• Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • CascadeOfLight [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              This is the real strawman in this thread.

              • blazera@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                oh my god he’s got the 1’s mixed in with exclamation marks, god thats old school childish

        • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • blazera@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So no actions needing attention like we’re giving to China for threatening the sovereignty of other independent nations.

            • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • blazera@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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?

                • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.)

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It is the USA that has been the target of appeasement. Every expansion, every death squad, every war crime, every black site, every assassination, every war of aggression, every single time the world appeases the USA.

      If you think the USA is appeasing China, your head is screwed on backwards. I know it’s a common trope for abusers to feel offended and attacked when their victims standup for themselves, and I know you probably stand with the victims and see through the abusers’ bullshit. You need to do that with the USA.

      Abu Ghraib - appeased.
      Nord Stream 2 - appeased.
      Solemaini - appeased.
      Iraq - appeased.
      Iraq 2 - appeased.
      Vietnam - appeased.
      Laos - appeased.
      Cambodia - appeased.
      Korea - appeased.
      Hiroshima - appeased.
      Nagasaki - appeased.
      Guantanamo - appeased.
      Libya - appeased.
      Syria - appeased.
      StuxNet - appeased.
      Pulling out of nuclear treaties - appeased.
      Refusing to be accountable to ICC - appeased.
      Refusing to sign landmine treaty - appeased.
      Agent Orange - appeased.
      Napalm - appeased.
      White phosphorus - appeased.
      Depleted Uranium - appeased.
      Yugoslavia - appeased.
      Afghanistan - appeased.
      School of the Americas - appeased.
      Wiretapping the entire US civilian population - appeased.
      Wiretapping every embassy through Siemens supply chain attack - appeased.
      NATO expansion - appeased.
      Economic shock therapy kills millions - appeased.
      Training terrorists - appeased.
      Airlifting terrorists into other countries - appeased.
      Environmental devastation - appeased.
      Sending expired vaccines - appeased.
      Refusing to send vaccines - appeased.
      Refusing to follow the predefined protocol for sharing vaccine research - appeased.
      Iranian regime change - appeased.
      Color revolutions - appeased.
      Extracting trillions from Africa - appeased.
      Child separation - appeased.
      Toddlers in solitary confinement - appeased.
      Forced hysterectomies - appeased.
      Collective punishment of civilians - appeased.
      Support for Israeli apartheid - appeased.
      Iran-Contra - appeased.
      Fast and Furious - appeased.
      CIA drug trafficking - appeased.
      Haitian assassination - appeased.
      Bolivia - appeased.
      Nicaragua - appeased.
      Pinochet - appeased.

      I can keep going if you want.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout.

        You realize that if country A does something bad, “Country B did something bad too!” is not actually a defense of country A’s behaviour? Indeed, it just implies that you agree that that behaviour is bad.

      • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Fuck the United States. They’re easily the worst, most imperialist nation on the planet. But we’re capable of more nuance than “any country in opposition to the US can do no wrong”

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Fuck the United States. They’re easily the worst, most imperialist nation on the planet.

          “But somehow I keep finding all these familiar geopolitical flashpoints where I support them.”

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What the fuck is wrong with you? The idea that the USA could possibly engage in appeasement is completely undermined by the fact that THEY ARE THE AGGRESSOR WHO IS BEING APPEASED. When China pushes back against the USA they are not doing something wrong, they are doing something against the USA’s interests. When China doesn’t push back against the USA, they are appeasing.

          The entire analysis of “oh everyone is bad and therefore the USA shouldn’t appease them” is completely structureless. It’s all moron vibes.

          • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks for your reply, before I address it, I have to ask, would you support it if the CCP government launched a military invasion of Taiwan?

            • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I would need to analyze the situation. The CPC has established it will not do this for any reason except to protect Chinese national security interests. If it turns out that the USA delivers advanced missile “defense” systems and other nuclear capabilities including submarines, air power, and other plaforms and assets, then it will be all but strategically certain that China will be forced to use military action to push the USA off the island and out of the surrounding waters.

              Given the analysis of the Ukraine conflict, it’s possible that China may need to include other considerations that I am not fully up to speed on about American capabilities and American proxy war strategies.

              In short, yes, I trust the CPC to only use military force when all other options for defense against the USA have been exhausted. This has been their policy and doctrine for a while and there are no indications of it changing anytime soon.

              • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Honestly, I don’t think we really disagree all that much in broad terms. We both hate US imperialism. I just don’t see the CCP as an omni-benevolent state which can do no wrong. Until the world is ready to fully transition away from capitalism, greed and totalitarianism, it is best to limit the power and influence of nation states. And that includes states which claim to be transitioning towards communism. Checks and balances against supremacy prevents anti-revolutionary elements from seizing control of the state and turning its power against the people. Let’s just agree to disagree, move on with our lives, and spend our energy arguing with people who still support capitalism instead.

                • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  We do disagree, a lot. For example you think I believe that China is omnibenevolent. I don’t.

                  Another example, you think it’s possible to limit the power and influence of nationstates without simultaneously expanding the power and influence of nationstates. Exactly how do you think this is possible? Who, exactly, is going to limit the power and influence of China? After that power and influence is limited, what do you think will happen to the power and influence of others.

                  What you don’t seem to understand is that China is STILL going through the process of limiting the power and influence of the North Atlantic in China’s own physical location. The USA however, is busy limiting the power and influence of other nations in those nations’ physical locations. Pushing back against the North Atlantic is literally how you achieve the goal you say you want.

                  The idea of having checks and balances in an international world order that has spent the last 600 years dominating 80% of the world’s population with abject brutality and genocide required the expansion of power and influence of formerly oppressed states. Like it or not, you can’t just reduce the USA’s influence with vibes while the USA reduces China’s influence with nukes.

            • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You don’t even know the name of the party. Taiwan is part of China and will always be

    • zephyreks@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

    • TheLastHero [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        How can you consider yourself anti-imperialist when you’re talking about unilaterally giving entire countries to other countries?

        • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • TheDankHold@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did you even bother to read the comments you’re replying to? Taiwan isn’t a country and it never has been. It has been a part of the nation of China for centuries. When the civil war broke out, it was between two political groups inside the nation of China, a nation that includes the island of Taiwan. The communists won the war and the KMT lost and fled to Taiwan, an island in the nation of China. Because the KMT fled, the civil war continues, but the imperialist countries (UK, USA) intervened to protect the losing army that was holes up on an insland in the nation of China.

          That army, the KMT, never declared independence, never said they were a separate sovereign entity, and never created a new country. They said they were the rightful rulers of the nation of China, which includes the island of Taiwan.

          The imperilaists wanted the civil war to continue because they wanted control over the nation of China, which includes the island of Taiwan. So they made the KMT their proxy and funded and armed them, even while the KMT engaged in brutal mass murder campaigns and brutal political repression for 4 decades. It’s called the White Terror. Look it up. People living on Taiwan, an island in th nation of China, were Chinese nationals. When the KMT lost, many of those people wanted to end the war and recognize the communists as the new leaders of the nation of China, of which they were a part. The KMT murdered thousands of them. The imperialists agreed that this was right and good.

          The UN had a seat for the nation of China. The recognized the KMT and gave them the seat at the UN. Not two seats, one for one nation and one for another, one seat for one nation, the nation of China which includes the island of Taiwan. Eventually it became untenable to recognize the KMT as the leaders of the nation of China and the world shifted to recognizing the communists of the nation of China, a nation that has an unbroken history of having an island called Taiwan which no one has challenged.

          And since then, the imperilaists who cannot allow other nations to govern themselves in their own interests, has been maintaining and exacerbating the civil war to keep their proxy war against communists going.

          It is anti-imperialist to support China against the interests of the West.

    • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hogwarts School of Witchcraft is a boarding school for wizards.

      Same energy in this statement.

        • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, you posted provably false bs. How can I not troll? Even the state on Taiwan claims Taiwan is only a region of a country, and not a nation lmao

          • Deceptichum@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            25% of Taiwanese want independence.

            6.8% of Taiwanese want to join China.

            The others want things to stay the same, I.e functionally independent.

            But hey let’s ignore the will of the people and impose imperialist rhetoric on why they don’t deserve self-determination.

              • Deceptichum@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                The 6.8% not wanting to be independent is the telling part.

                Everyone else either wants to openly call themselves independent on carry on as they are in already being functionally independent.

                tl;dr: No one wants to be part of China or not independent.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The vast majority of people want things to stay the same. Both independence and reintegration are very small minorities.

                  What that tells me is China has a lot of work to do to entice Taiwan. That’s it.

  • Deceptichum@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    China creates conflict with all its neighbours and tries to steal their territorial waters.

    China threatens the existence of an independent Taiwan.

    China commits literal genocide against Uyghurs

    And it’s the US starting shit this time? Give me a fucking break imperialist sympathisers.

    • regul@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Explain why any of that is the US’s problem or necessitates a response from the US at all.

      • Silverseren@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The well-being of the world should be everyone’s problem. It’s just that with the largest economy and comparative power in the world, the US has a greater responsibility than most. Queue the Spiderman quote.

    • So first, the US having military bases surrounding China is tied into why they disagree with their neighbors. They allowed the US on the boarder so it makes sense they aren’t stoked about it. The US has at least 750 military bases around the world in 80 countries. The next closest country has 145 bases and thats the UK. If we want to reference imperialism, then starting with the US is the most practical based on this alone.

      In addition, only 12 countries consider Taiwan as an independent country. Regardless if this is correct, the actions the US has recently taken with Taiwan is without question increasing tension in an already tense situation.

      Furthermore, following the numbers on the Uyghur women being forced to have contraception implants would mean each woman has 8 impants. This makes absolute zero sense. The fact the US media’s primary source on the Uyghur situation is an outright lunatic does help make it all add up though.

      All in all, it takes two to tango for sure. Yet the US seeing it’s global power drastically decline makes their moves less obfuscated and vividly more desperate.

        • §ɦṛɛɗɗịɛ ßịⱺ𝔩ⱺɠịᵴŧ@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you’re concerned about human rights, why gloss over the US being notorious for human rights abuse? They have the largest prison population ever, comprised primarily of minorities who were obscenely experimented on during MK Ultra. Plus the prior and current treatment of Native Americans or the 6,000,000+ innocent citizens killed in the war on terror. The US is no longer even classified as a first world country. But it doesn’t matter cause the news said the US is definitely the best choice for the world police.

          Are you for bombing Mexico to stop the opioid crisis too? While the idea is gaining traction stateside, it takes minutes to understand of the 14,000+ pounds of fentanyl seized at the Mexican boarder in 2022, over 90% was from US citizens. But logic is totally overrated when it comes to international law I guess.