Miscellaneous News

[Lethe]

The US basically talked themselves into a corner. Biden talked real big about coming to Taiwan's defense and that's what most people around the world will believe. Let's be honest here, who actually tuned in when the Pentagon walked back his statements? If the average American has no clue what strategic ambiguity is, can you really expect the average European or South East Asian to know?

If they don't intervene when the time actually comes, the world will think the US is full of shit. If they do intervene and then lose, that's gonna be even worse. The only way out is for the US to intervene and win. However, China maintains the initiative on when and how they want to challenge the status quo.

The problem with "strategic ambiguity" is that it is a work of realpolitik from the 1970s. The ambiguity was required because at the time Washington recognised the ROC itself as a potentially destabilising and disruptive actor. If Taipei were confident of America's support, they might be emboldened to declare independence which would sink the whole enterprise, i.e. Washington's attempt to re-engage with China under the PRC.

The problem in sustaining this is two-fold. First, it is simply discordant with generations of rhetoric and instinct on Washington's part. Public figures in Washington cannot now conceive of Taipei as a source of problems because of course a democratic society that wishes to be independent should be supported in that objective. Democracy is good, self-determination is good, America is good, therefore Washington must support Taiwan. These are the same ideological convictions that led Washington to support Kyiv in the path that led to war, rather than unilaterally make, and encourage Kyiv to make, concessions that may have averted it. Realists are much more comfortable talking about power and interests, but I think it is a mistake to ignore the ideological, indeed mythological aspects of these things. American rhetoric is not only a mask for the pursuit of American interests, to a considerable extent these people actually believe what they say.

The deeper, structural problem, one that realists would indeed recognise, is that Washington is increasingly uninterested in sustaining "strategic ambiguity" because it is increasingly uninterested in sustaining a relationship with the PRC. If you have come to view the PRC as an existential threat to be opposed on every front, "strategic ambiguity" starts to look less like a deft piece of realpolitik and more like craven submission to the enemy. And so Washington is walking away from "strategic ambiguity" and openly encouraging pro-independence sentiments in Taiwan. As with Ukraine and Moscow, most figures in Washington would say and believe that they do not actually want war. But they are not particularly interested in avoiding it either.

 

[Chevalier]

Indian elites are so pathetic, a white oligarch follows their prime minister and it makes headline news

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645387057005568003

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1645593490125131776

 

[coolgod]

Democracy is good, self-determination is good, America is good, therefore Washington must support Taiwan. These are the same ideological convictions that led Washington to support Kyiv in the path that led to war, rather than make and encourage Kyiv to make concessions that may have averted it.

"Self-determination" is good only if the people are American vassals, it apparently doesn't apply for the Donbas region.

 

[Lethe]

"Self-determination" is good only if the people are American vassals, it apparently doesn't apply for the Donbas region.

Rhetoric about particular ideological or moral commitments often serves to justify and legitimise the pursuit of national interests. Where one's interests clash with one's self-image and declared values, it is typically the latter that gives way and rhetorical smokescreens and propaganda are deployed to cover the gap. That is the cynical take on things. My point is that this is not 100% of the story, particularly for political figures who have spent most of their time and energy dealing with domestic political issues yet are now compelled to meet the world armed only with the mythology they have absorbed via osmosis over the decades, and the advice they receive from the foreign affairs and national security apparatus, the latter in particular filled with hard-nosed bastards who never saw a principle they didn't want to discard for national advantage.

 

[Deleted member 23272]

Americans openly talk about intervening in Taiwan, while strongly against intervening in Ukraine. The only difference I see is Russia has a huge nuclear stockpile, and China doesn't. China needs a respectable nuclear arsenal, it's only thing US politicians fear and respect apparently.

Racism really. There was a really interesting article 10 years ago, I forgot from what publication, but it analyzed why Iran despite not having nukes was constantly paraded in the media as a pariah state capable of ending the world, while North Korea with a nuclear arsenal in the dozens is always laughed at as a cheesy James Bond villain. The answer was really simple in that Americans were conditioned to fear Muslims as the number one national security threat, whereas for North Korea got the reaction it did because of media stereotypes of East Asians being timid and having small d*cks.

But in the end, what the common man thinks of North Korea doesn't affect policy and American commanders know to back off from that country. I assume that attitude will be the same with China if it ever came to blows, the chain of command knows that the country's coastal defence and hypersonic missiles are not to be trifled with.

 

[vincent]

Racism really. There was a really interesting article 10 years ago, I forgot from what publication, but it analyzed why Iran despite not having nukes was constantly paraded in the media as a pariah state capable of ending the world, while North Korea with a nuclear arsenal in the dozens is always laughed at as a cheesy James Bond villain. The answer was really simple in that Americans were conditioned to fear Muslims as the number one national security threat, whereas for North Korea got the reaction it did because of media stereotypes of East Asians being timid and having small d*cks.

But in the end, what the common man thinks of North Korea doesn't affect policy and American commanders know to back off from that country. I assume that attitude will be the same with China if it ever came to blows, the chain of command knows that the country's coastal defence and hypersonic missiles are not to be trifled with.

Another possible explanation is the US can destroy Iran with little consequences, but would not dare to attack North Korea due to the fear of China. Their propaganda machineries were directed to build the case for war with Iran but not North Korea.

 

[AssassinsMace]

I just saw CNN do a segment on the pedo-Lama incident. There were five panelist including the host. Four of them expressed discomfort. One was defending him claiming it's another culture. Since when has that stopped Westerners from forcing their views onto others? Of course they acted like this was a surprise to them but there have always been rumors before.

I saw an interview with an elderly woman whose childhood village was along the border with Tibet. She talked about how Tibetans would raid her village and kidnapped the women and take them back to Tibet. The reason why she wasn't taken was because she had a facial deformity and was considered ugly. Of course that was okay with Tibetans so is that excusable?

The lie is that the West believes in universal values hence how they get people to ally with them. No they don't believe in universal values and only believe a crime has happened by two factors... who commits the act and who's the victim of that act.

 

[Sardaukar20]

Apparently it is, but nowhere near whatever the guy was doing

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I don't trust the LA Times to tell me about Tibetan culture.

I've watched many travel videos from Tibet, but I have not seen any tongue-sticking gesture. There were a number of uniquely Tibetan hand gestures, but no tongue gestures that I've seen so far. If such a gesture really exists, it's definitely not in the mainstream in Tibet.

I'm no expert on Tibet. But I have a feeling that this tongue gesture nonsense is probably something that was started by this current Dalai Lama for his own agenda. Kinda like other religious leaders coming up with the 'tradition' of the altar boys, or marrying underaged girls.

I know that some haters will say: "Oh but the See See Pee destroyed the real Tibetan culture. So we don't see that anymore in Chinese-occupied Tibet". Well if the CCP had eradicated pedophilia and slavery from Tibetan culture, that's all the better for everyone. If they admire that kind of culture so much, they can keep them in the West and India. Those idiots have eradicated Native American and Aboriginal cultures anyway. And are in the process of eradicating Kashmiri culture. Who are they to judge China and Tibet?

 

[siegecrossbow]

I don't trust the LA Times to tell me about Tibetan culture.

I've watched many travel videos from Tibet, but I have not seen any tongue-sticking gesture. There were a number of uniquely Tibetan hand gestures, but no tongue gestures that I've seen so far. Of such a gesture really exists, it's definitely not the mainstream in Tibet.

I'm no expert on Tibet. But I have a feeling that this tongue gesture nonsense is probably its something that was started by this currently Dalai Lama for his own agenda. Kinda like other religious leaders coming up with the 'tradition' of the altar boys, or marrying underaged girls.

I know that some haters will say: "Oh but the See See Pee destroyed the real Tibetan culture. So we don't see that anymore in Chinese-occupied Tibet". Well if the CCP had eradicated pedophilia and slavery from Tibetan culture, that's all the better for everyone. If they admire that kind of culture so much, they can keep them in the West and India. Those idiots have eradicated Native American and Aboriginal cultures anyway. And are in the process of eradicating Kashmiri culture. Who are they to judge China and Tibet?

Tongue sticking does exist in Tibet. It is used by serfs to show subservience to their slave masters.

 

[Aniah]

"Oh but the See See Pee destroyed the real Tibetan culture. So we don't see that anymore in Chinese-occupied Tibet". Well if the CCP had eradicated pedophilia and slavery from Tibetan culture, that's all the better for everyone. If they admire that kind of culture so much, they can keep them in the West and India. Those idiots have eradicated Native American and Aboriginal cultures anyway. And are in the process of eradicating Kashmiri culture. Who are they to judge China and Tibet?

We banned their favorite pass time activity, why do you think they are upset?