RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch

[Fahran]

The goal was to force China to maintain open trade policies with the US, which crippled the Chinese economy for many years. It was control of their trade policies. That's still imperialism. It's ridiculous to act like China has no grievances against the Western world after the century of humiliation by Western powers. If you think cyperattacks are aggressive, how about actual invasions and incursions?

Is it just penance that we assume the same position China did at that time? Or should we resist and overcome it as they eventually did?

[United Muscovite Nations]

The goal was to force China to maintain open trade policies with the US, which crippled the Chinese economy for many years. It was control of their trade policies. That's still imperialism. It's ridiculous to act like China has no grievances against the Western world after the century of humiliation by Western powers. If you think cyperattacks are aggressive, how about actual invasions and incursions?

Is it just penance that we assume the same position China did at that time? Or should we resist and overcome it as they eventually did?

No one is asking the US to let Chinese troops sack Washington DC and remove the Capitol's priceless art.

[Novus America]

Actually it was not. Our policy in Easy Asia was the “Open door policy” rather than controlling it directly we sought to prevent anyone one country from controlling it.
As a result we were actually helping China against imperialism a lot of the time. The other Imperial powers wanted to carve it up, while we wanted to keep it intact.

Sure it was not altruistic, we wanted to be able to freely export stuff to China and the other countries in the region without directly owning any colonies on the mainland.
But still our goal was never to directly control East Asia, rather play the role of arbiter.

The goal was to force China to maintain open trade policies with the US, which crippled the Chinese economy for many years. It was control of their trade policies. That's still imperialism. It's ridiculous to act like China has no grievances against the Western world after the century of humiliation by Western powers. If you think cyperattacks are aggressive, how about actual invasions and incursions?

Moving the goalposts.
That is different than seeking to control East Asia. China is not all East Asia. Also we had little choice. Remember the British and French had already forced them to open themselves to foreign trade, not us, but then the Russians and Japanese, but also the French and British wanted to carve it up into colonies and spheres of influence. While we were trying to preserve the balance of power.

While we were trying to preserve China. Sure it was not altruism and sure it was not us fighting the other imperial powers to save China from them or restore it to glory or whatever, but we were much better for them than the other powers for China. Still not good at all, but better.

And the Western World is not a corporation. It does not have agency. You cannot collectively blame all the West for actions of the individual countries. Especially when we are talking the late 1800s to 1930s here. Countries now part of the “West” were at open war with each other.

Umm there were these little wars of WWI and WWII. I guess we should hate Japan and Germany still then? Or even the British?

Anyways sure the west did fucked up shit in China but that is still a ridiculous argument. Should we launch massive cyber attacks on Japan because the Japanese did actual invasions? And that was more recent. Times change. Stop living in the past.

None of the Western leaders today were alive in the Opium Wars, (in which the US played a tiny role anyways) so yes as fucked up as they were that is not a justification to think the West today should be punished for them. Especially as the British and French Empires are gone.

It is no longer the 1800s.

So what China is doing is not fighting to beat the Western actions of that time, merely to build its own global hegemony in the present. Again not that I blame them for trying, much as I find some of their individual actions and methods atrocious.

But we should still actively counter their attempts. Again are the Baltimore Ravens morally superior to the Pittsburgh Steelers? Does it matter?
You are basically saying the Ravens should just forfeit all future games because the Steelers have lost games (including to other teams) in the past.
That is ridiculous. Sure the Ravens should expect the Steelers to try to score, but the Ravens still should put up the best damn defense, and run the best damn offenses against the Steelers.
And obviously the Steelers will do the same. Both sides logically should do their best to win.

[Senkaku]

As a result we were actually helping China against imperialism a lot of the time. The other Imperial powers wanted to carve it up, while we wanted to keep it intact.

And at almost every turn, we failed to stop them from doing so- especially once Imperial Japan went on the march. America was not "helping" China when we blasted the gates of Beijing open with artillery, stop looking at history through rose-tinted glasses

[United Muscovite Nations]

The goal was to force China to maintain open trade policies with the US, which crippled the Chinese economy for many years. It was control of their trade policies. That's still imperialism. It's ridiculous to act like China has no grievances against the Western world after the century of humiliation by Western powers. If you think cyperattacks are aggressive, how about actual invasions and incursions?

Moving the goalposts.
That is different than seeking to control East Asia. China is not all East Asia. Also we had little choice. Remember the British and French had already forced them to open themselves to foreign trade, not us, but then the Russians and Japanese, but also the French and British wanted to carve it up into colones or spheres of influence.

While we were trying to preserve China. Sure it was not altruism and sure it was not us fighting the other imperial powers to save China from them or restore it to glory or whatever, but we were much better for them than the other powers. Still not good at all, but better.

And the Western World is not a corporation. It does not have agency. You cannot collectively blame all the West for actions of the individual countries. Especially when we are talking the late 1800s to 1930s here. Countries now part of the “West” were at open war with each other.

Umm there were these little wars of WWI and WWII.

Anyways sure the west did fucked up shit in China but that is still a ridiculous argument. Should we launch massive cyber attacks on Japan because the Japanese did actual invasions? And that was more recent. Times change. Stop living in the past.

None of the Western leaders today were alive in the Opium Wars, (in which the US played a tiny role anyways) so yes as fucked up as they were that is not a justification to think the West today should be punished for them. Especially as the British and French Empires are gone.

It is no longer the 1800s.

So what China is doing is not fighting to beat the Western actions of that time, merely to build its own global hegemony in the present. Again not that I blame them for trying, much as I find some of their individual actions and methods atrocious.

But we should still actively counter there attempts. Again are the Baltimore Ravens morally superior to the Pittsburgh Steelers? Does it matter?
You are basically saying the Ravens should just forfeit all future games because the Steelers have lost games in the past.
That is ridiculous. Sure the Ravens should expect the Steelers to try to score, but the Ravens still should put up the best damn defense, and run the best damn offenses against the Steelers.
And obviously the Steelers will do the same. Both sides logically should do their best to win.

Thinking without the context of history is one of those unique Americanisms. There's a great saying that Americans think history resets like every 20 years, and it's about accurate. The Chinese don't view it as over.

[Novus America]

Is it just penance that we assume the same position China did at that time? Or should we resist and overcome it as they eventually did?

No one is asking the US to let Chinese troops sack Washington DC and remove the Capitol's priceless art.

So? They can still do a lot of harm to us short of that. And already have (yes with the treasonous collaboration of our own “leaders” in politics and business in many cases but still).
Yes we have done fucked up shit in the past, (but again it is silly to think the US should be blamed for all “Western” actions) but so what?

Our past failures are no reason for us to fail to protect our interests today.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No one is asking the US to let Chinese troops sack Washington DC and remove the Capitol's priceless art.

So? They can still do a lot of harm to us short of that. And already have (yes with the treasonous collaboration of our own “leaders” in politics and business in many cases but still).
Yes we have done fucked up shit in the past, (but again it is silly to think the US should be blamed for all “Western” actions) but so what?

Our past failures are no reason for us to fail to protect our interests today.

Again, what are "our" interests? Why do I care what happens in the strait of Taiwan?

[Genivaria]

So? They can still do a lot of harm to us short of that. And already have (yes with the treasonous collaboration of our own “leaders” in politics and business in many cases but still).
Yes we have done fucked up shit in the past, (but again it is silly to think the US should be blamed for all “Western” actions) but so what?

Our past failures are no reason for us to fail to protect our interests today.

Again, what are "our" interests? Why do I care what happens in the strait of Taiwan?

You care because you're an apologist for PRC Imperialism.

[Senkaku]

The goal was to force China to maintain open trade policies with the US, which crippled the Chinese economy for many years. It was control of their trade policies. That's still imperialism. It's ridiculous to act like China has no grievances against the Western world after the century of humiliation by Western powers. If you think cyperattacks are aggressive, how about actual invasions and incursions?

Moving the goalposts.
That is different than seeking to control East Asia. China is not all East Asia. Also we had little choice. Remember the British and French had already forced them to open themselves to foreign trade, not us, but then the Russians and Japanese, but also the French and British wanted to carve it up into colones or spheres of influence.

They DID carve it up into spheres of influence and colonies. Outer Manchuria became the Russian Far East, Shandong went to the Germans and then the Japanese, Hong Kong to the British, Dalian to the Russians and then the Japanese, half of Shanghai turned into an "international" zone governed by a consortium of Westerners, Westerners in China got extraterritoritality- is your suggestion that it was only the influence of the US that stopped the other great powers from going even further (even though we reaped the same rewards as they did whenever they forced new treaties on China)?

While we were trying to preserve China. Sure it was not altruism

We had no interest in the preservation of China or any regime. We just wanted to get the same privileges as the others- we were a scavenger power.

and sure it was not us fighting the other imperial powers to save China from them

Yeah, exactly.

but we were much better for them than the other powers. Still not good at all, but better.

Only because we armed up and became a true great power later in the game than the others- I'm sure if we could've projected power that far in the 1840s, we would've done.

And the Western World is not a corporation. It does not have agency. You cannot collectively blame all the West for actions of the individual countries. Especially when we are talking the late 1800s to 1930s here. Countries now part of the “West” were at open war with each other.

You absolutely can hold the Western powers collectively responsible for their treatment of China, since they all participated in its dismemberment.

Umm there were these little wars of WWI and WWII.

During the First World War, China joined the Allies, and one of its literal provinces, which had been given to the Germans before the war, was then horse-traded to Japan after it.

Anyways sure the west did fucked up shit in China but that is still a ridiculous argument. Should we launch massive cyber attacks on Japan because the Japanese did actual invasions? And that was more recent. Times change. Stop living in the past.

None of the Western leaders today were alive in the Opium Wars, (in which the US played a tiny role anyways) so yes as fucked up as they were that is not a justification to think the West today should be punished for them. Especially as the British and French Empires are gone.

It is no longer the 1800s.

So what China is doing is not fighting to beat the Western actions of that time, merely to build its own global hegemony in the present. Again not that I blame them for trying, much as I find some of their individual actions and methods atrocious.

The Chinese are absolutely fighting to beat the Western actions of that time, because that is synonymous with building its own global hegemony in the present. Those Western actions built the great Western empires and let them dominate the globe, and to dismantle that dominance, China will have to look to their methods and what their use of them resulted in.

But we should still actively counter there attempts. Again are the Baltimore Ravens morally superior to the Pittsburgh Steelers? Does it matter?
You are basically saying the Ravens should just forfeit all future games because the Steelers have lost games in the past.

No, I think the suggestion is that the Ravens should learn from their past games against the Steelers, or they're going to get pummeled.

That is ridiculous. Sure the Ravens should expect the Steelers to try to score, but the Ravens still should put up the best damn defense, and run the best damn offenses against the Steelers.
And obviously the Steelers will do the same. Both sides logically should do their best to win.

Those who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it, and given the identities of our leading political luminaries, I think we can safely say that this time it will be a farce.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Again, what are "our" interests? Why do I care what happens in the strait of Taiwan?

You care because you're an apologist for PRC Imperialism.

Actually no, I don't care. I support an independent Taiwan. I am, however, a constructivist, and acknowledge that it wouldn't benefit me to go to war with China over Taiwan. It will benefit the state, but states are not unitary actors.

[Senkaku]

So? They can still do a lot of harm to us short of that. And already have (yes with the treasonous collaboration of our own “leaders” in politics and business in many cases but still).
Yes we have done fucked up shit in the past, (but again it is silly to think the US should be blamed for all “Western” actions) but so what?

Our past failures are no reason for us to fail to protect our interests today.

Again, what are "our" interests? Why do I care what happens in the strait of Taiwan?

Because if the Chinese invade Taiwan, they get Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company and all its know-how? I know the suggestion that letting millions of people and a free, democratic society get absolutely obliterated under the jackboot of the PLA won't stir you, or every other American-friendly democracy in Asia being terrorized, but maybe that will.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Also loling at the guy who has a reference to slaughtering most of China's population and enslaving the rest in his sig calling me an apologist for imperialism.

[Fahran]

No one is asking the US to let Chinese troops sack Washington DC and remove the Capitol's priceless art.

Then why are we discussing this in the context of present American policy on China? It's all fine and good to mention that we haven't been the kindest people in the world, but that does not really change how we should approach Chinese ambitions that run counter to our own interests. Espionage to counter espionage and economic warfare to counter economic warfare aren't controversial positions to assume outside of the neoliberal bubble and circles heavy with Chinese sympathizers. We do not need to have our purpose laden down with guilt on these matters because the Chinese are not laden down with guilt. It's a weakness and quite an unnecessary one at this juncture, one that will not bring moral clarity or an improvement in our national morality in this particular instance. We can have these conversations in a broader context but that's a different matter almost entirely.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Again, what are "our" interests? Why do I care what happens in the strait of Taiwan?

Because if the Chinese invade Taiwan, they get Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company and all its know-how? I know the suggestion that letting millions of people and a free, democratic society get absolutely obliterated under the jackboot of the PLA won't stir you, or every other American-friendly democracy in Asia being terrorized, but maybe that will.

The suggestion of a democratic society being crushed in fact stirs me far more than the former.

[Novus America]

As a result we were actually helping China against imperialism a lot of the time. The other Imperial powers wanted to carve it up, while we wanted to keep it intact.

And at almost every turn, we failed to stop them from doing so- especially once Imperial Japan went on the march. America was not "helping" China when we blasted the gates of Beijing open with artillery, stop looking at history through rose-tinted glasses

Umm we actually did place sanctions on Japan such that Japan decided to attack us. Remember that part? But anyways you pulled your little piece deliberately out of context.
Because I said although our actions were not altruistic nor even good I simply pointed out our goal (again for our own reasons) was to uphold the balance of power.

And again the fact we sometimes failed does not change that UMN claimed we want to control East Asia, when our goal was to maintain the balance of power. If our goal was to control it we clearly failed in that regard as well.

On the gates of Beijing thing remember the Chinese were threatening to rape and murder our embassy staff and their families. So who is using the Rose Tinted Glasses now? Convenient you forgot that little tidbit.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No one is asking the US to let Chinese troops sack Washington DC and remove the Capitol's priceless art.

Then why are we discussing this in the context of present American policy on China? It's all fine and good to mention that we haven't been the kindest people in the world, but that does not really change how we should approach Chinese ambitions that run counter to our own interests. Espionage to counter espionage and economic warfare to counter economic warfare aren't controversial positions to assume outside of the neoliberal bubble and circles heavy with Chinese sympathizers. We do not need to have our purpose laden down with guilt on these matters because the Chinese are not laden down with guilt. It's a weakness and quite an unnecessary one at this juncture, one that will not bring moral clarity or an improvement in our national morality in this particular instance. We can have these conversations in a broader context but that's a different matter almost entirely.

Because I am a constructivist and I recognize that every country has its own perspective on reality, and what seems like aggression to one country may be defensive for another. This is the security dilemma and leads to escalation. In time it will lead to war. It's well and good to contain China, but we should seek to compromise with them and understand their greivances.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And at almost every turn, we failed to stop them from doing so- especially once Imperial Japan went on the march. America was not "helping" China when we blasted the gates of Beijing open with artillery, stop looking at history through rose-tinted glasses

Umm we actually did place sanctions on Japan such that Japan decided to attack us. Remember that part? But anyways you pulled your little piece deliberately out of context.
Because I said although our actions were not altruistic nor even good I simply pointed out our goal (again for our own reasons) was to uphold the balance of power.

And again the fact we sometimes failed does not change that UMN claimed we want to control East Asia, when our goal was to maintain the balance of power. If our goal was to control it we clearly failed in that regard as well.

On the gates of Beijing thing remember the Chinese were threatening to rape and murder our embassy staff and their families. So who is using the Rose Tinted Glasses now? Convenient you forgot that little tidbit.

Embassy staff that we forced on them in the first place.

[Novus America]

No one is asking the US to let Chinese troops sack Washington DC and remove the Capitol's priceless art.

Then why are we discussing this in the context of present American policy on China? It's all fine and good to mention that we haven't been the kindest people in the world, but that does not really change how we should approach Chinese ambitions that run counter to our own interests. Espionage to counter espionage and economic warfare to counter economic warfare aren't controversial positions to assume outside of the neoliberal bubble and circles heavy with Chinese sympathizers. We do not need to have our purpose laden down with guilt on these matters because the Chinese are not laden down with guilt. It's a weakness and quite an unnecessary one at this juncture, one that will not bring moral clarity or an improvement in our national morality in this particular instance. We can have these conversations in a broader context but that's a different matter almost entirely.

As you usually are, perfectly eloquent and 100% correct. Our past bad actions (which we have done many) is no reason for us to metaphorically flagellate ourselves in the present.

In the present time they taken action against us. Which we should expect, but yet still seek to counter to the best of our abilities. It is really that simple.

[Senkaku]

And at almost every turn, we failed to stop them from doing so- especially once Imperial Japan went on the march. America was not "helping" China when we blasted the gates of Beijing open with artillery, stop looking at history through rose-tinted glasses

Umm we actually did place sanctions on Japan such that Japan decided to attack us. Remember that part? But anyways you pulled your little piece deliberately out of context.

HA! Yes, you're right, in 1941, four years after Japan launched a full-scale invasion of China, AFTER it had already completely overrun Manchuria and had ruled Taiwan and Shandong for many years, we finally were stirred to action. Do you want a pat on the back? Good work America!

Because I said although our actions were not altruistic nor even good I simply pointed out our goal (again for our own reasons) was to uphold the balance of power.

And again the fact we sometimes failed does not change that UMN claimed we want to control East Asia, when our goal was to maintain the balance of power. If our goal was to control it we clearly failed in that regard as well.

We did want to control it- why do you think we eventually decided to provoke Japan into a war? We realized this "balance of power" stuff was silly and impractical, because the Japanese had pretty well knocked everyone else out of contention for dominance and clearly weren't going to listen to us asking nicely. For God's sakes, we still have a fleet based in Yokohama- you think the goal wasn't control?

On the gates of Beijing thing remember the Chinese were threatening to rape and murder our embassy staff and their families. So who is using the Rose Tinted Glasses now? Convenient you forgot that little tidbit.

I cannot take this conversation seriously lmao

"the boxer rebellion was 100% china's fault and china should pay an indemnity! marching an army in wasn't free!"

[United Muscovite Nations]

Then why are we discussing this in the context of present American policy on China? It's all fine and good to mention that we haven't been the kindest people in the world, but that does not really change how we should approach Chinese ambitions that run counter to our own interests. Espionage to counter espionage and economic warfare to counter economic warfare aren't controversial positions to assume outside of the neoliberal bubble and circles heavy with Chinese sympathizers. We do not need to have our purpose laden down with guilt on these matters because the Chinese are not laden down with guilt. It's a weakness and quite an unnecessary one at this juncture, one that will not bring moral clarity or an improvement in our national morality in this particular instance. We can have these conversations in a broader context but that's a different matter almost entirely.

As you usually are, perfectly eloquent and 100% correct. Our past bad actions (which we have done many) is no reason for us to metaphorically flagellate ourselves in the present.

In the present time they taken action against us. Which we should expect, but yet still seek to counter to the best of our abilities. It is really that simple.

The illusion that the passage of time equals reconciliation is a delusion suffered by men, not by states.

[Novus America]

Umm we actually did place sanctions on Japan such that Japan decided to attack us. Remember that part? But anyways you pulled your little piece deliberately out of context.
Because I said although our actions were not altruistic nor even good I simply pointed out our goal (again for our own reasons) was to uphold the balance of power.

And again the fact we sometimes failed does not change that UMN claimed we want to control East Asia, when our goal was to maintain the balance of power. If our goal was to control it we clearly failed in that regard as well.

On the gates of Beijing thing remember the Chinese were threatening to rape and murder our embassy staff and their families. So who is using the Rose Tinted Glasses now? Convenient you forgot that little tidbit.

Embassy staff that we forced on them in the first place.

Not really “we” again as you are again collectively attributing Western actions, it was not us who opened China by force but sure, yes we did some very bad things. That would still be a stupid reason to sit back and let them be raped and killed.

[Genivaria]

Also loling at the guy who has a reference to slaughtering most of China's population and enslaving the rest in his sig calling me an apologist for imperialism.

Why do you resort to lying UMN?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Embassy staff that we forced on them in the first place.

Not really “we” again as you are again collectively attributing Western actions, it was not us who opened China by force but sure, yes we did some very bad things. That would still be a stupid reason to sit back and let them be raped and killed.

What recourse did the Qing have to expel our ambassadors without a formal declaration of war, which they issued?

[Senkaku]

Also loling at the guy who has a reference to slaughtering most of China's population and enslaving the rest in his sig calling me an apologist for imperialism.

Why do you resort to lying UMN?

Your sig does say "Sina delenda est"..?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Also loling at the guy who has a reference to slaughtering most of China's population and enslaving the rest in his sig calling me an apologist for imperialism.

Why do you resort to lying UMN?

What do you think "delenda est" means?