this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
32 points (59.5% liked)

World News

32375 readers
646 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blake 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

Better send weapons to Taiwan!

[–] Blake 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here’s a question for you: would you support a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan?

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Blake 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Blake 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You’re not engaging with my argument because you know fine well what the outcome would be. I think we’re done here.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I definitely answered your hypothetical? If the Taiwanese state would never capitulate and reintegrate peacefully with the rest of China, then China could peacefully try and fail to reintegrate for a million billion years. That's it. Nothing else has to happen.

I think your argument is dumb, but that definitely addresses it.

[–] Blake 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, my apologies, you’re quite right, I initially misread your message, sorry about that - thank you for your answer and I appreciate your consistency. I appreciate you arguing in good faith and I understand your position.

I disagree with you, I think you have an altogether a bit too optimistic perspective of the CCP, but I understand why you would be inclined to feel that way.

My point is, I think it’s pretty clear that Taiwan stands no chance whatsoever in a hot conflict with the Red Army - I hope that’s something that we agree on. I am sure that Taiwan is also very aware of that fact.

So what threat is posed by providing conventional munitions to Taiwan? If they were used in aggression, they would guarantee their own demise. Do you really think that they would be so desperate to strike a meaningless blow against the CCP that they would trade everything to accomplish that?

If so, why would these weapons change anything? They could have sacrificed everything for a single meaningless act of violence long before now. It’s not like Taiwan is being supplied with nuclear weapons, is it?

Providing Taiwan with conventional weaponry only accomplishes one thing: making an invasion of Taiwan less compelling.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Taiwan stands no chance right now, but how many billions of dollars in weapons would it take to change that calculus? Ukraine is fighting off Russia despite being in a much worse position because of the endless funnel of weaponry from the West, so it seems that if Taiwan can dig itself in and arm itself to the teeth it can become a legitimate threat. China will be forced to deal with having a hostile enemy as a neighbor, and even if Taiwan didn't openly invade they could still become a serious regional threat to China and Chinese interests.

Think about the Korean peninsula for what the future might hold.

[–] Blake 3 points 1 year ago

A threat to CCP interests it may be, but that wouldn’t justify a military invasion that would kill a shitload of people, would it? It would have to be sinking food or medicine shipments with coastal guns or something equally abhorrent to justify such an act. And again, that would absolutely be valid justification for an invasion, so they wouldn’t do it. How can you claim to be one of the good guys when you justify a military invasion and the deaths of thousands of innocents as “just a fact of how things will turn out”.

[–] RuthlessCriticism@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago

There can be a revolution in Taiwan.

[–] TomHardy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Blake 6 points 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@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

“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 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  • 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

[–] Blake 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have to say that you are wearing my patience very thin. I have addressed your arguments quite directly, respectfully and tried to encourage understanding, but you’re just continuing to hurl insults. Are you just trolling or are you so steeped in toxic internet culture that you can’t imagine a discussion without insulting your interlocutor?

We both know that Taiwan would stand no fucking chance if it was invaded. You’re basically saying, “if anything, you appease the Sudetenland by opposing Nazi Germany”.

Anyways, I’m done with this argument, I have proven you wrong countless times now and you just keep pushing me to defend a position that I do not hold and then you’re just getting mad about it. I wouldn’t be arguing with you if I didn’t stand for anything, would I? I support peaceful coexistence, reconciliation and the end of capitalism.

[–] TomHardy@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess you're like an anarchist whose talking points just happend to align with the US department. I proved my case that the "appeasement" of China is the lesser "evil", and there is nothing that they demand that is crazy and actually would result to more peace than even Taiwan's constitution, which was the point of the map.

I have to say that you are wearing my patience very thin.

gonna cry?

[–] Blake 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don’t think you have proved that case at all. How is increasing the likelihood of an invasion of Taiwan the lesser evil, pray tell?

gonna cry?

I probably won’t cry, but it is harmful to my mental health, so I might have to block you if it continues.

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

pray tell

Oh holy shit it's you! The pray tell guy!

Can you sign my copy of 12 Rules for Life?

[–] Blake 1 points 1 year ago

Sure thing, send me a DM with your details and I’ll send you the address of my PO Box.

[–] TomHardy@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t think you have proved that case at all. How is increasing the likelihood of an invasion of Taiwan the lesser evil, pray tell?

Who and why would anybody invade them? The elections are in January, the pro-mainland politicians will win, if one followed their general public opinion in the slightest, and will stop buying weapons from the US and work towards a solution to join like an autonomous region. The only difference? The claims above will disappear, and they will continue calling Taiwan a region like they do now.

The only way they will get invaded if the US creates a color revolution before January, keep this ROC alive with all it's claims, and if you read the article, will increase their military presence on and around the island. In case of a successful provocation, they will throw Koreans and Japanese as well into the meatgrinder.

[–] Blake 6 points 1 year ago

So, if Taiwan had a revolution, would an invasion would be justified?

[–] blazera@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

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

[–] Nefyedardu@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

Holy fucking cringe, if I was the CCP propaganda office I would want my money back.