Chomskyan posted:

Hm, please quote me where I proposed this.

icantfindaname posted:

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3760922&userid=179345

Chomskyan posted:

China renouncing the use of force and entering peace talks with an entity it doesn't consider a sovereign state is actual a huge concession on their part

Boogaleeboo posted:

No, it's basic human decency and the fact you or anyone else would call it a concession is insane.

Chomskyan posted:

China renouncing the use of force and entering peace talks with an entity it doesn't consider a sovereign state is actual a huge concession on their part, so this would not be "bending over backwards for China". None of the concessions proposed for Taiwan involve "giving up democracy" either so that was just an outright lie on your part.

Chomskyan posted:

I'm sure you felt the same way when the US said "all options [including military ones] are on the table" with regards to Iran.

e: Before someone deliberately misinterprets me for the thousandth time, I guess I should clarify that I agree with that in a just world this should not be a "concession". But the world of international politics is simply not like that and you'd be naive to think otherwise.

Chomskyan posted:

Is you linking to the OP of this thread, where I made no mention a China meant to be taken as you conceding the point?

icantfindaname posted:

Unfortunately for China their opinion of who is and is not a sovereign state is actually irrelevant, not only because of the principle of self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter but also the fact that Taiwan is already a de facto sovereign state. I could say I don't consider Brazil a sovereign entity, therefore allow me to station troops there or else, but that wouldn't prevent such a claim from being laughed out of the room

icantfindaname posted:

scroll down

icantfindaname posted:

Unfortunately for China their opinion of who is and is not a sovereign state is actually irrelevant, not only because of the principle of self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter but also the fact that Taiwan is already a de facto sovereign state. I could say I don't consider Brazil a sovereign entity, therefore allow me to station troops there or else, but that wouldn't prevent such a claim from being laughed out of the room. But your views are consistent in considering holding China to any sort of international laws or standards to be completely unreasonable, so nobody here should be surprised

quote:

It's also cool how fast and how vigorously you flip flop between arguing the world must be just so China must be appeased because 5000 years imperialism, and arguing China is big enough to do what they want so gently caress you you have to appease them

Boogaleeboo posted:

No, it's basic human decency and the fact you or anyone else would call it a concession is insane.

Chomskyan posted:

No. If you can't find a post where I propose to "bend over backwards for China" I'll just assume your lying, or can't read. This is because I've never proposed bending over backwards for China.

Taiwan is not a member of the UN. The status of Taiwan is not just the opinion of China, it's also the official opinion of the US, and the UN. I am in favor of holding China to international law, but as far as the UN and the US are concerned, at least in their official statements, this is an internal Chinese issue.

Chomskyan posted:

e: Before someone deliberately misinterprets me for the thousandth time, I guess I should clarify that I agree with that in a just world this should not be a "concession". But the world of international politics is simply not like that and you'd be naive to think otherwise.

icantfindaname posted:

The sociopath IR crowd is just a little bit too edgy for childish notions like 'basic human decency', sorry


And it's a purely internal issue between the US government and the Japanese government whether the US has military bases in Okinawa, part of the sovereign territory of Japan

icantfindaname posted:

And it's a purely internal issue between the US government and the Japanese government whether the US has military bases in Okinawa, part of the sovereign territory of Japan

Chomskyan posted:

Maybe now you can begin to understand that I believe that position is wrong, both for Taiwan and Okinawa. I think Taiwan should be allowed independence and that their voices should be heard, and I think the Okinawans are entitled to the same. When I mention that the official stance of the UN and the US is that Taiwan is not an international issue, that's not because I personally agree with it. I point it out to show that the assumptions you're founding your argument on are flawed.

LorrdErnie posted:

Oh my god how are you this dumb, I can't even unpack all the ways you're failing to understand this situation so I'll just go with the most basic.

The US and the UN consider China and Taiwan to be the same country. It's officially considered to be an internal Chinese issue not an international issue. Arrangements between the United States and Japan are not internal issues. Both the United States and Japan are recognized by the UN. These sorts of issues are unarguably international diplomacy.

Boogaleeboo posted:

No even in the world of realpolitik it's not a loving concession, because it costs them nothing but facing an obvious truth they've tried to forget and in exchange they want everyone else to bleed from the rear end. The only way that's a meaningful concession is if you view China as being run by sub-human thugs that lack the basic intellectual development of a 5 year old, or for that matter the self-control. Is that what you think of the PRC? Because if so, why would anyone make concessions to them?

icantfindaname posted:

The assumption I'm basing my argument on is that Taiwan is de facto independent, and that that independence owes its existence to American military power in the western Pacific, and that China is not a credible actor who a reasonable person would trust to respect that independence if the US were to withdraw its military power

Chomskyan posted:

e: In case you still don't understand the hypocrisy you're exhibiting I'll lay it out for you:
1. You're trying to claim US Military bases in Okinawa is an internal Japanese issue that needs to be settled between Okinawa and the Tokyo government. Dubious logic in my opinion, but lets accept it.
2. You claim that China v Taiwan is an international issue and thus requires US intervention. However the official stance of the US and the UN is that it is an internal issue.

Therefore

3. Your stance that the Okinawans have to shut up and take it, but that the Taiwanese deserve intervention from the US is hypocritical

Please address this.

Chomskyan posted:

Ok so your argument is not actually a legal argument like you were posturing before. You just believe the Taiwanese are for some reason more morally deserving of independence... because mumble mumble American military power mumble. Why don't you just openly admit that you're a believer in American Exceptionalism so we can all go ahead and ignore you?

icantfindaname posted:

The assumption I'm basing my argument on is that Taiwan is de facto independent, and that that independence owes its existence to American military power in the western Pacific, and that China is not a credible actor who a reasonable person would trust to respect that independence if the US were to withdraw its military power

Chomskyan posted:

LorrdErnie posted:

Rudatron why are you conflating a lack of military bases on Okinawa with the US abandoning its allies completely? Is it because you are disingenuous or because you're an idiot?

LorrdErnie posted:

Ah yes the perfidious Chinese! How could anyone treat China as a credible actor? They lack the rationality of these United States of America!

Seriously, are you actually from the 1860s or something?

icantfindaname posted:

I'm skeptical of the idea that China would abide by any kind of mutual de-escalation, not only because China is actively escalating as we speak, while the United States is not, but also because of the ideological character of the Chinese government (revanchist ultranationalism) and its evolution over time

LorrdErnie posted:

Ah yes the perfidious Chinese! How could anyone treat China as a credible actor? They lack the rationality of these United States of America!

Seriously, are you actually from the 1860s or something?

Boogaleeboo posted:

Have you been following their stock market at all? We have a lovely thread about it, you should read it. As an aside, it'd also make a large portion of this conversation moot, as there's every chance that in 20 years China won't be able to afford the military it threatens Taiwan with. Which neatly solves everyone's problems.

I mean except for the PRC. They are stupid, incompetent, and utterly hosed.

LorrdErnie posted:

If you'd like to read about how this narrative that China is escalating things while the US isn't at all is totally bullshit I'd suggest that you actually read the thread.

icantfindaname posted:

This thread is about the US reshuffling the configuration of its already-existing bases in Okinawa to lessen the burden on the Okinawan people. There's no escalation involved, and no provocation behind the Chinese expansion into the SCS. If you have evidence otherwise please show it

LorrdErnie posted:

No. Read the thread, other posters have gone over the US military actions that are relevant here.

icantfindaname posted:

Cool, you acknowledge you don't have any

LorrdErnie posted:

No. Read the thread, other posters have gone over the US military actions that are relevant here.

icantfindaname posted:

Taiwan is significantly bigger than Okinawa, and it is a small price to have a military base there to prevent Taiwan from being invaded by the PRC. Besides that, that's the status quo, and contrary to the China rising narrative I think that can hold more or less indefinitely. Ideally Taiwan would simply declare independence and the US would move the bases there, but oh well.

rudatron posted:

Do the Okinawans have a desire to self determinate, such that they want their own government? Because unless they do, like the Taiwanese do, you're a massive hypocrite for arguing pro-China in both cases

quote:

You didn't even respond to the point of my post. You're not even trying at this point. "I never demanded that everyone bend over for China, all I said was that China gets everything it wants (whether or not Taiwan actually prefers the outcome of these nebulous peace talks to the status quo is not acknowledged). But that's okay, because there'll be no use of force. Let's also just assume China will enter talks in good faith, in spite of flouting international laws right now by building sand castles reefs".

Boogaleeboo posted:

Which do you find the most relevant thing that the US is doing to escalate things they should change?

Chomskyan posted:

The US performing massive military drills in China's vicinity, building a new series of US military mega bases in Okinawa and Jeju, driving warships around China's artificial islands and threatening to go to war over the Senkaku/Daioyu dispute are all serious escalations.

Chomskyan posted:

Ok so the hodgepodge of reasons you don't support the rights of Okinawans sums up to:

1) They're a small group of people (because it's ok to oppress minorities?)
2) A base in Okinawa is a small price to pay (who gets to decide this? You?)
3) Taiwan is more important than Okinawa (Why?) so its ok to sacrifice their needs for the needs of the Taiwanese.

Am I misrepresenting you or is this an accurate summary?

Chomskyan posted:

From earlier in the thread:

Chomskyan posted:

From earlier in the thread:

Chomskyan posted:

From earlier in the thread:

LorrdErnie posted:

I appreciate you fetching up the post since they were too lazy to.

Chomskyan posted:

I'm sorry but if you poll Taiwanese people asking them plainly "should Taiwan proclaim independence?" the overwhelming majority will say no. It's because they fear China would invade or respond hostilely in some other way. Similarly, a huge majority of Okinawans are probably opposed to declaring independence from Japan because they fear the repercussions they could face from Japan and the US (both military and otherwise) if they did, so your point here doesn't hold at all.

Things you are misrepresenting in this post:

1) You claim I said China should get "everything it wants", China getting everything it wants would be something like the government of Taiwan signing an unconditional agreement to submit and become a prefecture of China. Nobody in this thread, myself included, has proposed this.
2) You claim I don't think Taiwan should have a say in this. I think they should absolutely have a say in this and if they're strongly opposed the US shouldn't press the issue. However, the US government also shouldn't violate the rights of Okinawans in order to give the Taiwanese leeway to avoid negotiations with China.
3) You imply that China would always have to act in good faith for diplomacy to work, ignoring that I propose a slow tit-for-tat diplomacy where the US and Taiwan have plenty of opportunities to reverse course if China decides to act this way.

In short you did it yet again. Just stop already.

icantfindaname posted:

Taiwan is many more people than Okinawa, and without the base in Okinawa their moral rights and imperatives would most likely be poo poo on by China, so the least amount of oppression possible here involves the base in Okinawa. Like I said we're already in sociopath IR analyst land so it should not be unreasonable to point this out

icantfindaname posted:

None of these are comparable to China's actions in the SCS, not least because all of them are perfectly legal per international law. Here, everybody watch as Chonskyan juggles the different standards of international and moral law to which he holds China and Taiwan/the US/everyone else

Chomskyan posted:

Chomskyan posted:

I mean I guess it's good that you can openly admit you're just playing a utilitarian game with human lives. But I'm skeptical even of your analysis here because it assumes:

1. A diplomatic solution is unattainable with China
2. Losing this one base in Okinawa will eliminate the US's ability to project force in the region

You've come nowhere close to establishing either of these.

quote:

Also you were arguing earlier in this thread that since the US has no real security agreement with Taiwan, the only thing the US was doing to actual deter China was selling arms to Taiwan. I guess you're retracting that argument?

quote:

It is your position that unless something is explicitly illegal under international law it is not an escalation? Does that mean you believe China invading and annexing Taiwan would not be an escalation? Because you could make a fairly strong legal argument that that's not an explicit violation of international law, but I would argue it's absolutely an escalation.

icantfindaname posted:

'China's gonna rule the world so gently caress you it's provocation if you don't do what they say'

Boogaleeboo posted:

You've yet to address how the US maintaining it's status quo is an escalation, especially one comparable to building artificial islands to lay claim to more territory.

icantfindaname posted:

'China's gonna rule the world so gently caress you it's provocation if you don't do what they say'

Chomskyan posted:

I mean I guess it's good that you can openly admit you're just playing a utilitarian game with human lives. But I'm skeptical even of your analysis here because it assumes:

1. A diplomatic solution is unattainable with China
2. Losing this one base in Okinawa will eliminate the US's ability to project force in the region

You've come nowhere close to establishing either of these..