Clearly everyone should just let China do whatever they want to avoid war, if we appease them by expanding their territorial claims and avoiding conflict then surely everything will be fine. The politics of appeasement has historically been very successful.
Edit: Stop replying please, I don’t want to waste any more time arguing with y’all.
The 21st century indo-pacific is not a comparable issue to 20th century Central Europe. Also appeasement wasn’t even the complete disaster casual observers like to make it out to be (who still won the war after all?) but that’s beside the point here. Taiwan is not some defenseless independent country being threatened by the reincarnation of Hitler calling for world domination. It’s a part of China that broke away in an ideological civil war that China wants back. Even the US state department acknowledges this fact, yet they still believe it is very important that they protect one part of China from another part of China and extend their civil war which should have ended for good decades ago. This is not an act of peace or charity, this is creating a conflict situation, with Taiwan right in the center of any potential explosion.
See, the US doesn’t care about these concerns is because the real reason America is in Taiwan is so they can use it as a strategic base for operations to oppose and weaken the PRC, a “West Berlin of Asia” so to say. And somehow, liberals and social democratic opportunists have deluded themselves into believing that stationing the most powerful naval fleet in history (US 7th Fleet) to permanently do ‘freedom of navigation exercises’ (armed provocations) in Chinese coastal waters is the “moderate” solution to this conflict. And I suppose we’ll just have to keep the navy there forever right? Or until the PRC finally collapses? (I’m still waiting lol)
I say we should cut a deal with the PRC, let them have Loser Island in exchange for mediating other border disputes with their neighbors. A majority of Taiwanese citizens want more integration with China, and they’re still their largest trading partner. While immediate annexation wouldn’t be popular, a gradual process of integration would be best for the entire region. It would allow the two biggest military powers to step down their aggressive actions against each other, end the period of Taiwanese citizens being used as a geopolitical pawn, and provide a solid diplomatic framework to settle future disputes in the region (as this would be a massive rapprochement in Sino-American relations) This wouldn’t even weaken American national security (which is what everyone hates about ‘appeasement’) since it’s, you know, an occupied imperialist outpost on the other side of the world’s largest ocean, not even in America’s hemisphere.
Of course this option would be totally unacceptable for the American imperialist apparatus, they would never be willing to lose such an important base in the Pacific (just ignore that they would still have Japan, Guam, Philippines, etc). So what’s going to happen instead is that the US is eventually going to get distracted and entangled in some other imperialist mess, because they can’t recognize their empire is hopelessly overextended, and China will just take Taiwan when they think the balance of power is in their favor. This would be the worse thing to happen: a chaotic breakdown of the region instead of a negotiated reordering. There will be decades of bitterness and calls for mass violence. Maybe it will also escalate and some ships get sunk and the nukes fly and oh well its World War 3. Beware those who call diplomacy ‘appeasement’ in the post-atomic age, they seek your death.
Is the Donbas a separate country because it declared independence from Ukraine?
EDIT: Which is actually more than Taiwan has done, the government in exile on Taiwan considers itself the rightful government of the entirety of mainland China and parts of Mongolia.
I’m not moving the goalposts, I’m just pointing out that it’s a bit disingenuous to frame a question about what should happen in an unresolved civil war as a question of nations and their sovereignty. It would be disingenuous to frame Russia’s intervention in Ukraine as defending the independence of an entire country, I think it’s a similar situation between ROC/PRC, the primary difference being the length of the dispute.
Which is relevant if we’re talking about how one can consistently be anti-imperialist, I think. I agree it’s a bit flippant to say stuff about ‘giving up Loser Island’ but I think it’s important to recognize that it’s more complicated than ‘two independent countries fighting over the territory of one of them.’
Donbas isn’t comparable. The government in Taiwan has had a continuous existence since before the CCP.
If the rebellious territories of the Donbas was actually a preexisting government that had all the rest of its territory taken in a civil war you might be onto something. In reality Ukraine gained sovereignty from imperial USSR and now imperial Russia wants to take it over again.
Taiwan isn’t a country. They don’t consider themselves independent, China doesn’t consider them independent, the U.S. doesn’t consider them independent.
How can you consider yourself anti-imperialiat when you don’t know the basic facts of the situation?
the current Tsai Ing-wen administration of Taiwan maintains that Taiwan is already an independent country as the Republic of China (ROC) and thus does not have to push for any sort of formal independence.
Have you considered the possibility that people living in Fuzhou, Putian, Quanzhou, Xiamen and Zhangzhou (among many millions of others along the coast) don’t want to have American nukes pointed at them a mere 200-300 kilometers away?
Also neither China, the US, the :international-community-1::international-community-2: or the rest of the world do not recognize Taiwan as independent. Only the :nato-cool: despite this, want to wrest Taiwan away to build a puppet state.
This is a US passport. Born in Iran, moved there as a child is my bet. Probably from a wealthy family, usually Iranians don’t get to move to the US unless they’re wealthy. Unless you won a green card lottery or something.
different from a hundred years ago and compared to a world without any nuclear weapons
I don’t see why, China is constrained by the same consequences of nuclear war, and has the same responsibility to avoid it, e.g. by relaxing claims that it owns and controls the entire South China Sea. Especially because I don’t think you’d say the same would be justified if the US claimed the entire Gulf of Mexico, or bearing sea, for example
Your second paragraph is a great point. Even taking whatever the U.S. State Department says about China at face value, comparing a nuclear standoff to 1930s Europe is ridiculous.
The United States is clearly evil and doesn’t have good intentions. I’m not an idiot. But we also need to be critical of the wrongdoings of the Chinese state.
There is a spectrum of options between “do nothing” and “go to war”. I would not support a US military intervention in a war between Taiwan and the CCP.
Clearly, the CCP is nowhere near on the scale of Nazi Germany, though when we talk of appeasement, it wasn’t quite at the levels of conquering all of Eastern Europe at the time, but I’m not going to split hairs over that - your point that I shouldn’t compare them is completely valid and fair.
I think continuing to keep things at a stalemate where neither country gets invaded is the best state of affairs for the time being, until something changes geopolitically. For that reason, I am not going to decry the supply of weapons to Taiwan, because that provides disincentive for an invasion of Taiwan, and makes military conflict less likely.
I agree with your comment completely, stability and peace in the region is definitely not what the United States wants, long term. But that doesn’t mean that every single thing they do is wrong, and it doesn’t mean that every thing the US’s opponents do is right. We should take the actions and outcomes of these actors at face value, continue to advocate for peace and reconciliation and encourage more nuanced, balanced takes rather than hugely polarising positions. Thank you for engaging and considering what I wrote, we can build a better world if we keep building consensus, treating those with whom we disagree respectfully (assuming that they’re not being intolerant assholes!) and talking things through! <3
I appreciate your openness here. I think the PRC would also prefer peaceful engagement with the longer term goal of peaceful reincorporation, the trade ties they’ve cultivated in spite of US hostility I think lend credence to their sincerity there. In the big picture I just don’t think the region can sustain two governments that each claim sovereignty over the same areas, and given their historical cultural and economic ties I think reunification would be the outcome of a process of dialogue between them.
I agree, it seems that the political instability can’t last for too much longer, and I’m hoping for a peaceful resolution in whatever way that is. I have to admit that I would prefer a peaceful bipartisan result where each state relinquishes their claims on the other, but I have to admit that seems very unlikely and that your conclusion that they would most likely reunify is the most likely result.
Also “appeasement” is a made up post-hoc explanation for the western Allies’ actions before WW2, blaming the supposed naivete or lack of spine of the leaders for simply allowing the Nazis to make expansionist moves uncontested, rather than it being an intentional policy to get out of their way and try to direct them eastwards against the Soviet Union.
These are the territorial claims of the government on Taiwan, from a state the US and much of the Western world support or at least de facto like to defend in Asia. They never made any remarks regarding Taiwan’s claims with 18 other countries. If the US supports peace in the Asia Pacific (besides looking at a map and asking why the US has even a say about Asia in the first place), then surely Mainland China must be supported, as by protecting & legitimizing Taiwan’s constitution, you’re approving this shit in Asia.
But let me guess, neoliberal countries get a pass from the crackerverse?
Holy shit, you’re telling me that both sides in a civil war think they should have full control of the country they’re in a civil war over? Hang on I need to sit fucking down my head is spinning
No, but if it weren’t for Western provocations that would never have been on the table. What do you think giving weapons to Taiwan does? China will not tolerate an arms buildup in Taiwain, it will attack as a result. That’s not good and I don’t support it, but that’s the material reality that you refuse to accept.
If the Taiwanese state would never capitulate and reintegrate peacefully with the CCP state, which is their claim, then wouldn’t that make an invasion of Taiwan inevitable, regardless of weapons?
Assume that it wouldn’t, though - I could just as easily say “with the right incentives, the United States could elect a communist president and transition to a people’s republic”, so let’s take them at their word that never means never and go from there, shall we?
No, I think you need to read my comment and your’s again. You say appeasement politics will lead to no good, so… you protect the ROC’s claims instead, which is even appeasing more that just leaving China. I caught your illogical argument, and distilled it to the meaningless content that it was. Now you pretend stupid to run away from that illogical claim. But you can’t win against me, who studied at Oxford, Nato boy
you can’t win against me, who studied at Oxford, Nato boy
This is the most unbelievably embarrassing thing I have ever read on Lemmy. Honestly, if you regret writing this, please let me know. I will amend my comment to erase the fact you ever wrote it.
you protect the ROC’s claims
Please cite evidence of my support of Taiwan’s territorial claims. If you believe that opposing CCP imperialism means that one must also support Taiwanese territorial claims then you have made an incorrect assumption - and a converse error on your part does not constitute a failure on mine.
I’m very sorry that I refuse to defend the strawman you so thoughtfully prepared for me. By all means, whack away at him. I would suggest that you take your own advice, by the way, and read my actual comment and respond to the text of what I wrote, not some imagined subtext your Oxford-educated brain conjured to allay your cognitive dissonance. Oh, and one last thing - whatever your parents paid for that education, unfortunately it would appear to have turned out a poor investment.
what do you think imperialism is? the island of taiwan has historically been part of china, the KMT just held onto it after losing the civil war. it’s like if the CSA somehow kept florida
And United States has historically been part of the United Kingdom. Does that mean if the UK redrew maps to show that the US was their territory it wouldn’t be imperialism? Imperialism is the expansion of the territory or influence of a state especially through the use of violence. The CCP wishes to extend its influence into Taiwan and they are willing to use military force to do so. That’s why they’re so mad about Taiwan being provided with the means to defend themselves. It would make a military invasion more difficult and costly.
Then get prepped, cause I did my postgraduate at MIT as well. There are no smarter guys than those graduating there. I knew you would now claim “where did I said we need support Taiwanese territorial claims mimimi”. Did you read the article and what it is about? What is the US and what is China’s point of conflict? Tell me, how can you say “we can’t appease China blabla…” to do what? Taiwan is the exact part of their sovereign terrorial claims. Opposing them on the fact that Taiwan becomes/remains independant is exactly enabling the territorial claims of the state on that island, ROC.
And now you backpedal, “I’m commenting on the article but in fact I do not support US point of view and argue without the context of any article we comment on!!!1! Its my isolated opinion from those events and blabla” or “Actually I meant we should oppose China but also make demands on Taiwan’s contitution and put conditions on their clams blabla…”. I know that if you would understand any of this conflict or history you wouldn’t actually call under the article of US warmongering, encirclement and violation of the One-China policy regarding China’s claim of Taiwan, an act of “CCP imperialism”. But know you backtrack and try to slip away like a oily snake. There is no escape from my superior arguing skills, and you’re critic of appeasing hypocritical is false even on the level of formal logics.
whatever your parents paid for that education, unfortunately it would appear to have turned out a poor investment.
You sound like Donald Trump lmao. “Oh I went to Harvard got really good grades”.
I haven’t backpedaled on shit. I wrote a top level reply in an off-site comments section. I am not required to take an all-or-nothing position, either wholeheartedly agreeing or disagreeing with every claim in the article. The world has nuance.
I haven’t backpedaled on shit. I wrote a top level reply in an off-site comments section. I am not required to take an all-or-nothing position, either wholeheartedly agreeing or disagreeing with every claim in the article. The world has nuance.
A lot of words for saying you have no consistent logic. If you understand the claims of Taiwan and that the US is supporting this state, you can’t impossible speak of “CCP imperialism”, in the context of ROC’s claims, and call their right for their territory as appeasement. But I know that people outside of Harvard have liquid arguments.
Btw lmao I neither studied at US nor UK, that only a joke. Yes I think he said something along that with Harvard lol
You’re making a converse error again - A TV can’t turn on if it’s not plugged in. Therefore, if the TV can’t turn on, it’s not plugged in. The TV could be broken, there could be a power cut, etc.
You’re saying that the United States supports providing arms to Taiwan and the United States supports Taiwan’s territorial claims. Therefore, by supporting providing arms to Taiwan, that means I support Taiwan’s territorial claims.
No. I don’t. So I don’t have to defend their territorial claims. I am sorry if that makes it difficult for you to argue your preferred argument with me, but you’ll just have to engage with my argument on its own terms, not on the ones you imagined.
Well, if they are so democratic, and support other nations sovereignty as they would like their own, why don’t they remove them from their constitution? I have a feeling you have no idea of the ideology of the state on that island.
Wdym? I said it does not make sense to say appeasement politics is bad but then by supporting the government on Taiwan, and appeasing their claims. If anything we need to define sovereignity first and then support a side on conditions. Which are obvioulsy not made regarding Taiwan’s claims because of Westerners lust for hegemony.
the only claim being appeased is to what they already control, Taiwan. That’s their country. I asked for specific actions being taken by Taiwan to take territory from sovereign nations. What other claims are we appeasing? Has there been military action against Mongolia, or Japan, that we are hypocritically ignoring? What threat to other nation’s sovereignty are we ignoring from Taiwan?
the only claim being appeased is to what they already control, Taiwan
That’s not true, or at least what I would argue. You can point me to any article where some Western politician is saying “as long as Taiwan want it’s island we support that, but not more than that”. In fact, I don’t know of any conditions the US or anybody who defends Taiwanese independence, is making regarding their claims. There is no “Taiwan only” constitution that the US supports. This is the needle in the ass of the PRC. I think it would be a different situation, if Taiwan (and the US) would say "we want Taiwan to be its own country, and we recognize the PRC as the successor of China.
But they don’t do that. They actually support the ROC and everything on their constitution. Including the 11-dash line in the South China Sea, that is larger than what China is drawing with their 9-dash line That they are for the “will of the Taiwanese to just be independant on their island” is for the public of the G7 countries. Nobody is willing to give up the territories of ROC afaik. Yes the ROC can’t do anything about it in terms of military power, but they equally don’t make any steps to remove them. (But I think if the US tells it’s guys at the DPP to create such a constitution that claims only the island of Taiwan, they will only do it to provocate an attack by China. But that’s beyond my point and the map above.)
Not only has US never endorsed their claims outside Taiwan, they still dont formally endorse their claims to Taiwan itself. So no. They dont support RoC’s constitution and as far as im aware have never commented on it.
Again, not a liberal. Opposing imperialism from China doesn’t make one a liberal. This is like an example of what a school kid would write as an example of affirming the consequent. Pretty funny stuff!
Yeah, I wanted to be on a relatively small, relatively politically neutral instance with a lot of normal people, where I could express myself freely, argue for balance and nuance in an increasingly polarised world, and build working class solidarity where it actually needs to be built, rather than confining myself to an echo chamber.
Wanting US empire to collapse is certainly not everything I am as a person. I guess some are only capable to see others are cartoonish cardboard cutouts as opposed to actual people.
I do have a bit of a clue about the world, the UK is not a vassal state of “the US Empire”. You’ve taken a goofy LARP that you’re some kind of revolutionary fighter up against an evil empire so far, that you’ve started to think your fantasy game is real.
The only territorial claims China has tried to enforce recently are to literally uninhabited lands (Aksai Chin and the SCS islands) and Taiwan (which they are still at war with).
How much do you really care about a piece of rock with no people and no animals living on it?
So the CCP is full of idiots that are willing to weaken their international relations for a bunch of useless pieces of rock? Is that what you are saying?
Clearly everyone should just let China do whatever they want to avoid war, if we appease them by expanding their territorial claims and avoiding conflict then surely everything will be fine. The politics of appeasement has historically been very successful.
Edit: Stop replying please, I don’t want to waste any more time arguing with y’all.
The 21st century indo-pacific is not a comparable issue to 20th century Central Europe. Also appeasement wasn’t even the complete disaster casual observers like to make it out to be (who still won the war after all?) but that’s beside the point here. Taiwan is not some defenseless independent country being threatened by the reincarnation of Hitler calling for world domination. It’s a part of China that broke away in an ideological civil war that China wants back. Even the US state department acknowledges this fact, yet they still believe it is very important that they protect one part of China from another part of China and extend their civil war which should have ended for good decades ago. This is not an act of peace or charity, this is creating a conflict situation, with Taiwan right in the center of any potential explosion.
See, the US doesn’t care about these concerns is because the real reason America is in Taiwan is so they can use it as a strategic base for operations to oppose and weaken the PRC, a “West Berlin of Asia” so to say. And somehow, liberals and social democratic opportunists have deluded themselves into believing that stationing the most powerful naval fleet in history (US 7th Fleet) to permanently do ‘freedom of navigation exercises’ (armed provocations) in Chinese coastal waters is the “moderate” solution to this conflict. And I suppose we’ll just have to keep the navy there forever right? Or until the PRC finally collapses? (I’m still waiting lol)
I say we should cut a deal with the PRC, let them have Loser Island in exchange for mediating other border disputes with their neighbors. A majority of Taiwanese citizens want more integration with China, and they’re still their largest trading partner. While immediate annexation wouldn’t be popular, a gradual process of integration would be best for the entire region. It would allow the two biggest military powers to step down their aggressive actions against each other, end the period of Taiwanese citizens being used as a geopolitical pawn, and provide a solid diplomatic framework to settle future disputes in the region (as this would be a massive rapprochement in Sino-American relations) This wouldn’t even weaken American national security (which is what everyone hates about ‘appeasement’) since it’s, you know, an occupied imperialist outpost on the other side of the world’s largest ocean, not even in America’s hemisphere.
Of course this option would be totally unacceptable for the American imperialist apparatus, they would never be willing to lose such an important base in the Pacific (just ignore that they would still have Japan, Guam, Philippines, etc). So what’s going to happen instead is that the US is eventually going to get distracted and entangled in some other imperialist mess, because they can’t recognize their empire is hopelessly overextended, and China will just take Taiwan when they think the balance of power is in their favor. This would be the worse thing to happen: a chaotic breakdown of the region instead of a negotiated reordering. There will be decades of bitterness and calls for mass violence. Maybe it will also escalate and some ships get sunk and the nukes fly and oh well its World War 3. Beware those who call diplomacy ‘appeasement’ in the post-atomic age, they seek your death.
shock, gasp, Hexbear user thinks Taiwan should surrender to China.
How can you consider yourself anti-imperialist when you’re talking about unilaterally giving entire countries to other countries?
Is the Donbas a separate country because it declared independence from Ukraine?
EDIT: Which is actually more than Taiwan has done, the government in exile on Taiwan considers itself the rightful government of the entirety of mainland China and parts of Mongolia.
Way to just completely ignore my point and move the goal posts?
Are the 13 colonies a separate country because they declared independence from the United Kingdom?
Don’t bother replying. I don’t want waste my time talking to people who can’t answer a simple question
I’m not moving the goalposts, I’m just pointing out that it’s a bit disingenuous to frame a question about what should happen in an unresolved civil war as a question of nations and their sovereignty. It would be disingenuous to frame Russia’s intervention in Ukraine as defending the independence of an entire country, I think it’s a similar situation between ROC/PRC, the primary difference being the length of the dispute.
Which is relevant if we’re talking about how one can consistently be anti-imperialist, I think. I agree it’s a bit flippant to say stuff about ‘giving up Loser Island’ but I think it’s important to recognize that it’s more complicated than ‘two independent countries fighting over the territory of one of them.’
Donbas isn’t comparable. The government in Taiwan has had a continuous existence since before the CCP.
If the rebellious territories of the Donbas was actually a preexisting government that had all the rest of its territory taken in a civil war you might be onto something. In reality Ukraine gained sovereignty from imperial USSR and now imperial Russia wants to take it over again.
Taiwan isn’t a country. They don’t consider themselves independent, China doesn’t consider them independent, the U.S. doesn’t consider them independent.
How can you consider yourself anti-imperialiat when you don’t know the basic facts of the situation?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement
Gaslight harder, king.
Have you considered the possibility that people living in Fuzhou, Putian, Quanzhou, Xiamen and Zhangzhou (among many millions of others along the coast) don’t want to have American nukes pointed at them a mere 200-300 kilometers away?
Also neither China, the US, the :international-community-1::international-community-2: or the rest of the world do not recognize Taiwan as independent. Only the :nato-cool: despite this, want to wrest Taiwan away to build a puppet state.
Oh yeah and the official acronymn is “CPC”.
westerners are really the most propagandized people in the world
where you from buddy?
I’m certainly not a Brit who’s now very concerned about other countries making ‘territorial claims’.
You gonna answer the question?
I’m Iranian, I sure wish you were around to fight for my country’s sovereignty when the UK and US decided to lay waste to it
Interesting, you mentioned that you’re from the US here.
https://hexbear.net/comment/3834104
You’re just a first worlder LARPing as a revolutionary.
bye bye, go to hell
This is a US passport. Born in Iran, moved there as a child is my bet. Probably from a wealthy family, usually Iranians don’t get to move to the US unless they’re wealthy. Unless you won a green card lottery or something.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
In your comment below, you shared an image of a United States passport. So you’re from the US. And how long have you lived there?
It said place of birth Iran. So he’s literally from Iran.
He’s from hexbear, that should tell you everything.
deleted by creator
You don’t even need to click their profile to know it’s a HexBlyat troll.
Are those the guys that want to coup the fediverse? 😂
deleted by creator
I don’t see why, China is constrained by the same consequences of nuclear war, and has the same responsibility to avoid it, e.g. by relaxing claims that it owns and controls the entire South China Sea. Especially because I don’t think you’d say the same would be justified if the US claimed the entire Gulf of Mexico, or bearing sea, for example
Your second paragraph is a great point. Even taking whatever the U.S. State Department says about China at face value, comparing a nuclear standoff to 1930s Europe is ridiculous.
The United States is clearly evil and doesn’t have good intentions. I’m not an idiot. But we also need to be critical of the wrongdoings of the Chinese state.
deleted by creator
There is a spectrum of options between “do nothing” and “go to war”. I would not support a US military intervention in a war between Taiwan and the CCP.
Clearly, the CCP is nowhere near on the scale of Nazi Germany, though when we talk of appeasement, it wasn’t quite at the levels of conquering all of Eastern Europe at the time, but I’m not going to split hairs over that - your point that I shouldn’t compare them is completely valid and fair.
I think continuing to keep things at a stalemate where neither country gets invaded is the best state of affairs for the time being, until something changes geopolitically. For that reason, I am not going to decry the supply of weapons to Taiwan, because that provides disincentive for an invasion of Taiwan, and makes military conflict less likely.
deleted by creator
I agree with your comment completely, stability and peace in the region is definitely not what the United States wants, long term. But that doesn’t mean that every single thing they do is wrong, and it doesn’t mean that every thing the US’s opponents do is right. We should take the actions and outcomes of these actors at face value, continue to advocate for peace and reconciliation and encourage more nuanced, balanced takes rather than hugely polarising positions. Thank you for engaging and considering what I wrote, we can build a better world if we keep building consensus, treating those with whom we disagree respectfully (assuming that they’re not being intolerant assholes!) and talking things through! <3
I appreciate your openness here. I think the PRC would also prefer peaceful engagement with the longer term goal of peaceful reincorporation, the trade ties they’ve cultivated in spite of US hostility I think lend credence to their sincerity there. In the big picture I just don’t think the region can sustain two governments that each claim sovereignty over the same areas, and given their historical cultural and economic ties I think reunification would be the outcome of a process of dialogue between them.
I agree, it seems that the political instability can’t last for too much longer, and I’m hoping for a peaceful resolution in whatever way that is. I have to admit that I would prefer a peaceful bipartisan result where each state relinquishes their claims on the other, but I have to admit that seems very unlikely and that your conclusion that they would most likely reunify is the most likely result.
yes
Taiwan
US military intervention has historically been really good for the countries involved
Also “appeasement” is a made up post-hoc explanation for the western Allies’ actions before WW2, blaming the supposed naivete or lack of spine of the leaders for simply allowing the Nazis to make expansionist moves uncontested, rather than it being an intentional policy to get out of their way and try to direct them eastwards against the Soviet Union.
Good comment, this lie also works with the thought terminating cliche of bumbling accidental empires in a damn near synergistically perfect way
lmao is this literally a lemmy instance for British feds? this has to be some reverse psychology from the Ml5
Britain doesn’t have “feds”, fed is a really American thing. It’s short for “federated reddit” basically.
wiktionary says otherwise and even has a newspaper citation for British use of it to refer to local cops.
(I guess thanks to Hollywood’s influence…)
deleted by creator
No one is saying this, but go off.
These are the territorial claims of the government on Taiwan, from a state the US and much of the Western world support or at least de facto like to defend in Asia. They never made any remarks regarding Taiwan’s claims with 18 other countries. If the US supports peace in the Asia Pacific (besides looking at a map and asking why the US has even a say about Asia in the first place), then surely Mainland China must be supported, as by protecting & legitimizing Taiwan’s constitution, you’re approving this shit in Asia.
But let me guess, neoliberal countries get a pass from the crackerverse?
Holy shit, you’re telling me that both sides in a civil war think they should have full control of the country they’re in a civil war over? Hang on I need to sit fucking down my head is spinning
Civil war is when two sides of a nonviolent conflict peacefully negotiate reintegration.
Better send weapons to Taiwan!
Here’s a question for you: would you support a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan?
No, but if it weren’t for Western provocations that would never have been on the table. What do you think giving weapons to Taiwan does? China will not tolerate an arms buildup in Taiwain, it will attack as a result. That’s not good and I don’t support it, but that’s the material reality that you refuse to accept.
If the Taiwanese state would never capitulate and reintegrate peacefully with the CCP state, which is their claim, then wouldn’t that make an invasion of Taiwan inevitable, regardless of weapons?
Never is a long time and, with the right incentives, that stance can be changed peacefully.
Assume that it wouldn’t, though - I could just as easily say “with the right incentives, the United States could elect a communist president and transition to a people’s republic”, so let’s take them at their word that never means never and go from there, shall we?
There can be a revolution in Taiwan.
No, I think you need to read my comment and your’s again. You say appeasement politics will lead to no good, so… you protect the ROC’s claims instead, which is even appeasing more that just leaving China. I caught your illogical argument, and distilled it to the meaningless content that it was. Now you pretend stupid to run away from that illogical claim. But you can’t win against me, who studied at Oxford, Nato boy
This is the most unbelievably embarrassing thing I have ever read on Lemmy. Honestly, if you regret writing this, please let me know. I will amend my comment to erase the fact you ever wrote it.
Please cite evidence of my support of Taiwan’s territorial claims. If you believe that opposing CCP imperialism means that one must also support Taiwanese territorial claims then you have made an incorrect assumption - and a converse error on your part does not constitute a failure on mine.
I’m very sorry that I refuse to defend the strawman you so thoughtfully prepared for me. By all means, whack away at him. I would suggest that you take your own advice, by the way, and read my actual comment and respond to the text of what I wrote, not some imagined subtext your Oxford-educated brain conjured to allay your cognitive dissonance. Oh, and one last thing - whatever your parents paid for that education, unfortunately it would appear to have turned out a poor investment.
what do you think imperialism is? the island of taiwan has historically been part of china, the KMT just held onto it after losing the civil war. it’s like if the CSA somehow kept florida
why does “historically been part of” matter, do you want all former colonial terrirories returned to their original empires?
deleted by creator
And United States has historically been part of the United Kingdom. Does that mean if the UK redrew maps to show that the US was their territory it wouldn’t be imperialism? Imperialism is the expansion of the territory or influence of a state especially through the use of violence. The CCP wishes to extend its influence into Taiwan and they are willing to use military force to do so. That’s why they’re so mad about Taiwan being provided with the means to defend themselves. It would make a military invasion more difficult and costly.
deleted by creator
Then get prepped, cause I did my postgraduate at MIT as well. There are no smarter guys than those graduating there. I knew you would now claim “where did I said we need support Taiwanese territorial claims mimimi”. Did you read the article and what it is about? What is the US and what is China’s point of conflict? Tell me, how can you say “we can’t appease China blabla…” to do what? Taiwan is the exact part of their sovereign terrorial claims. Opposing them on the fact that Taiwan becomes/remains independant is exactly enabling the territorial claims of the state on that island, ROC.
And now you backpedal, “I’m commenting on the article but in fact I do not support US point of view and argue without the context of any article we comment on!!!1! Its my isolated opinion from those events and blabla” or “Actually I meant we should oppose China but also make demands on Taiwan’s contitution and put conditions on their clams blabla…”. I know that if you would understand any of this conflict or history you wouldn’t actually call under the article of US warmongering, encirclement and violation of the One-China policy regarding China’s claim of Taiwan, an act of “CCP imperialism”. But know you backtrack and try to slip away like a oily snake. There is no escape from my superior arguing skills, and you’re critic of appeasing hypocritical is false even on the level of formal logics.
This is the real strawman in this thread.
You sound like Donald Trump lmao. “Oh I went to Harvard got really good grades”.
I haven’t backpedaled on shit. I wrote a top level reply in an off-site comments section. I am not required to take an all-or-nothing position, either wholeheartedly agreeing or disagreeing with every claim in the article. The world has nuance.
Then next, guess where I did my PhD.
A lot of words for saying you have no consistent logic. If you understand the claims of Taiwan and that the US is supporting this state, you can’t impossible speak of “CCP imperialism”, in the context of ROC’s claims, and call their right for their territory as appeasement. But I know that people outside of Harvard have liquid arguments.
Btw lmao I neither studied at US nor UK, that only a joke. Yes I think he said something along that with Harvard lol
You’re making a converse error again - A TV can’t turn on if it’s not plugged in. Therefore, if the TV can’t turn on, it’s not plugged in. The TV could be broken, there could be a power cut, etc.
You’re saying that the United States supports providing arms to Taiwan and the United States supports Taiwan’s territorial claims. Therefore, by supporting providing arms to Taiwan, that means I support Taiwan’s territorial claims.
No. I don’t. So I don’t have to defend their territorial claims. I am sorry if that makes it difficult for you to argue your preferred argument with me, but you’ll just have to engage with my argument on its own terms, not on the ones you imagined.
It was funny, thanks for that.
deleted by creator
oh my god he’s got the 1’s mixed in with exclamation marks, god thats old school childish
deleted by creator
Holy fucking cringe, if I was the CCP propaganda office I would want my money back.
What actions have they taken in pursuit of these supposed claims?
Well, if they are so democratic, and support other nations sovereignty as they would like their own, why don’t they remove them from their constitution? I have a feeling you have no idea of the ideology of the state on that island.
So no actions needing attention like we’re giving to China for threatening the sovereignty of other independent nations.
Wdym? I said it does not make sense to say appeasement politics is bad but then by supporting the government on Taiwan, and appeasing their claims. If anything we need to define sovereignity first and then support a side on conditions. Which are obvioulsy not made regarding Taiwan’s claims because of Westerners lust for hegemony.
the only claim being appeased is to what they already control, Taiwan. That’s their country. I asked for specific actions being taken by Taiwan to take territory from sovereign nations. What other claims are we appeasing? Has there been military action against Mongolia, or Japan, that we are hypocritically ignoring? What threat to other nation’s sovereignty are we ignoring from Taiwan?
That’s not true, or at least what I would argue. You can point me to any article where some Western politician is saying “as long as Taiwan want it’s island we support that, but not more than that”. In fact, I don’t know of any conditions the US or anybody who defends Taiwanese independence, is making regarding their claims. There is no “Taiwan only” constitution that the US supports. This is the needle in the ass of the PRC. I think it would be a different situation, if Taiwan (and the US) would say "we want Taiwan to be its own country, and we recognize the PRC as the successor of China.
But they don’t do that. They actually support the ROC and everything on their constitution. Including the 11-dash line in the South China Sea, that is larger than what China is drawing with their 9-dash line That they are for the “will of the Taiwanese to just be independant on their island” is for the public of the G7 countries. Nobody is willing to give up the territories of ROC afaik. Yes the ROC can’t do anything about it in terms of military power, but they equally don’t make any steps to remove them. (But I think if the US tells it’s guys at the DPP to create such a constitution that claims only the island of Taiwan, they will only do it to provocate an attack by China. But that’s beyond my point and the map above.)
Not only has US never endorsed their claims outside Taiwan, they still dont formally endorse their claims to Taiwan itself. So no. They dont support RoC’s constitution and as far as im aware have never commented on it.
the one singular lesson liberals were able to tease out from all their history classes on ww2
“I can’t refute your argument so I’ll just call you uneducated, instead.”
I’m not a liberal, by the way.
deleted by creator
Again, not a liberal. Opposing imperialism from China doesn’t make one a liberal. This is like an example of what a school kid would write as an example of affirming the consequent. Pretty funny stuff!
deleted by creator
Yeah, I wanted to be on a relatively small, relatively politically neutral instance with a lot of normal people, where I could express myself freely, argue for balance and nuance in an increasingly polarised world, and build working class solidarity where it actually needs to be built, rather than confining myself to an echo chamber.
deleted by creator
It’s okay, you don’t have to do it if you don’t want to - from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs, after all.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Isn’t is great when someone speaks and tells you everything about who they are as a person.
Wanting US empire to collapse is certainly not everything I am as a person. I guess some are only capable to see others are cartoonish cardboard cutouts as opposed to actual people.
The person you replied to is from the UK, so what are you going on about right now?
Evidently you don’t understand what the word empire means. UK is a vassal state of the US and part of the empire.
You literally live in a fantasy world.
You literally have no clue about the world if you genuinely think that.
I do have a bit of a clue about the world, the UK is not a vassal state of “the US Empire”. You’ve taken a goofy LARP that you’re some kind of revolutionary fighter up against an evil empire so far, that you’ve started to think your fantasy game is real.
The only territorial claims China has tried to enforce recently are to literally uninhabited lands (Aksai Chin and the SCS islands) and Taiwan (which they are still at war with).
How much do you really care about a piece of rock with no people and no animals living on it?
Damn Taiwan is a piece of rock with no people on it?
So the CCP is full of idiots that are willing to weaken their international relations for a bunch of useless pieces of rock? Is that what you are saying?
Enough to fry the world apparently
Can you explain to the crowd how you felt comfortable enough to pretend that the country of Taiwan is a barren rock without any people living on it?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Episode 89: How Charges of ‘Appeasement’ Equate Diplomacy with Treason
Oh geez. This thread is great. Thanks for the laugh! 😂