74 points 13 hours ago Edit see my self reply below for explanation of why this comment examines what it does while ignoring other important areas of this broad and complex problem I think this should also make us more sympathetic to the enormity of the choices we casually foisted on our ancestors and made them responsible for And I am not here diminishing the magnitude of past genocides on the contrary I mean to emphasize them With this data the only moral choice directly available to stop this is war invasion of China by other powers and imposition of martial law to the extent that victims of these policies are freed and their unjust suffering given reparation insofar as this sort of thing is even possible much about suffering cannot be undone and certainly you cannot pay for the dead in a way that makes up for their loss to the living Because that is what we mean by responsible right? That our ancestors stood by as the Holocaust or some other genocide unfolded and allowed it to continue Certainly there are other ways of bringing pressure against nation- states but there is little hope of gaining the sort of international unity that could make this effective against a state with an economy as diversified as China's Only war is credible here because other countries would suffer incredible deprivation by opposing China and worry about the unequal competition with other nations that choose to continue reading with China Sanctions work to a degree against Russia but people should understand that this is because of its much less diversified economy hitting on just one or two coordinated fronts is very effective and Russia does not have reliable capital moneyasset protection making asset seizingfreezing in finance hubs like London and the US effective Additionally their best goods such as natural gas can be gotten from elsewhere albeit not as cheaply giving huge importers of those resources like Germany enormous leverage not buying starts a price spiral that hurts Russia far more than Germany China on the other hand is a linchpin of the global economy and in many areas is essentially the sole provider of many rare raw materials like rare earth magnets used in electronics as well as many manifactured goods Its economy is also roughly self-sufficient it can technically feed itself and outfit armies start to finish in a pinch even if that's far from ideal economically As a result and in addition to its unique and historically unprecedented role in the global economy no nation has ever worn this many hats in this particular way most economic options for political pressure actually hurt everyone else much more than China which completely changes the calculus That in turn makes those economic options for diplomacy largely ineffective even if you can get countries on-board which you basically can't Ever wonder why we hear about strict sanctions on small or isolated countries like CubaNorth Korea or global powers like Russia but not really China? That's why Not very effective hurts everyone else more and too many countries fear not having access to the Chinese economycompeting against other countries that are happy to continue importing inexpensive Chinese goods This is one reason why China insists on domestic companies only at the helm of its economy andor forces technology transfers and domestic partnerships on any Western company entering its market and probably the most important one Many centuries of subjugation by Western powers through economic warfare has hardened its resolve to not be vulnerable to this problem ever again So this circumstance is not coincidental in the least and it limits what political levers other nations can apply to China without war Paradoxically this increases instability in a way from a global perspective because it means conflict resolution short of war is very difficult to force China to the table on as we have frequently seen when China ignores international treaties with impunity But an actual war a real war a war that would not stop until these oppressed peoples were free would lead to unimaginable suffering on a global scale The refugees alone would overwhelm the stability of East AsiaCentral Europe Millions at least would die directly in war even if China did not ultimately result to nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction They are a great power on the way to becoming a global superpower the world has not seen a conflict like that since WW2 even if only the US and China fought and certainly other nations would be drawn in including at minimum former superpower Russia and North Korea where Chinese divisions decimated American forces during the Korean War at troop strength rations of 12 divisions or more to each American division The world has never seen the central nations of a globally interconnected world economy at war The amount of knock on suffering caused by that economic turmoil is probably incalculable The Great Recession in 2012 would look tiny in comparison The limited trade war initiated by President Trump is already having global impacts on the economy and that is simply tariff trading not complete disconnection and war And if I focus on the US here it's primarily for two reasons One because it is the superpower that made human rights a matter of politics after the Holocaust Before its global hegemony and the catastrophe that brought it to the head of that hegemony what a nation did to its people was considered its own business This is to both its glory and its shame a rare international and historical triumph of morality to be responsible for and a magnification of the shame of its own human rights abuses and its intermittent strategic befriending of those who have committed them already For example how many people know that it is the US that forced Britain to divest its empire and allow the independent self-determination of its subjugated peoples? This was a direct requirement imposed by the United States if Britain wanted to be included at the treaty after the end of WW2 The US also directly and successfully opposed Anglo-Soviet plans for carving up other countries as spoils of war notwithstanding the annexations the Soviet Union began before the treaty was even concluded and continued in the immediate aftermath Consider also things like the Alien Torts act a statute that underwent a legal revival in the modern era in which US courts allowed foreigners to bring suits against other foreigners for crimes against humanity committed in foreign countries a more substantial threat to dictators than it might seem due to the US's role as a global finance and capital hub which meant assets of dictators or other person's could be frozen or seized by court order and travel to the US impossible in practice People focus on the hypocrisy of the US here but honestly it is not the hypocrisy that is remarkable at all We would expect nations to do nasty things in their own interest and they usually do It is a little remarked on miracle that the US is directly responsible for human rights being seen as legitimate political objective at all it was and is a completely unprecedented occurrence in human history The second reason is that it is only the US that would have a credible chance of invading China and succeeding and odds are quite good that even this credible chance would end in failure as force projection for a smalll amount of time anywhere in the world the specialty of the US and its expertise by far is much different than total war predicated on supply chains thousands of miles long Where this is occurring in China is possibly one of the the worst places for it to occur too in terms of this military difficulty Even a multinational force of smaller nations with modern militaries would pose no credible threat of total war on China such is the state of her military power already at this early date in her rise Even a truly global coalition ie not a nominally global but practically unilateral coalition like the one that invaded Iraq in 2003 has a moderate chance of failure- China's geography in particular disfavors any inland invasion coming from the sea Without the US any such effort is likely doomed to failure So the problem is especially acute the sole actor that can add the value needed to make the conflict worthwhile has a lonely spotlight to sit under Only it can credibly act and hence it alone must also carry the shame of inaction if chosen With great power comes great responsibility as Uncle Ben noted How terrible are the options we are left with To let the innocent suffer and be effectively silent what good does awareness without change do? or to wage war and cause equal or worse suffering but arguably as moral victors As someone who fought in a war much more limited and low intensity than this I cannot express just how much misery war results in It is never an option to be chosen lightly There are literally no winners in war other than armament industries and nation-statess moneyed interests and abstractions and maybe in very rare cases future generations Every actual person involved loses even as the victors I don't even know whether to be disappointed in us all I am sure no war will come but is this a good thing or a bad thing? Are we too standing by during the Holocaust? Such an ugly and dispiriting circumstance I feel like it gives me more sympathy for the onlookers who still scarred by wW1 and even threatened themselves were still too skittish for war And of course even more sympathy for the victims of that genocide and that war and their modern day counterparts My heart cries out for these people They live between what is for other nations the frying pan and the fire permalink embed unsave parent report give award reply - 23 points 12 hours ago Minor note as reply to myself other comment already at character limit I am not ignoring the evidence of China's internal struggle over this a struggle that may we can only hope eventually result in the freedom of these people being persecuted for practicing their religion peacefully Rather I am focusing on one aspect of the issue the position of Western non-China nations in this equation as well as their available options for resolution This is certainly a much broader issue than that and China's internal politics as well as the victims themselves are more important and central than what I chose to examine here The reason for my narrow focus was simply this thinking about what we as people of Western nations can actually and directly do as opposed to any options that rely on China deciding on her own agency to stop if we agree that responsibility falls on our shoulders when known genocide is met with inaction as is mentioned in the submission statement For a number of reasons some of which I gave here I am fairly sure that war is the only directly efficacious means of ensuring that aim China may or may not change her internal policy but if she does it won't be because of Western economic or political pressure Hence if it is true we are morally responsible for inaction during genocide it seems that in this case it would mean a moral obligation to go to war an option with its own extremes of suffering and nearly guaranteed to be a calamity of global scope Which is not very different at all from WW2 as it was then the war that eventually did occur was in fact a global calamity and hence the choice that we fault our ancestors for not going to war over human rights is very similar to what we exp to see the war that would have resulted for other reasons And hence the now except we opportunity to see just how much suffering a choice to make war over genocide would have created if our ancestors had actually acted This extremely unappetizing choice between moral war and immoral inaction is what prompted my comment permalink embed save parent report give award reply Troubled redditor pens a long essay on whether the Western nations have the moral obligation of invading China in order to stop genocide Meme

Being alone










found ON 2019-11-18 02:06:09 BY astrologymemes.com

source: reddit