China Orders Pro Commie TV Propaganda Blitz

[K. A. Pital]

That would be a better example. Using war years is a shitty barometer.

Because during war, Britain summarily arrested hundreds of thousands of citizens of the Home Islands. Obviously not. There was always a difference between Britain and India. Britain always enjoyed greater protection of rights than India under it's rule. It did not end in the XVIII, XIX or XX century, it ended when Britain got the fuck out of India. And since our friend seems to be happy living in a protected shell where he can uselessly protest against evil, but is powerless to stop any of said evil... I consider the comparison quite good.

Wow, it looks like it is about composition, not responsibility.

"Running something" means being in charge of something. Like... Himmler ran the Nazi occupation of the East.

... the example I gave was where there was no legal option for the man to work inside the Chinese system.

I was talking about the system using extralegal means to get rid of undesireables.

30 years is 70s, 80s and 90s. You keep this up and there is no point in responding.

Really? In the 1970s America was still in Vietnam.

Under the unbrella of NATO. This wasn't a unilateral US military adventure.

How is a NATO war different from a non-NATO war? I'm not sure what that was supposed to mean. I was asking which wars the public protest has prevented.

Vietnam, 1975.

The US could do nothing by that time. Well, outside of massively slaughtering Vietnamese in an attempt to colonize Vietnam.

Nicaragua, 1985

Why 1985, when Somoza was overthrown 6 years before that? Besides, how is public protest relevant here? Ronald Reagan preferred a more covert approach to his "doctrine" of training CIA-supplied insurgents that did enough killing in Nicaragua even without any involvement of the American army. The only serious threat of war between the US and Nicaragua was in 1988, when the latter's troops drove the Contras out to Honduras, and the US deployed troops to stop the incursion. Other than that... The US could have intervened on Somoza's behalf, but the cooldown in relations between Somoza and the US happened before 1979, and so public protest wasn't even barely relevant here.

Stas wishes protesters were crushed by tanks.

Do I? I think I didn't make such statements, but feel free to correct me.

Remember, the Metropole is bad for using harsh measures on the outskirts.

The Metropole is not "bad", it's just racist and hypocritical.

Poor areas result in brutality, which is a property of their wealth and not the fault of authorities.

Because advanced human rights are a luxury that developed nations introduce in their metropole territories when those are sufficiently developed. I merely noted that if you're fine with opression abroad, you wouldn't object to being a British islands citizen in the British Empire, because opression was concentrated abroad, while British Islands got better standards of human rights. Even in the XIX or prior centuries the British Islands got better treatment than many colonial territories.

So what is not right with my comparison? He clearly said he'd feel better in a place which has human rights no matter how many "others" it kills or opresses. So fuck you and your sophistry.

Would you rather live, given the choice, in a warlike and imperialist country that gave its own residents personal and political freedom, or a pacifist country that persecuted the fuck out of its own people?

I think I made it perfectly clear that one is not better than the other, unlike in the mind of our humble person quoted here. He wants to live in a warlike and imperialist country that invades other nations, kills "others" and does other nasty shit so as long as he has "personal and political freedom". It is the perfect summary of a British Islands citizen at a time when Britain opressed and invaded other nations.

The only thing "controversial" about my position is that somehow you try to challenge my comparison of him as a US citizen who doesn't care how many "others" the US slaughters in foreign wars as long as he gets protection and civil rights (he "prefers" warlike nations to peaceful, but opressive ones) as that of a British islands citizen in the Empire. There's nothing controversial here, and the position is perfectly clear.

[mr friendly guy]

Actually I think a better explanation is the Tibetans who left are the ones who hate the regime (otherwise they would have stayed) and so they have been the public face of Tibet in the west. It doesn't help that China was closed off letting them monopolize the conversation. That and the Dahli Lama makes a story that fits into a neat little morality tale. You have an evil empire, exotic asian philophies, a child ruler, etc- all the stuff to make a good movie. So the image gets started and then repeated until it is "common knowledge" which doesn't get questioned.

Never assume malice when incompetance is sufficient.

You most likely have a point given how lazy it seems some media outlets are. On a totally unrelated notes Australian media couldn't even type India carbon tax into google, so they prefer reporting inaccurate claims. So yeah, its believable some one wouldn't do a bit of research on Tibet.

Some in Australia got an "expert" to explain things. Only problem is, he struck me as blatantly inaccurate, so either the media is too lazy, or they deliberately targeted an expert who was anti chinese. Just for the record, his statement which struck me as weird, was that experts considered Tibet de jure independent before the Chinese invasion. Considering modern places like Taiwan, South Ossetia, Abzakhia have only de facto independence because of lack of recognition, even though Taiwan has several countries recognising it via cheque book diplomacy; then how the hell was Tibet not just de facto independent, but de jure independence when it didn't even have that (it had Mongolia recognising it, and the British having an ambiguous position which they renounced in 2008).


IIRC a lot of the Free Tibet groups like students for a free Tibet were initially set up by groups affiliated with the CIA. Back when the CIA were funding terrorist attacks Freedom Fighters in Tibet. Given what you say about these guys monopolising the media's attention, in a way the hands of the propagandists still influence the media.

Since 1976, when Mao died, China has grown faster than India for all but 3 years. Maybe China simply has better human capital, but from what I have seem the government has pursued policies that massively increased growth. Or the India government really sucks.

Part of the reason is that China started reforms earlier. The other I suspect is they get things done faster without the debates required in a democracy where the opposition party has enough numbers to hold things up.

[Lusankya]

China is also run by engineers, which means that the party leaders have all be trained in how to develop a plan and put it into practice. I have no idea how one could make an accurate assessment on how that actually impacts the effectiveness of their government, though.

[Molyneux]

Would you rather live, given the choice, in a warlike and imperialist country that gave its own residents personal and political freedom, or a pacifist country that persecuted the fuck out of its own people?

I think I made it perfectly clear that one is not better than the other, unlike in the mind of our humble person quoted here. He wants to live in a warlike and imperialist country that invades other nations, kills "others" and does other nasty shit so as long as he has "personal and political freedom". It is the perfect summary of a British Islands citizen at a time when Britain opressed and invaded other nations.

The only thing "controversial" about my position is that somehow you try to challenge my comparison of him as a US citizen who doesn't care how many "others" the US slaughters in foreign wars as long as he gets protection and civil rights (he "prefers" warlike nations to peaceful, but opressive ones) as that of a British islands citizen in the Empire. There's nothing controversial here, and the position is perfectly clear.

You utter twit. If you're not going to actually read my posts, I might as well just start playing Alphabetical Insults.
I've already said that I most certainly do give a damn that the US's foreign policy sucks - as you can tell by my posting record in other threads - but that, notably unlike China, I can fucking say that the US is murdering people in Afghanistan and Iraq and should get the fuck out of both countries...and you know what? I won't get arrested for it! No-one is going to try to throw me in prison for criticizing the government, and that protection is part of the explicit founding document of the country (leaving the Articles of Confederation out of it).

If China were engaged in similar activities, can you predict what would have happened if some right-thinking Chinese citizens tried to organize protests?

[Lusankya]

I think people understand what you're complaining about. What people don't get is why exactly "being able to criticise the government about the way its killing Iraqis" should be considered to be more important than, say, one's country not going around killing Iraqis to begin with. Why do you hold this single thing in such high regard that you consider all of the other good that the Chinese government engages in (and they do, by and large, do a lot of good for the people of China, despite their failings) to be not only negated, but also to be so worthless that you believe governmental collapse to be preferable to China continuing the way it is now?

[K. A. Pital]

You utter twit. If you're not going to actually read my posts, I might as well just start playing Alphabetical Insults. I've already said that I most certainly do give a damn that the US's foreign policy sucks - as you can tell by my posting record in other threads - but that, notably unlike China, I can fucking say that the US is murdering people in Afghanistan and Iraq and should get the fuck out of both countries...and you know what? I won't get arrested for it! No-one is going to try to throw me in prison for criticizing the government, and that protection is part of the explicit founding document of the country (leaving the Articles of Confederation out of it). If China were engaged in similar activities, can you predict what would have happened if some right-thinking Chinese citizens tried to organize protests?

Yeah, quite so. Problem is, in reality the dictatorial Chinese government does not currently fight any wars in foreign nations. The democratic US government does, and multimillion protests did not stop the war. So while I understand your feelings, I can't say I sympathize much. So it seems that your human rights, rather relevant for your own protection, have not impacted the overall situation. Which is lamentable.

I don't see a reason why democratic nations that opress or invade foreign territories (like the aforementioned British Empire or the USA) should be held in a greater regard than the nations which opress their citizens but don't invade anyone.

By your logic, so as long as Britain remained a democracy, it could have slaughtered any amount of "others" and it would still be morally superior to a non-agressive, but dictatorial nation (say... Franco's dictatorship in Spain). So let's put this into perspective: is the British Empire deserving any moral high ground over Franco's Spain (both nations are European, yup)? In my view: no, none. In your view?

See, the problem with your view is that to justify this view (moral high ground for democratic on the inside but agressive on the outside) you have to say that citizens of the democratic nations have a higher moral worth than the people killed by their agression. This is effectively supremacism: admitting that other people's lives do not have equal worth compared to some privileged set of people.

[Molyneux]

I think people understand what you're complaining about. What people don't get is why exactly "being able to criticise the government about the way its killing Iraqis" should be considered to be more important than, say, one's country not going around killing Iraqis to begin with. Why do you hold this single thing in such high regard that you consider all of the other good that the Chinese government engages in (and they do, by and large, do a lot of good for the people of China, despite their failings) to be not only negated, but also to be so worthless that you believe governmental collapse to be preferable to China continuing the way it is now?

Off the top of my head? First, because a government's primary responsibility is to its own people - to safeguard their wellbeing against outside influences - and depriving your population of things like freedom of speech is both a negation of that and a damned good way to insulate the government from what the populace actually wants. Second, because it's a hell of a lot harder for a muzzled populace to make changes in the government if they can't protest, publish corruption, or any of the other things that go for granted in places like the United States.

A government that oppresses its people will probably always oppress its people unless overthrown (or impelled to change through outside influences - like, say, the USSR).
A government that acts badly but allows its own people freedom of speech, assembly, the press, etc, can be much more easily influenced by its populace - and if the government tries pulling crap, things like a free press are intended to prevent that from being swept under the rug, even if they're embarrassing to the government in power.

Yes, a free press an be attacked by means other than governmental ones - we've seen that happen in the US today, with the conglomeration of news media - but still, pretty much all of what I've written on this board would be liable to get me locked up in China.

Here, I'll make it a certainty: Democracy democracy democracy Communism sucks democracy! There, that's fairly definite.


Oh, and Stas Bush: see reason 1. A government's primary function, its cause for existence, is to protect its people. For two hypothetical countries, each of which engages in equivalent amounts of persecution, but where X oppresses its own people and Y invades other countries, X is more evil for that reason - it is running directly counter to its primary legitimate purpose.

[K. A. Pital]

Off the top of my head? First, because a government's primary responsibility is to its own people - to safeguard their wellbeing against outside influences - and depriving your population of things like freedom of speech is both a negation of that and a damned good way to insulate the government from what the populace actually wants. Second, because it's a hell of a lot harder for a muzzled populace to make changes in the government if they can't protest, publish corruption, or any of the other things that go for granted in places like the United States.

It is likewise hard if the population is apathetic. Simple voter apathy is enough to allow even the most democratic nation to commit the gravest crimes. So yes, democratic nations have stronger feedback mechanisms. No, these mechanisms don't always produce a beneficial outcome. Also, a government's primarily legal responsibility is before own citizens. However, it has a moral responsibility not to injure or harm others. Otherwise the British Empire in the latter part of the XIX century becomes an ill-free government. From the standpoint of morality, that's preposterous.

A government that oppresses its people will probably always oppress its people unless overthrown (or impelled to change through outside influences - like, say, the USSR). A government that acts badly but allows its own people freedom of speech, assembly, the press, etc, can be much more easily influenced by its populace - and if the government tries pulling crap, things like a free press are intended to prevent that from being swept under the rug, even if they're embarrassing to the government in power.

However, the free press did not prevent the British from massacring Indians. Besides, who told you that the USSR changed due to "outside influences"? I thought the reforms were initiated by the leadership of the, uh... CPSU.

Oh, and Stas Bush: see reason 1. A government's primary function, its cause for existence, is to protect its people. For two hypothetical countries, each of which engages in equivalent amounts of persecution, but where X oppresses its own people and Y invades other countries, X is more evil for that reason - it is running directly counter to its primary legitimate purpose

Why? *shrugs* No, that's crazy and entails supremacism. It gives moral superiority to an act which causes equvivalent amount of harm for no other reason than legality. That's idiocy. That's like saying a murderer who kills his victim sadistically and breaks the law has done more evil than, say, a Nazi who kills his victim sadistically acting under a legal sanction by the Nazi government.

Legal purpose of the government is irrelevant. The only thing which matters is how much suffering it causes. The US government isn't automatically on a moral high ground because it causes suffering to Iraqis, but not to Americans. Human lives are equivalent.

Legalism is not moral. Let us examine this in a very simple framework. A government kills one foreigner, another kills one citizen of their own. Both are equally evil, because the legal purpose of government is just that; a legal purpose. It does not make it good or evil. One human life has been lost in each case, human lives are of equivalent worth.

[mr friendly guy]

Molyneux did PM me earlier saying that he can't debate fgalkin, stas and myself at once. I had thus agreed to confine myself to replying to others rather than further directly engaging him no matter how tempting it is, to avoid the impression of dogpiling. However fgalkin seems to have dropped off and he was quite happy to start a NEW with debate Lus. Considering I was debating him first I find that a bit off putting. This strikes me as sticking to the letter of the agreement but not the spirit, ie if he couldn't debate so many people at once why is he essentially starting another one?

But a deal is a deal, so I will ask Molyneux publicly if he is happy for me to pick up on some of his later posts.

[Lusankya]

A government that oppresses its people will probably always oppress its people unless overthrown (or impelled to change through outside influences - like, say, the USSR).

This makes no sense in light of the massive changes that the Chinese government has implemented - of its own accord - in the last several decades. The Chinese people have a far greater degree of political freedom than they did 20 years ago, as well as a greater degree of political freedom than they did ten or five years ago. There are members of the Chinese government - including Hu Jintao - who are still fighting for greater political freedoms for the Chinese people. Not 100% of the party leadership agrees with greater political freedoms, but that's because the CCP is deliberately factionalised to ensure that China does not fall victim to a single radical ideal.

Even if your assertion is generally true (and the voluntary democratisation of both South Korea and Taiwan suggests that your theory has a somewhat less than 100% accuracy rate when applied to developing East Asian nations), it does not accurately describe the Chinese situation.

In any case, if you think that the Chinese government is really that oppressive, it's likely that you don't actually know what actual oppression is. Life in China is actually pretty good, for the most part, with the main exceptions being in areas such as the social safety net, which is in the process of being reformed. The most 'oppressive' thing most people are likely to encounter as a part of daily life is the restrictions on movement related to ones hukou and that is actually a subject I am somewhat on the fence about, since while I disapprove of restrictions on freedom of movement within ones own country, I can certainly understand the need keep migration to the major cities down to a manageable level.

Yes, a free press an be attacked by means other than governmental ones - we've seen that happen in the US today, with the conglomeration of news media - but still, pretty much all of what I've written on this board would be liable to get me locked up in China.

Actually, I think that pretty much all of what you've written on this board would get you punched in the face in China for being an ignorant American douchebag far sooner than it would get you locked up. If you want to get locked up for political speech, generally you have to make a public nuisance of yourself at the same time, otherwise you'd just get ignored.

Oh, and Stas Bush: see reason 1. A government's primary function, its cause for existence, is to protect its people. For two hypothetical countries, each of which engages in equivalent amounts of persecution, but where X oppresses its own people and Y invades other countries, X is more evil for that reason - it is running directly counter to its primary legitimate purpose.

By this logic, if I made an organisation with a primary legitimate purpose of raping puppies, and made sure that it went around raping puppies in the most efficient manner possible, then my organisation would be less evil than the Chinese government, as it would be acting in line with its primary legitimate purpose.

[K. A. Pital]

I think I'm out of this debate. I can only take so much "But the government should be first loyal to their own people!" type of stuff. I'll leave mr friendly guy to handle this.

[Samuel]

Since Stas is leaving... well, one blatant factual error.

Really? In the 1970s America was still in Vietnam.

The US began withdrawing forces in 1970 and completely pulled out by 1973.

The US could do nothing by that time. Well, outside of massively slaughtering Vietnamese in an attempt to colonize Vietnam.

That is so wrong, I don't know where to start. The North Vietnamese took over South Vietnam with a conventional military attack. They drove tanks down the fucking highway. The US had a treaty with South Vietnam to intervene in the case this happened and bomb the attackers. As the first gulf war showed, the US is very good and using air power to destroy concentrated columns of armor.

However, because of public protests the US was afraid of getting involved and so we abandoned our ally.

[Molyneux]

Molyneux did PM me earlier saying that he can't debate fgalkin, stas and myself at once. I had thus agreed to confine myself to replying to others rather than further directly engaging him no matter how tempting it is, to avoid the impression of dogpiling. However fgalkin seems to have dropped off and he was quite happy to start a NEW with debate Lus. Considering I was debating him first I find that a bit off putting. This strikes me as sticking to the letter of the agreement but not the spirit, ie if he couldn't debate so many people at once why is he essentially starting another one?

But a deal is a deal, so I will ask Molyneux publicly if he is happy for me to pick up on some of his later posts.

Wait...sorry, you're absolutely right. I shouldn't have included replies to Lus after sending you the PM; I'd be happy to argue with you (and only on this board does that statement make any kind of sense).

[mr friendly guy]

Ok, thanks for letting me get back into the discussion Molyneux.

First lets clarify some of your positions starting with
ONE

Oh, and Stas Bush: see reason 1. A government's primary function, its cause for existence, is to protect its people. For two hypothetical countries, each of which engages in equivalent amounts of persecution, but where X oppresses its own people and Y invades other countries, X is more evil for that reason - it is running directly counter to its primary legitimate purpose.

Taking this further, what does Y have to do to be as immoral / evil as X. Since you say both countries persecute the same amount. So theoretically if Y who invades other countries, lets say country a,b,c and persecutes them, how many people must it persecute to be as immoral as X? Twice as many? Thrice as many? How do you judge this metric? And taking it further, no matter what scale you use, you essentially say the rights of a person in X is worth more than the rights of a person in the countries invaded by Y. How is this not a double standard based on race?

I will go further and say that the reason you find it off putting that a government who persecutes its own population vs one who does an equivalent amount to some other population, is an extension of the human instinct which finds killings by your kin particularly distasteful. We find it instinctively more shocking that the son offs his parents for the inheritance, vs the robber who kills a rich man in the robbery for the same amount. This is despite the numbers suggesting that most murders are done by people who the victim knows.

Going further, instinct does not a logical argument make. Instinct is inferior to logic (except on ST Voyager ). Well you instinctively find it more "wrong" that a government persecutes its own people vs foreigners, logic argues that it makes no difference for the simple reason that the life of a person in countries a, b,c is worth just as much as a country in X. Your post hoc justification is just you trying to explain this instinct with bullshit justification. Just for the record, you aren't the first person on this board I debated with who had this weird view, but he didn't even try to come up with a justification for it.

TWO

Do you find a moral principle more important than the people said principle is supposed to benefit? Yes or no and think carefully on this one because I will elaborate.

You clearly detest the CCP enough for them to collapse, er I mean "vomit up their lungs". Ok, a collapse in government will lead to quite a few problems before a new government is established - see the deaths in Russia in the 90s (just ask Stas) or in more contemporary times, Iraq. Do you deny a collapse on the Chinese government's power will lead to lower standard for living in the interim. Who will mobilise the army and coordinate rescues if another Sichuan earthquake occurs. Who would continue to drive China's economic growth which contributes to bringing its citizens out of poverty? If you agree that a collapse in the government will bring temporary hardship, read on.

Now you might say, well obviously if the CCP collapses I want a new government to come in establish stability and promote the human rights I want. The Mongols after conquering China were careful to keep the Chinese officials around so that things continued to run smoothly. However you don't get that option. Why? Because you never stated such before, and this would be tantamount to shifting the goal posts. Moreover you methods of regime change like an embargo and global police force will seriously affect the well being of the average person in China. How many people died in Iraq post invasion attributable to it while the weak interim government lost control. How many do you think will China experience during the democratization process via the methods you suggested? Now the do you still think its worth it doing it your method. Does the ends (democratization) justify your means (global police force bringing about regime change with the collateral damage, deaths etc just like Iraq)? Considering you (correct me if I am wrong) opposed what is happening in Iraq, its strange you will be the one to suggest an global police force.

If you still answer yes, I want to know two things.
a) whether you are willing to have a global police attack your country to enforce regime change (so that you stop invading other countries), and have you face the prospect of danger instead of those guys far away. If your answer is no <snigger> why not?

b) Are you willing to lower your own standard of living to achieve democracy in China? Because you clearly expect the average Chinese citizen to deal with it via the effects of an embargo and / or an invading global police force. So since I can infer you will answer yes (unless you are a hypocrite ), then please start boycotting hi tech goods which use rare earths sourced from Chinese mines, starting with your computer hard drive. If you aren't willing to lower your standard of living to achieve democracy in their country, why do you expect them to bear the brunt of an embargo and hence lowering their standard of living? Is this a case of you want to embargo to make you feel good that you are doing something about the EVEL Beijing government, and damn who it fucks over in the process (hint its the average citizen who will suffer more than the communist government in an embargo, just ask pre invasion Saddam who had no problem getting food on the table).

[K. A. Pital]

The US began withdrawing forces in 1970 and completely pulled out by 1973.

Well, actually, considering this is a separate debate with you, and one which is centered around simple facts rather than another poster's views on morality, I see no reason to avoid replying. The US was still involved in the war, despite Nixon's Vietnamization strategy - Vietnamization centered on removing US ground troops and replacing them with ARVN, while airpower was still used heavily throughout the 1970-73 period. And using airpower alone does not mean it is not a heavy involvement in warfare with long-ranging consequences. In fact, one of the biggest total war exercises by the US, named "Operation Ranch Hand", concluded at the end of 1970 - was done with the exclusive use of US airpower.

That is so wrong, I don't know where to start. The North Vietnamese took over South Vietnam with a conventional military attack. They drove tanks down the fucking highway. The US had a treaty with South Vietnam to intervene in the case this happened and bomb the attackers. As the first gulf war showed, the US is very good and using air power to destroy concentrated columns of armor. However, because of public protests the US was afraid of getting involved and so we abandoned our ally.

The US had a "treaty" with South Vietnam "to intervene in case this happened and bomb the attackers"? Care to enlighten me which treaty was that?

In January of 1973, President Richard Nixon approved the Paris Peace Accords negotiated by Henry Kissinger, which implemented an immediate cease-fire in Vietnam and called for the complete withdrawal of American troops within sixty days. Two months later, Nixon met with South Vietnamese President Thieu and secretly promised him a “severe retaliation” against North Vietnam should they break the cease-fire. Around the same time, Congress began to express outrage at the secret illegal bombings of Cambodia carried out at Nixon’s behest. Accordingly, on June 19, 1973 Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment, which called for a halt to all military activities in Southeast Asia by August 15, thereby ending twelve years of direct U.S. military involvement in the region.

So - it was a secret promice done by a U.S. president. There was no formal treaty requiring the US to attack anyone whatever happened. I believe you're up to your brave accusation that this is "so wrong" and prove that I'm wrong and there was a treaty with South Vietnam to "bomb the attackers" as opposed to Nixon's bluster.

The Congress was unhappy with Nixon, a liar, who secretly authorized bombings of Cambodia and other shit. So the US Congress (not the outraged US public) forbid involvement in South Asia entirely with the Case-Church amendment. Nixon's lies were probably a far greater reason for the success of this than "public protest". It was far more a power struggle between executive and legislative branches (the Congress was unhappy with Prez having too much authority to send folks to war and bomb shit etc.).

Your call on that? Nixon wasn't "afraid of the public opposition", the liar was kicked out of power and that was it. The US wasn't afraid of public opposition, it simply made no treaties with South Vietnam to protect them with bombings. Nixon's secret promises are not treaties.

[Samuel]

The US had a "treaty" with South Vietnam "to intervene in case this happened and bomb the attackers"? Care to enlighten me which treaty was that?

The US could do nothing by that time. Well, outside of massively slaughtering Vietnamese in an attempt to colonize Vietnam.

Wow, it looks like you are completely and utterly dishonest! What a surprise! See, this is why I didn't bother to respond to the rest of your points.

[Samuel]

Dammit, ignore the previous post. I've been assuming the worst about what other people after the OBL thread.

We did however, sign the Paris Peace Accords which required the North not to invade the South. I'm not sure why you don't think that counts.

Violating treaties makes you liable under international law and since the only way to insure North Vietnam didn't conquer the South would be destroying its armor columns, that would have been the required solution. Sadly, the US had no intention of living up to its obligations.

[Samuel]

Damn, short edit windows! Anyway, I realized you moved the goalposts. You claimed there was nothing the US could do short of colonizing Vietnam. I showed that wasn't true.

Your call on that? Nixon wasn't "afraid of the public opposition", the liar was kicked out of power and that was it.

Why do you think the US pulled out of Vietnam? Nixon campaigned on the platform he would pull American forces out of Vietnam!

forbid involvement in South Asia entirely with the Case-Church amendment.

Except the US had already withdrawn all its military personal by then. Your own source says that!

It was far more a power struggle between executive and legislative branches (the Congress was unhappy with Prez having too much authority to send folks to war and bomb shit etc.).

Except Congress had power to grant aid money and refused to do so. Congress had the power of the purse and refused to use it to aid South Vietnam.

Edit- sorry for the multiple posts, but lack of sleep means I don't see everything the first time.

[K. A. Pital]

You think South Vietnam, that failure of a state, would live much longer with American airpower. You think American airpower would allow South Vietnam to live any longer than it otherwise would. See, when a million of your troops surrender, inflicting barely over twenty thousand casualties on an enemy force, that's a collapse which cannot be hindered - only delayed. It would only make the fall of Saigon more bloody. So my statement stands true: you could massively slaughter the Vietnamese. Half-assed use of airpower would hinder the NVA advance, but not for long. The ARVN was a complete failure, as was the entirety of South Vietnam's political structure, and the nation was ablaze with rebellion.

We did however, sign the Paris Peace Accords which required the North not to invade the South. I'm not sure why you don't think that counts. Violating treaties makes you liable under international law and since the only way to insure North Vietnam didn't conquer the South would be destroying its armor columns, that would have been the required solution. Sadly, the US had no intention of living up to its obligations.

Once and again: the US had no obligations to South Vietnam. None whatsoever. The North and South had an obligation to settle for negotiations, but the North weren't going to negotiate with Thieu at all. Surprisingly enough, without a mutual defence treaty another nation does not have an obligation to attack a nation which attacks another nation. Hitler broke many agreements, but that did not automatically make the US of A declare war on him. Only mutual defence treaties oblige the nation to take part in war.

Why do you think the US pulled out of Vietnam? Nixon campaigned on the platform he would pull American forces out of Vietnam!

Nixon wanted to pull out ground troops replacing them with ARVN. At the same time, he wanted to bomb South East Asia to shit to help the ARVN. He wanted to use airpower, not manpower. However, the Congress denied him even that. And rightfully so. The US had NO obligations to South Vietnam, end of story.

Except Congress had power to grant aid money and refused to do so. Congress had the power of the purse and refused to use it to aid South Vietnam.

Yes, it had. And no, the US was not obliged to do it. So the US had no good will for South Vietnam. Too bad for the ARVN, Thieu and South Vietnam, but the US thought propping up South Vietnam with no guarantee of the whole thing not collapsing was getting too costly. "Power of the purse", indeed. Besides, I ask once again - do you really think South Vietnam could continue existing as an independent nation for a long time even if the US bombed the NVA offensive?

[Molyneux]

Sorry for the slow response; took awhile to get my head in order, and I had other things distracting me from SDN for a few days.

Ok, thanks for letting me get back into the discussion Molyneux.

First lets clarify some of your positions starting with
ONE

(snip quote from Molyneux)

Taking this further, what does Y have to do to be as immoral / evil as X. Since you say both countries persecute the same amount. So theoretically if Y who invades other countries, lets say country a,b,c and persecutes them, how many people must it persecute to be as immoral as X? Twice as many? Thrice as many? How do you judge this metric? And taking it further, no matter what scale you use, you essentially say the rights of a person in X is worth more than the rights of a person in the countries invaded by Y. How is this not a double standard based on race?

The people in the government of each country would be evil no matter who they persecute, in the X-and-Y hypothetical. However, I'd like to make a distinction between the morality of the people involved and the country itself - I'll explain why in a minute. You suggest that it's a double standard based on race, when you have absolutely nothing backing that assertion up. This may be a news flash, but countries are not all uniformly split by race.

Say you take two countries, call them Gance and Frermany, whose populations have long mixed - they have a roughly even proportion of different races represented. Substitute Gance and Frermany for countries X and Y in my hypothetical argument. How exactly does that change the thrust of anything I said? Where the fuck does race come into it?

As far as the metric goes, hell if I know. Coming up with concrete values for human life is not an NP-complete task.

However, in real-world terms, a country that persecutes its own people is more evil as a country than one that persecutes/invades outsiders because, I assert, the country that persecutes its own people cannot be modified by internal means. If a country stifles dissent amongst its population, the only means by which it can be changed are violent outside force or violent revolution.

For a country that safeguards its citizens' right to dissent and protest, however, it can be changed by non-violent means - say, an election, or just plain public shaming of those in power. It may be difficult in the extreme, but the possibility exists - unlike in countries where dissent is quashed (say, China, or North Korea, or Soviet Russia). The USSR did not fall to violent revolution - but only after the introduction of glasnost.

I will go further and say that the reason you find it off putting that a government who persecutes its own population vs one who does an equivalent amount to some other population, is an extension of the human instinct which finds killings by your kin particularly distasteful. We find it instinctively more shocking that the son offs his parents for the inheritance, vs the robber who kills a rich man in the robbery for the same amount. This is despite the numbers suggesting that most murders are done by people who the victim knows.

We don't just find it shocking - we find it more distasteful as well, because children and parents have an explicit responsibility to help care for one another - more so than an unrelated criminal/victim pair. This also fails as an analogy due to my statements above regarding the possibilities for policy change.

Going further, instinct does not a logical argument make. Instinct is inferior to logic (except on ST Voyager ). Well you instinctively find it more "wrong" that a government persecutes its own people vs foreigners, logic argues that it makes no difference for the simple reason that the life of a person in countries a, b,c is worth just as much as a country in X. Your post hoc justification is just you trying to explain this instinct with bullshit justification. Just for the record, you aren't the first person on this board I debated with who had this weird view, but he didn't even try to come up with a justification for it.

See my argument above - a country that does not persecute or stifle its own people may be changed by those people to cease persecution of others. A country that persecutes its own people can only be changed by violent force (unless its ruling class decides to cease the internal persecution).

TWO

Do you find a moral principle more important than the people said principle is supposed to benefit? Yes or no and think carefully on this one because I will elaborate.

It depends.
In this case, I made an off-the-cuff comment that, I think, can safely be construed as hyperbole, intended to express my dislike for China's current regime and my disgust with other countries' treating them as a valid partner while they deny their populace the right to dissent.

You clearly detest the CCP enough for them to collapse, er I mean "vomit up their lungs". Ok, a collapse in government will lead to quite a few problems before a new government is established - see the deaths in Russia in the 90s (just ask Stas) or in more contemporary times, Iraq. Do you deny a collapse on the Chinese government's power will lead to lower standard for living in the interim. Who will mobilise the army and coordinate rescues if another Sichuan earthquake occurs. Who would continue to drive China's economic growth which contributes to bringing its citizens out of poverty? If you agree that a collapse in the government will bring temporary hardship, read on.

Now you might say, well obviously if the CCP collapses I want a new government to come in establish stability and promote the human rights I want. The Mongols after conquering China were careful to keep the Chinese officials around so that things continued to run smoothly. However you don't get that option. Why? Because you never stated such before, and this would be tantamount to shifting the goal posts. Moreover you methods of regime change like an embargo and global police force will seriously affect the well being of the average person in China. How many people died in Iraq post invasion attributable to it while the weak interim government lost control. How many do you think will China experience during the democratization process via the methods you suggested? Now the do you still think its worth it doing it your method. Does the ends (democratization) justify your means (global police force bringing about regime change with the collateral damage, deaths etc just like Iraq)? Considering you (correct me if I am wrong) opposed what is happening in Iraq, its strange you will be the one to suggest an global police force.

If there were such a global police force, one that was capable of administering a country in the interim after removal of its government for gross offenses against human rights? I would absolutely support it. No such force exists, but in the hypothetical situation where it did? Absolutely. No government should be allowed to oppress its people - or, before you ask, oppress any other country's people, either.

If you still answer yes, I want to know two things.
a) whether you are willing to have a global police attack your country to enforce regime change (so that you stop invading other countries), and have you face the prospect of danger instead of those guys far away. If your answer is no <snigger> why not?

YES, you nimrod. How could I answer anything else? If such a legitimate global police force existed? Hell, yes, I'd want them to make some charges against our current government.

b) Are you willing to lower your own standard of living to achieve democracy in China? Because you clearly expect the average Chinese citizen to deal with it via the effects of an embargo and / or an invading global police force. So since I can infer you will answer yes (unless you are a hypocrite ), then please start boycotting hi tech goods which use rare earths sourced from Chinese mines, starting with your computer hard drive. If you aren't willing to lower your standard of living to achieve democracy in their country, why do you expect them to bear the brunt of an embargo and hence lowering their standard of living? Is this a case of you want to embargo to make you feel good that you are doing something about the EVEL Beijing government, and damn who it fucks over in the process (hint its the average citizen who will suffer more than the communist government in an embargo, just ask pre invasion Saddam who had no problem getting food on the table).

For fuck's sake, lay off the "embargo" bit. I already clarified at least a dozen posts ago that I was posting out of annoyance, rather than laying out a serious course of action to take.

[mr friendly guy]

The people in the government of each country would be evil no matter who they persecute, in the X-and-Y hypothetical. However, I'd like to make a distinction between the morality of the people involved and the country itself - I'll explain why in a minute. You suggest that it's a double standard based on race, when you have absolutely nothing backing that assertion up. This may be a news flash, but countries are not all uniformly split by race.

It is at least a double standard based on nationality, and a lot of countries still have vastly different ethnic mix, and will continue to do so until freedom of movement becomes much improved (via cheap technological means and EU style laws allowing easy movement between countries). Thus it was not unreasonable for all those other people to suspect a double standard based on race.

Say you take two countries, call them Gance and Frermany, whose populations have long mixed - they have a roughly even proportion of different races represented. Substitute Gance and Frermany for countries X and Y in my hypothetical argument. How exactly does that change the thrust of anything I said? Where the fuck does race come into it?

Most countries in the real world do not have an equal mix of ethnicity. Therefore it is quite valid to suggest the difference is either based on race, or at least nationality. Its more so since you compared your own country to China, where the two countries clearly have a different ethnic mix.

However, in real-world terms, a country that persecutes its own people is more evil as a country than one that persecutes/invades outsiders because, I assert, the country that persecutes its own people cannot be modified by internal means. If a country stifles dissent amongst its population, the only means by which it can be changed are violent outside force or violent revolution.

This is the thrust of your position, however its flawed for one simple reason. The morality of a behaviour is not dependent on how easy it is to change it. It is dependent on motivation and outcome. How easy the behaviour can be changed is a judgment on how weak the person / organisation is. By your logic, Topher Grace's character in Predators is less evil than a muscle bound MMA fighter who kills the same number of people, because the former is easier to overcome once we realise each are murderers.

For a country that safeguards its citizens' right to dissent and protest, however, it can be changed by non-violent means - say, an election, or just plain public shaming of those in power. It may be difficult in the extreme, but the possibility exists - unlike in countries where dissent is quashed (say, China, or North Korea, or Soviet Russia). The USSR did not fall to violent revolution - but only after the introduction of glasnost.

This has been covered before. The democratization of military governments like Taiwan and South Korea would suggest your claim doesn't jive with reality. Moreover, its irrelevant to the morality argument, it is however relevant to how "weak" a government is.

For fuck's sake, lay off the "embargo" bit. I already clarified at least a dozen posts ago that I was posting out of annoyance, rather than laying out a serious course of action to take.

Yes, I guess your outrage only goes so far as your Chinese made / Chinese had a hand in making goods. Thanks for playing.