• TomHardy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    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
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Civil war is when two sides of a nonviolent conflict peacefully negotiate reintegration.

        Better send weapons to Taiwan!

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • queermunist she/her
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                22
                arrow-down
                11
                ·
                1 year ago

                Never is a long time and, with the right incentives, that stance can be changed peacefully.

                • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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?

                  • queermunist she/her
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    14
                    arrow-down
                    10
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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.

      • TomHardy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        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
          16
          ·
          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.

          • VHS [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            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

            • blazera@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              why does “historically been part of” matter, do you want all former colonial terrirories returned to their original empires?

            • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

          • TomHardy
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            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.

            • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • TomHardy
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                14
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                “Oh I went to Harvard got really good grades”

                Then next, guess where I did my PhD.

                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

                • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  I neither studied at US nor UK, that only a joke

                  It was funny, thanks for that.

                  • TomHardy
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    14
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago
                    • 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

            • blazera@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        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
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • TomHardy
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            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
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                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.)

                • blazera@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • TomHardy
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

                  • cecinestpasunbot
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.