this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
33 points (59.9% liked)
World News
32352 readers
412 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
I don’t see why, China is constrained by the same consequences of nuclear war, and has the same responsibility to avoid it, e.g. by relaxing claims that it owns and controls the entire South China Sea. Especially because I don’t think you’d say the same would be justified if the US claimed the entire Gulf of Mexico, or bearing sea, for example
Your second paragraph is a great point. Even taking whatever the U.S. State Department says about China at face value, comparing a nuclear standoff to 1930s Europe is ridiculous.
The United States is clearly evil and doesn’t have good intentions. I’m not an idiot. But we also need to be critical of the wrongdoings of the Chinese state.
There is a spectrum of options between “do nothing” and “go to war”. I would not support a US military intervention in a war between Taiwan and the CCP.
Clearly, the CCP is nowhere near on the scale of Nazi Germany, though when we talk of appeasement, it wasn’t quite at the levels of conquering all of Eastern Europe at the time, but I’m not going to split hairs over that - your point that I shouldn’t compare them is completely valid and fair.
I think continuing to keep things at a stalemate where neither country gets invaded is the best state of affairs for the time being, until something changes geopolitically. For that reason, I am not going to decry the supply of weapons to Taiwan, because that provides disincentive for an invasion of Taiwan, and makes military conflict less likely.
I agree with your comment completely, stability and peace in the region is definitely not what the United States wants, long term. But that doesn’t mean that every single thing they do is wrong, and it doesn’t mean that every thing the US’s opponents do is right. We should take the actions and outcomes of these actors at face value, continue to advocate for peace and reconciliation and encourage more nuanced, balanced takes rather than hugely polarising positions. Thank you for engaging and considering what I wrote, we can build a better world if we keep building consensus, treating those with whom we disagree respectfully (assuming that they’re not being intolerant assholes!) and talking things through! <3
I appreciate your openness here. I think the PRC would also prefer peaceful engagement with the longer term goal of peaceful reincorporation, the trade ties they've cultivated in spite of US hostility I think lend credence to their sincerity there. In the big picture I just don't think the region can sustain two governments that each claim sovereignty over the same areas, and given their historical cultural and economic ties I think reunification would be the outcome of a process of dialogue between them.
I agree, it seems that the political instability can’t last for too much longer, and I’m hoping for a peaceful resolution in whatever way that is. I have to admit that I would prefer a peaceful bipartisan result where each state relinquishes their claims on the other, but I have to admit that seems very unlikely and that your conclusion that they would most likely reunify is the most likely result.
yes
Taiwan
US military intervention has historically been really good for the countries involved