• 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
      1
      ·
      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

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

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

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      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.

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

          Moron vibes.

          China isn’t doing something bad. The USA is an aggressor in the region and has been for decades. The USA took over for the French in Vietnam, and that goes back a long time. The USA took over from Japan in Korea, and that goes back awhile too. The USA is the active aggressor here. The idea that China pushing back against USA aggression could ever be considered appeasement is completely illogical.

          What China is doing is not capable of being appeased. It would be like saying that if Nazi Germany left Poland alone because Poland was fighting back then Germany would be guilty of appeasing Poland. It’s moronic beyond fucking belief.

          No. It’s not whataboutism, it’s evidence that your argument is illogical. The USA cannot possibly appease China because the USA is the one being appeased the world over. The USA is the Fourth Reich. When China opposes it, China is doing its part to create a future where the USA no longer can hurt the supermajority of the world’s people.

          Fuck your liberal brain rot.

      • 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”

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

              I’m not a lib.

              Oh sorry, you’re an ultra, my mistake.

              How is it idealistically opposing everyone everywhere and never accomplishing anything?

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

                Why do you try to attack an identity you’re assuming that I hold, rather than addressing my actual arguments? Could it be because you’re incapable of actually successfully arguing against the points I’m making?

                And no, I’m not an “ultra”, though it’s quite a vaguely defined term, I’m not opposed to all of the structures that ultra-leftists are traditionally opposed to. Keep guessing, though. You’ll probably get it eventually. The world is a nuanced place and you shouldn’t try to shove everything into a convenient box to make it easier to deal with. That’s lib behaviour. You should know better.

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

                    My argument is that neither side should invade the other and that they should peacefully coexist. I support peace, balanced reconciliation, and the end of capitalism.