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

1474850525358

Posts

  • HamHamJHamHamJ 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?

    We're already seeing it. Using their economic power to try and bully companies and countries into silence about their human rights abuses. Claiming new territorial waters. Increasing direct rule over Hong Kong.

    The obvious hot spots for actual military conflict are in the disrupted sea areas, Taiwan, Korea, and the disputed border with India.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    No-QuarterMazzyxSleepJragghenFencingsaxIncenjucarGiantGeek2020Lord_AsmodeusElvenshaeGnome-Interruptus
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    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”.

    Its a belief that the cost of stopping something we dont want can exceed the cost of letting it continue.
    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?

    If we cannot let relatively minor things go because they'll lead to much worse things then we'd be justified taking an escalating response up basically as high as we can.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    Imposing naval territorial claims is like textbook aggression

    No-QuarterjmcdonaldQanamilIncindiumJragghenBigJoeMknitdanGnizmoCommander ZoomFencingsaxIncenjucarNobodyTryCatcherAimOghulkshrykeadytumGiantGeek2020ForarboogedybooMeeqeTicaldfjamLord_AsmodeusMvrckSkeithElvenshaeSmrtnik
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    The tipic needs to be more focused. "What do about china" is too broad to be useful. We might want to do something about their SE asia claims. We should likely do something about their human rights abuses in their western holdings. We dont need to do anything about their border disputes with India.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    This gets to what you want to say encroaching means.

    They are not inhabited islands.

    They are islands with disputed claims of their neighbors.

    CFR has a good long timeline for this.

    https://www.cfr.org/timeline/chinas-maritime-disputes

    Scarborough Shoal is an excellent example of Chinese aggression in the region that does step on its neighbors claims and territory.
    April 8, 2012
    Scarborough Shoal Incident

    Diplomatic relations between Manila and Beijing decline further after the Philippines dispatches a warship to confront Chinese fishing boats in the Scarborough Shoal, north of the Spratlys. China subsequently dispatches its own surveillance vessels to protect its fishermen and a two-month standoff ensues. As China quarantines some fruits from the Philippines and warns against tourism to the country, regional observers worry that tensions will impede economic relations; Philippine losses in banana exports in May are estimated at $34 million. Bilateral talks stall repeatedly over withdrawal from the shoal, and the Philippine government claims it is pursuing various avenues, including ASEAN involvement, legal options under UNCLOS, and an appeal to the United States for a guarantee of assistance in the case of military confrontation. Beijing maintains regular patrols that prevent Philippine fisherman from accessing these waters.



    Another one was the declaration of the air defense zone which has lead to hundreds of sorties by JSDF aircraft engaging with Chinese PLAF planes entering Japanese air space.
    November 23, 2013
    China Declares Air Defense Identification Zone

    China’s Ministry of Defense announces the creation of an East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone that requires all non-commercial air traffic to submit flight plans prior to entering the area, which covers most of the East China Sea and includes the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. China announces it could take military action against aircraft flying near the islands, elevating the territorial dispute to airspace. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry immediately issues a statement urging China to “exercise caution and restraint,” while U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel reaffirms Washington’s longstanding policy that the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty covers the disputed Islands. China and Japan summon each others’ ambassadors to lodge official complaints, while South Korea, the United States, and Japan all respond by sending military aircraft on patrols over the East China Sea.

    Or the incident around an oil rig with Vietnam.
    May 4, 2014
    Vietnamese, Chinese Ships Collide After China Moves Oil Rig

    Vietnam dispatches naval vessels in an attempt to stop China from establishing an oil rig in contested waters near the Paracel Islands. The encounter quickly escalates as China sends forty ships to protect the rig, and several vessels collide. Both China and Vietnam claim that the other rammed into their ships. Anti-China protests erupt throughout Vietnam, and rioters vandalize hundreds of businesses thought to be owned by Chinese individuals. On July 15, China’s state-owned oil company announces that it will withdraw the rig a month ahead of schedule.


    Over and over again China pushes what it can do in its neighbor's territory and waters. And over and over again this has led to low level conflicts.

    China is very much aggressively expanding at the cost of its less powerful neighbors. It just isn't tanks rolling into Crimea levels yet.

    u7stthr17eud.png
    SleepCentipede DamascusNo-QuarterQanamilMarathonJragghenButtersFencingsaxIncenjucarNobodyTryCatcherAimshrykeBullheadadytumGiantGeek2020boogedybooForarMeeqeLord_AsmodeusSkeithElvenshaeGnome-InterruptusSmrtnik
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    This gets to what you want to say encroaching means.

    They are not inhabited islands.

    They are islands with disputed claims of their neighbors.

    CFR has a good long timeline for this.

    https://www.cfr.org/timeline/chinas-maritime-disputes

    Scarborough Shoal is an excellent example of Chinese aggression in the region that does step on its neighbors claims and territory.
    April 8, 2012
    Scarborough Shoal Incident

    Diplomatic relations between Manila and Beijing decline further after the Philippines dispatches a warship to confront Chinese fishing boats in the Scarborough Shoal, north of the Spratlys. China subsequently dispatches its own surveillance vessels to protect its fishermen and a two-month standoff ensues. As China quarantines some fruits from the Philippines and warns against tourism to the country, regional observers worry that tensions will impede economic relations; Philippine losses in banana exports in May are estimated at $34 million. Bilateral talks stall repeatedly over withdrawal from the shoal, and the Philippine government claims it is pursuing various avenues, including ASEAN involvement, legal options under UNCLOS, and an appeal to the United States for a guarantee of assistance in the case of military confrontation. Beijing maintains regular patrols that prevent Philippine fisherman from accessing these waters.



    Another one was the declaration of the air defense zone which has lead to hundreds of sorties by JSDF aircraft engaging with Chinese PLAF planes entering Japanese air space.
    November 23, 2013
    China Declares Air Defense Identification Zone

    China’s Ministry of Defense announces the creation of an East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone that requires all non-commercial air traffic to submit flight plans prior to entering the area, which covers most of the East China Sea and includes the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. China announces it could take military action against aircraft flying near the islands, elevating the territorial dispute to airspace. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry immediately issues a statement urging China to “exercise caution and restraint,” while U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel reaffirms Washington’s longstanding policy that the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty covers the disputed Islands. China and Japan summon each others’ ambassadors to lodge official complaints, while South Korea, the United States, and Japan all respond by sending military aircraft on patrols over the East China Sea.

    Or the incident around an oil rig with Vietnam.
    May 4, 2014
    Vietnamese, Chinese Ships Collide After China Moves Oil Rig

    Vietnam dispatches naval vessels in an attempt to stop China from establishing an oil rig in contested waters near the Paracel Islands. The encounter quickly escalates as China sends forty ships to protect the rig, and several vessels collide. Both China and Vietnam claim that the other rammed into their ships. Anti-China protests erupt throughout Vietnam, and rioters vandalize hundreds of businesses thought to be owned by Chinese individuals. On July 15, China’s state-owned oil company announces that it will withdraw the rig a month ahead of schedule.


    Over and over again China pushes what it can do in its neighbor's territory and waters. And over and over again this has led to low level conflicts.

    China is very much aggressively expanding at the cost of its less powerful neighbors. It just isn't tanks rolling into Crimea levels yet.

    Now the question is: how do you stop any of this without sparking hot war?

    Because every military engagement like this, between two great or larger scale powers, has the potential to spark WWIII

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    This gets to what you want to say encroaching means.

    They are not inhabited islands.

    They are islands with disputed claims of their neighbors.

    CFR has a good long timeline for this.

    https://www.cfr.org/timeline/chinas-maritime-disputes

    Scarborough Shoal is an excellent example of Chinese aggression in the region that does step on its neighbors claims and territory.
    April 8, 2012
    Scarborough Shoal Incident

    Diplomatic relations between Manila and Beijing decline further after the Philippines dispatches a warship to confront Chinese fishing boats in the Scarborough Shoal, north of the Spratlys. China subsequently dispatches its own surveillance vessels to protect its fishermen and a two-month standoff ensues. As China quarantines some fruits from the Philippines and warns against tourism to the country, regional observers worry that tensions will impede economic relations; Philippine losses in banana exports in May are estimated at $34 million. Bilateral talks stall repeatedly over withdrawal from the shoal, and the Philippine government claims it is pursuing various avenues, including ASEAN involvement, legal options under UNCLOS, and an appeal to the United States for a guarantee of assistance in the case of military confrontation. Beijing maintains regular patrols that prevent Philippine fisherman from accessing these waters.



    Another one was the declaration of the air defense zone which has lead to hundreds of sorties by JSDF aircraft engaging with Chinese PLAF planes entering Japanese air space.
    November 23, 2013
    China Declares Air Defense Identification Zone

    China’s Ministry of Defense announces the creation of an East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone that requires all non-commercial air traffic to submit flight plans prior to entering the area, which covers most of the East China Sea and includes the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. China announces it could take military action against aircraft flying near the islands, elevating the territorial dispute to airspace. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry immediately issues a statement urging China to “exercise caution and restraint,” while U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel reaffirms Washington’s longstanding policy that the U.S.-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty covers the disputed Islands. China and Japan summon each others’ ambassadors to lodge official complaints, while South Korea, the United States, and Japan all respond by sending military aircraft on patrols over the East China Sea.

    Or the incident around an oil rig with Vietnam.
    May 4, 2014
    Vietnamese, Chinese Ships Collide After China Moves Oil Rig

    Vietnam dispatches naval vessels in an attempt to stop China from establishing an oil rig in contested waters near the Paracel Islands. The encounter quickly escalates as China sends forty ships to protect the rig, and several vessels collide. Both China and Vietnam claim that the other rammed into their ships. Anti-China protests erupt throughout Vietnam, and rioters vandalize hundreds of businesses thought to be owned by Chinese individuals. On July 15, China’s state-owned oil company announces that it will withdraw the rig a month ahead of schedule.


    Over and over again China pushes what it can do in its neighbor's territory and waters. And over and over again this has led to low level conflicts.

    China is very much aggressively expanding at the cost of its less powerful neighbors. It just isn't tanks rolling into Crimea levels yet.

    Now the question is: how do you stop any of this without sparking hot war?

    Because every military engagement like this, between two great or larger scale powers, has the potential to spark WWIII

    I posted an entire list on the previous page.

    From diplomatic and economic engagement to increasing regional ability to push back to diplomacy to treaties and organizations. The very ideas we used to work toward containing aggression in the past. But you don't take war off the table as a last resort as threats of violence is an important aspect of any negotiation on the diplomatic stage.

    u7stthr17eud.png
    SleepNo-QuarterGONG-00MarathonBigJoeMFencingsaxshrykeMilladytumGiantGeek2020MeeqeLord_AsmodeusElvenshaeGnome-Interruptus
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    ElvenshaeGnome-Interruptus
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    The idea that economic progress will liberalise China is I think dead. As such, we basically need to do that some other way or isolate China so their totalitarian politics is more unappealing and they don't get to set the international order. In terms of their most direct military activities that unfortunately I think means shit like playing chicken with naval and air forces and being prepared to win a localized skirmish without having to do anything that might trigger Armageddon like actually invading the Chinese mainland.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    JragghenSleepKayne Red RobeTryCatchershrykeLord_AsmodeusElvenshaeGnome-Interruptus
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    The idea that economic progress will liberalise China is I think dead. As such, we basically need to do that some other way or isolate China so their totalitarian politics is more unappealing and they don't get to set the international order. In terms of their most direct military activities that unfortunately I think means shit like playing chicken with naval and air forces and being prepared to win a localized skirmish without having to do anything that might trigger Armageddon like actually invading the Chinese mainland.

    I think a lot of being are being extremely cavalier with the risk assessment of a more passive approach vs what is basically nuclear chicken.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    The unfortunate answer is that military and economic actions are the only ones with any teeth, but we're effectively barred from doing either because of how much of our supply chain is based on their goods. The recent movement of getting supply chains out of china in the electronics and pharmaceutical industries is step 1. It doesn't look like doing anything, because it's not in and of itself. It's giving us the ability to do other things.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    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: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    Invade? No. Sanction the fuck out of them, yes.

    But you have a problem with *those*, too. So you really don't seem to have.... anything in your toolbox for dealing with hostile foreign actors besides giving up.

    SleepBigJoeMMarathonFencingsaxMeeqeLord_AsmodeusElvenshaeGnome-InterruptusSmrtnik
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Something we can do is be a better and more proactive partner with regions we've either shit on or ignored where China is able to find markets and nations looking for partners.

    There's no reason to keep pushing Iran towards China.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    At the very least we should probably work on embargoes for it.

    No-QuarterElvenshaeGnome-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: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    Invade? No. Sanction the fuck out of them, yes.

    But you have a problem with *those*, too. So you really don't seem to have.... anything in your toolbox for dealing with hostile foreign actors besides giving up.

    Do you really think we can sanction China out of this policy?

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    Something we can do is be a better and more proactive partner with regions we've either shit on or ignored where China is able to find markets and nations looking for partners.

    There's no reason to keep pushing Iran towards China.

    Specifics aside, something like the Obama era TPP in structure (I know the actual document did a lot of unsavory stuff but the general idea behind it I'm talking about)?

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    Something we can do is be a better and more proactive partner with regions we've either shit on or ignored where China is able to find markets and nations looking for partners.

    There's no reason to keep pushing Iran towards China.

    China can find markets without US pressure on anyone. It is the second largest economy, one of the largest manufacturers, and largest energy importer in the world. Even if you lifted all sanctions on Iran and signed a trade treaty they will still trade with China. In fact China's main trade partners are US allies not enemies.

    https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/CHN/Year/2017/TradeFlow/EXPIMP/Partner/by-country

    g4hprufdjql2.png


    Top 10 countries include the US, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, Brazil, and the UK. The EU as a whole is one of the largest trading partners with China. In fact China as of 2020 is the EU's biggest trading partner. Iran isn't a blip. Economic isolation is possible but would be a full rearrangement of the developed world.

    And the goal to bring in countries to our markets and more joint markets without China was the very thing the TPP was based off of. And was part of the actions listed in my previous post. And part of also alliance building and to use an old term, "contain" Chinese aggression in the region. Regional coordination is probably better first step.

    u7stthr17eud.png
    No-QuartershrykeGiantGeek2020Lord_AsmodeusGnome-Interruptus
  • 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: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    Invade? No. Sanction the fuck out of them, yes.

    But you have a problem with *those*, too. So you really don't seem to have.... anything in your toolbox for dealing with hostile foreign actors besides giving up.

    Do you really think we can sanction China out of this policy?

    I'd say it would have a better chance of accomplishing.... well anything, rather than just shrugging our shoulders and letting them have it, all the while simultaneously pretending it's not *that* big of a deal despite recent evidence to the contrary.

    Elvenshae
  • 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: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    Invade? No. Sanction the fuck out of them, yes.

    But you have a problem with *those*, too. So you really don't seem to have.... anything in your toolbox for dealing with hostile foreign actors besides giving up.

    Do you really think we can sanction China out of this policy?

    I'd say it would have a better chance of accomplishing.... well anything, rather than just shrugging our shoulders and letting them have it, all the while simultaneously pretending it's not *that* big of a deal despite recent evidence to the contrary.

    I dont know that mass starvation is really a good alternative. You're extremely cavalier about sanctions but really we're just talking about starving the Chinese people until their government stops starving and murdering Uighurs.

    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: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    Invade? No. Sanction the fuck out of them, yes.

    But you have a problem with *those*, too. So you really don't seem to have.... anything in your toolbox for dealing with hostile foreign actors besides giving up.

    Do you really think we can sanction China out of this policy?

    I'd say it would have a better chance of accomplishing.... well anything, rather than just shrugging our shoulders and letting them have it, all the while simultaneously pretending it's not *that* big of a deal despite recent evidence to the contrary.

    I dont know that mass starvation is really a good alternative. You're extremely cavalier about sanctions but really we're just talking about starving the Chinese people until their government stops starving and murdering Uighurs.

    By that same logic does that mean you're extremely cavalier about letting the Chinese government continue to commit genocide?

  • 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: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    Invade? No. Sanction the fuck out of them, yes.

    But you have a problem with *those*, too. So you really don't seem to have.... anything in your toolbox for dealing with hostile foreign actors besides giving up.

    Do you really think we can sanction China out of this policy?

    I'd say it would have a better chance of accomplishing.... well anything, rather than just shrugging our shoulders and letting them have it, all the while simultaneously pretending it's not *that* big of a deal despite recent evidence to the contrary.

    I dont know that mass starvation is really a good alternative. You're extremely cavalier about sanctions but really we're just talking about starving the Chinese people until their government stops starving and murdering Uighurs.

    By that same logic does that mean you're extremely cavalier about letting the Chinese government continue to commit genocide?

    Nope.

    On the whole I think a full blown war is arguably more morally justifiable than "sanctioning the fuck out of" China. Americans have largely convinced themselves that sanctions are peaceful bloodless pressure.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • 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: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    Invade? No. Sanction the fuck out of them, yes.

    But you have a problem with *those*, too. So you really don't seem to have.... anything in your toolbox for dealing with hostile foreign actors besides giving up.

    Do you really think we can sanction China out of this policy?

    I'd say it would have a better chance of accomplishing.... well anything, rather than just shrugging our shoulders and letting them have it, all the while simultaneously pretending it's not *that* big of a deal despite recent evidence to the contrary.

    I dont know that mass starvation is really a good alternative. You're extremely cavalier about sanctions but really we're just talking about starving the Chinese people until their government stops starving and murdering Uighurs.

    By that same logic does that mean you're extremely cavalier about letting the Chinese government continue to commit genocide?

    Nope.

    On the whole I think a full blown war is arguably more morally justifiable than "sanctioning the fuck out of" China. Americans have largely convinced themselves that sanctions are peaceful bloodless pressure.

    Do you honestly think a full blown war would have fewer casualties than sanctions?

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    Invade? No. Sanction the fuck out of them, yes.

    But you have a problem with *those*, too. So you really don't seem to have.... anything in your toolbox for dealing with hostile foreign actors besides giving up.

    Do you really think we can sanction China out of this policy?

    I'd say it would have a better chance of accomplishing.... well anything, rather than just shrugging our shoulders and letting them have it, all the while simultaneously pretending it's not *that* big of a deal despite recent evidence to the contrary.

    I dont know that mass starvation is really a good alternative. You're extremely cavalier about sanctions but really we're just talking about starving the Chinese people until their government stops starving and murdering Uighurs.

    By that same logic does that mean you're extremely cavalier about letting the Chinese government continue to commit genocide?

    Nope.

    On the whole I think a full blown war is arguably more morally justifiable than "sanctioning the fuck out of" China. Americans have largely convinced themselves that sanctions are peaceful bloodless pressure.

    Do you honestly think a full blown war would have fewer casualties than sanctions?

    I have no idea. I dont think casualities is the only measure of moral justifiability of course, which is why I didnt say that.

    This is all getting very into the weeds.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    Invade? No. Sanction the fuck out of them, yes.

    But you have a problem with *those*, too. So you really don't seem to have.... anything in your toolbox for dealing with hostile foreign actors besides giving up.

    Do you really think we can sanction China out of this policy?

    I'd say it would have a better chance of accomplishing.... well anything, rather than just shrugging our shoulders and letting them have it, all the while simultaneously pretending it's not *that* big of a deal despite recent evidence to the contrary.

    I dont know that mass starvation is really a good alternative. You're extremely cavalier about sanctions but really we're just talking about starving the Chinese people until their government stops starving and murdering Uighurs.

    By that same logic does that mean you're extremely cavalier about letting the Chinese government continue to commit genocide?

    Nope.

    On the whole I think a full blown war is arguably more morally justifiable than "sanctioning the fuck out of" China. Americans have largely convinced themselves that sanctions are peaceful bloodless pressure.

    Do you honestly think a full blown war would have fewer casualties than sanctions?

    I have no idea. I dont think casualities is the only measure of moral justifiability of course, which is why I didnt say that.

    This is all getting very into the weeds.

    And by that, you mean "problems that you don't have easy, snappy, morally-righteous answers for".

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    MarathonNo-QuartershrykeadytumBigJoeMHappylilElfMegatinLord_AsmodeusHarry DresdenElvenshaeGnome-InterruptuscaligynefobSmrtnik
  • 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: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    Invade? No. Sanction the fuck out of them, yes.

    But you have a problem with *those*, too. So you really don't seem to have.... anything in your toolbox for dealing with hostile foreign actors besides giving up.

    Do you really think we can sanction China out of this policy?

    I'd say it would have a better chance of accomplishing.... well anything, rather than just shrugging our shoulders and letting them have it, all the while simultaneously pretending it's not *that* big of a deal despite recent evidence to the contrary.

    I dont know that mass starvation is really a good alternative. You're extremely cavalier about sanctions but really we're just talking about starving the Chinese people until their government stops starving and murdering Uighurs.

    By that same logic does that mean you're extremely cavalier about letting the Chinese government continue to commit genocide?

    Nope.

    On the whole I think a full blown war is arguably more morally justifiable than "sanctioning the fuck out of" China. Americans have largely convinced themselves that sanctions are peaceful bloodless pressure.

    Sanctions hurt. They're *designed* to hurt. But theyre also designed to hurt a helluva lot less than an *invasion*, which would result in famine and starvation regardless.

    Holy shit dude

    IncenjucarjmcdonaldMarathonQanamilMeeqeLord_AsmodeusElvenshae
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Does anyone think that sanctions against China would really help or be viable when it comes to the Uighur genocide? In all seriousness? I have not heard of a single concrete proposal on how to make the PRC stop committing genocide which sounds like it exists in reality

    China will be the world's largest economy in ten years. America is probably about to experience something very new for Americans; a world where the most powerful economic sanctions are not the one it imposes but ones that can be imposed upon it.

    Commander ZoomStyrofoam SammichTefRingoJragghenShortyOneAngryPossumDee KaeboogedybooMagellSkeith
  • MarathonMarathon 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: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    Invade? No. Sanction the fuck out of them, yes.

    But you have a problem with *those*, too. So you really don't seem to have.... anything in your toolbox for dealing with hostile foreign actors besides giving up.

    Do you really think we can sanction China out of this policy?

    I'd say it would have a better chance of accomplishing.... well anything, rather than just shrugging our shoulders and letting them have it, all the while simultaneously pretending it's not *that* big of a deal despite recent evidence to the contrary.

    I dont know that mass starvation is really a good alternative. You're extremely cavalier about sanctions but really we're just talking about starving the Chinese people until their government stops starving and murdering Uighurs.

    By that same logic does that mean you're extremely cavalier about letting the Chinese government continue to commit genocide?

    Nope.

    On the whole I think a full blown war is arguably more morally justifiable than "sanctioning the fuck out of" China. Americans have largely convinced themselves that sanctions are peaceful bloodless pressure.

    Do you honestly think a full blown war would have fewer casualties than sanctions?

    I have no idea. I dont think casualities is the only measure of moral justifiability of course, which is why I didnt say that.

    This is all getting very into the weeds.

    You said Americans think of sanctions as “peaceful” and “bloodless”. What else would that be in reference to if not casualties?

    But still, as a hypothetical. Which would you think would result in the greatest amount of death and suffering. A full out war, or sanctions?

    Marathon on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Marathon wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    Invade? No. Sanction the fuck out of them, yes.

    But you have a problem with *those*, too. So you really don't seem to have.... anything in your toolbox for dealing with hostile foreign actors besides giving up.

    Do you really think we can sanction China out of this policy?

    I'd say it would have a better chance of accomplishing.... well anything, rather than just shrugging our shoulders and letting them have it, all the while simultaneously pretending it's not *that* big of a deal despite recent evidence to the contrary.

    I dont know that mass starvation is really a good alternative. You're extremely cavalier about sanctions but really we're just talking about starving the Chinese people until their government stops starving and murdering Uighurs.

    By that same logic does that mean you're extremely cavalier about letting the Chinese government continue to commit genocide?

    Nope.

    On the whole I think a full blown war is arguably more morally justifiable than "sanctioning the fuck out of" China. Americans have largely convinced themselves that sanctions are peaceful bloodless pressure.

    Do you honestly think a full blown war would have fewer casualties than sanctions?

    I have no idea. I dont think casualities is the only measure of moral justifiability of course, which is why I didnt say that.

    This is all getting very into the weeds.

    And by that, you mean "problems that you don't have easy, snappy, morally-righteous answers for".

    Lol the dude just said we should "sanction the fuck out of China", but yeah Im snappy and morally righteous.
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    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

    As opposed to unchecked aggression leading to... more aggression?

    I dont think their scheme of fake islands to make silly naval territorial claims is really aggression.

    The Chinese government certainly seems to think their claims will be taken seriously.

    Empires usually do

    Then maybe we shouldn’t be looking at this as if it is "not really aggression".

    Idk what you're after here. Like idk man a lot of this seems to boil down to "how dobwe make China stop being an empire" and the answer is either WW3 or you dont.

    Mazzy posted about other methods, but if those fail, war may the only option. Otherwise, cool, we'll just let them, then. Let Russia can have Ukraine too, while we are at it.

    Do you think we should invade over the Uighur genocide?

    Invade? No. Sanction the fuck out of them, yes.

    But you have a problem with *those*, too. So you really don't seem to have.... anything in your toolbox for dealing with hostile foreign actors besides giving up.

    Do you really think we can sanction China out of this policy?

    I'd say it would have a better chance of accomplishing.... well anything, rather than just shrugging our shoulders and letting them have it, all the while simultaneously pretending it's not *that* big of a deal despite recent evidence to the contrary.

    I dont know that mass starvation is really a good alternative. You're extremely cavalier about sanctions but really we're just talking about starving the Chinese people until their government stops starving and murdering Uighurs.

    By that same logic does that mean you're extremely cavalier about letting the Chinese government continue to commit genocide?

    Nope.

    On the whole I think a full blown war is arguably more morally justifiable than "sanctioning the fuck out of" China. Americans have largely convinced themselves that sanctions are peaceful bloodless pressure.

    Sanctions hurt. They're *designed* to hurt. But theyre also designed to hurt a helluva lot less than an *invasion*, which would result in famine and starvation regardless.

    Holy shit dude

    Estimated deaths from sanctions against Iraq sit right around the middle of estimated deaths from the subsequent invasion.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited April 13
    You know who in our lives has never been subject to economic sanctions no matter what they do because everyone else knows that it is not a viable course of action

    The United States of America

    Solar on
    Styrofoam SammichTefGnizmoDee KaeMagellGnome-Interruptus
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Empires generally function in such a way that any scenario other than continued expansion will cause their population to suffer.

    TefNo-QuarterDarkPrimusHarry DresdenGnome-Interruptus
  • TefTef Registered User regular
    If we are at the point where we are considering massive sanctions and a hot war with China, we have to stop to consider if the US could actually win such a conflict. I'm not actually convinced it could, and I think in most cases, it would be a pyrrhic victory at best. I think no matter the outcome, it would make the end of the American empire as we know it a la Britain after the world wars.

    If all cards are on the table to stop the spread of Chinese imperialism, the best option is to reform the USA under Communism, with a specific focus on internationalism, and the eventual goal of purging the Dengists from the CCP. What flavour of socialism is, as always, a whole debate onto itself and probably outside the scope of this thread. I would suggest Trotskyism, or something to the left of that, has the best chance of success. Regardless, a unified international socialist movement is the only real antidote to the spread of neoliberalism.

    help a fellow forumer meet their mental health care needs because USA healthcare sucks!

    Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better

    bit.ly/2XQM1ke
    Styrofoam SammichShortyDee Kae
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Let me tell you all right now what will happen about the Uighur genocide, in terms of concrete and viable responses from other nations on the subject that dissuade the PRC

    A big fat fucking nothing

    Styrofoam SammichCommander ZoomFencingsaxShortyGiantGeek2020Dee KaeboogedybooMagellKraintSmrtnik
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Because, to be clear

    Sanctions aren't viable, and war isn't viable, and soft power isn't viable, and the Uighurs are not really a group that anyone else gives that much of a shit about, or at least definitely not to the extent that they are going to throw their relationship with Beijing away over it, so yeah that's a given. That's happening.

    Styrofoam SammichTefRingoCommander ZoomDavid WalgasBullheadJragghenGiantGeek2020Dee KaeboogedybooMagellSkeithSmrtnik
Sign In or Register to comment.