2 ms·

“ I think Taiwan needs to take one for the team and commit to reunification with China” That approach was already tried against Hitler, allowing Germany to reu

“ I think Taiwan needs to take one for the team and commit to reunification with China” That approach was already tried against Hitler, allowing Germany to reunify with Austria (Austrians were even willing), and then taking Sudetenland. If you reward aggression, you will only get more aggression.

Jensson 2y ago
> If you reward aggression, you will only get more aggression. That is not true, punishing aggression creates more criminals, fixing their problems creates less criminals, there is plenty of evidence of this. USA rewarded Germanys aggression with the Marshal plan, rewarding aggression is great! Another example, Norway didn't want to be a part of Sweden any longer, Sweden rewarded this "aggression" by giving Norway independence. Everyone lived happily ever after, the end. Happy endings are possible. If you say that isn't "aggression", that is what people say about other separatist movements, separatists are always labeled aggressive and combative, somehow people always argue that separatists are never happy and always wants more, but evidence suggests that letting them separate actually can work and make both sides happy. So I am pretty sure that sometimes when two countries wants to unify you should let them, meaning "rewarding aggression" is sometimes the right play. For example, if England instead of waging a war against Irish separatists let them separate I think both would be happier, but instead of doing like Sweden they punished the aggression and just caused misery for everyone. Now about China you are possibly right, I just think you can't say that you shouldn't reward aggression in general, because often that is exactly what you should do.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
kqr2 2y ago
Likewise with Crimea and Russia. Letting Russia take Crimea without any real repercussions only emboldened them to try and take the rest of Ukraine.

Jensson 2y ago

> If you reward aggression, you will only get more aggression. That is not true, punishing aggression creates more criminals, fixing their problems creates less criminals, there is plenty of evidence of this. USA rewarded Germanys aggression with the Marshal plan, rewarding aggression is great! Another example, Norway didn't want to be a part of Sweden any longer, Sweden rewarded this "aggression" by giving Norway independence. Everyone lived happily ever after, the end. Happy endings are possible. If you say that isn't "aggression", that is what people say about other separatist movements, separatists are always labeled aggressive and combative, somehow people always argue that separatists are never happy and always wants more, but evidence suggests that letting them separate actually can work and make both sides happy. So I am pretty sure that sometimes when two countries wants to unify you should let them, meaning "rewarding aggression" is sometimes the right play. For example, if England instead of waging a war against Irish separatists let them separate I think both would be happier, but instead of doing like Sweden they punished the aggression and just caused misery for everyone. Now about China you are possibly right, I just think you can't say that you shouldn't reward aggression in general, because often that is exactly what you should do.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

kqr2 2y ago

Likewise with Crimea and Russia. Letting Russia take Crimea without any real repercussions only emboldened them to try and take the rest of Ukraine.