> The style of diplomacy China is using has also been practiced by the US and its allies.

That was my point exactly. If you're the top dog, you can do this kind of stuff and get away with it. What the future holds, with an ascendant China, is that they will continue to put this kind of pressure on other countries and we will be unable to counter it so it will work against us.

To be more precise, the point is really this:

Up till now, Western countries have been able to do "this kind of stuff and get away with it". Now, a non-Western country is able to do this stuff to "Western countries", and get away with it.

So naturally, denizens of said "Western countries" will be aghast, upset, indignant (pick your emotion).

While denizens of, well, the rest of the world, might well be laughing their asses off.

Well, except said rest world denizens from Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea, Nepal, Vietnam, India, Japan and the rest of the countries China wants to screw over.

They'll just be terrified. For good reason.

This list probably soon will include Pakistan, Afghanistan, and essentially all Southwestern Asiatic countries. Hell, someone might look at a map of China from before Ww1 or so, look at it now, look again saying "wtf", and decide that these people obviously want to conquer a LOT. At which point it'll be China vs the world. And, historically, China has started such conflicts, they're just not very important for western history because the west really wasn't very important for most of history. China eventually lost those conflicts, but not without inflicting massive damage. First to a lot of other countries, then more and more to themselves.

Oh and lest I forget, if you want human rights ... You should be very apprehensive about China. Giving in to western demands has in most cases led to massive improvements in the lot of the average person. China is ... different.

> This list probably soon will include Pakistan, ...

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Pak-China relations would really be laughing their ass of at this. I won't even bother to correct you there.

> At which point it'll be China vs the world. And, historically, China has started such conflicts,

Aha, spoken like someone desperate to convince others that the big bad Chinaman is really out to get them.

China has issues with its immediate neighbours. And I'm not here to make any claims pro or anti China on those. In many ways, its a consequence of having a large country, surrounded by others - all of whom have a history where they can point to themselves being victimised by the others (while each side conveniently forgets when they were the ones doing the victimisation)

> Oh and lest I forget, if you want human rights ...

What? If I want human rights I should listen to the side which murders civilians across the globe, via drones and trigger-happy killers sitting in a cubicle with a joystick?

Or the one which kidnaps civilians around the world, throws them into various torture centers, and when done, usually dumps them in an offshore gulag in Cuba?

Oops, thats all from the same side.

Seriously, that old argument of "listen to the West, we know whats best for your human rights" really doesn't swallow easily outside of, well, the West.

> You should be very apprehensive about China

Sure. As apprehensive as we should be about, err, you lot.

Fair enough?

The list will include Pakistan because currently China hates India more. They want cards to play against India. I predict that will stop.

India will systematically rise in economic importance from this point forward. China's reasons to make a deal with India are multiplying every day.

The rest of your post is nothing more than moral absolutism. It is wrong.

> The list will include Pakistan because ... (some India rah rah rah stuff) ... I predict that will stop.

Hmm, did you just read some of Orson Card's books and started believing that you are the Hegemon or something?

Have you communicated your proclamation/prediction to the Chinese, so that they know what to do in the near future, to avoid you having egg on your face?

> The rest of your post is nothing more than moral absolutism.

Torture is torture. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Deliberately targeting and killing civilians is murder. Campaigns of mass bombing of civilian targets (without any declaration of war on said localities) is terrorism, whether its done by those in uniform or not, or whether its done from the ground or the air.

Thats not "moral absolutism" taken to an extreme.

Its what you're left with when you strip away the whiny excuses, coverups and propaganda (from all sides), and just at look at things for what they are.

The term for that is not "moral absolutism", its "common sense".

> It is wrong.

Read the above, grab a mirror, go find a quiet corner, sit down, and take a good long hard look at yourself.

(and if you are going to reply, please spare us all the amateur philosophy-for-dummies garbage. Thanks much!)

Moral absolutism:

> Torture is torture. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Deliberately targeting and killing civilians is murder. Campaigns of mass bombing of civilian targets (without any declaration of war on said localities) is terrorism, whether its done by those in uniform or not, or whether its done from the ground or the air.

It's funny how you debase moral absolutism, then proceed to give an absolutist opinion. You do not know the meaning of the words you use in an argument ...

The really, really bad part about your argument is that it is only leveled against one side, with no recourse. This has exactly one result: any side that listens to moral absolutism has a serious disadvantage, giving sides that don't (who are likely much worse), an advantage. In practice you might not know that, but everyone in washington does, and if they make this argument, they are merely trying to get the US to abandon some fight, usually abandoning scores of people to a much worse fate, and much worse moral actors. For example, China.

This is where the argument falls down. When following through your argument, we get to the point: because India is far (FAR) from perfect in the moral department, we should not care if China wins and Indian people are subjected to the systematic extermination they suffered under Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Chinese rule.

Can I just say ... No we shouldn't. And frankly, if we have to bomb or even nuke a town containing many children into the ground, that action might be justified. Obviously such decisions shouldn't be made quickly or easily, but excluding them is ... just not how the world works. Most western Europeans don't begrudge the US and UK's firebombing of many European capitals, despite how it has affected their families. And only God knows how many children that killed. Total number of victims of the military actions, incidentally, far exceeds the numbers of the holocaust. So, perhaps, and despite how cruel it sounds, focusing on the war itself rather than helping camp victims was probably the right decision.

Here's some examples of moral relativism:

Given parties A and B, who are in conflict. Who is morally superior ?

Example: Kemal Ataturk. He was a racist massacring his way across small Asia. He destroyed what remained of the rule of law in most of Africa. He killed children en-masse for racist reasons, among a list of other crimes that is too numerous to list. He was also, by far, the moral superior of the muslim caliph he defeated. By about a factor 5, or 6, only counting civilians.

Or we can name the less desirable qualities of Winston Churchill. He is a man of the sort of character that would send men, with orders to kill indiscriminately, into a hopeless battle. Why ? He banally evil. He was a moron. 30 minutes of research would have told him the situation, but he, quite literally, couldn't be bothered. He also thought that they didn't deserve provisions if it meant his cigarettes might be late. After all, what are a few thousand dead compared to having to do ~2 days without a smoke ready ? And yet, I very much appreciate what he (eventually) helped to achieve.

You can see the difference between relativism and absolutism now, I hope ?

I hope you can also understand how, in a real and very much non-imaginary world with limited choices, how moral relativism is by far the superior alternative ?

> You do not know the meaning of the words you use in an argument

Oh yes, I do. I'm not the fool trying to take some half-baked understanding of ethics-101, and apply it to some quarter-baked knowledge of basic history. Thats you. Keep me out of it.

(ignoring paragraphs of drivel, where you're under the mistaken illusion that you're somehow engaging in a high-minded conceptual dicussion avec moi)

Here's the problem you're not getting. From where I'm sitting, you come across as a nitwit with a very very poor knowledge of basic history, and an over-inflated opinion of his own "future projections".

That alone makes it hard to take you seriously. Along with your championing of terrorism and nuclear weapons.

Now, when you combine that with your eagerness to mix in philosophy, and start lecturing - while still showing many gaps in your own logic and understanding of said terms.

The effect is comedic.

Unfortunately, the strong whiff of anti-Muslim bigotry which seems to poke its ugly head from your delusional writings is less comedic.

Case in point: Kemal Ataturk, who was part of the Young Turks movement that effectively lead Turkey through WW1, Armenian genocide and all - was somehow the moral superior of the Muslim Caliph he "defeated"? (err, when was that?) No doubt, this is all from some made up alternative history you're living in?

In short, you're a kook. And quite probably a bigoted one too, at that (just surmising). Yes you have a keyboard, and an ISP willing to let you loose. But no, that doesn't make you any less irrelevant than you probably are in real life.

Whatever your ailments, suffer them in silence. Don't involve me.