China getting uppity over Taiwan again... hardliner invokes the 'N' word

[lars573]

Wow. Again, thanks for the honesty.

If you are these things, then I have no interest in maintaining any kind of dialogue with you. You represent that which I am against.

I'm glad it's been civil though...

Just because I'm evil doesn't mean I don't have manners (or at least fake 'em real good ). Beisde we should keep talking, after all keep your friends close and you enemies under constant survelence.

[Samurai Waki]

keep your friends close and your enemies closer. China will have few if any allies to support them. North Korea is basically the only country that comes to mind. China's economy is so intertwined with the rest of the world that if they plan on doing something as stupid as they say they are thinking of doing, well, they can forget ever having a strong economy, The world doesn't depend on China's economy as they think we do, quite the latter, such a move now would cause an entire collapse in their infrastructure, A soldier who isn't payed will disband, and I am sure most within the PRC aren't terribly loyal to the cause, there just isn't a better one that comes to mind without getting killed. I would just love to see every country in the world tell China to snuff it. A good ol' fashioned uprising, as well as diseases getting out of control, and famine, this would not be a good move for the Chinese Government... if they value their lives.

[JimBob]

You support what China did in Tibet? Shall we remember a few things. Like the ancient and rich culture that was burned to the ground, the shelling of 200,000 people outside the summer palace, the priceless art carted away, the rape and slaughter of thousands, the destruction of the environment. But that's okay because they were more powerful, you know now that I think about it Stalin wasn't such a bad guy.

They brought some sembelance of the modern world to a backward hill kingdom.

Dude that was coming anyway. If you pay any attention that's what the Dalai Lama wanted to do.

And most of you assume that Tibet wouldn't have had those 1.25 million deaths if they had been independent.

And maybe if Versailles had been enforced and Hitler hadn't come to power Godzilla would have killed 7 million Jews. Tibet was doing pretty damn well before China came in.

worhtless theocrate on his throne

Actually he was pushing for giving more power to the people and with the power he had he was trying to modernize the country. Why do you call him worthless.

Absurd maybe, probably. Can you completely discount it, no. Look no further than Nepal for evidence of what I'm saying.

Since when was Nepal ruled by a loved leader who was considered sent by God.
And you admit it is probably absurd, well Roswell is rather absurd, but it kinda coulda happened and can't be completely discouted so...

And as to their behavior, well the Tibetans wouldn't tow the line. You can hardly expect a murderous despotic regime not to act like a murderous despotic regime when challenged now can you.

Well that child did exist near that rabid dog and it is a rabid dog so I think we can forgive it. If your country was invaded and you saw your mother/sister/aunt/grandma raped and your father/brother/uncle/grandpa shot would you tow the line or try and you know fight for liberation?

People defending what China did in Tibet (or Turkmenistan) just really piss me off.

[Ja'chyra]

[QUOTE=Papewaio] Hong Kong was leased by Britain and it made a deal with Mainland China that it would have the right to democracy under the parent communist state. Communist China has reneged on those deals. [QUOTE]

Not quite, Honk Kong itself was owned by us after being part of a deal where China gave us the land and we agreed not to kill anymore Chinese, for a while at least. The part that was leased was to the north, we agreed to hand everything back because the vast majority of the workers in British Hong Kong lived in the leased part, and, let's face it, we bottled it.

[Beirut]

50's, truth is I'm for China's annexation of Tibet. They brought some sembelance of the modern world to a backward hill kingdom.

The PRC is stong and willful enough to have Tibet and they are their fore entitled to it.

I would venture to say that you are the only Haligonian with that opinion.

I would also venture to say you are the only Nova Scotian with that opinion.

I would venture, yet again, to say you are the only Canadian with that opinion.

If I may stress the point and venture another venture, I would say you are possibly the only person in the world, outside of the Chinese government, to have that opinion.

Well, there is something to be said for being unique.

[Don Corleone]

I agree with everything you're saying Red, except did you see the bit about "We're prepared to lose every city east of Xian." That's a hell of a lot. What's more, I can confirm from my own experience, that they're in the process of moving as much industry & R/D out West (Xian, Chengdu etc) as possible. Now it could just be that they're trying to help the West catch up to the rest of the country (the West is very backwards) or maybe they're establishing a buffer zone. Who knows. In general, I don't like this, as it looks to me that their generals are acting on their own, saying whatever they like, w/o regards to what the party actually wants.

[lars573]

You support what China did in Tibet? Shall we remember a few things. Like the ancient and rich culture that was burned to the ground, the shelling of 200,000 people outside the summer palace, the priceless art carted away, the rape and slaughter of thousands, the destruction of the environment. But that's okay because they were more powerful, you know now that I think about it Stalin wasn't such a bad guy.

Chinas culture was older and more sophisticated. And Stalin murders were a bit over the top. He killed people for kicks it seems. I can excuse his creating a famines becuase well we all make mistakes, and when your Czar a mistake costs lives.

Dude that was coming anyway. If you pay any attention that's what the Dalai Lama wanted to do.

Yeah now he does. How long has he been saying that. Sorry but the Dalai Lama was going to go whether the Chinese did it or the Tibetans did it was coming.

And maybe if Versailles had been enforced and Hitler hadn't come to power Godzilla would have killed 7 million Jews. Tibet was doing pretty damn well before China came in.

No it wasn't. Any nations advancement costs lives, lots of them.

Actually he was pushing for giving more power to the people and with the power he had he was trying to modernize the country. Why do you call him worthless.

Cause he was a theocrate and are you sure he wanted change then. Just because he does now means nothing.

Since when was Nepal ruled by a loved leader who was considered sent by God.
And you admit it is probably absurd, well Roswell is rather absurd, but it kinda coulda happened and can't be completely discouted so...

When the last king was on the throne, before he was killed by his insane son in a orgy of blood and violence.

Well that child did exist near that rabid dog and it is a rabid dog so I think we can forgive it. If your country was invaded and you saw your mother/sister/aunt/grandma raped and your father/brother/uncle/grandpa shot would you tow the line or try and you know fight for liberation?

People defending what China did in Tibet (or Turkmenistan) just really piss me off.

That depends on whether the Chinese gave me an opportunity for advancement and a better life. It wold be obvious that all resisting the Chinese equals death, and since I want to live. I'd tow the line.

[PanzerJaeger]

(Technically, with all their underground coal fires they are already a smoking hole, but I digress.)

Could you expand on that? Ive never heard of those... are there huge coal fires in China?

[Ironside]

No it wasn't. Any nations advancement costs lives, lots of them.

Care to explain Sweden? Were did we lost a lots of life during the last 200 years? And we had a lot of advancement during this time.

Chinas culture was older and more sophisticated. And Stalin murders were a bit over the top. He killed people for kicks it seems. I can excuse his creating a famines becuase well we all make mistakes, and when your Czar a mistake costs lives.

As the Chinese culture is the oldest now existing culture on earth I'm assume that we all should skip our culture to use the much more superior Chinese culture?

That depends on whether the Chinese gave me an opportunity for advancement and a better life. It wold be obvious that all resisting the Chinese equals death, and since I want to live. I'd tow the line.

So as long as you (not all of your people) will (possibly) get opportunity for advancement and a better life, by an invasion force, you're willing to surrender everything else?

[Kagemusha]

Fairly standard posturing by China. The Chinese are quite savvy and they keep probing, testing for weakness in US resolve. The important thing is to reaffirm each time that we will do whatever necessary to turn mainland China into a smoking hole if they go after Taiwan. (Technically, with all their underground coal fires they are already a smoking hole, but I digress.) Say things nicely and diplomatically, but remain firm. If we ever fail to respond appropriately, then I suspect the Chinese will carry out their threats vs. Taiwan.

I also get the impression that China uses Taiwan as a way to stir up nationalist sentiment and externalize some enemies. Sort of the same as Iran uses the US as the "Great Satan", or autocratic Arab nations use the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

China knows they can't knock out U.S. nuclear capabilities, so a nuclear fight is the end of China.

Nuclear war would be also the end US as we know it.I simply cant understand why US is researching anti nuclear missile defence?You cant assume that it would stay as your secret only.I think Nukes are the only thing that has stopped major wars in the world in recent decades.

[lars573]

Care to explain Sweden? Were did we lost a lots of life during the last 200 years? And we had a lot of advancement during this time.

Industrialization is a brutal process. It costs a lot in the way of human lives no matter what the nation.

As the Chinese culture is the oldest now existing culture on earth I'm assume that we all should skip our culture to use the much more superior Chinese culture?

I didn't say or imply that.

So as long as you (not all of your people) will (possibly) get opportunity for advancement and a better life, by an invasion force, you're willing to surrender everything else?

Yes, cause if I resisted they'd kill me. Or failing that make life for me very hard. And that's not for me.

[Red Harvest]

Nuclear war would be also the end US as we know it.I simply cant understand why US is researching anti nuclear missile defence?You cant assume that it would stay as your secret only.I think Nukes are the only thing that has stopped major wars in the world in recent decades.

I'm not sure that China could deliver enough warheads for that to be true. Their strategic arsenal is apparently small. And there is a fair chance that we would hit them pre-emptively if they started an attack, obliterating every potential command and control structure. This isn't Russia we are talking about...they don't have a large capability, yet.

The Chinese arsenal is probably small enough, and the warhead path such that nukes could be used to take out individual Chinese missiles over the ocean. (Just guessing.) Chinese nukes that got through would cause horrific damage, but they wouldn't be the same sort of threat as Russia--where the number is such that they simply could not be stopped.

Even such a limited nuclear war would be awful on global scale. I doubt China is crazy enough to force the issue.

[sharrukin]

I'm not sure that China could deliver enough warheads for that to be true. Their strategic arsenal is apparently small. And there is a fair chance that we would hit them pre-emptively if they started an attack, obliterating every potential command and control structure. This isn't Russia we are talking about...they don't have a large capability, yet.

The Chinese arsenal is probably small enough, and the warhead path such that nukes could be used to take out individual Chinese missiles over the ocean. (Just guessing.) Chinese nukes that got through would cause horrific damage, but they wouldn't be the same sort of threat as Russia--where the number is such that they simply could not be stopped.

Even such a limited nuclear war would be awful on global scale. I doubt China is crazy enough to force the issue.

Neither is the US. The Chinese nuclear forces are not the equal of the American force, but they are similar in purpose to the French and British forces. The Americans are not going to trade the major urban centres of the western United States for Taiwan, and the Chinese are not going to trade half of China for it either. Stalemate, in which neither side is willing to go nuclear. The Chinese threats are probably a response to the American doctrine that nuclear weapons used at sea are not part and parcel of a nuclear war. The regional allies such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc will not be too keen on taking the chance that the limited use of naval nuclear weapons, might trigger the theatre use of such weapons.

The DF-31 (Dong Feng-31) has a range of about 5,000 miles, sufficient to hit targets along the entire West Coast of the United States and in several northern Rocky Mountain states. This has a solid fuel motor and is being deployed in a transporter-erector launcher [TEL] which would make it very difficult to take out their nuclear arsenal in a pre-emptive strike. They are developing an improved DF-41with an improved chassis capable of crosscountry and using poor roads. The Belarussian MAZ vehicle used in the Russian SS-20 has been photographed at the DF-31 production facility in Nanyuan, near Beijing, so the Chinese seem to be going ahead with it.

[Red Harvest]

Neither is the US.

I think you are mistaken. Why? Because if China steps over that line, then they have gone mad and have to be confronted, and the sooner the better. It is better to finish such an aggressor in a limited nuclear war while you have massive superiority, than to risk a full nuclear war later. Korea is a study of what happens when you fail to use your superiority in an arm to win.

The DF-31 (Dong Feng-31) has a range of about 5,000 miles, sufficient to hit targets along the entire West Coast of the United States and in several northern Rocky Mountain states.

There are quite a few ways to prevent these from reaching their targets given the massive disparity of numbers and QUALITY of the arsenals--electronics, guidance, capability, command and control, tracking, etc. Pre-emptive strikes are one way. With China's central control, if you can kill or cut off the leadership from their missiles, its over.

I don't see how it is possible to have a conventional war with China in their own backyard...and that means bringing in the nukes. With nukes it is better to give than to receive, so a pre-emptive strike would be the natural course.


On a cheerier note. I think the modernization changes in China are going to transform the govt (against its own will) over the next decade or so. I think the brinksmanship will subside and an understanding will be reached with regards to Taiwan...and Korea. In the meantime, we must remain firm and clear.

[JimBob]

Chinas culture was older and more sophisticated. And Stalin murders were a bit over the top. He killed people for kicks it seems. I can excuse his creating a famines becuase well we all make mistakes, and when your Czar a mistake costs lives.

Their culture was older, well isn't that lovely. What right does that give them?

Yeah now he does. How long has he been saying that. Sorry but the Dalai Lama was going to go whether the Chinese did it or the Tibetans did it was coming.

Prove it, show me details of a movement that had enough strength and support to overthrow the standing government

No it wasn't. Any nations advancement costs lives, lots of them.

How many people died developing the internet? How many people died building the superhighways in the '50s?

Cause he was a theocrate and are you sure he wanted change then. Just because he does now means nothing.

Yes I'm saying he wanted change then. Read Freedom in Exile damnit.

When the last king was on the throne, before he was killed by his insane son in a orgy of blood and violence.

Yes, cause if I resisted they'd kill me. Or failing that make life for me very hard. And that's not for me.

Then we have a diffrence of philosophy. I take the die on my feet route, you take the live on your knees. We'll meet in the afterlife and figure out who was happier.

[sharrukin]

I think you are mistaken. Why? Because if China steps over that line, then they have gone mad and have to be confronted, and the sooner the better. It is better to finish such an aggressor in a limited nuclear war while you have massive superiority, than to risk a full nuclear war later. Korea is a study of what happens when you fail to use your superiority in an arm to win.

I agree with you regarding what the Americans should do. I just have my doubts that any American administration would trade Los Angelos and San Francisco for a victory against China. To the rest of us it's just California, but to a politician, those are votes.

There are quite a few ways to prevent these from reaching their targets given the massive disparity of numbers and QUALITY of the arsenals--electronics, guidance, capability, command and control, tracking, etc. Pre-emptive strikes are one way. With China's central control, if you can kill or cut off the leadership from their missiles, its over.

Well I have read a lot about the Star Wars missile defence program and the problems in destroying an incoming ICBM is not an easy one. If the Americans had deployed a system as Reagan wanted then maybe. As it is now, I find it unlikely we could stop them as the missile systems and guidance radars are not in place.

I don't see how it is possible to have a conventional war with China in their own backyard...and that means bringing in the nukes. With nukes it is better to give than to receive, so a pre-emptive strike would be the natural course.

True! These however are road mobile and must be destroyed within the first 20-30 minutes or they are on their way. Cruise missiles are accurate enough if they have real-time data for targeting and mid-course update, but they are too slow. ICBM's, or SLBM's would give warning to the Chinese of an attack and are not accurate enough, and the problem of updating them where the mobile systems are right now and where they will be in 18 minutes is a problem. It's a hell of a chance and does little to address the use of nuclear weapons against South Korea and Japan.

"Mr. President," he exclaims, "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say, no more than 10-20 million killed, tops!"
Gen. Buck Turgidson

A limited conventional war against China is possible but it is one that neither the US or China could win decisively.

On a cheerier note. I think the modernization changes in China are going to transform the govt (against its own will) over the next decade or so. I think the brinksmanship will subside and an understanding will be reached with regards to Taiwan...and Korea. In the meantime, we must remain firm and clear.

Well I hope you are right, but I am not convinced that democracy will mean they are no longer a potential enemy.

[lars573]

Their culture was older, well isn't that lovely. What right does that give them?

Every right. Tibetan culture is sub-Indian, as is Nepal's, Bhutan's, and Thailand's. Even if Tibet is Sinoized there are other areas with like Cultures.

Prove it, show me details of a movement that had enough strength and support to overthrow the standing government

Again the Tibetans never had a chance to get pissed off at the Lama. But chances are it would be a Maoist groups like Nepal ended up with.

How many people died developing the internet? How many people died building the superhighways in the '50s?

Your speaking of western countries with safty standards and practices. I'm talking about industrialization or even the modernization of an agrarian country. These endevors are very costly in terms of lives lost to accidents and mechanical failures.

Yes I'm saying he wanted change then. Read Freedom in Exile damnit.

Considering I'll do a happy dance when the Lama kicks it I doubt I'll be reading any book of his.

Then we have a diffrence of philosophy. I take the die on my feet route, you take the live on your knees. We'll meet in the afterlife and figure out who was happier.

I would go for the dying on my feet if their was a chance of the Chinese leaving. In Tibet there was no chance of that. The Chinese feels that the precident of Manchu rule in Tibet is all the justification they need to be their now.

[Ironside]

Industrialization is a brutal process. It costs a lot in the way of human lives no matter what the nation.

So it's then worth adding a few million lives on top of that?

I didn't say or imply that.

Every right. Tibetan culture is sub-Indian, as is Nepal's, Bhutan's, and Thailand's. Even Tibet is Sinoized there are other areas with like Cultures.

Chinas culture was older and more sophisticated

Then exactly are you implying?

Yes, cause if I resisted they'd kill me. Or failing that make life for me very hard. And that's not for me.

Well your choise...

[lars573]

So it's then worth adding a few million lives on top of that?

Ofcourse it is. Human life is both cheap and disposable.

Then exactly are you implying?

That if Sinoization of Tibet completely obliterates the native sub-Indian culture. Then it values really weren't that strong or enduring in the first place.

Well your choise...

So glad you agree. Always act out of enlightened self-interest.

[Red Harvest]

Could you expand on that? Ive never heard of those... are there huge coal fires in China?

Yes, I've read that they have the largest coal fires in the world. It is estimated that they are losing about 20-30 million tons/yr in coal fires. I've read a little on coal fires in the U.S. and China, but I can't find my print article on the subject at the moment.

[BDC]

That if Sinoization of Tibet completely obliterates the native sub-Indian culture. Then it values really weren't that strong or enduring in the first place.

Because the millions of Chinese people about to pour into Tibet on the completion of a direct railway link won't obliterate it? Oh wait, they will. And one of the most interesting cultures in the world will be crushed by one which destroyed its own in the Cultural Revolution.

How can you possibly think that? Have you ever been there?

[Papewaio]

Your speaking of western countries with safty standards and practices. I'm talking about industrialization or even the modernization of an agrarian country. These endevors are very costly in terms of lives lost to accidents and mechanical failures.

Explain Singapore then. It went from fishing village to high tech manufacturer.

Or case in point Taiwan. Sure it has had some brutal moments, but far less then mainland China and it was done better then the mainland has.

Or New Zealand in the last century, it did not have to slaughter millions of its people to create a modern society. New Zealand not only was a very agrarian country it still is, albeit a highly industrialised one.

Modernisation is done best by education. Education is not best achieved by killing ones pupils or teachers for that matter.

The industrialisation of China is not the reason millions died. The stranglehold on the powerbase is what killed millions of people. Brutal rule is not what has modernised China and it is not brutality that is achieving it at the moment.

[lars573]

Because the millions of Chinese people about to pour into Tibet on the completion of a direct railway link won't obliterate it? Oh wait, they will. And one of the most interesting cultures in the world will be crushed by one which destroyed its own in the Cultural Revolution.

How can you possibly think that? Have you ever been there?

Because I'm Canadian. I live in a country with litteraly millions of culturally french citizens. A unique twist on french culture that dates back 400 years. A culture that still exists as a distinctive group despite over 200 years of it trying to be erased and intgrated into the english derived majority.

Now the PRC (and when I say PRC I mean the government) is trying to dilute Tibetan resistance to their rule and their uniqueness by trucking in Han by the train load. And it will probably work. If the PRC can rig it so that their are as many or more Han than Tibetans in Tibet then they can hold on to the place indefinatly. It's the smart thing to do, it's what I'd do in their place.

[Ironside]

That if Sinoization of Tibet completely obliterates the native sub-Indian culture. Then it values really weren't that strong or enduring in the first place.

So glad you agree. Always act out of enlightened self-interest.

Well acting out of enlightened self-interest will always kill off the native culture, if the occupiers want to and is brutal enough. Thus all cultures is only as strong as the arms they rely on.

[lars573]

You would make a wonderful Neo-Con.

No I wouldn't. You see I believe in a certain amount of socialized systems. The mob needs it's opiates, and the government needs to be ready and willing to provide them. That way they will love you, and not question (that much of) what you do. Also giving everybody a more even base to start from can show who is stronger and deserving of advancement. Also buisnesses are a long term threat to the stability and properity of any society. They need to be on a very tight, very short leash. Not being able to do anything without government approval.

I don't believe Might Makes right. I forget who said it, but 'tis a good quote:

"War does not determine who is right, only who is left."

Bull! War weeds out the weak and foolish. Leaving the best of a society to come home and procreate.

Tibet may have been "solved" but it wasn't "Right". Your argument is assuming that it is a form of Natural Selection on the global stage, and you're right. There's Evolution everywhere, from your genes, to the economy, to Geopolitics--Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest are the rule of the day. But what makes us Human is our ability to comprehend these things, and know when they are simply not right.

Moral correctness has as many definitions as there are stars in the night sky.

[Red Harvest]

Because I'm Canadian. I live in a country with litteraly millions of culturally french citizens. A unique twist on french culture that dates back 400 years. A culture that still exists as a distinctive group despite over 200 years of it trying to be erased and intgrated into the english derived majority.

Now the PRC (and when I say PRC I mean the government) is trying to dilute Tibetan resistance to their rule and their uniqueness by trucking in Han by the train load. And it will probably work. If the PRC can rig it so that their are as many or more Han than Tibetans in Tibet then they can hold on to the place indefinatly. It's the smart thing to do, it's what I'd do in their place.

LOL, this is hilarious. Trying to compare French in Canada to what the Chinese have been doing with Tibet. Oh, that's rich.

[Kommodus]

I don't know why you guys are trying to argue with lars573. His worldview is one of social Darwinism, a theory that does not share the common bases from which most of us think and reason. If we do not share even the most elementary foundational principles, how can we expect to come to agreement on anything, except by coincidence?

Social Darwinism recks nothing of common values, such as morality, compassion, and respect for others. It gives no thought to beauty, diversity, or freedom, except possibly as means to an ambiguous end. It is cold, ruthless, and utterly devoid of feeling. It is the tyranny of a logic that, while seeming irrefutable, is ultimately myopic and blind.

The fallacies become more and more blatant the deeper one follows the logic. For example, lars573 has observed, as have many, that many people and cultures hold differing views on what constitutes moral correctness. At this, many have thrown up their hands in frustration, claiming that morality is all a sham, and that agreement on it is impossible to reach. This view has about as much merit as claiming that the physical sciences are all worthless, simply because scientists constantly refine and update their theories.

A deeper look at the various moral systems reveals that behind the peripheral differences are common basic principles. For example, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" has been discovered multiple times in different cultures. Do precise definitions on the specifics of what is moral and what is not change gradually over time, and differ from place to place? Absolutely; only a fool would deny it. Does this mean there are no constant, underlying principles do guide moral discovery? Absolutely not. Just as there are physical laws that govern the interaction of bodies in the physical world, there are moral principles that govern relationships between individuals.

I must point out one more obvious fallacy - that is, the claim that war targets the weak and foolish, leaving the strong to prosper. War may target the strong and fit even more easily than it targets the weak. Or do you think it is without thought that governments send their most fit, able-bodied, and intelligent men onto the battlefield, while those less able to fight are left behind? Can we so easily forget the horrors of World War I, when many European nations were denuded of entire generations of young, able-bodied men, dipping into their reserves of old men and children only as a last resort? I admit that my physical condition is such that I would probably not meet the US military's requirements for most positions, while a stronger, more physically fit man might be forced to risk his life instead.

By the basic principles of human decency and any reasonable moral standard, China's aggressive stance toward Taiwan is unacceptable, and any attempt to force Taiwan to accept Beijing's rule should be met with strength. The policies of the Chinese government continue to be determined by deluded men, who turn a blind eye to reality and care nothing for truth. As I have said before, everyone I have ever known from Taiwan heartily opposes a takeover by mainland China. My hope is that even this latest threat by the Chinese government changes nothing, and that Washington continues to stand staunchly by its Taiwanese allies.

Not only because it's in our best interests, but because it's the right thing to do.

[Red Harvest]

I agree on wars effectively killing off the fittest and ablest first. It also tends to weed out the most aggressive and courageous. Can't seperate personality traits from the Darwinism either, although they are often overlooked since physical attributes in nature are far easier to measure.

[Blodrast]

very well put, Kommodus, and without insulting or belittling anyone, either
my hat is off to you.

[lars573]

Social Darwinism recks nothing of common values, such as morality, compassion, and respect for others. It gives no thought to beauty, diversity, or freedom, except possibly as means to an ambiguous end. It is cold, ruthless, and utterly devoid of feeling. It is the tyranny of a logic that, while seeming irrefutable, is ultimately myopic and blind.

That is why I don't believe in social Darwinism. It's really a good example of why conformity to 1 belief system limits you far too much.

The fallacies become more and more blatant the deeper one follows the logic. For example, lars573 has observed, as have many, that many people and cultures hold differing views on what constitutes moral correctness. At this, many have thrown up their hands in frustration, claiming that morality is all a sham, and that agreement on it is impossible to reach. This view has about as much merit as claiming that the physical sciences are all worthless, simply because scientists constantly refine and update their theories.

Morality isn't a sham. But it's not carved in stone either. Morality is a moment by moment case by case ever evolving thing. Clinging to one set of rules in all situations and at all times means eventually you will fail and be destroyed. Look at the Roman catholic church.

Also that is why I can't fault the PRC for annexing Tibet or wishing to end the Chinese civil war by taking Taiwan. It (the PRC) wants to reunite the Chinese nation as they see it. That being China as it is now plus Outer Mongolia, Taiwan, and redrawn borders with Vietnam and India.