Hong Kong Protests Have a New Target—the Chinese Communist Party

Discussion in 'Asia' started by Mac-7, Sep 30, 2019.

  1. NMNeil

    NMNeil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2015
    Messages:
    2,768
    Likes Received:
    791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The odd thing is that all China has to do is wait until 2047 when Hong Kong returns to Chinese control anyway.
     
  2. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    John Locke and Thomas Jefferson had stains on their underwear more profound than Ayn Rand. Insulting to even mention her in the same sentence as them, let alone elevate her above them.

    At any rate, I am always promoting the ideas of men like Locke and Jefferson, which is exactly why I oppose the interventionist foreign policy being advocated by imperialists such as yourself. Jefferson in particular was quite clear that American ideals and interests were best served by avoiding foreign entanglements, something you don't seem to understand or appreciate about the enlightenment era philosophers you are attempting to associate yourself with.

    I don't care about Hong Kong, I care about America. You know, the place where I actually live. Plenty of problems right here in my own country to worry about without having to waste my time cheering on some doomed uprising on the other side of the planet. But if you think it's so great, then feel free to fly over there and join them. Or reach into your own pocket and send some money. Just don't pretend like the rest of America is obligated to care or intervene.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
    a better world likes this.
  3. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your hopes plus a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
  4. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't disprove anything I said about Reagan because it's all true.

    Reagan's diplomacy is what ultimately facilitated the fall of the Soviet empire, not a bunch of tough-guy posturing and militarism.

    And it was Reagan who negotiated the INF treaty that Trump just threw into the garbage like an idiot.

    Oh, and it was Reagan who "cut and run" from Lebanon after the Marine barracks was bombed there.

    Republicans like you have created a false mythology around Reagan, one where he is this big swaggering tough guy who used the threat of military action to bring down the Soviets. Except none of that is true. Reagan was very restrained and thoughtful in his foreign policy and preferred diplomacy to force.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
  5. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your foreign policy ideology is the exact opposite of what America's founders believed and practiced. You're a foreign policy progressive, like Teddy Roosevelt. You think the US government exists to reshape the world in America's image and to impose capitalist economics on every society. Republicans like you have been destroying the legacy of men like Washington and Jefferson. I thought conservatives were supposed to, you know, CONSERVE America's traditions, not destroy them.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
  6. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except I'm the one trying to conserve America's oldest traditions, not you.

    You're the one who wants a huge government that goes around the world fighting and confronting everyone while oppressing Americans at home.

    If it were up to me, the US government would be 90% smaller than it is right now. But big government Republicans like you are standing in the way of that because you want a gigantic "national security" state that gobbles up trillions of dollars.

    You're the one who supports big government and social engineering, not me. So you can throw around as many empty labels as you like, but if we're judging a tree by its fruits, then the only one of us who fits the description of a "lib" is you.
     
  7. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yup. That’s the btch about hope.
     
  8. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm a dude, my bro. And if we're defining conservative as someone who wants to conserve beneficial social traditions, then I'm the most conservative member of this forum. Pretty much everything I say with regards to foreign policy is taken straight from the beliefs and practices of America's founders. They preached and practiced a non-interventionist foreign policy based on the principle of armed neutrality. This is just basic history, grade school level, yet somehow it manages to escape the alleged adults who frequent political forums such as this one. It wasn't until the "progressive" movement of the late 1800's and early 1900's emerged that the US went from minding its own business to becoming a meddlesome empire that threw away mountains of wealth on senseless imperialism. Teddy Roosevelt, who modern Republicans and Democrats both admire greatly, was the original progressive. Both major parties and their supporters are adherents of progressive ideology. Most Republicans claiming to be "conservative" are anything but.
     
  9. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,640
    Likes Received:
    3,514
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Everyone knows the Chinese government is brutal. And the protesters have no chance of winning.
     
  10. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sitting on the fence. I stand firm on my conservative principles.
     
  11. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it won't repeat. There is almost zero similarity between the American revolution and the protest movement in Hong Kong. It would be nice if Hong Kong could secede and achieve its independence. And I support that in theory. But we have to be realistic and pragmatic, especially when it comes to foreign policy. The naive idealism of interventionism has cost this country unthinkable amounts of wealth and wasted potential. The Iraq war alone created a financial black hole in America that will be around for several decades like some gaping, massive wound on the economy.
     
  12. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're a progressive. No doubt about it.
     
  13. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your standard is liberty in the abstract. But liberty must be put into the context of the real world and assessed pragmatically and unemotionally. And once you do that, you see that the protest movement in Hong Kong is doomed to failure for obvious reasons. Moreover, you realize that it's not worth jeopardizing our relationship with China in order to support this doomed protest movement. Because as much as I value liberty in the abstract, I place more value on the material necessities of my own society. And our trade relationship with China promotes those material necessities greatly. I'm not about to imperil my standard of living just so I can virtue signal about a protest that could be crushed easily at any moment.
     
  14. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your own government wants to control you. And it uses China as a boogieman to further its agenda of control. Guys from your generation simply cannot get over the xenophobia that characterized your upbringing. The lingering racism of your generation is probably the number one reason why you harbor such irrational fear of China. When people from your generation look at the Chinese, they see these dark-skinned people who speak a funny language and have alien customs. You don't see the ancient civilization with a complex history that is trying to assume its rightful place on the international stage.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
  15. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hmmm. If your right, then these words are meaningless. Is that what you wish to communicate to me about you? That you reject this idea?


    Ayn Rand: “Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another.

    For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. He has the right to choose his own happiness, but no right to decide that his happiness lies in the misery (or murder or robbery or enslavement) of another. The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do.”
    http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

    I hold those ideals to be true. And when it’s in someone’s power to take a stand in defense of those ideas, the moral soul does, the immoral soul rationalizes.

    China’s attempt to violate those ideals by enslaving the best and the brightest is immoral and a threat to the idea of Liberty. Therefore, I side with the individuals of Hong Kong and their fight for life. So ought America, if the ideal of Liberty still lights her path to tomorrow.

    Does that include war? Yes, if morally necessary, but at the moment it means promising to threaten sanctions and embargoes if the CPC moves on Hong Kong, as-well-as granting immediate “green card” status to any individual who wishes to live free in America.

    I stand with Hong Kong.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
  16. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I’ve been corrected.
     
  17. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The French helped us because they believed it was in their interest to do so, although one could make a very strong argument that it came back to bite them in the ass years later.

    At any rate, the French monarchy didn't help the American revolution out of sentimentality or idealism. They did so because they wanted to hurt the British. And as soon as the French achieved their objective, they turned right around and began preying on American commerce, which led to the Qausi-war between the US and France.

    For all their ideals, the founders were extremely pragmatic and sensible of how the world really worked.
     
  18. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sounds a lot like the arguments used by the Tories against the Sons of Liberty. They were wrong, as are you—there is no conflict between the ideal and the practical—it’s practicality is what makes it ideal.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2019
  19. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, since Adams, Jefferson, and Washington all practiced and preached neutrality in foreign affairs, I imagine they wouldn't have sided with anyone. Indeed, Adams believed so strongly in American neutrality that he alienated his own political party in order to keep America from siding with the British or the French, costing him his reelection in the process.
     
  20. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If that's what you think, then your understanding of the American revolution is superficial at best.

    The protest movement in Hong Kong has zero chance of seriously contending with the Chinese state, so to say there is a conflict between the ideal and the practical is putting it lightly.
     
  21. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How many countries has China invaded in the past century? Now compare that to the number of countries the US has invaded.
     
  22. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would argue they were so idealistic, they bet the “farm” and their lives on those ideals.
     
  23. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, all individuals have natural, inalienable rights, and it's always wrong to violate them. But that doesn't mean the US is obligated to go around the world protecting and enforcing everyone's rights. That's not why the US government was created. It is not a worldwide human rights organization. It was created to facilitate the COMMON DEFENSE of the USA. Note that Hong Kong is not part of the USA.
     
    Zorro likes this.
  24. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,062
    Likes Received:
    5,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, they took a risk, but it was a calculated one. And after they won their independence, they quickly sought to reestablish a friendly relationship with the British monarchy and parliament they had just overthrown.
     
  25. Starjet

    Starjet Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,805
    Likes Received:
    1,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That’s what was said about a ragtag bunch of unruly colonists.

    I can understanding not wanting war, but to sanction the enslavement of the citizens of a free city-State? Because it’s too idealistic and impractical? But slaughter and subjugation are practical and acceptable? And inevitable? Because cheap clothes are a pragmatic necessary? Someone’s values need a new moral compass.
     

Share This Page