3 ms·

I don't support the idea of a war. I do support the idea of the US improving it's security posture, and improving its own possibility of success. Make getting

I don't support the idea of a war. I do support the idea of the US improving it's security posture, and improving its own possibility of success. Make getting into and out of key industrial facilities more difficult for the unauthorized, both physically and digitally. Enhanced background checks on employees who have access to critical technology. Expand those security requirements to international technology partners. If it's a race, incentivize partners to support our interests. China does all of these things. If you would consider the US bad for doing so as well, how would you consider China for being better at it? Nobody is suggesting that we invade Chinese factories. But suggesting we secure our allies industrial facilities is somehow 'engineering support for a war with China'? You would have the US just.. give Taiwan over to China, against the will of Taiwan's own people, and against US financial and strategic interest? Or else _we're_ the bad guys if China invades?

WhereIsTheTruth 2y ago
> You would have the US just.. give Taiwan over to China, against the will of Taiwan's own people According to this article, Taiwanese still want to do business with China, so your suggestion is to prevent Taiwanese to do business with China, against their will? wait, something doesn't sound right, i can't pin point it just yet! > Expand those security requirements to international technology partners. If it's a race, incentivize partners to support our interests. Well, again, according to this article, Taiwanese wants China as partners, at a least as business partners You keep contradicting yourself.. oh wait... > incentivize partners to support our interests oh right! your interests above theirs! now it all make sense! thanks
- heroprotagonist 2y ago
  You're ignoring key points and cherry picking what to respond to based on your ability to try and twist my words into statements I never made. And you're extrapolating what must be a very obscure reference in the article into some kind of supporting evidence for your argument. All to support your words against, apparently, some perceived made-up position that you think I have. According to this article, Huawei is barred from doing business with TSMC, and when Huawei violated the sanctions through a third party, TSMC cut off that third party and reported them. Incentivizing partners is NOT 'your interests above theirs'. If the incentive is not good enough, they don't have to take it. If the incentive is good, then both your interests and theirs align. Neither is 'above' the other. Now, if you steal by violating sanctions, and you wargame a blockade of their territory, you are being a threat. You are NOT offering them more of what they want until they happily offer you what you want. Instead, you are pushing them to act based on fear of you. THAT is 'your interests above theirs!' style of diplomacy and business negotiation. I can tell you're not approaching this conversation with any form of sincerity in your arguments. I won't speculate about why you would do this. But I'm just not going to engage anymore.

WhereIsTheTruth 2y ago

> You would have the US just.. give Taiwan over to China, against the will of Taiwan's own people According to this article, Taiwanese still want to do business with China, so your suggestion is to prevent Taiwanese to do business with China, against their will? wait, something doesn't sound right, i can't pin point it just yet! > Expand those security requirements to international technology partners. If it's a race, incentivize partners to support our interests. Well, again, according to this article, Taiwanese wants China as partners, at a least as business partners You keep contradicting yourself.. oh wait... > incentivize partners to support our interests oh right! your interests above theirs! now it all make sense! thanks

heroprotagonist 2y ago
You're ignoring key points and cherry picking what to respond to based on your ability to try and twist my words into statements I never made. And you're extrapolating what must be a very obscure reference in the article into some kind of supporting evidence for your argument. All to support your words against, apparently, some perceived made-up position that you think I have. According to this article, Huawei is barred from doing business with TSMC, and when Huawei violated the sanctions through a third party, TSMC cut off that third party and reported them. Incentivizing partners is NOT 'your interests above theirs'. If the incentive is not good enough, they don't have to take it. If the incentive is good, then both your interests and theirs align. Neither is 'above' the other. Now, if you steal by violating sanctions, and you wargame a blockade of their territory, you are being a threat. You are NOT offering them more of what they want until they happily offer you what you want. Instead, you are pushing them to act based on fear of you. THAT is 'your interests above theirs!' style of diplomacy and business negotiation. I can tell you're not approaching this conversation with any form of sincerity in your arguments. I won't speculate about why you would do this. But I'm just not going to engage anymore.