• freagle@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    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.

    • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      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”

      • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        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.

        • TomHardy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          You see - fuck the US - but if the US is putting 12 000 km away from their mainland military equipment on what they recognize as China’s territory, it is actually “CCP imperialism” if they react ;)

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          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
            18
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            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
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              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
                6
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                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.

                • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If the United States’s Union split in half tomorrow, then the power of the United States would be diminished. This would simultaneously strengthen every other nation state in comparison. So by limiting the power of the CCP, we reduce their ability to cause harm. It’s not a zero sum game between the US and China or even NATO and China. There are plenty of other people involved. This isn’t a video game. We are talking about people’s lives.

                  And yes, I also oppose NATO.

                  Anyways, I’m done with you. I have tried to build consensus and establish equal ground but you just refuse to admit that you made assumptions about me that were wrong. I don’t want to spend any more time talking to someone who won’t respect what I write enough to actually read it.

                  • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    LOL, you tried to establish common ground by assuming shit about me and when I explain my position you take offense. You can’t imagine that reducing Chinese power inherently increases North Atlantic power despite not being a zero sum game. You live in a fantasy world.

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not a lib. And no, I don’t believe in supporting the lesser evil. I don’t support any evil.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            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
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              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.

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Your argument seems to be that we should oppose all sides equally, regardless of context.

                Do you even support anything?

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

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      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
        10
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        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.

          • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            If this is bad behavior than what do you call the countless military exercises the US does all over the world as a show of force against other sovereign nations?

            The reality is that doing a military exercise in your own backyard is required for national security. Look at a map some day. Tell me what’s wrong with China doing exercises off their own coast.

              • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Which is a) literally off the coast of China and b) internationally recognized as China’s sovereign territory

                • blazera@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  no, it’s off the coast of Taiwan, and there is no international consensus on Taiwan. Most countries have distinct foreign relations with Taiwan separate from China.

                  also, you know, caring what the people of Taiwan want, if that’s remotely a possibility for you.

                  • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    There are a large number of things that are factually incorrect with your position.

                    1. Taiwan is a small island off the coast of China. By virtue of its size, the coastal waters of mainland China contain the island of Taiwan. By virtue of its distance from the mainland, if the island were not present, off the coast of the mainland includes off the coast of Taiwan. The island of Taiwan is about as far from mainland China as Key West is from Florida. Activities off the coast of Key West are considered activities off the coast of Florida and not of some other state.

                    2. The nation of China has included the island of Taiwan from centuries. When two different political groups fought a civil war for control over the nation, the losers fled to the island of Taiwan and declared themselves the government of the nation of China in exile. At no point did either group decide that the mainland and the island were part of different nations or nations unto themselves.

                    3. The historical reason many nations have distinct relationships with Taiwan is historically relevant here. The reason is because most nations were anti-communist, refused to acknowledge the communist government of China, and still wanted to exploit China. So, they recognized the KMT as the government of China - not of Taiwan but of China, because the nation of China includes Taiwan. The reason they did this is because they had been dominating China for 100 years and believed the KMT would act as their vassals and believed the CPC would not. So, imperialists who were dominating China protected the losers in the civil war. Had they not intervened, the losers would have been captured. UK and USA creates a dependent puppet government while it conducted a mass murder campaign for decades. All the whole, no one said Taiwan was a separate and new country, not even the KMT on the island of Taiwan.

                    4. The UN has a seat on the security council for the nation of China. The KMT was the political body occupying that seat on behf of the nation of China. When the CPC won the war and took over the nation of China, the UN continued to assert that the KMT was the rightful government of China, the nation that includes the island of Taiwan. Eventually, no one could sustain the bullshit anymore and the CPC, the political group in charge of the nation of China, took the seat at the UN.

                    Thus, the world sees Taiwan as a province of the nation of China and the CPC as the political government of the nation of China. The people of Taiwan, that is to say, the survivors of the 40-year reign of terror where it was a crime punishable by death to even talk about the CPC as the government of China, some of these people now wish to figure out a way to secede. Why do they wish to secede? Because the UK and USA have invested decades and trillions and in creating conditions that make this a reasonable position. Like Hong Kong, the West has established significant finance capital and high tech operations that give an elite upper crust a very high quality of life and the middle class a quality of life like a wealthy European nation. In addition, the West has spent 40 years propagandizing and manipulating the people on the island under the banner of protecting the KMT from the evil commies.

                    So yes. There is a secessionary movement. It is explicitly motivated by desire to be economically dependent on the West. But it is a secessionary movement to become something other than a province of the nation of China, which means it assumes from the get go that Taiwan is not an independent nation.

                    Your utter lack of historical understanding is appalling, especially in light of your position that military response by the West is justified.

          • Krause [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Military exercises on their own territory as recognized by the United Nations and almost every single country on Earth? What is the issue here?

            The Taiwan Province is an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China:

            And this is recognized by the United Nations ever since 1971 after UNGAR 2758.

            Source, page 546: https://web.archive.org/web/20230503050030/https://legal.un.org/unjuridicalyearbook/pdfs/english/volumes/2010.pdf

            Video of the votes happening: https://invidious.projectsegfau.lt/watch?v=sfOIEjuXFyU

            • blazera@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              why are you showing me excerpt’s from PRC’s constitution? Yeah, China claims Taiwan the same way Russia claims Ukraine, I dont care what the aggressor imperialist country thinks, I care what the people within the territory think. And what they wanted was to host a US official in their territory, and then China decided to threaten them. I get the impression folks in your circle have nothing but disdain for the people in Taiwan and dont care what they want.

              That UN vote is not about Taiwan being a part of PRC, it’s about who represents ‘China’ in the UN.

              • Krause [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That UN vote is not about Taiwan being a part of PRC, it’s about who represents ‘China’ in the UN.

                Exactly, and the Taiwan Province is a part of CHINA, which is represented by the government in Beijing (PRC), before UNGAR 2758 it was represented by the government in Taipei (ROC).

                “Taiwan” is not a country, regardless of one’s position on this they are either a province of the People’s Republic of China or of the Republic of China.

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

                  one country’s constitution doesnt get to decide the sovereignty of other nations. And that’s what you’ve shown me, plus an unrelated vote in the UN. Neither of these preclude Taiwan as a country. And ignoring the part about what the people within the territory of Taiwan want just confirms for me the inhuman view your circle has of people.