It's a very interesting article, but some of the word choices leave a very bad taste in my mouth.
> As Vietnam did, China cares deeply about national unity and immunity from foreign intervention. We fought bravely in Vietnam but lost because Hanoi, despite its military inferiority, cared far more about the outcome than we did. Hanoi was prepared to sacrifice everything to reunite its country. We were not willing to do as much to keep it divided.
> What sacrifices in lives and treasure are Americans prepared to make to assure unilateral self-determination for Taiwan?
The article makes it sound like Taiwan is unreasonable for "unilaterally" not wanting be invaded by a country with overwhelming military superiority and a totalitarian regime. Maybe Taiwan should defer to China's opinion on whether China should invade Taiwan?
I mean, if your opinion is "China can and will invade any smaller neighbors it deems to occupy, there's nothing the US can do to stop them, and we shouldn't waste our lives trying", fine, go ahead and say so.
But stop using language like "divising" and "reuniting" to pretend this is anything other than a totalitarian regime planning its next military conquest to appease the masses.
The article makes it sound like Taiwan is unreasonable for "unilaterally" not wanting be invaded by a country with overwhelming military superiority and a totalitarian regime.
The article really focuses on the US foreign policy, not Taiwan's. It's just questioning the US's NeoLiberal Foreign Policy strategy & the cost of interventions; like in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria...
Comments
It's a very interesting article, but some of the word choices leave a very bad taste in my mouth.
> As Vietnam did, China cares deeply about national unity and immunity from foreign intervention. We fought bravely in Vietnam but lost because Hanoi, despite its military inferiority, cared far more about the outcome than we did. Hanoi was prepared to sacrifice everything to reunite its country. We were not willing to do as much to keep it divided.
> What sacrifices in lives and treasure are Americans prepared to make to assure unilateral self-determination for Taiwan?
The article makes it sound like Taiwan is unreasonable for "unilaterally" not wanting be invaded by a country with overwhelming military superiority and a totalitarian regime. Maybe Taiwan should defer to China's opinion on whether China should invade Taiwan?
I mean, if your opinion is "China can and will invade any smaller neighbors it deems to occupy, there's nothing the US can do to stop them, and we shouldn't waste our lives trying", fine, go ahead and say so.
But stop using language like "divising" and "reuniting" to pretend this is anything other than a totalitarian regime planning its next military conquest to appease the masses.
The article really focuses on the US foreign policy, not Taiwan's. It's just questioning the US's NeoLiberal Foreign Policy strategy & the cost of interventions; like in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria...