Miscellaneous News

Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
manqiangrexue said:
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.
Click to expand...

This argument is going in circles, mainly because you make up your own definitions.

It's basically impossible to argue in good faith when you make up your own definitions.

But for the record, what China did to South Korea is not bullying because it's self-defense against US-SK aggression. It has nothing to do with "China's rights" or whatever mental gymnastics you trying to justify with, and makes no sense whatsoever. It's self-defense against aggression, so it's not bullying. It has nothing to do with "Rights" or "Bullying=Invasion" non-sense.
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
US calls on China to ‘help avert unconstrained arms race’ at rare nuclear talks in Washington
  • First such bilateral discussion since 2019 described as ‘candid and in-depth’, according to State Department readout
  • US said to have stressed importance of greater Chinese nuclear transparency and substantive engagement to cut risks
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

US: "So China, you really do have 500+ nukes, right?"
China: "... Maybe? Maybe not?"
US: "So can you keep your nukes at 500+?"
China: "No"
US: "So how many nukes you want to build then??"
China: "Until we both have the same number of nukes per capita"

bryancranstondropsmic.jpg
 
Last edited:
TK3600

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
manqiangrexue said:
No, there are two dimensions to it. The first dimension is legal. If discussing the legal dimension, then international trade cannot be conflated to domestic law. But morally (to answer the question of whether something constitutes bullying), there are many comparisons that can be drawn. You drew the legal comparision asking if I can discriminate against Jewish customers in my business in the US. The comparison is a failure because you mixed domestic law with international trade in a legal comparison. But my comparison of boycotting a business in protest to its owner is based on a moral standpoint and perfectly valid.
Click to expand...
Moral has no place in international trade, your example is completely invalid. Even if moral applies, your boycott example still using personal relationship for international trade, still invalid. If you are going to use stupid personal boycott example, don't cry to me about applying equivalent law to it. Which by the way, international law also exists, governing trade between states that signed it. Trade cannot be weaponized freely like you claimed. China's boycott was legal in the international law, US sanction is not.
 
T

Taar

New Member
Registered Member
Feima said:
Interactions between individuals and groups of individuals living in a modern nation state do not make good analogy for interactions between nation states. One well-used definition of a nation state is that it asserts monopoly on violence within its jurisdiction. Individuals fighting each other with words and deeds can be made to stop by the nation state's enforcers.

No such thing between nation states.
Click to expand...
By your logic, talk about bullying between nation states is pure BS and a waste of time.
 
bajingan

bajingan

Senior Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
US calls on China to ‘help avert unconstrained arms race’ at rare nuclear talks in Washington
  • First such bilateral discussion since 2019 described as ‘candid and in-depth’, according to State Department readout
  • US said to have stressed importance of greater Chinese nuclear transparency and substantive engagement to cut risks
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

US: "So China, you really do have 500+ nukes, right?"
China: "... Maybe? Maybe not?"
US: "So can you keep your nukes at 500+?"
China: "No"
US: "So how many nukes you want to build then??"
China: "Until we both have the same number of nukes per capita"

View attachment 121127
Click to expand...
According to times of india, China divulged little during the meeting, the US learned nothing new out of it, no follow up meeting either lol

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top