As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[US Foreign Policy] is still practicing drone diplomacy

1464749515259

Posts

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    It’s the foreign policy thread, not the landmine thread. Topics of discussion shift from time to time.

    Lol he's quoting me talking about land mines and china.

    Chinese expansionism is a serious localized problem, as it is for every empire and would be empire. Using this expansionism as a defense of what is widely regarded as a crime against humanity, as has been done deveral times in this thread, is terrible and no one is obliged to take this new age domino theory stuff seriously.

    Is it a serious problem? Because from all your responses so far it seems you aren’t all that bothered by it.

    You seem more upset about the possibility that land mines might be used to push back against that expansion than the expansion itself.

    Landmines don't really push back against anything

    Styrofoam SammichShortyKetBraDavid WalgasRingoelectricitylikesmeDarkPrimusAistanMagellKraint
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Not so serious that you think they shouldn't be stopped? Whether the mines are the answer or not is immaterial.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    It’s the foreign policy thread, not the landmine thread. Topics of discussion shift from time to time.

    Lol he's quoting me talking about land mines and china.

    Chinese expansionism is a serious localized problem, as it is for every empire and would be empire. Using this expansionism as a defense of what is widely regarded as a crime against humanity, as has been done deveral times in this thread, is terrible and no one is obliged to take this new age domino theory stuff seriously.

    Is it a serious problem? Because from all your responses so far it seems you aren’t all that bothered by it.

    You seem more upset about the possibility that land mines might be used to push back against that expansion than the expansion itself.

    Landmines don't really push back against anything

    And even if they did how are you using them here? Land mining a bunch of atolls or whatever doesnt matter because they're just using them to extend territorial claims. Are you deploying land mines in countries that China is exerting influence over in preparation?

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Not so serious that you think they shouldn't be stopped? Whether the mines are the answer or not is immaterial.

    How are you "stopping" them

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Are we still twisted up because the original post talking about mines replied to two different topics in one post? Can we split up the topics please?

    MarathonKayne Red RobeCommander ZoomOneAngryPossumGiantGeek2020ElvenshaeGnome-Interruptus
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Not so serious that you think they shouldn't be stopped? Whether the mines are the answer or not is immaterial.

    How are you "stopping" them

    You still haven't answered the question, so I have to assume you're fine with it. If you aren't concerned about "domino theory" despite recent examples of Crimea leading to greater territorial aggression, you can say so.

  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Are we still twisted up because the original post talking about mines replied to two different topics in one post? Can we split up the topics please?

    Yeah, expansion seems like it’s own larger discussion that land mines are a small part of.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Not so serious that you think they shouldn't be stopped? Whether the mines are the answer or not is immaterial.

    How are you "stopping" them

    You still haven't answered the question, so I have to assume you're fine with it. If you aren't concerned about "domino theory" despite recent examples of Crimea leading to greater territorial aggression, you can say so.

    You're being silly. What I think of arresting chinese expansion depends almost entirely on how you're doing it. And so since you seem to mostly just want to scream at me about China, how do you propose stopping their SE asian expansion?

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Every once in awhile you gotta put down the hammer and knife before hitting post my dudes, no one's keeping score.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Not so serious that you think they shouldn't be stopped? Whether the mines are the answer or not is immaterial.

    How are you "stopping" them

    You still haven't answered the question, so I have to assume you're fine with it. If you aren't concerned about "domino theory" despite recent examples of Crimea leading to greater territorial aggression, you can say so.

    You're being silly. What I think of arresting chinese expansion depends almost entirely on how you're doing it. And so since you seem to mostly just want to scream at me about China, how do you propose stopping their SE asian expansion?

    I'm not screaming about anything. I'm taking issue with the fact that your normally hardline anti-imperialism weakens whenever the United States in no longer the bad actor doing the colonizing.

    adytum
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Not so serious that you think they shouldn't be stopped? Whether the mines are the answer or not is immaterial.

    How are you "stopping" them

    You still haven't answered the question, so I have to assume you're fine with it. If you aren't concerned about "domino theory" despite recent examples of Crimea leading to greater territorial aggression, you can say so.

    You're being silly. What I think of arresting chinese expansion depends almost entirely on how you're doing it. And so since you seem to mostly just want to scream at me about China, how do you propose stopping their SE asian expansion?

    I'm not screaming about anything. I'm taking issue with the fact that your normally hardline anti-imperialism weakens whenever the United States in no longer the bad actor doing the colonizing.

    How? You havent actually brought up any anti imperialist proposal to discuss. You've just decided what my position is and it makes you mad.

    The Chinese SCS expansion via artificial or uninhabited islands is bad, but only special in its fairly unique audacity. To the extent that it needs to be resolved and that we have any role in it I think nornal diplomatic negotations are fine for the time being.

    If that expansion changes into full blown invasions of other nations then the situation likely changes. That wouldnt necessarily mean I'd support open war with China, but we can reevaluate then.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Not so serious that you think they shouldn't be stopped? Whether the mines are the answer or not is immaterial.

    How are you "stopping" them

    You still haven't answered the question, so I have to assume you're fine with it. If you aren't concerned about "domino theory" despite recent examples of Crimea leading to greater territorial aggression, you can say so.

    You're being silly. What I think of arresting chinese expansion depends almost entirely on how you're doing it. And so since you seem to mostly just want to scream at me about China, how do you propose stopping their SE asian expansion?

    I'm not screaming about anything. I'm taking issue with the fact that your normally hardline anti-imperialism weakens whenever the United States in no longer the bad actor doing the colonizing.

    How? You havent actually brought up any anti imperialist proposal to discuss. You've just decided what my position is and it makes you mad.

    The Chinese SCS expansion via artificial or uninhabited islands is bad, but only special in its fairly unique audacity. To the extent that it needs to be resolved and that we have any role in it I think nornal diplomatic negotations are fine for the time being.

    If that expansion changes into full blown invasions of other nations then the situation likely changes. That wouldnt necessarily mean I'd support open war with China, but we can reevaluate then.

    This is a solid post.

    I think that allowing any such expansion only invites more, and more aggressive expansion. Xi *absolutely* learned something from Crimea. I think we should nip this in the bud now while the ambitions and the stakes are small. If CCP can be negotiated down using soft power, then excellent so be it. If they refuse, however, it simply confirms that they have greater ambitions than some unmanned atolls. They must be checked, however

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Not so serious that you think they shouldn't be stopped? Whether the mines are the answer or not is immaterial.

    How are you "stopping" them

    You still haven't answered the question, so I have to assume you're fine with it. If you aren't concerned about "domino theory" despite recent examples of Crimea leading to greater territorial aggression, you can say so.

    You're being silly. What I think of arresting chinese expansion depends almost entirely on how you're doing it. And so since you seem to mostly just want to scream at me about China, how do you propose stopping their SE asian expansion?

    I'm not screaming about anything. I'm taking issue with the fact that your normally hardline anti-imperialism weakens whenever the United States in no longer the bad actor doing the colonizing.

    How? You havent actually brought up any anti imperialist proposal to discuss. You've just decided what my position is and it makes you mad.

    The Chinese SCS expansion via artificial or uninhabited islands is bad, but only special in its fairly unique audacity. To the extent that it needs to be resolved and that we have any role in it I think nornal diplomatic negotations are fine for the time being.

    If that expansion changes into full blown invasions of other nations then the situation likely changes. That wouldnt necessarily mean I'd support open war with China, but we can reevaluate then.

    This is a solid post.

    I think that allowing any such expansion only invites more, and more aggressive expansion. Xi *absolutely* learned something from Crimea. I think we should nip this in the bud now while the ambitions and the stakes are small. If CCP can be negotiated down using soft power, then excellent so be it. If they refuse, however, it simply confirms that they have greater ambitions than some unmanned atolls. They must be checked, however

    How?

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Not so serious that you think they shouldn't be stopped? Whether the mines are the answer or not is immaterial.

    How are you "stopping" them

    You still haven't answered the question, so I have to assume you're fine with it. If you aren't concerned about "domino theory" despite recent examples of Crimea leading to greater territorial aggression, you can say so.

    You're being silly. What I think of arresting chinese expansion depends almost entirely on how you're doing it. And so since you seem to mostly just want to scream at me about China, how do you propose stopping their SE asian expansion?

    I'm not screaming about anything. I'm taking issue with the fact that your normally hardline anti-imperialism weakens whenever the United States in no longer the bad actor doing the colonizing.

    How? You havent actually brought up any anti imperialist proposal to discuss. You've just decided what my position is and it makes you mad.

    The Chinese SCS expansion via artificial or uninhabited islands is bad, but only special in its fairly unique audacity. To the extent that it needs to be resolved and that we have any role in it I think nornal diplomatic negotations are fine for the time being.

    If that expansion changes into full blown invasions of other nations then the situation likely changes. That wouldnt necessarily mean I'd support open war with China, but we can reevaluate then.

    This is a solid post.

    I think that allowing any such expansion only invites more, and more aggressive expansion. Xi *absolutely* learned something from Crimea. I think we should nip this in the bud now while the ambitions and the stakes are small. If CCP can be negotiated down using soft power, then excellent so be it. If they refuse, however, it simply confirms that they have greater ambitions than some unmanned atolls. They must be checked, however

    How?

    Ideally through diplomacy with the inclusion of the other countries in the area.

    No-Quarter
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Not so serious that you think they shouldn't be stopped? Whether the mines are the answer or not is immaterial.

    How are you "stopping" them

    You still haven't answered the question, so I have to assume you're fine with it. If you aren't concerned about "domino theory" despite recent examples of Crimea leading to greater territorial aggression, you can say so.

    You're being silly. What I think of arresting chinese expansion depends almost entirely on how you're doing it. And so since you seem to mostly just want to scream at me about China, how do you propose stopping their SE asian expansion?

    I'm not screaming about anything. I'm taking issue with the fact that your normally hardline anti-imperialism weakens whenever the United States in no longer the bad actor doing the colonizing.

    How? You havent actually brought up any anti imperialist proposal to discuss. You've just decided what my position is and it makes you mad.

    The Chinese SCS expansion via artificial or uninhabited islands is bad, but only special in its fairly unique audacity. To the extent that it needs to be resolved and that we have any role in it I think nornal diplomatic negotations are fine for the time being.

    If that expansion changes into full blown invasions of other nations then the situation likely changes. That wouldnt necessarily mean I'd support open war with China, but we can reevaluate then.

    This is a solid post.

    I think that allowing any such expansion only invites more, and more aggressive expansion. Xi *absolutely* learned something from Crimea. I think we should nip this in the bud now while the ambitions and the stakes are small. If CCP can be negotiated down using soft power, then excellent so be it. If they refuse, however, it simply confirms that they have greater ambitions than some unmanned atolls. They must be checked, however

    How?

    Depends on how negotations work out, but if they fail, we will have to decide whether we are OK with ceding land to them and the implication that they will be allowed to do so again.

    Are there hard power solutions you would be OK with if negotations fail?

  • KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    You think China's threat to Taiwan is similar to the Domino theory?

    Is the idea to mine Taiwan, Australia, or New Zealand?

    I really don't see much in the way of any sort of logical consistency displayed here, aside from "China bad therefore do whatever we want" which is profoundly uncompelling.

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
    Styrofoam SammichelectricitylikesmeMagell
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Not so serious that you think they shouldn't be stopped? Whether the mines are the answer or not is immaterial.

    How are you "stopping" them

    You still haven't answered the question, so I have to assume you're fine with it. If you aren't concerned about "domino theory" despite recent examples of Crimea leading to greater territorial aggression, you can say so.

    You're being silly. What I think of arresting chinese expansion depends almost entirely on how you're doing it. And so since you seem to mostly just want to scream at me about China, how do you propose stopping their SE asian expansion?

    I'm not screaming about anything. I'm taking issue with the fact that your normally hardline anti-imperialism weakens whenever the United States in no longer the bad actor doing the colonizing.

    How? You havent actually brought up any anti imperialist proposal to discuss. You've just decided what my position is and it makes you mad.

    The Chinese SCS expansion via artificial or uninhabited islands is bad, but only special in its fairly unique audacity. To the extent that it needs to be resolved and that we have any role in it I think nornal diplomatic negotations are fine for the time being.

    If that expansion changes into full blown invasions of other nations then the situation likely changes. That wouldnt necessarily mean I'd support open war with China, but we can reevaluate then.

    This is a solid post.

    I think that allowing any such expansion only invites more, and more aggressive expansion. Xi *absolutely* learned something from Crimea. I think we should nip this in the bud now while the ambitions and the stakes are small. If CCP can be negotiated down using soft power, then excellent so be it. If they refuse, however, it simply confirms that they have greater ambitions than some unmanned atolls. They must be checked, however

    How?

    Depends on how negotations work out, but if they fail, we will have to decide whether we are OK with ceding land to them and the implication that they will be allowed to do so again.

    Are there hard power solutions you would be OK with if negotations fail?

    Define hard power as you see it.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    I’m still struggling to understand how antipersonnel mines pose any serious impediment to Chinese expansion, even if all these counties did agree to have their coasts done up DMZ style (doubtful imo)

    NREqxl5.jpg
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
    Styrofoam SammichShortyRingoelectricitylikesmeDee KaeMagell
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    zagdrob wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Serious question, how reliable are the safety features on modern landmines? Because needing to mine the beaches of Taiwan and Japan, or getting into a land war with China may seem ludicrous, but even just the capability of doing those things may be necessary as part of the balance of power. And it's one of those things where being unable to contest a conventional war against China narrows the options to fire the nukes or do nothing, which is arguably more dangerous.

    I would like to see actual expert opinions on whether this is a reasonable capability that we need or if this is just an excuse to prop up the military industrial complex.

    Of the 3,000,000 anti-personnel mines remaining in US inventory, all are reported to have self-destruct capability with a maximum of a 30 day lifespan once armed. Reported reliability of the self-destruct mechanisms are 99.999% according to one report, another report cites a failure rate of 6 per million.

    Which...is doubtful and probably at least an order of magnitude lower (edit, lower as in less likely to self-destruct the way they should) than reported.

    If Biden does follow through and rejoin the Ottawa Convention, the US stockpile will have expired (battery shelf life, no maintenance permitted) by about 2030.

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/02/27/questions-and-answers-new-us-landmine-policy#

    Thank you. To me those rates adequately address the humanitarian issues that motivate banning landmines, and if they are the result of systemic testing or proper studies I don't see any good reason to just assume they are not accurate. Honestly even if they were twice as bad we would still be talking struck by lightning odds here.
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    It’s the foreign policy thread, not the landmine thread. Topics of discussion shift from time to time.

    Lol he's quoting me talking about land mines and china.

    Chinese expansionism is a serious localized problem, as it is for every empire and would be empire. Using this expansionism as a defense of what is widely regarded as a crime against humanity, as has been done deveral times in this thread, is terrible and no one is obliged to take this new age domino theory stuff seriously.

    Is it a serious problem? Because from all your responses so far it seems you aren’t all that bothered by it.

    You seem more upset about the possibility that land mines might be used to push back against that expansion than the expansion itself.

    Landmines don't really push back against anything

    And even if they did how are you using them here? Land mining a bunch of atolls or whatever doesnt matter because they're just using them to extend territorial claims. Are you deploying land mines in countries that China is exerting influence over in preparation?

    Their use, if we want to armchair general this shit, would, I imagine, be deploying them in front of advancing Chinese ground forces to slow them down so you have more time to pound them with air strikes and artillery before they reach your own ground forces, and I guess possibly overrun airfields and bases and shit like that. An army can get through a mine field, but it will take time.

    And this is a capability you need to have before the war even starts because them knowing that you have it is in theory what would convince them that they couldn't win and thus would not start a war at all.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Not so serious that you think they shouldn't be stopped? Whether the mines are the answer or not is immaterial.

    How are you "stopping" them

    You still haven't answered the question, so I have to assume you're fine with it. If you aren't concerned about "domino theory" despite recent examples of Crimea leading to greater territorial aggression, you can say so.

    You're being silly. What I think of arresting chinese expansion depends almost entirely on how you're doing it. And so since you seem to mostly just want to scream at me about China, how do you propose stopping their SE asian expansion?

    I'm not screaming about anything. I'm taking issue with the fact that your normally hardline anti-imperialism weakens whenever the United States in no longer the bad actor doing the colonizing.

    How? You havent actually brought up any anti imperialist proposal to discuss. You've just decided what my position is and it makes you mad.

    The Chinese SCS expansion via artificial or uninhabited islands is bad, but only special in its fairly unique audacity. To the extent that it needs to be resolved and that we have any role in it I think nornal diplomatic negotations are fine for the time being.

    If that expansion changes into full blown invasions of other nations then the situation likely changes. That wouldnt necessarily mean I'd support open war with China, but we can reevaluate then.

    This is a solid post.

    I think that allowing any such expansion only invites more, and more aggressive expansion. Xi *absolutely* learned something from Crimea. I think we should nip this in the bud now while the ambitions and the stakes are small. If CCP can be negotiated down using soft power, then excellent so be it. If they refuse, however, it simply confirms that they have greater ambitions than some unmanned atolls. They must be checked, however

    How?

    Ideally through diplomacy with the inclusion of the other countries in the area.

    To build on this the pivot to Asia by the Obama Admin and now Biden Admin has a list of ways.

    One that got trashed due to public sentiment and a bit of misinformation was actually Trans-Pacific Partnership where we were building an economic community of shared rules and goals to counter China's regional clout. This included everything from union and worker protections to helping mitigate dumping into the international system and closer connections between East Asia and SE Asia to help produce an economic ring around China. Even after the US pulled out many of the countries involved finalized a treaty that was much less protective of the environment and workers but still to help provide themselves a buffer verse China but the US was not involved.

    Building deeper strategic partnerships with countries in the region. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam for example. We have reached out with resources and worked towards more military and civilian cooperation. One of the biggest visible soft power moments was a US carrier landing in port in Vietnam under a friendly flag.

    Promotion of democracy and democratic reforms. This one is hard but an old lever. China pushes a development over liberty stance. The Beijing Consensus is development first and liberty if it works but authoritarianism and human rights violations are fine. We lost 4 years and a lot of clout in this area due to the last president and the Republican party. But a huge way to counter China is push for items like religious liberty, protection of minority groups, increased press freedoms, and moves towards democracy if possible. This is a nebulous difficult goal but is a direct counter to Beijing.

    Last is direct presence and shadowing of Chinese operations. This is a fine line, you don't want to start a war. But you need to put pressure and try to contain Chinese military expansion especially in the South China Sea where China wants to control trade lanes in the region. These trade routes carry energy and a lot of the world's manufacturing. Controlling it gives China a lever over Europe, Africa, India, and even the US. This is again a hard thing to do without guns but trying to make sure there is a the free movement of ships is an important goal of the region and the US Navy.

    Given time there is a lot of policy papers and published goals by the USG and other groups on this.

    u7stthr17eud.png
    MarathonNo-QuarterjmcdonaldSleepshrykeHamHamJFencingsaxGONG-00Commander ZoomknitdanMrMisterGiantGeek2020boogedybooEvermournHappylilElfLord_AsmodeuszagdrobElvenshaeGnome-InterruptusSmrtnik
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Not so serious that you think they shouldn't be stopped? Whether the mines are the answer or not is immaterial.

    How are you "stopping" them

    You still haven't answered the question, so I have to assume you're fine with it. If you aren't concerned about "domino theory" despite recent examples of Crimea leading to greater territorial aggression, you can say so.

    You're being silly. What I think of arresting chinese expansion depends almost entirely on how you're doing it. And so since you seem to mostly just want to scream at me about China, how do you propose stopping their SE asian expansion?

    I'm not screaming about anything. I'm taking issue with the fact that your normally hardline anti-imperialism weakens whenever the United States in no longer the bad actor doing the colonizing.

    How? You havent actually brought up any anti imperialist proposal to discuss. You've just decided what my position is and it makes you mad.

    The Chinese SCS expansion via artificial or uninhabited islands is bad, but only special in its fairly unique audacity. To the extent that it needs to be resolved and that we have any role in it I think nornal diplomatic negotations are fine for the time being.

    If that expansion changes into full blown invasions of other nations then the situation likely changes. That wouldnt necessarily mean I'd support open war with China, but we can reevaluate then.

    This is a solid post.

    I think that allowing any such expansion only invites more, and more aggressive expansion. Xi *absolutely* learned something from Crimea. I think we should nip this in the bud now while the ambitions and the stakes are small. If CCP can be negotiated down using soft power, then excellent so be it. If they refuse, however, it simply confirms that they have greater ambitions than some unmanned atolls. They must be checked, however

    How?

    Depends on how negotations work out, but if they fail, we will have to decide whether we are OK with ceding land to them and the implication that they will be allowed to do so again.

    Are there hard power solutions you would be OK with if negotations fail?

    Define hard power as you see it.

    Well, you think mining the area is off limits. So that essentially means patrols via ship, plane, or drone. Before that, there are stronger responses from things like sanctions. But you have a problem with those, too.

    So I'm having trouble understanding what your solution is if we go to the negotiating table and they say "no", other than just letting them do it.

    jmcdonald
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    Nice post, Mazzy

    FencingsaxCommander ZoomHappylilElf
  • KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    Like the doubly absurd thing is that in this sort of nouveau apocalyptic red scare of unstoppable Chinese expansion (if only we had landmines!) the US would just... make landmines and say fuck any prior commitment

    It's a bizarre argument that seems like a justification groping for any problem within reach. Really reminiscent of the Bush-era stuff around torture

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    What if I'm anti-land mine but pro stopping Chinese expansion?

    MarathonElvenshaeSmrtnik
  • KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    What if I'm anti-land mine but pro stopping Chinese expansion?

    They aren't diametrically opposed, it's a dumb frame

    wow problem solved

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
    Magell
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    Like the doubly absurd thing is that in this sort of nouveau apocalyptic red scare of unstoppable Chinese expansion (if only we had landmines!) the US would just... make landmines and say fuck any prior commitment

    It's a bizarre argument that seems like a justification groping for any problem within reach. Really reminiscent of the Bush-era stuff around torture

    It's too late at that point.

    This does not seem like a justification to me. The following facts seem to be true:

    1) Landmine capability would be both tactically and strategically useful in a conventional war with China.

    2) Current landmines sufficiently limit their long term civilian impact as to be not inherently unacceptable.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    No-QuarterGnome-Interruptus
  • MonwynMonwyn Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime. A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered User regular
    US doctrine typically doesn't do the kind of defense-in-depth that landmines are useful for, instead favoring absolute air dominance and what is effectively a blitz.

    That... wouldn't really work in China, so it may be moot, but it's worth noting

    uH3IcEi.png
    Fencingsax
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Can we please separate the discussion, because I don't want to talk about landmines that 99% of the time have no use beyond warcrimes in a discussion about how we stymie a burgeonong imperial power.

    MarathonStyrofoam SammichIncenjucarShortyCommander ZoomDavid WalgasRingoBullheadGiantGeek2020Dee KaeMagellzagdrobSkeithElvenshaeGnome-Interruptus
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    What if I'm anti-land mine but pro stopping Chinese expansion?

    They aren't diametrically opposed, it's a dumb frame

    wow problem solved

    Then why do we keep linking the two?

    Also you can cut the snark by like 100% and still post you know? Not everything has to be a zippy oneliner!

    Elvenshae
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    What if I'm anti-land mine but pro stopping Chinese expansion?

    They aren't diametrically opposed, it's a dumb frame

    wow problem solved

    Then why do we keep linking the two?

    Also you can cut the snark by like 100% and still post you know? Not everything has to be a zippy oneliner!

    Because the post that started this tangent answered two separate questions, and the whole stupid thing got conflated.

    SleepMarathonStyrofoam SammichCommander ZoomKetBraGiantGeek2020Elvenshae
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Not so serious that you think they shouldn't be stopped? Whether the mines are the answer or not is immaterial.

    How are you "stopping" them

    You still haven't answered the question, so I have to assume you're fine with it. If you aren't concerned about "domino theory" despite recent examples of Crimea leading to greater territorial aggression, you can say so.

    You're being silly. What I think of arresting chinese expansion depends almost entirely on how you're doing it. And so since you seem to mostly just want to scream at me about China, how do you propose stopping their SE asian expansion?

    I'm not screaming about anything. I'm taking issue with the fact that your normally hardline anti-imperialism weakens whenever the United States in no longer the bad actor doing the colonizing.

    How? You havent actually brought up any anti imperialist proposal to discuss. You've just decided what my position is and it makes you mad.

    The Chinese SCS expansion via artificial or uninhabited islands is bad, but only special in its fairly unique audacity. To the extent that it needs to be resolved and that we have any role in it I think nornal diplomatic negotations are fine for the time being.

    If that expansion changes into full blown invasions of other nations then the situation likely changes. That wouldnt necessarily mean I'd support open war with China, but we can reevaluate then.

    This is a solid post.

    I think that allowing any such expansion only invites more, and more aggressive expansion. Xi *absolutely* learned something from Crimea. I think we should nip this in the bud now while the ambitions and the stakes are small. If CCP can be negotiated down using soft power, then excellent so be it. If they refuse, however, it simply confirms that they have greater ambitions than some unmanned atolls. They must be checked, however

    How?

    Depends on how negotations work out, but if they fail, we will have to decide whether we are OK with ceding land to them and the implication that they will be allowed to do so again.

    Are there hard power solutions you would be OK with if negotations fail?

    Define hard power as you see it.

    Well, you think mining the area is off limits. So that essentially means patrols via ship, plane, or drone. Before that, there are stronger responses from things like sanctions. But you have a problem with those, too.

    So I'm having trouble understanding what your solution is if we go to the negotiating table and they say "no", other than just letting them do it.

    I cant outline a response to increased Chinese aggression because I dont know what it will look like. Are we talking about funding rebels in SE Asia? Invading Australia? Just refusing to give up their artificial island scheme?

    Anyway it goes I can pretty much guarantee you'll be advocating for bombs and bullets before I am and I'll never be ok with things like land mines and cluster munitions. So idk maybe if negotiations over the island expansions fail we just take the L.

    Whatever happens Im not going to pretend the US is engaged in anti imperialism. One empire trying to stave off another empire's encroachment on their sphere isnt anti imperialism.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Typhoid MannyShortyDavid WalgasDee KaeMortious
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    edited April 13
    I cant outline a response to increased Chinese aggression because I dont know what it will look like. Are we talking about funding rebels in SE Asia? Invading Australia? Just refusing to give up their artificial island scheme?

    Anyway it goes I can pretty much guarantee you'll be advocating for bombs and bullets before I am and I'll never be ok with things like land mines and cluster munitions. So idk maybe if negotiations over the island expansions fail we just take the L.

    Except taking the L leads to a greater likelihood of an even larger, hotter conflict if they realize they can just keep pushing. Russia and Ukraine are evidence of this, and is likely part of why China thinks they can get away with this now.
    Whatever happens Im not going to pretend the US is engaged in anti imperialism. One empire trying to stave off another empire's encroachment on their sphere isnt anti imperialism.

    No argument there.

    No-Quarter on
    Smrtnik
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    Considering Russia looks like it is about to invade Ukraine and China just buzzed Taiwan with a whole bunch of military aircraft it sure seems like there are more important and pressing things worth talking about than this continued bickering

    I for one am really, really hoping Russia does not invade Ukraine and that it is just Russia testing Biden's mettle.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Not so serious that you think they shouldn't be stopped? Whether the mines are the answer or not is immaterial.

    How are you "stopping" them

    You still haven't answered the question, so I have to assume you're fine with it. If you aren't concerned about "domino theory" despite recent examples of Crimea leading to greater territorial aggression, you can say so.

    You're being silly. What I think of arresting chinese expansion depends almost entirely on how you're doing it. And so since you seem to mostly just want to scream at me about China, how do you propose stopping their SE asian expansion?

    I'm not screaming about anything. I'm taking issue with the fact that your normally hardline anti-imperialism weakens whenever the United States in no longer the bad actor doing the colonizing.

    How? You havent actually brought up any anti imperialist proposal to discuss. You've just decided what my position is and it makes you mad.

    The Chinese SCS expansion via artificial or uninhabited islands is bad, but only special in its fairly unique audacity. To the extent that it needs to be resolved and that we have any role in it I think nornal diplomatic negotations are fine for the time being.

    If that expansion changes into full blown invasions of other nations then the situation likely changes. That wouldnt necessarily mean I'd support open war with China, but we can reevaluate then.

    This is a solid post.

    I think that allowing any such expansion only invites more, and more aggressive expansion. Xi *absolutely* learned something from Crimea. I think we should nip this in the bud now while the ambitions and the stakes are small. If CCP can be negotiated down using soft power, then excellent so be it. If they refuse, however, it simply confirms that they have greater ambitions than some unmanned atolls. They must be checked, however

    How?

    Depends on how negotations work out, but if they fail, we will have to decide whether we are OK with ceding land to them and the implication that they will be allowed to do so again.

    Are there hard power solutions you would be OK with if negotations fail?

    Define hard power as you see it.

    Well, you think mining the area is off limits. So that essentially means patrols via ship, plane, or drone. Before that, there are stronger responses from things like sanctions. But you have a problem with those, too.

    So I'm having trouble understanding what your solution is if we go to the negotiating table and they say "no", other than just letting them do it.

    I cant outline a response to increased Chinese aggression because I dont know what it will look like. Are we talking about funding rebels in SE Asia? Invading Australia? Just refusing to give up their artificial island scheme?

    Anyway it goes I can pretty much guarantee you'll be advocating for bombs and bullets before I am and I'll never be ok with things like land mines and cluster munitions. So idk maybe if negotiations over the island expansions fail we just take the L.

    Whatever happens Im not going to pretend the US is engaged in anti imperialism. One empire trying to stave off another empire's encroachment on their sphere isnt anti imperialism.

    It’s really hard to read this as anything but a stance where US imperialism is bad, but if other countries do it “take the L”.

    SleepBigJoeMshrykeadytumElvenshaeGnome-InterruptusSmrtnik
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    I cant outline a response to increased Chinese aggression because I dont know what it will look like. Are we talking about funding rebels in SE Asia? Invading Australia? Just refusing to give up their artificial island scheme?

    Anyway it goes I can pretty much guarantee you'll be advocating for bombs and bullets before I am and I'll never be ok with things like land mines and cluster munitions. So idk maybe if negotiations over the island expansions fail we just take the L.

    Except taking the L leads to a greater likelihood of an even larger, hotter conflict if they realize they can just keep pushing. Russia and Ukraine are evidence of this, and is likely part of why China thinks they can get away with this now.
    Whatever happens Im not going to pretend the US is engaged in anti imperialism. One empire trying to stave off another empire's encroachment on their sphere isnt anti imperialism.

    No argument there.

    This is very much an assumption and taken to its logical conclusion excuses full blown military action.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    "Let's discuss this another time" is a pretty cowardly way to say you don't want to discuss something anymore.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?
    Henroid wrote: »
    Like for example, Afghanistan and the LAND WAR they had with Russia, "Harry Dresden". US Arms backed that shit.

    No so much arms deals as aid. I don't think anyone in Afghanistan could afford Stinger missles.
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Whole new theater of kids playing soccer to maim

    It's posturing to send a signal to China, nobody expects an actual war to break out. It's the same reason nobody's going to do the same to Russia. A big reason for the US to get China to back down is to show it, and its allies, are more than able to make a war less palatable is by physically showing fucking around isn't worth it. Then this goes back to soft power bullshit, which everyone prefers.

    Also, is an unfortunate but needed answer to China's ridiculous territorial claims.

    Why do we need anti personel mines to stop the Chinese from claiming a bunch of unoccupied atolls and sand bars?

    Why are we being super charitable with China's land grabs here?

    Chinese expansion in the south china sea is predicated in claiming small uninhabuted and often artificial islands to extend their coastal territory.

    Are you proposing we landmine the populated areas?

    What makes you think they'll stop there if allowed to do so with impunity?

    Well if they try to extend their claim to the South China Sea by invading New Zealand we can revisit.

    So you're not anti-imperialist after all.

    Good to know for the future.

    Very weird accusation in a discussion about the US manfucatuering and theoretically deploying land mines my dude.

    Do you think China's land grabs are acceptable or not, or is your anti-imperialism only relegated to American misadventures?

    Its not cowardly to not want to engage with you over a theoretical chinese invasion of indonesia or whatever when I'm talking abiut US arms policy.

    You just quoted me saying Chinese imperialism is a serious problem. Stop trying to score points.

    Not so serious that you think they shouldn't be stopped? Whether the mines are the answer or not is immaterial.

    How are you "stopping" them

    You still haven't answered the question, so I have to assume you're fine with it. If you aren't concerned about "domino theory" despite recent examples of Crimea leading to greater territorial aggression, you can say so.

    You're being silly. What I think of arresting chinese expansion depends almost entirely on how you're doing it. And so since you seem to mostly just want to scream at me about China, how do you propose stopping their SE asian expansion?

    I'm not screaming about anything. I'm taking issue with the fact that your normally hardline anti-imperialism weakens whenever the United States in no longer the bad actor doing the colonizing.

    How? You havent actually brought up any anti imperialist proposal to discuss. You've just decided what my position is and it makes you mad.

    The Chinese SCS expansion via artificial or uninhabited islands is bad, but only special in its fairly unique audacity. To the extent that it needs to be resolved and that we have any role in it I think nornal diplomatic negotations are fine for the time being.

    If that expansion changes into full blown invasions of other nations then the situation likely changes. That wouldnt necessarily mean I'd support open war with China, but we can reevaluate then.

    This is a solid post.

    I think that allowing any such expansion only invites more, and more aggressive expansion. Xi *absolutely* learned something from Crimea. I think we should nip this in the bud now while the ambitions and the stakes are small. If CCP can be negotiated down using soft power, then excellent so be it. If they refuse, however, it simply confirms that they have greater ambitions than some unmanned atolls. They must be checked, however

    How?

    Depends on how negotations work out, but if they fail, we will have to decide whether we are OK with ceding land to them and the implication that they will be allowed to do so again.

    Are there hard power solutions you would be OK with if negotations fail?

    Define hard power as you see it.

    Well, you think mining the area is off limits. So that essentially means patrols via ship, plane, or drone. Before that, there are stronger responses from things like sanctions. But you have a problem with those, too.

    So I'm having trouble understanding what your solution is if we go to the negotiating table and they say "no", other than just letting them do it.

    I cant outline a response to increased Chinese aggression because I dont know what it will look like. Are we talking about funding rebels in SE Asia? Invading Australia? Just refusing to give up their artificial island scheme?

    Anyway it goes I can pretty much guarantee you'll be advocating for bombs and bullets before I am and I'll never be ok with things like land mines and cluster munitions. So idk maybe if negotiations over the island expansions fail we just take the L.

    Whatever happens Im not going to pretend the US is engaged in anti imperialism. One empire trying to stave off another empire's encroachment on their sphere isnt anti imperialism.

    It’s really hard to read this as anything but a stance where US imperialism is bad, but if other countries do it “take the L”.

    As it stands the island expansions aren’t invading other folks though, as far as I am aware, which is why taking the L is more preferable than igniting a hot war. Ceding a local region of international waters to the resident global power may be a decent trade if that’s the choice to be made.

    It’s a different matter if they actually start encroaching on other nations

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Then you get the fun calculation of if country X is worth lighting off WWIII

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Styrofoam SammichCommander ZoomFencingsaxOneAngryPossumGiantGeek2020Gnome-Interruptus
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    I cant outline a response to increased Chinese aggression because I dont know what it will look like. Are we talking about funding rebels in SE Asia? Invading Australia? Just refusing to give up their artificial island scheme?

    Anyway it goes I can pretty much guarantee you'll be advocating for bombs and bullets before I am and I'll never be ok with things like land mines and cluster munitions. So idk maybe if negotiations over the island expansions fail we just take the L.

    Except taking the L leads to a greater likelihood of an even larger, hotter conflict if they realize they can just keep pushing. Russia and Ukraine are evidence of this, and is likely part of why China thinks they can get away with this now.
    Whatever happens Im not going to pretend the US is engaged in anti imperialism. One empire trying to stave off another empire's encroachment on their sphere isnt anti imperialism.

    No argument there.

    This is very much an assumption and taken to its logical conclusion excuses full blown military action.

    How?

  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    I cant outline a response to increased Chinese aggression because I dont know what it will look like. Are we talking about funding rebels in SE Asia? Invading Australia? Just refusing to give up their artificial island scheme?

    Anyway it goes I can pretty much guarantee you'll be advocating for bombs and bullets before I am and I'll never be ok with things like land mines and cluster munitions. So idk maybe if negotiations over the island expansions fail we just take the L.

    Except taking the L leads to a greater likelihood of an even larger, hotter conflict if they realize they can just keep pushing. Russia and Ukraine are evidence of this, and is likely part of why China thinks they can get away with this now.
    Whatever happens Im not going to pretend the US is engaged in anti imperialism. One empire trying to stave off another empire's encroachment on their sphere isnt anti imperialism.

    No argument there.

    This is very much an assumption and taken to its logical conclusion excuses full blown military action.

    How?

    Because that is the pattern that argument has historically followed throughout the twentieth century if not longer and my earliest memories of it being a neocon favorite during the war on terror

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
Sign In or Register to comment.