not gonna feed the troll, nice bait attempt tho, good thing I dont have the IQ of a trout.

atleast i hope it was a bait

edit; do you have any idea what i was quoting when I mentioned permanent alliances?

This post was edited by ssdrmstre on Jul 22 2020 09:34pm

I don't think you're realizing who you're talking to lol. This might be the first time I've supported military intervention in my lifetime. Supporting an allied democracy is worlds apart from the other shit we've done. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water.



That wasn't within 50 feet of trolling. I think you're too triggered to have a rational conversation on this topic.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 22 2020 09:38pm

This guy's talking about "suppressing foes" like the world is black and white to keep us "king of the hill" and I'm the one who isn't staying rational. Not sure about the logic there.

In regards to your first post - by the same logic we'd have to defend Israel, Japan, and countless other countries in a permanent alliance forever. Supporting an allied democracy was literally vietnam, was it not? you guy's dont realize it, but being consistent with your logic justifies all the awful and wasteful undeclared wars we've had for the past 70 years. I really think you are the one not being rational and I really don't any of this to come off as a "gotcha" that you PARD boys strive so hard for all day.

cold war has been over, its time we give these countries their sovereignty back and stop playing empire/police of the world.

e; i actually have to study so bad
pls be gentle as i turn my back

This post was edited by ssdrmstre on Jul 22 2020 09:47pm

It's an outdated ideology. Our Founding Fathers would be absolutely shocked at both modern political theory, modern economics, etc. We can't live in a world where countries unilaterally commit atrocities without consequence. I find it to be incredibly unethical.

Now, if the people of Taiwan want to join China, that's fine. They both share a great history so I can understand the desire to unify. However, if China were to force their will on the people of Taiwan, that would be a great injustice. It's no different than Nazi Germany invading Poland, Austria, Czechia, etc.

If Japan was attacked we would 100% have to respond in kind, and it would be our moral obligation to do so. We aren't indefinitely bound to that kind of relationship, if over the next 50 years Japan rejects our influence, challenges us on the world stage, and distances themselves diplomatically from us our relationship will be severed and we won't defend them. Same with Israel and all the others. However while they are our ally if they were threatened by China we must respond. The same goes for if China challenges us. If we are attacked they will respond as well. That's how being allies works.

Vietnam is a whole can of worms that can't really be boiled down to "were they our allies or not?" with the USSR propping up puppet states around China to gain geographic foothold in the area.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jul 22 2020 10:51pm

Relations between the Beijing and Taipei should considered and internal Chinese affair, and not something the west should interfere with, as long as there is no violence involved.

Peaceful and democratic reunification of China would be desirable, but it is impossible any time soon. Mantaining coexistence of both states is the best solution for now.

If the PRC were to invade the ROC (an unlikely scenario, imo), I would at least hope there would be sanctions. Expecting military action from Russia or NATO is farfetched imo.

As much as I disagree with you, this is the prevailing sentiment that will and has kept us in perpetual undeclared war forever. When there are no more fights to be had in the middle east the military industrial complex will convince you all to turn your "moral obligations" to asia (as we did in the past), then when maybe there isnt any easy money for them there we'll turn our "moral obligations" back to the middle east or maybe even africa. Its not even a slippery slope as its been the status quo.

In a way I wish people like you guys were right. It would be so simple to be able to say freedom and justice is deserved by everyone who wants it and left at that and you guys better hope the defence industry is pumping out more and more terrible weapons so that we can exert this sentiment in every corner of the world more effectively.

The United States has a very different history with the Asia-Pacific than it does with the Middle East. The economic concerns are different. The political concerns are different. The Middle East is a quagmire of heterogeneous state and non-state entities in perpetual competition with one another. The United States is a big fish in a small pond; it dominates the other actors in military strength, economic power, and diplomatic prestige. The United States is tacitly accepted by all state actors with the exception of Iran, a state far too weak to successfully challenge American regional supremacy. Economically, the United States desires stability above all else in order to ensure stability in the flow of oil.

The Asia-Pacific, by contrast, is defined by great power politics. The status-quo as we understand it today was established after the end of the second world war. Lines were defined with the ceasefire to end the Korean war (which incidentally is how Taiwan, which the CCP was preparing to invade, ended up in its situation today). The Nixon administration led to mutual rapprochement with China as a means for both countries to counterbalance the USSR, but the underlying divisions and tensions between the two countries were never resolved. With the collapse of the USSR, and the rising economic might of China, there has been inevitable and rising tension as the Chinese seek to assert themselves regionally in direct competition with the United States.

It's an exaggerated oversimplification, or just not true, to say that the MIC is a boogieman having closed door conversations about the direction of American policy insofar as it maximizes MIC dollars. While it might be comforting to frame the less savory aspects of human nature as a small identifiable group of evil-doers, viewing the world through those lens prevents you from putting in the work to achieve a more nuanced and complete understanding of history, government policy, and international relations, at least insofar as the three of those intersect.

The United States and China are opposed because they're competing great powers that both assert a right to regional supremacy. Once we understand that, we can begin to consider which we'd prefer to be victorious. For most of us, it's not a very difficult choice.