[refenestrator]

That's really easy to say when it's not you or your kids on the front line.

Beyond just Taiwan, the last cold war kept the third world in a constant state of proxy war between the major powers, costing millions of lives in the short-term and delaying development in the long term.

Worth considering if you're in favor of more of that in the name of human rights.

[tablespoon]

> ...the last cold war kept the third world in a constant state of proxy war between the major powers, costing millions of lives in the short-term and delaying development in the long term.

And the alternative might have been "let the Soviets win." That choice would have definitely been a way to avoid war and achieve a kind of "peace."

[refenestrator]

What happened when we finally left Vietnam? Absolutely nothing, that's what. Lot fewer people dying from napalm.

We had to support one-way helicopter rides under Pinochet and contras gunning down nuns? Or else the soviets win?

If it's about national pride and staying on top, fine, but don't tell me it's human rights with that record. The Chinese haven't acted with force outside of what they consider their soil/sea in like 40 years. Xi is pretty worrying but until he starts doing that, let's not agitate for killing a bunch of people just in case.

[mr_toad]

> Absolutely nothing, that's what.

Hundreds of thousands were massacred by the Viet Cong after the US left, and hundreds of thousands more died in the ensuing refugee crisis.

[refenestrator]

After 20 years of war with colonial powers, I'm glad we can agree that it was really the Vietnamese who were the bad guys.

[ivalm]

And millions of civilians died during the war itself…

[tablespoon]

> but don't tell me it's human rights.

The world is a messy place and at many times it may be impossible to pursue that goal in an entirely consistent manner.

There's also the other factor of self-preservation. It's not a good strategy to cede advantages to your opponent and hope a deus ex machina saves you in the end.

> The Chinese haven't acted with force outside of what they consider their soil/sea in like 40 years. Xi is pretty worrying but until he starts doing that, let's not agitate for killing a bunch of people just in case.

Who's advocating for a bunch of killing? I think the main (perhaps only) thing I'm seeing advocated for here is diplomatic recognition.

[refenestrator]

As of right now, there's no battlefield. China's official doctrine has been non-interference in other nations since Mao and they've mostly stuck to it with a few aberrations like a 30 day war in Vietnam.

Xi has been pushing the limits internally and maybe one day that turns external but people here are talking about pre-emptive cold war.

EDIT: diplomatic recognition is a purely symbolic move, and in this case the symbol is a middle finger to China. I'd argue the upsides are limited, but I was more objecting to the general theme of china hawkishness that points towards a new cold war.

[dustintrex]

China's official doctrine is also that Taiwan is a part of China, and the status of Taiwan is purely an internal affair.

[refenestrator]

That's true, but if it ends there, then it's not a vital matter of self-defense for us. Honestly, not even that important in terms of balance of power provided we get that TSMC plant up in Arizona first.

What it IS, is a grievous insult to our insistence on being the last word in international affairs.

[sudosysgen]

Agreed, but that's inconsistent with a claim that China is a threat for the world that justifies atrocities to stop.