Tk you for your comments. My take is there are always HYPOCRITES whether they are Christians, Buddhists, Muslims or even non-believers of all shades of Nationalities/races. However, we have to “tolerate” to some certain extent, IF and when we want to continue to cooperate in business & FDIs (investments). The saying is “negotiate with the devil, & he might succumb if you do it right”. BTW, I have the honour of doing a virtual presentation in July to about 60 Executive MBA students in China. The topic for my talk ”Cross-Cultural Business Negotiation Intricacies”. It will be based on my 40+ years as a Consultant & part-time Academic to 4 off-shore Western Universities, & Visiting Lecturerr/Seminar Leader to 2 Chinese Universities (Guangzhou & Macau). It was always a pleasure to conduct lectures/seminars to Chinese students (both undergraduate & post-graduate), as they attentive, willing to ask questions & always yearning for more knowledge. BTW, I have a Chinese name “An Wei”given to me by my good Chinese friend. Unfortunately, I don‘t speak Chinese, so my seminars/talks are in English. (I am a multi-cultural Singaporean, & my wife is Singaporean Chinese).
Can you provide a short summary?
How much of it did you watch?
I watched the opening statements, and by then I decided to stop and I thought someone would supply a summary, like you are wondering, lol.
This was the panel. Two political science professors aka ivory tower mouth pieces, one former US military assistant director or something, and then there was professor Lyle Goldstein the military analyst.
After their opening statements, it was seemed this was not going to be a military discussion, it will be a political discussion. That former US defence official was making some weird political argument, without pointing to any equipment in his opening statement. Guess he did not want to talk about that.
After the opening statements, I assumed that all they will talk about is American rationale, and nothing about military equipment, and 3 of 4 of the panel probably not militarily sophisticated enough to discuss strategies during and after the war.
Professor Goldstein seems like a nice man, honest, and he would have gone there, but did not seem like the others had the courage.
So there were no "experts" to argue for the Chinese mainland side? This isn't a debate. I mean if you're simply going to argue amongst yourselves on how to approach a potential war with your so called adversary without even trying to attempt your enemies rationale, National will, and importance of Taiwan is to China compared to the talking Anglos, then how are one supposed to glean valuable insights and realization that Taiwan isn't going to be some abstract topic or philosophical debate for China. It's a matter of life and death to her period.
Is the west and it's human rights citizens - liberals and social justice monkeys - prepare to mobilize it's largely military averse people? Because China ain't the middle east and they're not going to be fighting a nation less state. Are they prepared to take thousands upon thousands of casualties? The potential damage to human capital, financial capital, and economic devastation for the whole world, are they prepare to soldier this burden or is the debate is being presented in a sanitized way that's borderline fiction of the savagery of what's to come if war with China over Taiwan takes place.
Exactly like what you are saying. I thought it was a weird debate. Stopped watching at the 15 minute mark, lol.
This debate was suppose to be about the United States and China, but China had almost no voice. And if Goldstein said something about China, those points totally ignored. Seems like the usual tactics. Boring!
Exactly like what you are saying. I thought it was a weird debate. Stopped watching at the 15 minute mark, lol.
This debate was suppose to be about the United States and China, but China had almost no voice. And if Goldstein said something about China, those points totally ignored. Seems like the usual tactics. Boring!
This is debate on US debate on US policy -- why should China have a voice?
In essence the 'against' side has a cognitive dissonance. They simply take superiority of US military as an act of faith, hence only considers what happens if US does not intervene. They fails to consider the consequences of intervention, even when they wins. The consequences are not merely military losses, but what happens afterwards. Another thing they ignored is that if China chooses to initiate action, they must have reasonable probability of success -- hence ignoring this side of the decision tree is highly logically suspect.
In any case this is still in the voting phase. I suspect the 'against' side will carry the motion due to anti-China public sentiment is too strong at the moment and the fact that the world is longer longer unipolar hasn't sink in yet to the US public.
I was very eager to watch that video that was posted.
By the end of the opening statement, it just was not what I expected, hence did not follow through and watch the whole thing.
What the Americans want, in year 2021, essentially is for the world to stop spinning on its axis, that America lives happily ever after.
What is remarkable, is that they want his outcome, and want to do no work for it, other than run the printing presses.
Not really a debate as both sides merely regurgitate their talking points but not actively refuting the other side from the weakness of the arguments.
