China has been caught spying on the African Union’s governance structures in order to influence continental policy and coerce leaders. It’s less publicised and less visible because, unlike the US, neither Russia nor China have a free and unfettered press and civil society who can obtain and report on leaks and other embarrassing information. It’s not enough that Myanmar was a democracy, because soon after winning elections that administration launched a genocidal campaign against the Rohingya. There’s also no strategic interest for the US there. As I said earlier, alliances happen when the two align. The US’s strategic interest in that area is not to ‘fuck’ with China, but to preserve a rules-based order that’s open for international trade. If China is allowed to take over the entire South China Sea and other surrounding areas they can close it to any traffic whenever they want, they’ll be more easily able to take over Taiwan and maybe even countries like the Philippines, and there’ll be nothing stopping them from annexing more and more territory. We saw in the 1930s what allowing this sort of thing can lead to. I’d say it’s in all our interests, not just the US’s, that China not be allowed to simply annex more territory. I’d similarly be opposed to the US or any other country trying to annex territory by force.

onethought 2y ago
China has been rightly condemned for "speaking" of invading Taiwan. What would you like the world to do for this "thought crime" given no invasion has occurred? Surround the country in military bases? We've done that, has that helped defuse the situation? China have pursued interventionist policies? You are going to need to cite that. Which African leaders did China coerce? Your reasoning for "less publicised and less visible" doesn't make sense... couldn't the "free press" of the US shine a light on it? Taiwan has a free press...? I think you need to understand Myanmar better, it was the military that launched the genocidal campaign, and it was the military that overthrew the democracy. Converting a state that shares a land border with China to be an ally of the US feels way more strategic than the Phillipines... or even Taiwan for that matter (sans the microchip manufacturing capacity). "Rules based order" - Wow, straight out of "Western nations' talking points". You honestly sound like the communists quoting Mao from the little red book. Is the US following this rules based order? Seems to me China is following those rules more than the US ever did. Which rules is china breaking? Like when the US signed the treaty that said space would not be militarised, then it created the "space force", and banned china for the ISS. Or that it wouldn't imprison people unfairly (according to both its own constitution AND its international treaties), so it created prisons on foreign soil to imprison them unfairly. Or that it helped establish the United Nations but then lied to them, and ignored them when it invaded Iraq... well and Pakistan... which no one even mentions. When it established the five-eyes then used that infrastructure to spy on its own allies. Did you mean domestically? Like how it impeached its last president twice, has since convicted him as a felon... so he can't vote? But can still run as president? That rule based system?
- _djo_ 2y ago
  > China has been rightly condemned for "speaking" of invading Taiwan. What would you like the world to do for this "thought crime" given no invasion has occurred? Surround the country in military bases? We've done that, has that helped defuse the situation? Has it been? Where are the peace campaigns arguing against an invasion? The urges to use diplomatic methods and to win over the Taiwanese public for a peaceful 'reunification' if that's what they want? > China have pursued interventionist policies? You are going to need to cite that. Which African leaders did China coerce? Through both espionage[0][1][2] and economic and political coercion.[3][4][5] >Your reasoning for "less publicised and less visible" doesn't make sense... couldn't the "free press" of the US shine a light on it? Taiwan has a free press...? Do you think Chinese officials or whistleblowers involved in those programmes are going to speak to American or Taiwanese media? Seriously? These leak in democratic countries because there is a domestic free press that people can speak to. Russian and Chinese officials are not going to pick up the phone to the New York Times or the Washington Post... >I think you need to understand Myanmar better, it was the military that launched the genocidal campaign, and it was the military that overthrew the democracy. Converting a state that shares a land border with China to be an ally of the US feels way more strategic than the Phillipines... or even Taiwan for that matter (sans the microchip manufacturing capacity). The US and other Western countries condemned the coup and instituted sanctions against the military officers involved. What more do you want them to have done, invade? >"Rules based order" - Wow, straight out of "Western nations' talking points". You honestly sound like the communists quoting Mao from the little red book. Is the US following this rules based order? Seems to me China is following those rules more than the US ever did. Which rules is china breaking? This is not an American concept, it's a global one created in the aftermath of WW2's immense destruction, aiming to encourage countries to resolve disputes peacefully though diplomacy and the use of international institutions like the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. And that violent interventions should follow international law and be channeled through the United Nations Security Council where the immediate principle of self defence doesn't apply. The United Nations Secretary-General often refers to the term and concept.[6][7] The US broadly follows it, though as I've said before I regard the invasion of Iraq as being contrary to it and a black mark on the US's history and credibility. I'd say that secret CIA 'black sites' and extraordinary rendition fall in the same category and are rightly condemned. China is not following it in many cases, including Tibet, its encroachment on Bhutan, its threats and promises to invade Taiwan, and its takeover of the South China Sea. It's following a traditional 19th century view of 'might makes right' and annexation by force. Once again, this is not a 'US good, China bad' debate as you seem so eager to turn it into. We can and should condemn any country that acts this way, whoever it might be. [0]https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN28Q1EA/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN28Q1EA/ [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_China–African_Union_espionage_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_China–African_Union_espio... [2]https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/ajicl.2022.0393 https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/ajicl.2022.03... [3]https://www.aspi.org.au/report/chinese-communist-partys-coercive-diplomacy https://www.aspi.org.au/report/chinese-communist-partys-coer... [4]https://www.diis.dk/en/research/the-myths-and-realities-of-chinas-economic-coercion https://www.diis.dk/en/research/the-myths-and-realities-of-c... [5]https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-political-significance-of-chinas-latest-commitments-to-africa/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-political-significanc... [6]https://operationalsupport.un.org/en/world-needs-commitment-to-rules-based-order-secretary-general-guterres-tells-un-assembly https://operationalsupport.un.org/en/world-needs-commitment-... [7]https://press.un.org/en/2018/ga12062.doc.htm https://press.un.org/en/2018/ga12062.doc.htm