4 ms·

How many people should've died for Hong Kong? Should we have invaded China? Should we have drafted millions of men from across the west and put boots on the gro

How many people should've died for Hong Kong? Should we have invaded China? Should we have drafted millions of men from across the west and put boots on the ground?

2OEH8eoCRo0 8mo ago
There are more options than nothing or war.
- grunder_advice 8mo ago
  It's not like relations between China and the West aren't already as hostile as the West can tolerate.
  - Galanwe 8mo ago
    Where are you from? The US shifted from "China is an economic power we should worry about" to "China is a military power we should worry about", but to me it seems to be a recent mind shift serving the current administration narrative. As a European, I don't think there is much hostility against China here. Sure, people don't like the overall humanitarian situation with Uyghurs; and there are the usual issues with lobbying, intelligence, and currency manipulation, but overall the general public sentiment is rather neutral I would say.
    - dingnuts 8mo ago
      It is amazing in fact how willingly Europe seems to be running into the arms of the actual fascist dictator, Xi, at the first sign of turmoil in the US. The US is written off as a lost cause and you cozy up with a government that is everything you dislike about the current US administration but on steroids. All because the US wants the EU to pay for its own war. youll get cheaper EVs though I guess
      - bovinejoni 8mo ago
        That’s quite an interesting take. You don’t think Europe doing more trade with China (I assume this is what cozying up means?), is a result of a wildly unpredictable trade policy and threats to invade Europe? Instead because the US with their global military presence are sick of footing the bill for it? You’ll get cheaper oil though I guess?
    - nradov 8mo ago
      Not at all. Perhaps you weren't paying attention but the narrative around relations with China started shifting during the Obama administration circa 2011. The bipartisan national security establishment is now broadly aligned with treating China as an adversary and strategic competitor.
      - FpUser 8mo ago
        >"China as an adversary and strategic competitor." Nut sure about adversary. As for strategic competitor - this is normal state of affairs. Countries do compete and it is healthy
        nradov 8mo ago
        Be sure. The US national security establishment absolutely considers China to be an adversary. Look for terms like "pacing threat" when they discuss military acquisition programs. This is an existential issue. Health has nothing to do with it.
        FpUser 8mo ago
        >"The US national security establishment absolutely considers China to be an adversary" I think any country that does not agree that the US should rule the world and is able to challenge it is considered an adversary.
  - philwelch 8mo ago
    Just out of curiosity, what country manufactured the device you typed that comment on? There’s a lot of room for relations to get more hostile.
  - phr4ts 8mo ago
    > It's not like relations between China and the West aren't already as hostile as the West can tolerate. It's just the US that's publicly wary of china, heck, it's just Trump
  - FridayoLeary 8mo ago
    Nonsense. They can and should push back much more. If Europe were to show a united front there's little China could do to punish them. Their only option would be to cosy up to America/Trump, which is a realistic possibility, but it's something they would be very uncomfortable with.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
- catlikesshrimp 8mo ago
  It is uncertain if there are more options for Taiwan. Hong Kong was a lost cause since the British withdrew
  - yanhangyhy 8mo ago
    its certain, i ensure you. taiwan wont get the treat like Hong Kong before. Hong Kong proves the one country two system policy is a failure. the only result is war and taiwan will lose
    - stickfigure 8mo ago
      > taiwan will lose That depends on how cowardly the rest of the world acts if/when the time comes.
      - yanhangyhy 8mo ago
        looks at Ukraine, its white people and NATO wont fight for it. how about another group of chinse vs chinese in far far away? and the global south supports china more?
        nradov 8mo ago
        That's a total non sequitur. Ukraine wasn't a NATO member so why would NATO fight for it? (Several NATO members have given substantial aid to Ukraine.) In terms of a potential conflict between mainland China and Taiwan, the only NATO member with the capacity to do anything is the USA. The other players will be Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Australia so the outcome will largely depend on whether they decide to get involved.
        yanhangyhy 8mo ago
        > Ukraine wasn't a NATO member so why would NATO fight for it? so is taiwan. > The other players will be Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Australia so the i can ensure you Vietnam and SK wont. and we want Japan to join so much. Aus is like a bonus maybe
mothballed 8mo ago
Chinese Muslim Uyghurs who were preparing to fight for their people in China started consolidating a home base in Syria where they collected arms and a militia. They are finally off the terrorist list a few years ago, but for a long time the US policy was to feign outrage but then declare anyone using any teeth to push back against China as a terrorist.
- kdheiwns 8mo ago
  I mean, they were blowing up buses of civilians in China. Then looking up those Brave Uyghur Peace fighters, Wikipedia says they had child soldiers and they were allied with various Islamic state groups (the white text on black flag types, of which they also had their own) and wanted to impose strict sharia law. I'm pretty confident that most women in Xinjiang are pretty happy that that group was smeared out. You can think Xinjiang and Uyghurs shouldn't be oppressed without supporting actual, unironic terrorist groups who want total theocratic control and full on jihad. I'm more amazed they're removed from the terrorist list. Seems like a weird political decision.
  - thenthenthen 8mo ago
    The Mujahideen fighting in Afghanistan against USSR in the 70’s were co-trained by China and the CIA. Guess where in China.
  - mothballed 8mo ago
    Presume all you've said is true, which, for various factious or groups of Uyghurs likely was true. That still doesn't establish it as the distinguishing factor as to why the US declared them as terrorist. I fought in the YPG in the Syrian Civil War, an ally of the USA. Guess what, there were those who looked 13,14,15 usually because the Syrian government or ISIS had incapacitated their parents somehow. Mostly they were way back as token guards at training outposts but I also saw some near the front. The YPG also had to ally with a bunch of nasty theocratic arab militias to survive, in fact, that's why the SDF/YPG just got largely wiped out because the consolidation of the rebels in Damascus resulted in their arab allies turning their back. (In fact, Wikipedia page says IS is opponent of Uyghur militia). And I won't even get into the fact that the YPG and PKK are ideologically and pragmatically incredibly similar, yet PKK is magically a terrorist and the YPG is a brave US ally, one gets the blame anytime a Kurdish person does something horrible against innocent people and one doesn't. As sister poster alludes, the US has never had an issue allying with "terrorists" when it suits their goals. Especially when fighting against USSR. So knowing that this isn't the distinguishing factor, can you point to any other present-day armed group in or of China that has credible potential for an armed political uprising that hasn't been declared a terrorist? There might be one, I just don't know who they are, but I am very interested to read about them. To me it looks like the difference is that they were a credible threat of violence against China, not that they have slaughtered innocent people which the USA and China has done as have many of US allies.
AlotOfReading 8mo ago
If we measure the cost of freedom, that simply becomes the level of violence a would-be oppressor needs to promise in order to deny it. There isn't an easy or universal answer here and I'd argue there can't be. To give two historical examples, many Americans raised similar objections against entering WW2 to fight the axis. Some of those same people also opposed the US Japanese concentration camps, for the same reasons. You might disagree on whether HKers' freedoms are truly being abridged or whether you care, but the questions you posed weren't complete enough on their own.
raven12345 8mo ago
That is, some people want more people to die, to prove they are righteous.

How many people should've died for Hong Kong? Should we have invaded China? Should we have drafted millions of men from across the west and put boots on the ground?

2OEH8eoCRo0 8mo ago

There are more options than nothing or war.

grunder_advice 8mo ago
It's not like relations between China and the West aren't already as hostile as the West can tolerate.
- Galanwe 8mo ago
  Where are you from? The US shifted from "China is an economic power we should worry about" to "China is a military power we should worry about", but to me it seems to be a recent mind shift serving the current administration narrative. As a European, I don't think there is much hostility against China here. Sure, people don't like the overall humanitarian situation with Uyghurs; and there are the usual issues with lobbying, intelligence, and currency manipulation, but overall the general public sentiment is rather neutral I would say.
  - dingnuts 8mo ago
    It is amazing in fact how willingly Europe seems to be running into the arms of the actual fascist dictator, Xi, at the first sign of turmoil in the US. The US is written off as a lost cause and you cozy up with a government that is everything you dislike about the current US administration but on steroids. All because the US wants the EU to pay for its own war. youll get cheaper EVs though I guess
    - bovinejoni 8mo ago
      That’s quite an interesting take. You don’t think Europe doing more trade with China (I assume this is what cozying up means?), is a result of a wildly unpredictable trade policy and threats to invade Europe? Instead because the US with their global military presence are sick of footing the bill for it? You’ll get cheaper oil though I guess?
  - nradov 8mo ago
    Not at all. Perhaps you weren't paying attention but the narrative around relations with China started shifting during the Obama administration circa 2011. The bipartisan national security establishment is now broadly aligned with treating China as an adversary and strategic competitor.
    - FpUser 8mo ago
      >"China as an adversary and strategic competitor." Nut sure about adversary. As for strategic competitor - this is normal state of affairs. Countries do compete and it is healthy
      - nradov 8mo ago
        Be sure. The US national security establishment absolutely considers China to be an adversary. Look for terms like "pacing threat" when they discuss military acquisition programs. This is an existential issue. Health has nothing to do with it.
        FpUser 8mo ago
        >"The US national security establishment absolutely considers China to be an adversary" I think any country that does not agree that the US should rule the world and is able to challenge it is considered an adversary.
- philwelch 8mo ago
  Just out of curiosity, what country manufactured the device you typed that comment on? There’s a lot of room for relations to get more hostile.
- phr4ts 8mo ago
  > It's not like relations between China and the West aren't already as hostile as the West can tolerate. It's just the US that's publicly wary of china, heck, it's just Trump
- FridayoLeary 8mo ago
  Nonsense. They can and should push back much more. If Europe were to show a united front there's little China could do to punish them. Their only option would be to cosy up to America/Trump, which is a realistic possibility, but it's something they would be very uncomfortable with.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
catlikesshrimp 8mo ago
It is uncertain if there are more options for Taiwan. Hong Kong was a lost cause since the British withdrew
- yanhangyhy 8mo ago
  its certain, i ensure you. taiwan wont get the treat like Hong Kong before. Hong Kong proves the one country two system policy is a failure. the only result is war and taiwan will lose
  - stickfigure 8mo ago
    > taiwan will lose That depends on how cowardly the rest of the world acts if/when the time comes.
    - yanhangyhy 8mo ago
      looks at Ukraine, its white people and NATO wont fight for it. how about another group of chinse vs chinese in far far away? and the global south supports china more?
      - nradov 8mo ago
        That's a total non sequitur. Ukraine wasn't a NATO member so why would NATO fight for it? (Several NATO members have given substantial aid to Ukraine.) In terms of a potential conflict between mainland China and Taiwan, the only NATO member with the capacity to do anything is the USA. The other players will be Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Australia so the outcome will largely depend on whether they decide to get involved.
        yanhangyhy 8mo ago
        > Ukraine wasn't a NATO member so why would NATO fight for it? so is taiwan. > The other players will be Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Australia so the i can ensure you Vietnam and SK wont. and we want Japan to join so much. Aus is like a bonus maybe

mothballed 8mo ago

Chinese Muslim Uyghurs who were preparing to fight for their people in China started consolidating a home base in Syria where they collected arms and a militia. They are finally off the terrorist list a few years ago, but for a long time the US policy was to feign outrage but then declare anyone using any teeth to push back against China as a terrorist.

kdheiwns 8mo ago
I mean, they were blowing up buses of civilians in China. Then looking up those Brave Uyghur Peace fighters, Wikipedia says they had child soldiers and they were allied with various Islamic state groups (the white text on black flag types, of which they also had their own) and wanted to impose strict sharia law. I'm pretty confident that most women in Xinjiang are pretty happy that that group was smeared out. You can think Xinjiang and Uyghurs shouldn't be oppressed without supporting actual, unironic terrorist groups who want total theocratic control and full on jihad. I'm more amazed they're removed from the terrorist list. Seems like a weird political decision.
- thenthenthen 8mo ago
  The Mujahideen fighting in Afghanistan against USSR in the 70’s were co-trained by China and the CIA. Guess where in China.
- mothballed 8mo ago
  Presume all you've said is true, which, for various factious or groups of Uyghurs likely was true. That still doesn't establish it as the distinguishing factor as to why the US declared them as terrorist. I fought in the YPG in the Syrian Civil War, an ally of the USA. Guess what, there were those who looked 13,14,15 usually because the Syrian government or ISIS had incapacitated their parents somehow. Mostly they were way back as token guards at training outposts but I also saw some near the front. The YPG also had to ally with a bunch of nasty theocratic arab militias to survive, in fact, that's why the SDF/YPG just got largely wiped out because the consolidation of the rebels in Damascus resulted in their arab allies turning their back. (In fact, Wikipedia page says IS is opponent of Uyghur militia). And I won't even get into the fact that the YPG and PKK are ideologically and pragmatically incredibly similar, yet PKK is magically a terrorist and the YPG is a brave US ally, one gets the blame anytime a Kurdish person does something horrible against innocent people and one doesn't. As sister poster alludes, the US has never had an issue allying with "terrorists" when it suits their goals. Especially when fighting against USSR. So knowing that this isn't the distinguishing factor, can you point to any other present-day armed group in or of China that has credible potential for an armed political uprising that hasn't been declared a terrorist? There might be one, I just don't know who they are, but I am very interested to read about them. To me it looks like the difference is that they were a credible threat of violence against China, not that they have slaughtered innocent people which the USA and China has done as have many of US allies.

AlotOfReading 8mo ago

If we measure the cost of freedom, that simply becomes the level of violence a would-be oppressor needs to promise in order to deny it. There isn't an easy or universal answer here and I'd argue there can't be. To give two historical examples, many Americans raised similar objections against entering WW2 to fight the axis. Some of those same people also opposed the US Japanese concentration camps, for the same reasons. You might disagree on whether HKers' freedoms are truly being abridged or whether you care, but the questions you posed weren't complete enough on their own.

raven12345 8mo ago

That is, some people want more people to die, to prove they are righteous.