|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 31 2020 19:57 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2020 22:49 iamthedave wrote:On January 27 2020 05:07 Grumbels wrote:On January 27 2020 02:08 Xxio wrote:On January 27 2020 01:48 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 27 2020 01:34 Xxio wrote:On January 26 2020 16:13 ChristianS wrote:On January 26 2020 15:00 Xxio wrote:On January 26 2020 13:59 ChristianS wrote:On January 26 2020 13:00 Xxio wrote:
[quote]He makes a good point about SK. I would trade Trudeau for Trump in an instant. Care to elaborate what point about SK you like? I didn't hear anything exceptional. Negotiate trade in favor of U.S.A. Hints that U.S.A. military shouldn't be there. Sadly I don't think he cares about much other than short term GDP and campaign slogans. He's a bad president but the contenders are disastrous imo. Good ones blocked by MSM and the parties. + Show Spoiler +But I don’t care much about Trudeau. I do, however, care some about South Korea, and listening to that recording all I heard was some grumbling about how South Korea is ruining our steel industry (possibly with *gasp* Chinese steel) and how that’s really very ungrateful of them considering how we’re stopping North Korea from nuking them and all.
Personally I don’t understand what’s to like about that, and I’d be interested to hear what part appeals to you. The protectionism, I guess? The indignation that a state benefiting from our world policing would dare to compete with us commercially? I don’t know specifically what the “shipping Chinese steel on trains” business is about, maybe you do?
I don’t get protectionism’s appeal much honestly. The lazy argument I can make is “look at Trump’s trade war, it’s going bad for us and the stock market freaks out about it sometimes.” And I think it probably has been bad for us, but more broadly the whole premise of protectionism is “we’re going to try to set the rules of international trade to give our businesses a systemic advantage over foreign competition.” Why is that fair? If a foreign business is more efficient than ours but we manage to set the rules such that our business has an unfair advantage and runs them out of business, why is that a good outcome? If we so quickly demonstrate to other countries that we have no interest in fair dealings and will pick their pocket at first opportunity, how can we hope to maintain positive relationships with them, or expect them not to backstab us just as quickly?
Our troop presence in SK adds a twist to this. A lot of people are very critical of our wide military footprint and insistence on policing the world - I don’t like it much myself - but of all our international meddling, putting troops in South Korea to discourage North Korean aggression seems like one of the better causes we’ve taken up. North Korea invading South Korea would be a massive humanitarian catastrophe, and our troop presence meaningfully reduces the likelihood of that happening.
But it’s a bit rich for us to make all this fuss about keeping South Korea “free” and then turn around and say they don’t have the right to compete with us economically. Are they free, or aren’t they? I don’t have a bit of interest in hitting up our allies for protection money, as Trump likes to talk about, but demanding they direct their economy to grow ours rather than their own is even worse to me. Is this not extortion?
In game theory terminology, Trump’s foreign policy generally usually boils down to an “Always Forsake” policy. Shout and threaten our enemies unless they serve our interests; extort our allies out of their lunch money and threaten to sanction them or even refuse to protect them unless they pay up. It’s unabashedly immoral; but even in self-interest terms, it’s probably pretty bad policy. “Always Forsake” makes you an asshole, but also usually means nobody wants to cooperate with you so you’re ultimately worse off, too. I wish US would stop playing world police and force/allow other countries to grow up. I don't have a problem with Trump asking for more money to cover the cost, if SK wants the US to continue as their bodyguard -- besides wishing they weren't there at all. It's reasonable to ask if it's still worth it to be there. It's reasonable to ask sure, but you shouldn't need to. A stronger Korea and Japan keeps China's power in check. Do you think it is in US interest to maintain status as the global super power? The notion that everything comes down to money and extorting our allies because we can is misguided foreign policy. We didn't install ourselves into Korea and Japan to be their bodyguard. We installed ourselves there to exert power and influence in Asia. In my opinion help Korea and Japan become strong enough to stand on their own as good allies, along with other nearby nations scared of China enough to do the same. I'd rather not have US or anyone as a global super power but independent nations in alliance. Doubt US will give up influence and leave, and also doubt SK wants them to. I'm actually learning Japanese as a hobby, but it made me think that Japanese and Korean culture has always been very strongly tied to China. We had a look in my language class at some typical Japanese cultural traditions such as flower arrangements, tea ceremonies, various Buddhist rituals and schools, and it can all be directly traced from contact with China. Same for language, there are many words of Chinese origin in Japanese, and obviously they use Chinese symbols for writing. So on that level, which is a bit naive obviously, wouldn't it make much more sense for Japan and Korea to be allied with China? The USA wouldn't like it one bit if Mexico was an ally of China and had all sorts of naval bases there and so on. In Europe we wouldn't like it if, idk, Italy was a Russian client state. It would create incredible tension. I haven't been convinced that US presence in that region is not a destabilizing factor and that it is preferable to a more natural Chinese regional hegemony. Same with Iran honestly. Isn't it more natural for Iran to be the regional power when it comes to the Middle East's shiite population instead of the USA? Learning the language isn't knowing the history or the culture. Back in the formative years of both nations China was the cultural and political superpower. It's not unfair to compare it to the British Empire, but even more locally influential. Japan was a client state giving tribute to China for a long period. But like a lot of island-states, both grew out of it and eventually asserted their independence and individual cultures. China is - and has always been - strongly about one-culture. You can totally see echoes of that in Japan and Korea, but their visions of that one-culture are divergent. China would never be willing to see either of them as equal partners and they would never deign to be seen as less than that. It's fine to accept the US as a more powerful ally because the US is outside of the cultural history, but Japan's got a solid history of kicking China's face in and inflicting war crimes on them. Likewise, Japan attacked and brutalised Korea. The Koreans don't trust the Japanese or Chinese, and the Japanese don't trust the Chinese and see the Koreans as inferior. There's really zero chance of those three nations ever really allying with each other. A united Korea would be as stridently independent of larger Asia as South Korea tries to be now. So yes, you would end up with an arms race in Asia if you left them to their own devices. The Japanese/Chinese are going to expect an invasion from the other, and Korea will be expecting an aggressive knock from one or both at some point, because that's what's happened throughout their history. But both Japan and South Korea aren't exactly happy with the US presence there either. I checked out the wiki page on this (link) and you can see feelings being mixed. And e.g. in South Korea they don't necessarily appreciate Trump's bluster w.r.t. North Korea. There seems to me a lot of room for demilitarization in the region. The USA military is almost, maybe not quite fully, but almost occupying Japan and South Korea and we can predict that they're not going to leave even if asked politely by the Japanese and South Korean governments. And while China is expansionist this extends mainly to Tibet and Taiwan, historical regions of the empire. I don't support their efforts there, and maybe the world would benefit from China being broken up in a couple of nations, but their "inward expansionism" doesn't lead to them setting their sights on Korea & Japan.
China's "historical" boundaries are vaguely defined and entirely expandable. If the PRC is successful in taking control of Taiwan in the face of US opposition, it will have demonstrated the ability to do the same to any of its smaller neighbours, should it choose to do so.
With the level of control China has over its internal information flow, it would be more than capable of conjuring some vague casus belli to justify further expansion to its citizens. For one thing, a generous interpretation of the Yuan empire is enough to push the borders of "historical China" to the whole of central Asia and beyond. If it continued, it would likely do so slowly, turning the political and economic thumbscrews to isolate the next target the same way it has isolated Taiwan.
At the end of the day, nobody knows what China will do if and when it acquires its current goals. You may be right, and it may at that point cease all expansionist tendencies. I would like nothing more than for that to be the case. However, it would be very unwise for Japan to assume it will. The PRC's sustained disregard for the international order up to this point suggests that expecting China to stop at Taiwan may be similar to expecting Hitler to stop in Poland.
|
On January 31 2020 20:54 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2020 19:57 Grumbels wrote:On January 27 2020 22:49 iamthedave wrote:On January 27 2020 05:07 Grumbels wrote:On January 27 2020 02:08 Xxio wrote:On January 27 2020 01:48 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 27 2020 01:34 Xxio wrote:On January 26 2020 16:13 ChristianS wrote:On January 26 2020 15:00 Xxio wrote:On January 26 2020 13:59 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
Care to elaborate what point about SK you like? I didn't hear anything exceptional. Negotiate trade in favor of U.S.A. Hints that U.S.A. military shouldn't be there. Sadly I don't think he cares about much other than short term GDP and campaign slogans. He's a bad president but the contenders are disastrous imo. Good ones blocked by MSM and the parties. + Show Spoiler +But I don’t care much about Trudeau. I do, however, care some about South Korea, and listening to that recording all I heard was some grumbling about how South Korea is ruining our steel industry (possibly with *gasp* Chinese steel) and how that’s really very ungrateful of them considering how we’re stopping North Korea from nuking them and all.
Personally I don’t understand what’s to like about that, and I’d be interested to hear what part appeals to you. The protectionism, I guess? The indignation that a state benefiting from our world policing would dare to compete with us commercially? I don’t know specifically what the “shipping Chinese steel on trains” business is about, maybe you do?
I don’t get protectionism’s appeal much honestly. The lazy argument I can make is “look at Trump’s trade war, it’s going bad for us and the stock market freaks out about it sometimes.” And I think it probably has been bad for us, but more broadly the whole premise of protectionism is “we’re going to try to set the rules of international trade to give our businesses a systemic advantage over foreign competition.” Why is that fair? If a foreign business is more efficient than ours but we manage to set the rules such that our business has an unfair advantage and runs them out of business, why is that a good outcome? If we so quickly demonstrate to other countries that we have no interest in fair dealings and will pick their pocket at first opportunity, how can we hope to maintain positive relationships with them, or expect them not to backstab us just as quickly?
Our troop presence in SK adds a twist to this. A lot of people are very critical of our wide military footprint and insistence on policing the world - I don’t like it much myself - but of all our international meddling, putting troops in South Korea to discourage North Korean aggression seems like one of the better causes we’ve taken up. North Korea invading South Korea would be a massive humanitarian catastrophe, and our troop presence meaningfully reduces the likelihood of that happening.
But it’s a bit rich for us to make all this fuss about keeping South Korea “free” and then turn around and say they don’t have the right to compete with us economically. Are they free, or aren’t they? I don’t have a bit of interest in hitting up our allies for protection money, as Trump likes to talk about, but demanding they direct their economy to grow ours rather than their own is even worse to me. Is this not extortion?
In game theory terminology, Trump’s foreign policy generally usually boils down to an “Always Forsake” policy. Shout and threaten our enemies unless they serve our interests; extort our allies out of their lunch money and threaten to sanction them or even refuse to protect them unless they pay up. It’s unabashedly immoral; but even in self-interest terms, it’s probably pretty bad policy. “Always Forsake” makes you an asshole, but also usually means nobody wants to cooperate with you so you’re ultimately worse off, too. I wish US would stop playing world police and force/allow other countries to grow up. I don't have a problem with Trump asking for more money to cover the cost, if SK wants the US to continue as their bodyguard -- besides wishing they weren't there at all. It's reasonable to ask if it's still worth it to be there. It's reasonable to ask sure, but you shouldn't need to. A stronger Korea and Japan keeps China's power in check. Do you think it is in US interest to maintain status as the global super power? The notion that everything comes down to money and extorting our allies because we can is misguided foreign policy. We didn't install ourselves into Korea and Japan to be their bodyguard. We installed ourselves there to exert power and influence in Asia. In my opinion help Korea and Japan become strong enough to stand on their own as good allies, along with other nearby nations scared of China enough to do the same. I'd rather not have US or anyone as a global super power but independent nations in alliance. Doubt US will give up influence and leave, and also doubt SK wants them to. I'm actually learning Japanese as a hobby, but it made me think that Japanese and Korean culture has always been very strongly tied to China. We had a look in my language class at some typical Japanese cultural traditions such as flower arrangements, tea ceremonies, various Buddhist rituals and schools, and it can all be directly traced from contact with China. Same for language, there are many words of Chinese origin in Japanese, and obviously they use Chinese symbols for writing. So on that level, which is a bit naive obviously, wouldn't it make much more sense for Japan and Korea to be allied with China? The USA wouldn't like it one bit if Mexico was an ally of China and had all sorts of naval bases there and so on. In Europe we wouldn't like it if, idk, Italy was a Russian client state. It would create incredible tension. I haven't been convinced that US presence in that region is not a destabilizing factor and that it is preferable to a more natural Chinese regional hegemony. Same with Iran honestly. Isn't it more natural for Iran to be the regional power when it comes to the Middle East's shiite population instead of the USA? Learning the language isn't knowing the history or the culture. Back in the formative years of both nations China was the cultural and political superpower. It's not unfair to compare it to the British Empire, but even more locally influential. Japan was a client state giving tribute to China for a long period. But like a lot of island-states, both grew out of it and eventually asserted their independence and individual cultures. China is - and has always been - strongly about one-culture. You can totally see echoes of that in Japan and Korea, but their visions of that one-culture are divergent. China would never be willing to see either of them as equal partners and they would never deign to be seen as less than that. It's fine to accept the US as a more powerful ally because the US is outside of the cultural history, but Japan's got a solid history of kicking China's face in and inflicting war crimes on them. Likewise, Japan attacked and brutalised Korea. The Koreans don't trust the Japanese or Chinese, and the Japanese don't trust the Chinese and see the Koreans as inferior. There's really zero chance of those three nations ever really allying with each other. A united Korea would be as stridently independent of larger Asia as South Korea tries to be now. So yes, you would end up with an arms race in Asia if you left them to their own devices. The Japanese/Chinese are going to expect an invasion from the other, and Korea will be expecting an aggressive knock from one or both at some point, because that's what's happened throughout their history. But both Japan and South Korea aren't exactly happy with the US presence there either. I checked out the wiki page on this (link) and you can see feelings being mixed. And e.g. in South Korea they don't necessarily appreciate Trump's bluster w.r.t. North Korea. There seems to me a lot of room for demilitarization in the region. The USA military is almost, maybe not quite fully, but almost occupying Japan and South Korea and we can predict that they're not going to leave even if asked politely by the Japanese and South Korean governments. And while China is expansionist this extends mainly to Tibet and Taiwan, historical regions of the empire. I don't support their efforts there, and maybe the world would benefit from China being broken up in a couple of nations, but their "inward expansionism" doesn't lead to them setting their sights on Korea & Japan. China's "historical" boundaries are vaguely defined and entirely expandable. If the PRC is successful in taking control of Taiwan in the face of US opposition, it will have demonstrated the ability to do the same to any of its smaller neighbours, should it choose to do so. With the level of control China has over its internal information flow, it would be more than capable of conjuring some vague casus belli to justify further expansion to its citizens. For one thing, a generous interpretation of the Yuan empire is enough to push the borders of "historical China" to the whole of central Asia and beyond. If it continued, it would likely do so slowly, turning the political and economic thumbscrews to isolate the next target the same way it has isolated Taiwan. At the end of the day, nobody knows what China will do if and when it acquires its current goals. You may be right, and it may at that point cease all expansionist tendencies. I would like nothing more than for that to be the case. However, it would be very unwise for Japan to assume it will. The PRC's sustained disregard for the international order up to this point suggests that expecting China to stop at Taiwan may be similar to expecting Hitler to stop in Poland.
And there are deep cultural issues and grudges still outstanding between China and Japan. Japan would prefer to move on, China has repeatedly demonstrated it has no wish to do so.
|
Still waiting for someone to explain to me why Stacy Abrams is worth anything more than an example of voter suppression.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/stacey-abrams-thinks-shell-be-president-by-2040/
And what about President Abrams?
Abrams isn’t shy talking about her presidential ambitions. When I asked her if she thought the country would elect her in the next 20 years she simply said, “Yes, I do.”
It is insanity. She is a nobody. She has no charisma. She has no following. She hasn't contributed anything beyond "voter suppression is shitty as hell and I should be governor".
We fanned the flames of her being a victim, which is entirely true, and so is the fact that voter suppression was awful. But fanning those flames made it seem like she was something she's not.
|
Leave Hitler out of that conversation please. China has a terrible track record with human rights but it has not expanded for the last few decades. Taiwan has been a part of China 100 years ago and it is no wonder they want it back. That China now tries to leave its isolation by courting other nations into their sphere of influence is pretty normal, everyone else is just pissed those states will then not be in their sphere. I fear China way less then the states.
|
The problem with that logic is that everything has been a part of some neighbour or another in the past.
If we view that as an acceptable reason to want stuff back, that leads to constant conflict and wars. Ireland has been a part of the UK. Eastern Prussia was a part of Germany. Parts of the US were Mexico. The US was part of the UK. Korea was a part of Japan. And those are just the things that i immediately know of the top of my head.
Countries just need to stop this toxic shit and leave the status quo be (except for mutual stuff).
|
It's fine to speculate on what China might do, but it's another thing to justify occupying the countries around it with our military. I think that should require a clear and imminent threat of attack or invasion.
|
United States43448 Posts
On February 01 2020 02:26 Broetchenholer wrote:
Leave Hitler out of that conversation please. China has a terrible track record with human rights but it has not expanded for the last few decades. Taiwan has been a part of China 100 years ago and it is no wonder they want it back. That China now tries to leave its isolation by courting other nations into their sphere of influence is pretty normal, everyone else is just pissed those states will then not be in their sphere. I fear China way less then the states.
You can want places back all you like but if the people living there disagree then you don’t just get to shoot at them until they stop complaining. People don’t disagree with China’s desire to hold land, they disagree with the bit where they say “regardless of what the inhabitants think”.
|
United States24752 Posts
My friend and I are discussing our current investments in the stock market. We both bought some "puts" (value increases as market goes down) on the S&P500 recently, and my friend who is more knowledgeable was mentioning if the market stays where it is right now until the market closes it will mark the beginning of a correction. I won't get into the details of what he's talking about, but I planned to reply with a joke about how I should announce this afternoon on tv that I have incriminating evidence which shows that Trump is guilty and will be surely be removed, thus increasing the value of my puts since such news would surely tank the market or at least keep it down like it is right now. Then I realized... I literally can't think of what evidence I could have, even if I could create it from thin air, that would ensure with a high degree of certainty that Trump would get removed from office by the current Senate. How terrifying is that?
|
On February 01 2020 02:26 Broetchenholer wrote:
Leave Hitler out of that conversation please. China has a terrible track record with human rights but it has not expanded for the last few decades. Taiwan has been a part of China 100 years ago and it is no wonder they want it back. That China now tries to leave its isolation by courting other nations into their sphere of influence is pretty normal, everyone else is just pissed those states will then not be in their sphere. I fear China way less then the states.
What the hell are you talking about ? China has been steadily building military bases and strips, arming and manning islands in the middle of the South China sea and/or other contested waters, to add to its own exclusive area, brazenly asserting that this territory is theirs, they try to forbid free passage and deny fishing rights to nearby countries.
This lead to some very close encounters with for example American and French vessels, who are asserting the open sea policy by navigating military vessels in open waters claimed by China.
They may not have physically invaded another country's land, but have continued assimilating Tibet and other areas. It's happening
Edit : aaaaaand it's probably over, Murkowki says the Senate and impeachment process has failed, and she will vote against witnesses (failing herself)
They are carefully counting the votes, to allow 2 Republicans to vote for witnesses, especially Collins, so that it doesn't hurt her chances too much.
What hypocrisy. You say it has failed, so you just throw it under the bus.
|
On February 01 2020 02:26 Broetchenholer wrote:
Leave Hitler out of that conversation please. China has a terrible track record with human rights but it has not expanded for the last few decades. Taiwan has been a part of China 100 years ago and it is no wonder they want it back. That China now tries to leave its isolation by courting other nations into their sphere of influence is pretty normal, everyone else is just pissed those states will then not be in their sphere. I fear China way less then the states.
Merits aside, I hope you realize that your framing of the issue is inherently pro-PRC given that Taiwan itself can make the claim that it is the China of 100 years ago
|
On February 01 2020 03:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2020 02:26 Broetchenholer wrote:
Leave Hitler out of that conversation please. China has a terrible track record with human rights but it has not expanded for the last few decades. Taiwan has been a part of China 100 years ago and it is no wonder they want it back. That China now tries to leave its isolation by courting other nations into their sphere of influence is pretty normal, everyone else is just pissed those states will then not be in their sphere. I fear China way less then the states. Merits aside, I hope you realize that your framing of the issue is inherently pro-PRC.
If it had merit, you shouldn't care if it's pro-one or the other, no ?
Marco Rubio gentlemen... "Well he may be corrupt and do things that warrant being fired, but... I don't care, I won't fire him". That's some nice justice just there. You can spin that however you want : rich people can break the law because we believe it's in the best interest of the country to have their money for example. I thought the main idea of justice was that it was supposed to be fair for all ? Not different depending on the people judged ? What fucking kind of statement is that.
“Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office,” Rubio said.
|
On February 01 2020 03:52 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2020 03:51 farvacola wrote:On February 01 2020 02:26 Broetchenholer wrote:
Leave Hitler out of that conversation please. China has a terrible track record with human rights but it has not expanded for the last few decades. Taiwan has been a part of China 100 years ago and it is no wonder they want it back. That China now tries to leave its isolation by courting other nations into their sphere of influence is pretty normal, everyone else is just pissed those states will then not be in their sphere. I fear China way less then the states. Merits aside, I hope you realize that your framing of the issue is inherently pro-PRC. If it had merit, you shouldn't care if it's pro-one or the other, no ?
I said “merits aside” because, while I think China’s aggression is at least comparable with the US, the language used to describe the conflict between China and Taiwan is itself a point of conflict that is emblematic of China’s aggressive attitude towards its neighbors.
|
On February 01 2020 04:04 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2020 03:52 Nouar wrote:On February 01 2020 03:51 farvacola wrote:On February 01 2020 02:26 Broetchenholer wrote:
Leave Hitler out of that conversation please. China has a terrible track record with human rights but it has not expanded for the last few decades. Taiwan has been a part of China 100 years ago and it is no wonder they want it back. That China now tries to leave its isolation by courting other nations into their sphere of influence is pretty normal, everyone else is just pissed those states will then not be in their sphere. I fear China way less then the states. Merits aside, I hope you realize that your framing of the issue is inherently pro-PRC. If it had merit, you shouldn't care if it's pro-one or the other, no ? I said “merits aside” because, while I think China’s aggression is at least comparable with the US, the language used to describe the conflict between China and Taiwan is itself a point of conflict that is emblematic of China’s aggressive attitude towards its neighbors.
I don't necessarily agree, saying it was part of China 100 years ago is false (ceded to Japan in 1895), but it was part of China for 2 centuries, and is technically another branch of China since after WW2. Saying "it's no wonder they want it back" sounds fair, it does not imply that they are justified in doing so, just that it's not a surprise they try to claim it.
But I believe the merits are important when assessing a post's framing, so it makes no sense to me to disregard them and judge a post in a vacuum.
|
On February 01 2020 04:12 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2020 04:04 farvacola wrote:On February 01 2020 03:52 Nouar wrote:On February 01 2020 03:51 farvacola wrote:On February 01 2020 02:26 Broetchenholer wrote:
Leave Hitler out of that conversation please. China has a terrible track record with human rights but it has not expanded for the last few decades. Taiwan has been a part of China 100 years ago and it is no wonder they want it back. That China now tries to leave its isolation by courting other nations into their sphere of influence is pretty normal, everyone else is just pissed those states will then not be in their sphere. I fear China way less then the states. Merits aside, I hope you realize that your framing of the issue is inherently pro-PRC. If it had merit, you shouldn't care if it's pro-one or the other, no ? I said “merits aside” because, while I think China’s aggression is at least comparable with the US, the language used to describe the conflict between China and Taiwan is itself a point of conflict that is emblematic of China’s aggressive attitude towards its neighbors. I don't necessarily agree, saying it was part of China 100 years ago is false (ceded to Japan in 1895), but it was part of China for 2 centuries, and is technically another branch of China since after WW2. Saying "it's no wonder they want it back" sounds fair, it does not imply that they are justified in doing so, just that it's not a surprise they try to claim it. But I believe the merits are important when assessing a post's framing, so it makes no sense to me to disregard them and judge a post in a vacuum.
That you are unfamiliar with the extent to which China has taken great pains to characterize the objects of its expansionist goals in a manner that benefits China is of no moment to me, but I do take issue with the glossing over of the fact that Taiwan can make a genuine claim to being “the real China” such that China’s claim that it wants Taiwan “back” is itself a loaded proposition. Waving that away is exactly what the PRC wants.
No one is surprised that China wants Taiwan.
|
Taiwan was taken from the dynasty by the Japanese not Mao's revolution. The dynasty when it was crumbling under Mao's revolution in part fled to Taiwan with the only Navy. Mao has no ships, attempted to just send regular boats to capture Taiwan with numbers and failed. By the time mao could actually do something other countries stepped in to shield Taiwan.
Btw it was a shit deal for those native to the island but for the most part if you're going to argure 100 years ago it belonged to china, I'd say that china from 100 years ago is the one in charge if the island.
|
On February 01 2020 04:43 semantics wrote:
Taiwan was taken from the dynasty by the Japanese not Mao's revolution. The dynasty when it was crumbling under Mao's revolution in part fled to Taiwan with the only Navy. Mao has no ships, attempted to just send regular boats to capture Taiwan with numbers and failed. By the time mao could actually do something other countries stepped in to shield Taiwan.
Btw it was a shit deal for those native to the island but for the most part if you're going to argure 100 years ago it belonged to china, I'd say that china from 100 years ago is the one in charge if the island.
This is more or less my point, only supported with more accurate history.
|
On February 01 2020 04:24 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2020 04:12 Nouar wrote:On February 01 2020 04:04 farvacola wrote:On February 01 2020 03:52 Nouar wrote:On February 01 2020 03:51 farvacola wrote:On February 01 2020 02:26 Broetchenholer wrote:
Leave Hitler out of that conversation please. China has a terrible track record with human rights but it has not expanded for the last few decades. Taiwan has been a part of China 100 years ago and it is no wonder they want it back. That China now tries to leave its isolation by courting other nations into their sphere of influence is pretty normal, everyone else is just pissed those states will then not be in their sphere. I fear China way less then the states. Merits aside, I hope you realize that your framing of the issue is inherently pro-PRC. If it had merit, you shouldn't care if it's pro-one or the other, no ? I said “merits aside” because, while I think China’s aggression is at least comparable with the US, the language used to describe the conflict between China and Taiwan is itself a point of conflict that is emblematic of China’s aggressive attitude towards its neighbors. I don't necessarily agree, saying it was part of China 100 years ago is false (ceded to Japan in 1895), but it was part of China for 2 centuries, and is technically another branch of China since after WW2. Saying "it's no wonder they want it back" sounds fair, it does not imply that they are justified in doing so, just that it's not a surprise they try to claim it. But I believe the merits are important when assessing a post's framing, so it makes no sense to me to disregard them and judge a post in a vacuum. That you are unfamiliar with the extent to which China has taken great pains to characterize the objects of its expansionist goals in a manner that benefits China is of no moment to me, but I do take issue with the glossing over of the fact that Taiwan can make a genuine claim to being “the real China” such that China’s claim that it wants Taiwan “back” is itself a loaded proposition. Waving that away is exactly what the PRC wants. No one is surprised that China wants Taiwan.
Did you misunderstand when I said "another branch of China" ? I know it is the old government that fled there, with the revolution taking the mainland. I thought branching was a pretty clear word, as in 2 branches of (old) China (not a branch of the PRC).
On what basis do you assume I am unfamiliar with what the PRC did to make itself look legitimate in its claim over Taiwan ? I work in the army and am very familiar with what PRC is doing, you can even see in my other answer to him about the shit it's pulling in the South China sea... That was pretty uncalled for.
|
I made a point about the importance of how the China-Taiwan conflict is framed, which you seemed to dispute on multiple fronts, one of which attempted to justify use of “take back” language on the part of China.
My more general point is that China and the US are ruthless when it comes to this stuff, and one battlefield that is regularly fought on deals in the language used to describe cultural and national inheritance. That’s all.
|
No witnesses or documents, just waiting for an acquittal Monday it appears.
|
Or wednesday, because Iowa caucuses to piss dems
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
