Chinese insider: China playing, and winning, zero-sum game with US

[LaCroix]

Which is obsolete?  Liberty or prosperity?  I think both are pretty important, even if prosperity seems to have been misplaced by my government.

the argument that they are independent, and should stay independent, because they are free from the clutches of evil communists. china is not evil in 2012, and it hasn't been for quite some time

[Razgovory]

You know what else were albatrosses?  Poland in 1939 and the Philippines in 1941.  COME ON.

not comparable. if southern china is part of china, or northwestern, then why not tibet. taiwan is a breakaway rebellious province that deserves to be brought back into the fold hong kong-style

Because we can't put the Seventh Fleet in the Himalayas.  But we can defend the RoC (I guess technically we could defend Tibet too, with glorious airpower, but it would be much harder).  The people of the RoC have chosen to resist diplomatic or forcible reunion with the mainland; in doing so, they have fostered something like liberty, not to mention relative prosperity; why do you think it necessary for them they circumscribed the freedoms they enjoy with a half-century contract with Beijing?  And why should other free states not protect them?  If you let a totalitarian empire attack the interests you value less, as you evidently do the happiness and well-being of twenty-three million people, they will only be stronger when they come for the interests you value more.  Like when they destroy labor protections in an advanced economy.

And Hong Kong should never have been returned.  The British abandoned their responsibility as a sovereign.  If it had to be returned, it should have been returned to the legitimate government of China.  At the least, they should have held a referendum and guaranteed vindication of its results.

If the Argentines had just asked nicely, apparently, it would have worked.

This.  We have to accept the Chinese in Tibet. Nothing can be done about it.  We don't have to accept the Reds in Taiwan.  Besides, their claims on the island are kinda weak. Incidentally,  Germany and Russia both saw Poland as break away territories in 1939.  If the people of Taiwan want to join the mainland, that's swell.  More power to them.  The US is not going to stand by and have the issue forced on them by invading soldiers.

[LaCroix]

And why is refusing to give back Hong Kong silly?  We didn't give back Guantanamo.  Russia didn't give back Kaliningrad.

because it reeks of poor consideration of global politics. britain is no longer an empire that lords over a third of the world's population, and china is no longer a weak country that routinely gets pillaged by the west. keeping hong kong, or demanding that it be left independent, would have been ruinous for british-chinese relations. and while you may not like china, and be all gung-ho over its destruction, it is a fairly important player in the global economy

[Ideologue]

Mono, Britain was bound by a treaty to the Qing, not to the PRC.  The successor of the Qing, as recognized for nearly fifty years, was the Republic of China, currently based in Taipei.

I suspect they'd have let Britain keep it, since Britain is capable of defending it/avenging it against a belligerent mainland.

the argument that they are independent, and should stay independent, because they are free from the clutches of evil communists. china is not evil in 2012, and it hasn't been for quite some time

They don't allow their people to vote; to have freedom of speech, assembly, religion, or creed; they kill people extrajudicially; they permit kleptocracy at local levels; they maintain their rule over a peaceful and unthreatening foreign nation through violence; they manipulate their currency to the detriment of the world economy; they ruin their environment and cause ecological problems for the entire human race; they have often diplomatically shielded the DPRK; they supported Serbia; they have permitted their citizens to attack foreign embassies; by developing longer-ranged missiles and a second strike capability, they seek the power to defend and expand their position as the rulers of an empire of tears against any liberator.

You have a very high bar for evil.  What, does Hu Jintao have to build a second Death Star?

[Monoriu]

And why is refusing to give back Hong Kong silly? 

Because I very much prefer my current situation, with my liberties intact and the economy prospering due to our relationship with China.  I do not want to live in a devastated war zone blockaded by a great power with no hope of rescue just because somebody thinks that's cool. 

[Razgovory]

Evil or not the Taiwanese should have the right to decide the fate of their own country.  I also fail to see the good political sense in allowing the region to slide into war (Which is a very likely situation if the US withdrew it's support of Taiwan).  Even if the US surrendered any responsibility for the area, the Taiwanese are unlikely to surrender.  If China wanted it, it would likely need to do so by force.  The Taiwanese have a decent chance of fighting of China all by itself.

[Ideologue]

And why is refusing to give back Hong Kong silly?  We didn't give back Guantanamo.  Russia didn't give back Kaliningrad.

because it reeks of poor consideration of global politics. britain is no longer an empire that lords over a third of the world's population, and china is no longer a weak country that routinely gets pillaged by the west. keeping hong kong, or demanding that it be left independent, would have been ruinous for british-chinese relations. and while you may not like china, and be all gung-ho over its destruction, it is a fairly important player in the global economy

I have never advocated PRChina's destruction.  Lots of people live there, including at least three people whose unhappiness, let alone whose loss, would intensely sadden me.

I said they will destruct.  This is largely due to their own inept governance.

I have also said that in the case of a war with PRChina, we could win, but in that event the threat we pose--that is, the threat that we could inflict severe damage upon the PRC, far more severe than Hong Kong or Taiwan is worth, far more than their ruling class can endure, and far, far more than they can respond with--must be plausible; and, depending upon the exact situation, to which I am not privy, it may be wisest in such a situation to strike first, and deny the PRC its paltry nuclear "deterrent."

And, finally, I have said that it is worth the threat of war to protect the welfare of one's nationals and one's allies, which is widely considered legal, moral, and rational; although you seem to disagree.

[Barrister]

You have a very high bar for evil.  What, does Hu Jintao have to build a second Death Star?

Wouldn't that be a third Death Star?

[Ideologue]

You have a very high bar for evil.  What, does Hu Jintao have to build a second Death Star?

Wouldn't that be a third Death Star?

Nah, I got it right.  LaCroix didn't realize that the Empire were supposed to be the bad guys till Jedi.

[LaCroix]

They don't allow their people to vote; to have freedom of speech, assembly, religion, or creed; they kill people extrajudicially; they permit kleptocracy at local levels; they maintain their rule over a peaceful and unthreatening foreign nation through violence; they manipulate their currency to the detriment of the world economy; they ruin their environment and cause ecological problems for the entire human race; they have often diplomatically shielded the DPRK; they supported Serbia; they have permitted their citizens to attack foreign embassies; by developing longer-ranged missiles and a second strike capability, they seek the power to defend and expand their position as the rulers of an empire of tears against any liberator.

and in a paragraph one could make the united states sound pretty damn awful as well. china is still a developing country, and as the century progresses they will only become more open. the difference between now and under mao is extraordinary, and shows that china is on a progressive (if perhaps slow) path. as newer generations are born and age, and the older generations die, change will happen

treating them as some villain helps no one

[Razgovory]

Raz agree with Ide here.  We don't throw our friends to the wolves just make a communist dictatorship happy.

[Jacob]

Those of you talking about China's labour advantage... they're already losing it. If I want to get coding or art done for a game, I can get it in Vietnam for a third of the price I get the work done in China.

[LaCroix]

I have never advocated PRChina's destruction.  Lots of people live there, including at least three people whose unhappiness, let alone whose loss, would intensely sadden me.

I said they will destruct.  This is largely due to their own inept governance.

I have also said that in the case of a war with PRChina, we could win, but in that event the threat we pose--that is, the threat that we could inflict severe damage upon the PRC, far more severe than Hong Kong or Taiwan is worth, far more than their ruling class can endure, and far, far more than they can respond with--must be plausible; and, depending upon the exact situation, to which I am not privy, it may be wisest in such a situation to strike first, and deny the PRC its paltry nuclear "deterrent."

And, finally, I have said that it is worth the threat of war to protect the welfare of one's nationals and one's allies, which is widely considered legal, moral, and rational; although you seem to disagree.

what do i disagree about? i've only said that taiwan will be peacefully integrated into china, and that it was not silly that hong kong was ceded back to china

and apologies over my comment re: gung-ho destruction against china. i must have mistook what you meant in previous threads where you've said we should bomb/nuke china

[Ideologue]

and in a paragraph one could make the united states sound pretty damn awful as well. china is still a developing country, and as the century progresses they will only become more open. the difference between now and under mao is extraordinary, and shows that china is on a progressive (if perhaps slow) path. as newer generations are born and age, and the older generations die, change will happen

treating them as some villain helps no one

We allow people to vote (with their ID cards ); permit the fundamental freedoms, except freedom from want but we're working on it; we rarely kill people extrajudicially, and at least we're pretty open about it when we do, and we discuss whether or not it's a bad idea; we are one of the least corrupt countries in the world, which is really pretty sad, but there you are; we don't manipulate our currency; we're pretty decent with our environment; we have chastised the DPRK; we bombed Serbia; no foreign embassy has ever been seriously threatened by a mob in our history, as far as I know, not even in World War II; our nuclear arms were developed for peaceful purposes.

I'll stop thinking of PRChina as a villain when they stop acting like one.

[Lettow77]

 Anyone seeking to cede Taiwan to the inscrutable orientals is The Enemy

Taiwan is a capitalist democracy and the fifth Home Island, and it would be a loss for Democracy, Capitalism (and the people of Taiwan themselves) for their sovereignty to be surrendered to Beijing.

What worries me is that American promises to Taiwan are increasingly empty as its empire recedes and interventionism is discredited; Europe -surely- doesn't care about Taiwan, and Japan as yet lacks the spiritual resolve to take up its proper mantle as Taiwan's onee-sama. I am concerned for the future of Taiwan, and wish them well. 

Anyone who wishes their union with China is selling them to the wolves for some spurious expediency.