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.
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.
Article about US provocating a war with China and violating their One-China principle
“So we should just appease China or what?”
“If anything, you appease Taiwan by opposing China”
“No, I don’t, what do you mean, I have a 4D chess move on this, it is nuanced”
Lmao you stand for absolutely nothing. Saying let China exercising their right for their sovereign territory is appeasement is bs, a Western-centric point of view, and China’s claims are less and would result in more peace, as shown by my map above. Only thing you could attack was my sarcasm. Lmao, what a lib
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.
Not only has US never endorsed their claims outside Taiwan
You keep pulling shit from your ass. The US has formerly recognized the ROC and all its claims, then put the PRC into UN instead in the cold war to get them on their side. And recognized the One-China Policy.
Now, if the US is again violating the One-China Policy, that means they deal with ROC as a state again. Here you start to pull out without sources or proof an assumption that there is an imaginary state called Taiwan, with a constitution with claims only about the island itself, and that the US is exactly protecting this state, which I said does not exist in that form.
My whole point is the absence of that nuance, and that this state the US de facto recognized has claims worse that any other country in Asia.
They dont support RoC’s constitution
I mean yes now they don’t recognize it officially, but they and the government on Taiwan do not make any considerations regarding these claims, they just still have them? That is literally my whole point.
You couldn’t be more wrong. The ROC wouldn’t exist had the US not intervened in the civil war by stationing the US navy between Taiwan and the mainland. The US recognized the territorial claims of the ROC for around 30 years. The US even pushed the ROC to recognize Mongolian independence in the 60s.
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?
Okay, then China could peacefully try and fail for a million billion years. That still doesn’t actually necessitate invasion.
But also that assumption is kinda nonsense so I think it can be safely discarded. Forever is a long time.
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.
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.
Lmao you stand for absolutely nothing. Saying let China exercising their right for their sovereign territory is appeasement is bs, a Western-centric point of view, and China’s claims are less and would result in more peace, as shown by my map above. Only thing you could attack was my sarcasm. Lmao, what a lib
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.
You keep pulling shit from your ass. The US has formerly recognized the ROC and all its claims, then put the PRC into UN instead in the cold war to get them on their side. And recognized the One-China Policy.
Now, if the US is again violating the One-China Policy, that means they deal with ROC as a state again. Here you start to pull out without sources or proof an assumption that there is an imaginary state called Taiwan, with a constitution with claims only about the island itself, and that the US is exactly protecting this state, which I said does not exist in that form.
My whole point is the absence of that nuance, and that this state the US de facto recognized has claims worse that any other country in Asia.
I mean yes now they don’t recognize it officially, but they and the government on Taiwan do not make any considerations regarding these claims, they just still have them? That is literally my whole point.
You couldn’t be more wrong. The ROC wouldn’t exist had the US not intervened in the civil war by stationing the US navy between Taiwan and the mainland. The US recognized the territorial claims of the ROC for around 30 years. The US even pushed the ROC to recognize Mongolian independence in the 60s.