|
5930 Posts
World's territorial disputes are now solved through modern international law. Or does international law not exist/matter to you. We installed these sort of things to prevent the exact same shit from occuring and most of the world is able to follow these laws fairly well. Unless you, cynically, believe that no one has changed for the better in the past 100 years. That is the only way you believe what you are saying.
As I said, if Scotland, Texas, or Quebec wants to gain independent sovereignty rights, they can do so if the people want to. That's how we work today as nation states and not imperial powers. The concept of national self-determination is enough to differentiate the two because it shows an understanding that land and people are not indisputable property of a nation. Contrast that with China, who believes that many regions still belong to it because of the past, ignoring whatever the residents may think.
Also, majority of major conflicts in the South China Sea are actually China vs. someone else whether this be Vietnam, Malaysia, or the Philippines despite what you are trying to say. There is no way there are not major conflicts between China and the SEA nations. The flailing of SEA nations and China's laughable historical claims are testament to this.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 20 2012 23:51 Feartheguru wrote:
What's my point? That China is doing what every country in history has always done, take more than its fair share when its strong. That's not justification, China's actions don't need to be justified. They're strong arming a few neighbors into giving up some disputed islands in the SCS, just like how Britain strong armed China into giving up Hong Kong for 99 years when China was weak (which is a hell of a lot more significant than what China is trying to get). There are tonnes of disputes in the SCS, and it's not a China vs everyone else situation.
China's ideals of territory (get everything they think they deserve)
World's concept of territory (everyone tries to get everything they think they deserve)
Nope, don't see a difference.
Your nationalist stance is quite disturbing. "China's actions don't need to be justified." Ironically, you do realize this is what Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2, don't you? To a nationalist, anything one's country does is automatically justified so long as it's done in the name of one's country.
As individuals, we're responsible for making moral judgments whether a country's actions are justified or not. Every country is open to criticism, including China.
|
You don't understand something about China, it's not a nation state to begin with. It's a civilization state and always has been. You CANNOT understand China by shoving the Europeen nation state concept. China = several nation states unified by the Emperor to become a civilization state.
People can have vastly different traditions, spoken languages, food or ethnicity, but they've all came to identify themselves as Han Chinese under the same government over time.
In fact, there has been no time where China is as unified and organized as it does now, nobody even speaks mandarin in the country side in the past.
The issue of these islands are not justifiable under that fact of course, but Shady Sands raise an interesting perspective. Since these shipping lines are extremely vital for the economy of pretty much all the Asian nations, why can't they work together instead of claiming this and that hotheadedly?
China would presumably be the force that unite all these selfish intentions and force everyone to adapt a holistic approach. I'm not sure if I buy it 100%, but I hope that's what will happen. China needs to learn to treat SEA countries with more respect if that's going to happen, and vice versa.
IMO, nation states are a dying concept due to globalization and the formation of a global culture anyway.
|
5930 Posts
Which is the point I made. Its still basically an empire. It works and thinks like one. Which is why nations around the region get very uneasy because it doesn't really bring anything they want (besides money) and its not exactly the sick man of Asia anymore (that would probably be Russia at this point). Until it stops acting like one, the region is not going to become stable like Western Europe may be.
|
On the long term, a unipolar power can provide more stability than a multipolar one. The stability of the region depends more on China's stability than their stance on a few islands.
I'm not sure if China still acts like an Empire, or is it just to save face and protect its perceived territorial integrity against the US empire, or both. Anyway, hope everyone in the region gets their shit together.
|
On September 21 2012 02:42 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 23:51 Feartheguru wrote:
What's my point? That China is doing what every country in history has always done, take more than its fair share when its strong. That's not justification, China's actions don't need to be justified. They're strong arming a few neighbors into giving up some disputed islands in the SCS, just like how Britain strong armed China into giving up Hong Kong for 99 years when China was weak (which is a hell of a lot more significant than what China is trying to get). There are tonnes of disputes in the SCS, and it's not a China vs everyone else situation.
China's ideals of territory (get everything they think they deserve)
World's concept of territory (everyone tries to get everything they think they deserve)
Nope, don't see a difference. Your nationalist stance is quite disturbing. "China's actions don't need to be justified." Ironically, you do realize this is what Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2, don't you? To a nationalist, anything one's country does is automatically justified so long as it's done in the name of one's country. As individuals, we're responsible for making moral judgments whether a country's actions are justified or not. Every country is open to criticism, including China.
So....... if I ate an apple and said that I don't need to justify why I did it, is it also ironic that it's what the "Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2"? How you think the scale of the issue doesn't effect whether it needs to be justified or not is beyond me.
Picking a single sentence and arguing against that when the rest of what I said refutes you is pretty funny too.
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 21 2012 09:16 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 02:42 CountChocula wrote:On September 20 2012 23:51 Feartheguru wrote:
What's my point? That China is doing what every country in history has always done, take more than its fair share when its strong. That's not justification, China's actions don't need to be justified. They're strong arming a few neighbors into giving up some disputed islands in the SCS, just like how Britain strong armed China into giving up Hong Kong for 99 years when China was weak (which is a hell of a lot more significant than what China is trying to get). There are tonnes of disputes in the SCS, and it's not a China vs everyone else situation.
China's ideals of territory (get everything they think they deserve)
World's concept of territory (everyone tries to get everything they think they deserve)
Nope, don't see a difference. Your nationalist stance is quite disturbing. "China's actions don't need to be justified." Ironically, you do realize this is what Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2, don't you? To a nationalist, anything one's country does is automatically justified so long as it's done in the name of one's country. As individuals, we're responsible for making moral judgments whether a country's actions are justified or not. Every country is open to criticism, including China. So....... if I ate an apple and said that I don't need to justify why I did it, is it also ironic that it's what the "Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2"? How you think the scale of the issue doesn't effect whether it needs to be justified or not is beyond me. Picking a single sentence and arguing against that when the rest of what I said refutes you is pretty funny too.
How else am I supposed to understand that sentence? Don't write stupid stuff like "China's actions don't need to be justified" if you don't want people to criticize you.
Your apple example is useless, because there is a big difference between "eating an apple" -"trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands back", and only a small difference between "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" - "England strong-arming Hong Kong". Nice strawman with "How you think the scale of the issue doesn't effect whether it needs to be justified or not is beyond me" btw.
Your argument that "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" is justified because England did something similar with Hong Kong fails, because in the past century we've developed something called International Law which prohibits both acts.
|
On September 21 2012 12:23 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 09:16 Feartheguru wrote:On September 21 2012 02:42 CountChocula wrote:On September 20 2012 23:51 Feartheguru wrote:
What's my point? That China is doing what every country in history has always done, take more than its fair share when its strong. That's not justification, China's actions don't need to be justified. They're strong arming a few neighbors into giving up some disputed islands in the SCS, just like how Britain strong armed China into giving up Hong Kong for 99 years when China was weak (which is a hell of a lot more significant than what China is trying to get). There are tonnes of disputes in the SCS, and it's not a China vs everyone else situation.
China's ideals of territory (get everything they think they deserve)
World's concept of territory (everyone tries to get everything they think they deserve)
Nope, don't see a difference. Your nationalist stance is quite disturbing. "China's actions don't need to be justified." Ironically, you do realize this is what Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2, don't you? To a nationalist, anything one's country does is automatically justified so long as it's done in the name of one's country. As individuals, we're responsible for making moral judgments whether a country's actions are justified or not. Every country is open to criticism, including China. So....... if I ate an apple and said that I don't need to justify why I did it, is it also ironic that it's what the "Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2"? How you think the scale of the issue doesn't effect whether it needs to be justified or not is beyond me. Picking a single sentence and arguing against that when the rest of what I said refutes you is pretty funny too. How else am I supposed to understand that sentence? Don't write stupid stuff like "China's actions don't need to be justified" if you don't want people to criticize you. Your apple example is useless, because there is a big difference between "eating an apple" -"trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands back", and only a small difference between "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" - "England strong-arming Hong Kong". Nice strawman with "How you think the scale of the issue doesn't effect whether it needs to be justified or not is beyond me" btw. Your argument that "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" is justified because England did something similar with Hong Kong fails, because in the past century we've developed something called International Law which prohibits both acts.
There is a big difference between eating and apple and trying to control the Diaoyu Islands.
There is a big difference between strong arming Japan into giving up the Diaoyu islands and what Japanese militant nationalists did.
So......... you just restated my point. Ok.
Nice strawman with the "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" and against "international law" when it's disputed territory.
Your argument fails, because China is either 1) not violating international laws or 2) international laws mean nothing if no one is condemning China.
P.S. learn what the logic fallacies are before throwing them around to back up crappy arguments. =P
|
Canada2068 Posts
On September 21 2012 13:00 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:23 CountChocula wrote:On September 21 2012 09:16 Feartheguru wrote:On September 21 2012 02:42 CountChocula wrote:On September 20 2012 23:51 Feartheguru wrote:
What's my point? That China is doing what every country in history has always done, take more than its fair share when its strong. That's not justification, China's actions don't need to be justified. They're strong arming a few neighbors into giving up some disputed islands in the SCS, just like how Britain strong armed China into giving up Hong Kong for 99 years when China was weak (which is a hell of a lot more significant than what China is trying to get). There are tonnes of disputes in the SCS, and it's not a China vs everyone else situation.
China's ideals of territory (get everything they think they deserve)
World's concept of territory (everyone tries to get everything they think they deserve)
Nope, don't see a difference. Your nationalist stance is quite disturbing. "China's actions don't need to be justified." Ironically, you do realize this is what Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2, don't you? To a nationalist, anything one's country does is automatically justified so long as it's done in the name of one's country. As individuals, we're responsible for making moral judgments whether a country's actions are justified or not. Every country is open to criticism, including China. So....... if I ate an apple and said that I don't need to justify why I did it, is it also ironic that it's what the "Japanese militant nationalists (brainwashed using institutionalized racism by their military dictatorship) thought about their actions during WW2"? How you think the scale of the issue doesn't effect whether it needs to be justified or not is beyond me. Picking a single sentence and arguing against that when the rest of what I said refutes you is pretty funny too. How else am I supposed to understand that sentence? Don't write stupid stuff like "China's actions don't need to be justified" if you don't want people to criticize you. Your apple example is useless, because there is a big difference between "eating an apple" -"trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands back", and only a small difference between "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" - "England strong-arming Hong Kong". Nice strawman with "How you think the scale of the issue doesn't effect whether it needs to be justified or not is beyond me" btw. Your argument that "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" is justified because England did something similar with Hong Kong fails, because in the past century we've developed something called International Law which prohibits both acts. There is a big difference between eating and apple and trying to control the Diaoyu Islands. There is a big difference between strong arming Japan into giving up the Diaoyu islands and what Japanese militant nationalists did. So......... you just restated my point. Ok. Nice strawman with the "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" and against "international law" when it's disputed territory. Your argument fails, because China is either 1) not violating international laws or 2) international laws mean nothing if no one is condemning China. P.S. learn what the logic fallacies are before throwing them around to back up crappy arguments. =P
I was making an ironic point with you being all super-nationalist for China, which is similar to Japanese people being all super-nationalist for Japan, which was supposed to conclude that being a nationalist is a pretty bad thing in general, but okay since you seem to have missed the point completely.
Your argument that "trying to strong-arm Senkaku Islands" is justified because England did something similar with Hong Kong fails, because in the past century we've developed something called International Law which prohibits both acts.
I don't understand. I just condemned both acts were bad. It's just too bad for China that they weren't strong in the 19th century before International Law was put in place to keep strong countries from bullying weaker ones. What part of that can't you accept?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
