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

[Ideologue]

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

Well, that's fine, but mustn't PRChina be a bit better, before they "should"?  I feel like I'm missing a middle part of your argument.  E.g., "When PRChina becomes a liberal democracy like the RoC, they should reunite," which would be unobjectionable.

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

That's CdM.  I am: more nuanced.

[Monoriu]

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 goes both ways.  If the treaties are between the UK and the Qing only, then the communists need not honour them.  Even from a mandate of heaven point of view, you can't keep the mandate while losing control of the bulk of the Chinese lands.  The RoC is the successor of the Qing, but the PRC is the successor of RoC

[LaCroix]

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.

i meant from another perspective, not your own. i think it can be said that you are a bit biased here. i get it, you hate china and see them as a villain and so you'll be more likely to take little things here and there as evidence of their villainous nature. that doesn't mean they are actually a villain. china and the united states may have a bit of a rivalry going on, but that won't last forever

LaCroix didn't realize that the Empire were supposed to be the bad guys till Jedi.

if we're being insulting, then ide didn't realize real life isn't a some fantasy where sides are categorized as GOOD and BAD

[Lettow77]

 Ide, I commend you on your moral rectitude for being a socialist johnny-on-the-dole who finds the wherewithal to ignore the siren lure of the inscrutable Chinese and their pernicious communist doctrines.

If you'd like, I will give you a sonnet in your honour

[LaCroix]

Well, that's fine, but mustn't PRChina be a bit better, before they "should"?  I feel like I'm missing a middle part of your argument.  E.g., "When PRChina becomes a liberal democracy like the RoC, they should reunite," which would be unobjectionable.

i think taiwan should unite as soon as possible, and feel the taiwanese would (at least eventually) be better off for it in terms of their own welfare and their economy. i do not think china to be evil, and the hong kong precedent proves integration can be very successful

[Ideologue]

i meant from another perspective, not your own. i think it can be said that you are a bit biased here. i get it, you hate china and see them as a villain and so you'll be more likely to take little things here and there as evidence of their villainous nature. that doesn't mean they are actually a villain. china and the united states may have a bit of a rivalry going on, but that won't last forever

One thing I wish I had done is describe the PRC consistently as an "it," instead of a "they," and then when I listed the U.S. counterpoint described it as a "we."  Because there is no real "we" in China.  Nor is there a (capital) "I."

Do you see the PRC as representative of the Chinese people?  If so, why so?  If not, how do you justify its right to rule 1.3 billion people?  If it has no such right, yet do so anyway, is the PRC not "evil" or at least "undesirable", at least as currently constituted?

And if it shows little signs of becoming a state that legitimately claims to represent the interests of all its people--and I disagree with you that it has, it has merely moved back to China's default state of quasi-rational administration-for-the-administrators, after a bout of ideology-driven psychosis--is it not obligatory to oppose it at every turn?

LaCroix didn't realize that the Empire were supposed to be the bad guys till Jedi.

if we're being insulting, then ide didn't realize real life isn't a some fantasy where sides are categorized as GOOD and BAD

I PUT A , DAMNIT.

[Ideologue]

Ide, I commend you on your moral rectitude for being a socialist johnny-on-the-dole who finds the wherewithal to ignore the siren lure of the inscrutable Chinese and their pernicious communist doctrines.

If you'd like, I will give you a sonnet in your honour

I ain't on the dole.  I make like $40,000 a year.

[Lettow77]

 Right, no sonnet for Johnny-on-the-dole. Bite the hand that feeds all your life, will you? No wonder you're on the dole.

Anyhow, there seems to be some concern over who is and isn't evil, and I am happy to clear that up. Because everything is nuanced and delicate, there is a sliding scale. Green: The Good Guys
Purple: Mostly good but not among The Elect
Orange: don't trust these people
Red: Oh god its evil help


Of course, many countries don't merit labeling for this discussion, so this is hardly all-inclusive. What is important is that it has been scientifically demonstrated that Taiwan would be downgraded two whole levels of Wholesomeness were it to fall into the depraved hands of Fu Manchu.

[Ideologue]

I just wish my job lasted all year.  RIMSHOT.

[Razgovory]

What is Lettow on about now?  Why is he making maps?

[Ideologue]

Neil used the Power Cosmic to fuse he and Tim together so as to create an ideal soldier in the neverending moderator-admin war against CdM.

[Monoriu]

I ain't on the dole.  I make like $40,000 a year.

That's a very impressive salary 

[Ideologue]

Wage.   (Albeit one exempt under the FLSA, according to my employer, which is fine for now--although, seriously, I'm pretty sure it actually isn't.)

And I get to show up whenever I want, take breaks whenever I want, and leave whenever I want.  Came in at quarter till one today.  (Unfortunately, I forgot that they're closing the lab for stupid Christianity this weekend, so if I want to get my targeted 45-50 hours I have to do it before Saturday, and come in at like 7 a.m., which is bullshit, and, more practically, simply not happening).

The only real problems are that it's boring as shit and, like I said, that the project ends at some point in the next month or two (or tomorrow, really), and there's not necessarily a continuity between projects.

You know I still envy the hell out of you, right?

[LaCroix]

If so, why so?  If not, how do you justify its right to rule 1.3 billion people?  If it has no such right, yet do so anyway, is the PRC not "evil" or at least "undesirable", at least as currently constituted?

And if it shows little signs of becoming a state that legitimately claims to represent the interests of all its people--and I disagree with you that it has, it has merely moved back to China's default state of quasi-rational administration-for-the-administrators, after a bout of ideology-driven psychosis--is it not obligatory to oppose it at every turn?

because they are the legitimate and recognized government of the second most powerful nation in the world, and they know not to repeat the kaiser's mistake. they also do not seem to be slipping backward, but in fact are being more receptive in accepting progression. eventually their authoritarian style will erode away, and the average chinaman will have more liberties, but do we really want to alienate the entire nation before that happens through continuous pressure and hostility? we can help facilitate and encourage change better with friendship or at least respect than rivalry

[Ideologue]

Continuous pressure and hostility seemed to work for Japan.