Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
solarz
Brigadier
I haven't followed the rest of the conversation, but this part is wrong. Withdrawing a privilege, that of SK businesses to do business in China, is not coercion.
supercat
Major
China is very influential in the Middle East nowadays - deal with it!
Giving up your sovereignty and being a sycophant of the US has its consequence.
Sigh, people waited for hours for the reopening of the restaurant. But it had to be closed after only 2 days because of security issues, unruly and disrespectful customers.
Giving up your sovereignty and being a sycophant of the US has its consequence.
Sigh, people waited for hours for the reopening of the restaurant. But it had to be closed after only 2 days because of security issues, unruly and disrespectful customers.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
I've already explained it, but you didn't get it. I already explained that they have to follow local laws. If they're an establishment, they have to follow Chinese laws on discrimination. That's the modern take. Back then, they victimized China with their imperialism so they're wrong to be on Chinese soil in the first place.
No, I don't know what kind of bullcrap you're asking about but I explained why it's not ok for an imperialist to snatch up a spot in a victim country and barr locals from entering. It's simple and it serves no point on your behalf.
Your entire argument is dense to hell based on a 1 minute fictional movie clip.
Jesus you are dumb. How the hell did this become about Bruce Lee?? Who cares/what does it mean what Bruce Lee's movie character cares about or is angry at??
Yeah, they have awful intent but it is within their rights to do that. That's the first thing you got right. As I'm about to have to explain to Phead, you can be awful and you can cause pain, but that's still not bullying if you do these things without violating anyone's rights. That's you exercising your own legitimate right to do what you think serves your interest.
Actually, it does have to do with China's rights. Did China act within its own rights or did it do things that went beyond what its rights allow it to do? Trade ban? Within its rights. Invasion? Exceeded own rights and violated SK's.
Correct
No, man. You're the one who's slower than cold molasses. Putting someone under duress is completely fine as long as you acted within your own rights and did not violate his. Being free of all duress is not a right. Being free from invasion is.
I'm sick and tired of your snowflake shit saying it's bullying someone just to not patronize his business. You still haven't answered what would constitute a legitimate non-bullying response to an offense if even boycotting a business is bullying. Am I supposed to keep giving my money to someone who's offending me in order to not be bullying him??
Again, that's wrong, Holy Spirit. As long as China acts within its rights, it's fine. And even if you were right on this point, you'd still be wrong because South Korea has no right to conduct business in China or to have diplomatic relations with China as they are all privileges granted by the Chinese government.
Sorry, you're not the author and you don't end the story. At the very base of it, the US can retract its participation and its technology. And if you think that's bullying you, in other words, the US owes it to you to allow you access to their tech, then your snowflake self has no business competing with the US anyway.
There's a lot of harm and discomfort but those 2 don't mean bullying occurred because the US acted within its rights. You have to understand that there are ways to coerce and cause pain without violating anyone's rights and thus they are legitimate options for influencing the outcome. Don't scream like a baby, "It hurts; I'm being bullied!" SMIC doesn't have the right to access US tech; it's a privelige the US can give or take away. Just because taking it away hurts doesn't mean you have rights to it.
Kinda the Dutch, but like I said, it's gray. You can't force the US to sell you its tech. That's trying and failing to bully the US. The inept think everything is bullying and others owe them their service but the cold hard truth is nobody needs to give you anything and crying that you're being bullied only makes people laugh.
So point out where I contradicted myself.
Here is a list of things I think constitute American bullying and violating others' rights:
Hijacking Iranian ships for oil
Attacking Syria/Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya, etc...
Using stolen oil from the countries they attacked to control the energy market
Declaring (not seriously though) that refusal to use the dollar is tantamount to warlike hostilities
Fly any people or equipment to Taiwan
Any FONOPS in the SCS or military-purposed flights that violate China's EEZ
Here is a list of things I think the US did within its rights meant to hurt China but do not violate China's rights:
Trade War (putting tariffs on Chinese goods)
Tech War (refusing to sell tech to China and China's suppliers)
Last edited:
So you are saying it is ok for SK to have a radar at 1200 KM range while Seoul to Beijing is only 950KM. And China tells SK not to do such a thing is bullying?
By your logic, if you live in an apartment, and the family live on top of you is very loud, and you tell them they should be quiet is bullying?
And so, China should sell weapons to NK and place them right next to Seoul, and SK should be quiet about it, saying anything is bullying.
A better analogy would be a neighbour of his in the next building pointed a high power telescope at his bedroom windows. Then by his logic, if he were to ask that person to stop, he would be bullying.
D
Deleted member 24525
Guest
The THAAD issue implicates second-strike survivability, and all rules and norms go out the window when that is involved. As such framing the debate about interstate norms around this example is foolish; you're trying to generalize an extreme case to all cases, and that is obviously going to cause problems.
Chinese government has decided that discrimination is unlawful because it constitute as bullying, not other way around. If you don't like it go complain to Chinese government. It is the same for US. In the same manner you may think you have complete control of who to do business with, but you are wrong.
Try start a business in US and refuse to serve Jewish customer because they 'offend you', see how long it lasts. Of course, you are allowed to not buy stuff from people you don't like, but not vice versa. What US is doing with its sanction go far beyond your example of "boycotting a business", so it is invalid. It pressure third party to not SELL to China. It retroactively pressures third party to cancel contracts just because the third party spent 10% on American components. Completely unlawful internationally.
Why, I am simply trying to explain at a level you can understand. Not like you would agree even if the other guy gave you a dictionary definition. You would just make up a definition for yourself anyways.
Last edited: