[flagged]
Did you see how the US reacted to that?
Honestly what do you think the Chinese are thinking? We whine at even one missile in Cuba while China and every other country has to accept the fact that the US has military weapons and outposts around the world. Seriously this is a hugely provocative move.
Also as a Taiwanese person I agree with the US about how the lives of Taiwanese people are more important then those in Gaza (sarcasm). Weaponize Taiwan but let Israel slaughter its enemies. In reality the US could give a shit about either people. This is a story about patriotism and power.
China is becoming an economic and technological peer to the US and in order to stop it the US needs to stop china from controlling the Pacific and tsmc. This is what's going on. Not some preservation of peace, that's garbage.
The attitude of the American public largely echoes your point of view. Basically at the back of your mind you know it's a power play coming out of jealousy and fear, but we lie to ourselves and pretend it's some sort of move to defend the innocent people of Taiwan. Well as I stated earlier that's a lie we Americans tell ourselves. I have a realistic view of this because my heritage straddles both worlds and I can tell you the US side is the delusional one. To clarify the US is making logical and rational military maneuvers in terms of power projection at the greatest threat but their justification for such maneuvers is delusional. Your post is one example of the delusion.
The hypocrisy of what's going on in the middleeast and Ukraine is proof of that. Unless you actually believe that the lives of Taiwanese people are worth more than those in Ukraine and the middleeast. Think about why military intervention is justified for Taiwan and not Ukraine.
Based on that alone I'd say the situations are pretty different. I'd be strongly opposed to arming Taiwan with nuclear capabilities, and feel China would indeed be justified in that case. But that's academic talk because no such thing is happening.
As for the rest: sometimes geopolitics and morality aligns. This is one of those cases, IMHO.
It always aligns for the US because that's how the US and it's people spin it. When has it not aligned? Never. WMDs in iraq were totally real.
>Unless I am misremembering the history, the missiles on Cuba were nuclear missiles. These are purely offensive weapons that have very little defensive capabilities.
So if china had a carrier off the coast of california with artillery pointed towards SF it wouldn't be a big deal because artillery is not nuclear? It's a physical threat and both justify extreme reactions.
I would also note that the US had missiles pointing at Russia during the crisis and the Russian reaction was nowhere as extreme or public. So really what occurred here it the US was the provocateur and the Cuban missile crisis was what Russia did to alleviate the crisis. Both the cuban and the missiles pointing at Russia were removed as part of the deal. In this case Russia took steps towards peace.
US moves can be both logical and rational in terms of power projection, and defend the innocent people of Taiwan. As a trading power, wanting to trade fairly and securely around the world with independent nations (ok so that is a bit of a stretch), it should be no surprise, and indeed quite gratifying that those two aims coincide.
US foriegn policy is not to create an empire, but to prevent others from doing so (USSR, and now China). Don't try to create empires, don't get the foot!
As I stated in other threads if china had a carrier off the coast of CA with artillery pointed at san francisco would the situation be more mild because artillery is non-nuclear? No it's a extreme physical threat. The point is, China is reacting to this situation in a way that is not provocative even though the US is being deliberately provocative.
>and defend the innocent people of Taiwan.
This is the story and a side effect. The reality is the US does not care for the people of Taiwan. They only care for TSMC and power in the pacific. This is made obvious by how the US repeatedly fails to use military might to protect people in Ukrain or people in gaza. There is no military or economic advantage towards protecting those places but their is for Taiwan. Hence the imbalance of military force. People are getting slaughtered in Gaza but more military force is being built up around Taiwan? Why?? Because of self interest.
>As a trading power, wanting to trade fairly and securely around the world with independent nations (ok so that is a bit of a stretch), it should be no surprise, and indeed quite gratifying that those two aims coincide.
It is a stretch. They want unfair terms in favor of the US and they want to maintain that unfair advantage as long as possible.
>US foriegn policy is not to create an empire, but to prevent others from doing so (USSR, and now China). Don't try to create empires, don't get the foot!
Another more accurate way of putting it is that US policy is to maintain their own current Empire. Prevent China or the USSR from setting up similar positions of power. Obviously China is't going to use the old ways of pillaging countries to expand their borders. It's going to be through patrols and military bases and alliances... etc.
To my knowledge we have not equipped Taiwan with nuclear missiles, which is what the Cuban Missile Crisis was about. Big difference.
> while China and every other country has to accept the fact that the US has military weapons and outposts around the world. Seriously this is a hugely provocative move.
provocative seems like a questionable choice of words, given that the US military has time and time again been used to resist militarists & authoritarians exploiting populations. We have enormous military capability that we don't use, that is not for making war, but defending the world against warlike powers.
> China is becoming an economic and technological peer to the US and in order to stop it the US needs to stop china from controlling the Pacific and tsmc. This is what's going on.
Can't it become an economic and technological power without pushing around & pushing out so many neighbors? Here's to Chinas rise, I hope it does great, but it keeps acting so zero sum, keeps creating conflict, and it gives everyone great unease to see such military buildup from a country that keeps acting hard & ardent to those around it.
> The attitude of the American public largely echoes your point of view. Basically at the back of your mind you know it's a power play coming out of jealousy and fear,
Absolutely on fear. We are scared of an authoritarian country so ready to go to war with it's neighbors, so willing to push people around. We have projected power so far for so long, but so rarely begun conflict, in hopes of preventing destabilization in the world, in hopes of preventing authoritarian overreach.
As for the whataboutism of other situations, the US has greatly helped Ukraine & our direct involvement would make it World War scale, so let's not if we can. We have both given Israel Patriot and Iron Dome missile-defense systems, while trying to get neighbors & Israel moving towards peaceful resolution. We are trying. Although you lambast us in these situations, we seem to be doing all we can in both situations to re-stabilize the world & in spite of your sharp words it's unclear what we could be doing better.
It's big but nowhere near as big as you imply. Think about it from a chinese citizens perspective. How big of a difference is air raids, bombings and missiles vs. nuclear missiles? Would the chinese citizen be calm and nonchalant if it was just non-nuclear weapons and suddenly be thrown into hysteria by nuclear weapons? Let's be real here. It's a physical threat.
>provocative seems like a questionable choice of words, given that the US military has time and time again been used to resist militarists & authoritarians exploiting populations. We have enormous military capability that we don't use, that is not for making war, but defending the world against warlike powers.
Our military power is used for maintaining our own power. Just look at gaza. Again we aren't doing shit because it's not a threat to american power. Taiwan Is. Hence the difference in response. It's unrealistic to characterize the US as some international white knight. Clearly we aren't.
>Can't it become an economic and technological power without pushing around & pushing out so many neighbors? Here's to Chinas rise, I hope it does great, but it keeps acting so zero sum, keeps creating conflict, and it gives everyone great unease to see such military buildup from a country that keeps acting hard & ardent to those around it.
Unlikely. The US did a ton of pushing around. A ton. and it largely gets it's way on the international front. China is pushing it's way to become an equal player and that's unacceptable for the US. This is normal. It wouldn't be acceptable for China either if it's the other way around. Both countries are human. I think you're placing the US on a bit of pedestal.
You remember how the Bush administration basically lied and made up a bunch of shit about WMDs just to go to war in Iraq right? That whole fiasco basically puts a hole in your "white knight" view point.
>Absolutely on fear. We are scared of an authoritarian country so ready to go to war with it's neighbors, so willing to push people around. We have projected power so far for so long, but so rarely begun conflict, in hopes of preventing destabilization in the world, in hopes of preventing authoritarian overreach.
Largely disagree with this. The US is not some White Knight projecting power to keep stability. It chooses it's conflicts based on it's own interests.
>As for the whataboutism of other situations, the US has greatly helped Ukraine & our direct involvement would make it World War scale, so let's not if we can.
Direct involvement in war with China will be world war scale and the US doesn't hesitate in this matter. Russia is the greater threat for war because Russia is just less stable.
China is less of a threat for war but the US steps up military power here because China is more of a peer and competitor on the world stage. Let's be real here.
>Although you lambast us in these situations, we seem to be doing all we can in both situations to re-stabilize the world
We are doing our best to maintain an edge over China. That's what we're doing. That's the entire point of why there's so much military projection in Asia and none towards say Gaza. Does Gaza have a threat for world war? No.. so your theory doesn't apply here.
We are doing things in Gaza to try to help our ally defend itself while trying to get them to de-escallate; it's just not super visible or obvious & it's unclear what you'd have us do in spite of your ongoing super-critical view. We absolutely are super involved, and scared of this growing worse, and trying to improve it, and trying to prevent a broader conflagration from growing in the area. It's unclear why you think this means anything about the US maintaining power versus trying to keep world stability.
You amazingly fully give license China to push around & use military might against local countries for whatever cause suits them, while again using whataboutism to deflect onto the US rather than face the real issue at hand. The US has done bad things, but often it's less clear cut bad than many lay at it's feet (the 1953 Iranian coup was hardly US instrumented, in spite of that common portrayal, for example). Even though the US went into Iraq, we spent enormous money (ineffectively, alas) trying to create a stable democracy, rather than colonizing & imperializing, with for example a huge number of development contracts going to other nations. These slights on the US, these whataboutisms, are not as bad, and just a whataboutism against China acting incredibly poorly in it's neighborhood & not bothering to keep any friends in the region.
The US does pick and choose conflicts, indeed, and doesn't attend well enough to some. But it does get involved in a huge number of conflicts and is by far the worlds biggest peacekeeping operation, is responsible largely for worldwide shipping being as feasible as it has been (deterring piracy). And we are very keep to combat instability anywhere.
Russia is less of a threat than China because Russia is losing huge amounts of forces to a lone neighbor they have aggressed, and cannot rebuild that force quickly. China is by far the fastest militarizing nation on the planet, radically outproducing everyone else, and have shown time and time again willingness to ride rough over neighbors & claim internationally agreed waters and land as their own. Nothing about your "real" talk convinces me that we should more worried about Russia than China.
You phrase this again and again as some kind of all-out competition against China, about the US keeping their lead. That just seems so facile, and to come from such a horrificly singular view of the world as competitive, as being zero-sum. I don't think the US thinks of China like that at all. We would love to see a good prosperous healthy China, flourishing at home and around the world. But we keep seeing a nasty bitter nation that is driven by it's own sense of insecurity at not clearly being #1, that thinks it must use force & power & might to bully other people into submission. That's why China is the problem, that's why this conflict exists: because China has lost touch with the spirit of heaven, because it begets havoc on earth.
It worries me because their entire direction depends on the whims of essentially one man who is there for life.
I also found it really worrying how the CCP made their own population suffer during the pandemic. Can you imagine what they'd do with the rest of us if they were the leading world power?
The pandemic thing was more of a mistake then it was an act of evil.
China was successful in basically completely eliminating the spread of covid in a way the US was completely incapable of doing. I don't know if you recall people in the US dying of covid like flies in the US while China remaining relatively covid free due to it's ability to use centralized control to basically stop the spread of the disease in its tracks.
What China wanted to do was to essentially use those same methods to stop a secondary resurgence but this obviously was not as successful. The second wave was different from the first and China misjudged that. The extreme methods applied on the first wave were no longer applicable to the second wave and that was a mistake on Chinas part.
If China lead the world then there would be significantly less deaths from the first wave of covid and significantly more deaths on the second wave of covid. The opposite is true for the US, significantly more deaths on the first wave of covid and less deaths on the second wave. You worry, but the world is too complex to give you a clear topic to actually be worried about. It's easier to simplify China as the one that's wrong and stay worried about the simple thing.
The scope I'm trying to convey is called "crossing the line". It's like you're in a shouting match with your friend and suddenly you pull out a gun. You crossed the line.
If you pull out a nuclear weapon that's ALSO crossing the line. Obviously different scope. But you failed to miss my point. By forming a blockade around China the US is pulling out a gun and putting against China's forehead. The US has crossed the line. Typically when one person crosses the line it's an act of desperation. It's to surprise the other party and scare the other person into submission. Maybe it works. It runs the risk of the other party ALSO deciding to escalate the situation by pointing artillery at san francisco.
None of this has to involve nuclear weapons but nuclear weapons but the cuban missile crisis is 100% examples of the US and Russia crossing the line. China is holding back here, whether out of fear or wisdom they are choosing NOT to escalate which is the mature decision. When a country chooses to play games of escalation they run the risk of hurting everyone.
>You amazingly fully give license China to push around & use military might against local countries for whatever cause suits them, while again using whataboutism to deflect onto the US rather than face the real issue at hand. The US has done bad things, but often it's less clear cut bad than many lay at it's feet (the 1953 Iranian coup was hardly US instrumented, in spite of that common portrayal, for example). Even though the US went into Iraq, we spent enormous money (ineffectively, alas) trying to create a stable democracy, rather than colonizing & imperializing, with for example a huge number of development contracts going to other nations. These slights on the US, these whataboutisms, are not as bad, and just a whataboutism against China acting incredibly poorly in it's neighborhood & not bothering to keep any friends in the region.
Wrong. I NEVER gave full license to China to use military might anywhere. I am simply saying China and the US are two sides to the same coin. Neither fits the idealistic narrative of the white knight you try to paint the US as. What you don't realize is that US propaganda and patriotism has effected you, despite your knowledge of US evils you still argue for this country and you still support it. Bro, China and the US are the same.
What whole point of the whataboutism is to point out the error in your analysis. You're framing the US as way to idealistic when obviously it's just as corrupt as China. It's one and the same. I mean the lies about Iraq which you decided to gloss over are just the tip of the ice berg. Nord stream 1? Come on man. Wake up.
>But it does get involved in a huge number of conflicts and is by far the worlds biggest peacekeeping operation, is responsible largely for worldwide shipping being as feasible as it has been (deterring piracy). And we are very keep to combat instability anywhere.
This is a joke. It gets involved to make itself look like it cares. But ultimately it doesn't care until it affects their own interests. People getting slaughtered in Gaza? The US doesn't really care, they just pretend to care. China about to annex Taiwan but never actually doing it? Oh shit huge issue. Launch the carrier!
>Russia is less of a threat than China because Russia is losing huge amounts of forces to a lone neighbor they have aggressed, and cannot rebuild that force quickly. China is by far the fastest militarizing nation on the planet, radically outproducing everyone else, and have shown time and time again willingness to ride rough over neighbors & claim internationally agreed waters and land as their own.
Russia started more wars and killed more people than China has so far this year. In Gaza their are more people getting slaughtered. Also crime in China is waaaaaay lower than the US. The Chinese in general are not violent. China is just projecting territorial power and it's expected because they are becoming more powerful. The US did this as well. The US has territories and all kinds of crazy territorial shit ranging from stealing native american land slaughtering people who lived on that land all the way to creating "territories" like guam.
So this shit China is doing. Claiming territories is at worst wrong, but on average controversial because who knows? Maybe the territory was rightfully theres.... we know the British basically decided to fuck China over and grab Hong Kong. Plenty of countries stole territory from China when the country was weak. So now the country feels it has the right to claim those territories back. Likely it's making some claims that are wrong. But does it necessitate pulling out a gun and pointing it at Chinas head? Yes it does because China is becoming economically more powerful and technologically superior to the US. That necessitates military action while people getting slaughtered in gaza does not necessitate military action.
>You phrase this again and again as some kind of all-out competition against China, about the US keeping their lead. That just seems so facile, and to come from such a horrificly singular view of the world as competitive, as being zero-sum. I don't think the US thinks of China like that at all. We would love to see a good prosperous healthy China, flourishing at home and around the world. But we keep seeing a nasty bitter nation that is driven by it's own sense of insecurity at not clearly being #1, that thinks it must use force & power & might to bully other people into submission. That's why China is the problem, that's why this conflict exists: because China has lost touch with the spirit of heaven, because it begets havoc on earth.
As much as you don't like to admit it, what is in fact going on is jealousy and power tripping. When a coworker is about to dethrone you and take over your position because he is CLEARLY better you can tell yourself that you don't mind and that you're rational and that you're totally ok with the best man winning but we all know you're Lying to yourself. You love to see a prosperous China but not a prosperous China that is superior to the US. It's utter humiliation in the workplace and on the world stage. Your view is the singular one. A dismissal of the dark side of human nature that WE ALL succumb to. I mean come on your spin on the Iraq war didn't even mention the outright lies of WMDs lol. You obviously just skipped over that and called it humanitarian effort to turn Iraq into a democracy lol. I think this is how the greatest propagandists think: They must first lie to themselves before lying to others.
China must use force power and might to bully people into submission? You honestly think that China is the exclusive record holder for that? What about Hamas? Guess they don't count. The US also spends more on the military than China so they must have the same philosophy of bullying people into submission.
Also let's be real. China is not insecure about it's position. It was long considered a broken country. 3rd world essentially. What's happened in the past decades is growth, momentum and confidence. China isn't insecure... it sees opportunity and it's confident in taking that opportunity. Insecurity is just your spin on what is in actuality deadly ambition. It's the US that's insecure. Blocking trade with China because they're afraid of China gaining technological advantage? If the US was so confident about it's position it should just let China gain TSMC technology.
All the better when the large bully neighbors would happily do away with USA if they could.
If small nations bolstering self defense and making treaties is viewed as threatening to much larger neighbors, then I'm very curious about what those large nations had planned for the smaller ones.
(To another comment: the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis was that Kennedy negotiated a compromise with the Soviet Union…not a war)
You are conflating reason with participant. The main reason for wars since 2000 is middle east terror groups. Regardless of your thoughts on Afghanistan or Iraq, it is clear that the US would not have invaded anyone were it not for the fact that it suffered a pretty major attack on its own soil. I would suggest those that don't want war stop attacking other countries.
But at the end of the day, when you are the only military power in the world (the US military is in a class of its own) and the only one responsible for the current state of world peace (the world is more peaceful than it's ever been), you're going to be involved in the battles that crop up here and there. Luckily, we can assure the outcomes.
Next time be grateful that Uncle Sam helped you keep your God-forsaken land
And let’s not skirt the fact that the US was in it to secure natural resource rights. We weren’t saving their country as much as saving our access to it. The mujahideen knew this as well, so not sure why they’d be grateful.
Imagine if China did the same thing and tried to build a blockade around the US. Something minor like maybe putting some missiles in Cuba... how would the US react? Oh wait.
Honestly the real thing going on here is the economic and technological rise of china to surpass or become a peer to the US. It's a story about patriotism, power and refusal to to become 2nd place.
You keep saying a single missile in your comments. I’m not sure if you’re mistaken or being hyperbolic. But the Soviet’s actually deployed 24 R-12 medium range missiles and 16 R-14 intermediate range missiles as well as a large number of long range bombers. At this time the soviets had several hundred nuclear warheads, so deploying 40 to Cuba was something like 10% of their entire nuclear arsenal.
The entire point of such a move at the time was first strike capability, which is entirely offensive in nature. This is not comparable to establishing defensive capability in nations surrounding a geopolitical rival who has been expansionist and nationalistic. The Soviet move established their desire to destroy us without provocation (after all first strike requires surprise), while establishing defensive positions is meant to stabilize a status quo.
You know one of the reasons for Soviet missile deployment on Cuba was to counterbalance US missile deployment in Turkey, right? And that the resolution of Cuban missile crisis was basically "withdrawing US nukes from Turkey in exchange for withdrawing Soviet nukes from Cuba"?
Was the US missile deployment in Turkey "desire to destroy us [Soviets] without provocation", by your own words?
If there was a Chinese carrier off the coast of california (but no nuclear weapons) you're saying that's not a big deal?
Of course it's a big deal. It's provocative either way. You're argument is like saying threatening someone with a knife to their throat is not as big of a deal as threatening someone with a gun to their throat.
Btw, for the cuban missile crisis, the US already had weapons pointing at Russia from adjacent countries long before Russia made a move.
On the rest re: Soviet and U.S. deployments, I’m not taking a side. I’m taking issue with you repeatedly saying “a missile” in the threads, when it was much more than that. Absolutely the Cold War was a two sided war. There were no clean hands. But in the Cuban missile crisis it was much different than the situation in and around Taiwan.
What exactly are you saying then?
Taiwan is not an official ally of the US. It's an unofficial relationship. Probably going to be made official soon because it's advantageous to the US.
US is not preparing to attack China. The US just wants to keep Taiwan and TSMC out of China to slow down it's economic progress.
Additionally the US wants to maintain military power in the pacific and Taiwan is a key strategic point here.
China on the other hand sees Taiwan as a rogue state seceding from the Union. Similar to what the southern states tried to do during the US civil war.
>On the rest re: Soviet and U.S. deployments, I’m not taking a side. I’m taking issue with you repeatedly saying “a missile” in the threads, when it was much more than that. Absolutely the Cold War was a two sided war. There were no clean hands. But in the Cuban missile crisis it was much different than the situation in and around Taiwan.
No i disagree. The US reaction to it was obviously uncharacteristic. Other countries have to accept neighboring threats calmly when they have missiles at their door step but for the US it's unacceptable by their reaction to the missile crisis. I bring it up because it's hypocritical. Of course the US is self aware that what they're doing to other countries is a known physical threat. We know this by their own reaction to weapons on their doorstep during the cuban missile crisis.
> Imagine if China did the same thing and tried to build a blockade around the US.
If the United States threatened to annex Hong Kong over and over and over again, I think this would be an appropritae response.
Let me ask you, which lives are more important? Ukrainian people? The people in Gaza? Or Taiwanese people?
Obviously the Taiwanese people. As someone who is Taiwanese myself, I know the US is making the right choice here for using military intervention exclusively for the Taiwanese people. We are just that much better.
It obviously has nothing to do with the fact that China is becoming a military and economic peer to the US. And of course nothing to do with the fact that Taiwan is a key point for control of the Pacific and cutting edge semiconductor technology. Nothing to do with those things at all because the US is a country that cares.
Sarcasm aside, I really am Taiwanese and a US citizen. This duality allows me to have the least biased view of the situation as it isn't clouded with just the typical patriotic attitude you see from your average US citizen.
As for your dual citizenship. This does not reduce your bias. In fact your dual allegiances seem to cloud your ability to analyze things from an American interests perspective
I'm the least biased one here. Look at your post. It's actually in complete agreement with my points. You are supporting and agreeing with my point. But you can't see it.