Azarkon

Even the most naive pundit accepts that the Iraq War was at least for the sake of US national security, what with the whole link between Al Qaeda and Saddam (*cough*). You're trying to tell me that national security is not an important issue, that the US didn't just fight a war over national security that cost trillions of dollars and 150,000+ fatalities in overall damages? That this was all because we're just a nation trying to get by, whereas the Chinese, by suppressing a riot that cost, even by generous estimates, only ~100 lives, but which could've led to the disintegration of the Chinese nation if left unchecked, is the "big bad?" And you're looking to be taken seriously?

You're starting off from the wrong assumptions. All powers play the geopolitical game to further their self-interests. The US is not just "trying to live," no more than China is just trying to become "big and belligerent." If you don't believe me, you might want to check up on the number of military bases the US has in foreign countries, and compare that to those owned by China. Does that support your image of a country that's just trying to get by?

I doubt that. The Chinese are, and likely will be, supportive of an economically intertwined, actively trading world. An active stop to Western political and military interventionism, though? Probably.

With respect to China's interests, yeah. But since when did any country want other countries to be strategically and operationally active within its areas of interest? Just look at the Monroe Doctrine

Perhaps another time. I'll give you the easy one though: "Their regime threatens force over diplomacy and they'd prefer the West dead" is wrong.

No, it's actually "I don't want to do your research for you." It's always better to be self-convinced. Or, if you prefer, "I don't have the time right now to participate seriously in this discussion."

He's certainly not right about two things. I'll leave that as an exercise.

This sounds as much like propaganda as the Chinese claim that no rioters were killed.

I don't think China needs to be bigger. I think China needs to maintain its economic growth and internal stability. Like Gorth said, the price of failure is high.

I'll drink to that! And you're right, there's alot to criticize about China's policy towards Tibet. I personally support greater autonomy, religious rights, etc. for Tibetans. At the same time, however, I maintain that the Chinese point of view must be taken into account. History should not be viewed as a moral teleology, and we must be ready to accept that if the Chinese play it right, they will retain control of Tibet and might even assimilate it within the Chinese polity. If they play it wrong, then the Tibetans will win and they will have their independence, no doubt to the great detriment of the Chinese state. In the end, it's not due to some abstract notion of morality that countries triumph or falter in their ambitions, but more practical concerns like having a winning geo-strategy, good economic policies, political foresight, solid governance, etc. (a very similar argument can be made for the US's presence in Iraq). If the Chinese lose Tibet (or Taiwan, for that matter), it will be because of a failure to act skillfully in the face of geopolitical challenges, and not because it is fundamentally wrong for an empire to seek stability in its quest for nationhood. All great nations have blood-stained hands. The difference between successful nations and failed ones does not lie in the lack of bloodshed or the presence of supreme moral authority, but in the ability of the nation's leaders (and its people) to meet challenges effectively and with foresight. My current assessment of the situation in Tibet is that the Chinese government is not acting with foresight in missing a key opportunity to single-handedly diffuse the situation by striking a deal with the Dalai Lama. Of course, I don't have all the details, so we'll have to wait and see if their policy is smart or not.

Going to war over political ends is the very definition of putting politics above human lives. It maybe that it's a stupid idea and shameful - but the fact remains that politics, and in particular geopolitics, has always been a bloody affair largely indifferent to the suffering that it costs.

That seems irrelevant to what I said, Walsh. Democracy has certainly got major advantages as a political system, particularly in observance of human rights. But politics still trumphs human lives - and democracies are still led into devastating wars for the sake of political interests. European imperialism brought tremendous change - what most would call progress - to the known world. But it came at great costs to human lives and dignities, and was carried out by democratic governments.

Is that why the West fought two devastating World Wars that nearly destroyed the world? Is that why the US went into Iraq, leading to a humanitarian crisis that rivals Saddam's ethnic cleansing? Politics have always trumped human lives. Few governments ever hesitated to make war when it is within their perceived interests to do so. I don't think such a deadline exists. It maybe what the PRC projects will happen (based on their understanding of Taiwanese politics, economic dependence, etc.), but I doubt they've made commitments to make war if Taiwan doesn't integrate by 2020. This is especially true now that the PRC's favored candidate, Ma Yeo-Jing (sp?), triumphed with a landslide victory in Taiwan's presidential elections.

I'm not saying they're entitled to act the way they have. I'm saying they will act the way they have because de-colonization is infinitely harder when political survival is at stake. By the time they pulled out, European governments did not need their colonies to maintain national legitimacy; it's a different story for the Chinese government - if they started granting independence to minority states, they will lose their right to rule. The important thing to understand is that China is an empire that is trying to become a nation, not the other way around: historically, there has never been a "China" that is not the "Chinese empire." China is its empire; unlike the British Empire, there is no "Britain" at the center of it all. Beijing is not and has never been the "homeland." It is an imperial seat, occupied by various dynasties and peoples as they took up the mantle of the Chinese Empire. There are potential ethnic national states (similar in form to Japan, Korea, etc.) that can emerge should the Chinese Empire fall. But if so, these states will be carved out of blood, and their borders will not be stable for decades, if not centuries. The only political entity in continental East Asia that has ever been stable is the Chinese Empire. This is the reason why many people, including an overwhelming majority of Chinese, believe that the iron hand of the PRC, however brutal, is for the greater good.

Throughout history, politics have always been more important than human lives. Is it right? No - but it's the way things are. But if you're worried about human lives, the status quo of Taiwan is the one most likely to save them. China will not invade if Taiwan does not declare independence. If anything, China is prepared to offer the "Hong Kong" package to the Taiwanese - one country, two systems, no questions asked. On the other hand, if Taiwan declares independence, human lives are likely to be lost - on the side of China, on the side of Taiwan, and perhaps even on the side of the US.

True, but economics and stability are intertwined. By maintaining control and crushing dissent, China makes itself a better investment target because you can be sure that the government will protect your interests - whereas that wouldn't be true if protesters and rioters are burning shops and disrupting work day in and day out. A second "people's revolution" would send China straight back to the dark ages in terms of its attractiveness to foreign investment. Consequently, I find some of the "Western political" responses absolutely shameless. Nancy Pelosi calling for the world to "denounce China" for its suppression of the (now widely acknowledged to be violent) riots/protests sounds incredibly hollow. What, you think the US would've tolerated people going around burning businesses, attacking shop keepers, and sticking Mexican flags on government buildings? If the particular use of force, in this case, seems excessive, say that - but don't pretend that it would've been "right" to let the riots go unchecked until all of Southwestern China is burning.

And in both cases, they're likely correct - political stability is at stake, regardless of whether outside observers believe it or not. This is because the PRC's hold on China is based on the dream of a unified China, which is to say, a China consisting of its historical territories. If they fail to maintain this vision, which they've been trumping for the last fifty-some years, they will likely lose political legitimacy - as having lied to the people. What many people misunderstand about China is that it is not, at all, a country by the strictest definition of the term, which is to say a polity defined by a common language, ethnicity, and culture. China has ~56 ethnic minorities that have all traditionally held more land than the Chinese majority (Han Chinese), and who have historically been ruled by the Chinese Empire, which maintained stability in an area that would otherwise be wracked by endless border wars between different ethnic groups. If each of these minorities were to rise up, demand independence, and obtain it, China would cease to exist - and you'd have some ~1.2 billion people squeezed into a country the size of Australia, surrounded by nations rich in natural resources & unstable borders. The Chinese will never allow this. They will wage total war to preserve their hold on China's current territories. The alternative, after all, is national annihilation.

Interesting. How about this one? I am hungry, but I have no money. I see a merchant selling bread. I ask him: "Mister, can I have some bread?" He looks at me, sniffs, and replies, "No. Go away." He's obviously pretty well to do, and I'm starving to death, so while he's not looking, I steal half of the bread loaves. I have committed an utterly selfish act, but my life is saved. Am I evil?

Ah, so perception matters. Well, then, try this one: The people around me believe that female genital mutilation is a good thing, and they have indoctrinated the children such that they believe so, too. I don't agree. In fact, I think it's nothing but superstition. I attempt to force my view on the people around me by force of arms. In doing so, I have committed a selfish act without any regard for the concerns of the group; in fact, I have upset them - both the adults and the children - because I forced them to accept my beliefs. Am I evil?

I'm traveling around the world and happens upon a village. The village has a tradition - the first child born in the seventh month of the seventh year without a flood is to be sacrificed in order to thank the water gods. As a guest, I am invited to the occasion and asked to take part. I throw the baby in the river. She drowns. The village is happy. I've done a selfless deed for the benefit of the group - am I good?

China's strategy towards Taiwan is a sticks-and-carrots approach. Military blockade and/or invasion represent the sticks, and economic opportunities, along with the "one nation two systems" precedent set for HK, represent the carrots. It's all a geopolitical game. The carrier group isn't just for Taiwan, though. Any nation that wants to have any sort of power projection whatsoever needs a navy. At least until we develop space ships.

Certain sting ray species (ie bat rays) are sometimes called "mud marlin" by fishermen, and they are given this name for a reason: they are freakishly strong. Anyone who's tangled with a bat ray knows that even a moderately sized ray can break 80-100' test lines if you try to go head to head. They are gentle creatures, for the most part, but they are also extremely powerful. And what would you do if you ever came face to face with one of these?

Whatever you want to call them is fine with me I'm just saying that the universe is full of purpose - and we understand more of that purpose every day. Science can explain why, but the answers are not necessarily what humans would consider adequate because as intentional agents, we like to ascribe human intention to what we don't understand. It turns out that for many things in the universe, this doesn't make any sense.

Oh, I don't mean the laws of physics in the sense of the limited understanding we humans have - but the true laws that govern all the cosmos, and which escape our comprehension.

To obey the laws of physics.