Boom now that's how you lathe

  • FirstToServe [they/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Here we are, huffing pure ideology, baby brained as fuck, believing that if China murders a civilian aircraft full of a diplomatic attache, the people who were killed by the first shot will be the ones who started the war.

    Well the good news is that China ain't doing shit. They don't hold Taiwan and they know it. They won't survive a nuclear exchange with the US and they know it. I can't wait for tomorrow to come and go so I can try to forget the dumbest this website has ever been on a topic.

    • bruh420xd69 [none/use name]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      :downbear:

      Haven’t commented on this site in well over a year but had to make a new account just to acknowledge how bad this take is

          • FirstToServe [they/them]
            ·
            2 years ago

            Maybe if you hadn't left you would have shaken loose all this reddit like behavior by now.

            • CyborgMarx [any, any]
              hexagon
              ·
              2 years ago

              Engages in toxic debate nerd bullshit then whines about "reddit like behavior"

              Too obvious

              • FirstToServe [they/them]
                ·
                2 years ago

                "I'm right because I made the most aloof sounding insult at you" is the core of the reddit debate bro personality and is 100% of what you've been sending my inbox buddy

                • CyborgMarx [any, any]
                  hexagon
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Says the dork who took a bit thread and decided it was a concrete geopolitical analysis of an ongoing situation, while preceding to reveal a mangled pro-US bent to an obvious hostile series of actions by the United States

                  There's no debate here dipshit you showed your ass with the first comment, your lucky all you got was "aLoOf INsULtS" now kick rocks troll

                  • FirstToServe [they/them]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 years ago

                    Says the dork who took a bit thread and decided it was a concrete geopolitical analysis of an ongoing situation

                    This is the framing you're applying to me responding to the premise that China firing on diplomats would be the US starting a war. What else can be said about such reddit brain? Cope.

                    while preceding

                    Proceeding. Not that I would imply such a lack of attention to detail is demonstrative of anything.

                    There’s no debate here dipshit you showed your ass with the first comment, your lucky all you got was “aLoOf INsULtS” now kick rocks troll

                    Epic pwn omg bazinga

                    • CyborgMarx [any, any]
                      hexagon
                      ·
                      2 years ago

                      Delete this and try again, you seem to be running out of steam

                      • FirstToServe [they/them]
                        ·
                        edit-2
                        2 years ago

                        You just declared victory on the weight of nothing but affected confidence again. Again.

                        And I don't have to contort myself to frame what you did dishonestly. I get to be honest. That's how I'm better than you. Since you seem to want this to be nothing but personal.

      • cawsby [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        The US is less dense and has more nukes.

        China isn't going to go nuclear against the US.

        China will play the long game and use belt/road to spread Chinese soft influence for the next 20-30 years at least.

          • cawsby [he/him]
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            China doesn't have the nukes to saturate bomb the US like Russia.

            Chinese nuclear stockpile is mostly defensive. Their nuclear anti-ship weapons are limited to ~2000 km.

            Why waste money building and maintaining weapons you will never use?

    • CyborgMarx [any, any]
      hexagon
      ·
      2 years ago

      What is up with this dumb-dumb idea that China would start the war by shooting her plane down

      The war would be triggered when China parks a cruiser in front of a US cruiser and the dipshit Qanon brained commander of the US cruiser decides to say fuck it and start shooting at the Chinese cruiser

      But don't worry I think your still cool for being sooo above it

      • FirstToServe [they/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        I guess I should have invented a completely platonic hypothetical where the actors behave in the exact reversal of how they're being set up in reality. Silly me basing my analysis on the actual thing happening and the threats being made in response.

        • CyborgMarx [any, any]
          hexagon
          ·
          2 years ago

          pLaToNiC hYpOTHeTIcAL where tHE aCTOrS....

          lmao shut up nerd

          • FirstToServe [they/them]
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            At least I'm not inventing completely unrelated scenarios to paper over my magical thinking

            Oh shit. I have to explain how the US is being aggressive when China is the one threatening to fire first. Wait! What if there are boats!

            lmao fuck yourself telling me to shut up

            • CyborgMarx [any, any]
              hexagon
              ·
              2 years ago

              Magical thinking is when you account for navies....in a political conflict...over an island...in the middle of the ocean. You're very smart

              And lmao fuuuck outta here trying to play dumb with US bullshit over Taiwan, it has always been a red line and when you have pentagon officials openly talking about using Taiwan as a launch pad for "future and inevitable operations in the region" your goddamm right its a Chinese red line

              By the way, shut up nerd :)

              • FirstToServe [they/them]
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                Yup. Magical thinking is when you invent an entire series of events that (one would say magically) reverses the order of aggressor to match your preference. China isn't threatening a US head of state for visiting another country. They're... uh... what if boaty shooty?!

                Lmao baby brain

              • FirstToServe [they/them]
                ·
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                Have fun with that.

                I have the advantage of my position being provable.

                Either China starts a world war and we all die, or I come back here tomorrow fully vindicated by time.

                You're all very stupid for arguing with me. And you'll never be in a position to say that yourself.

        • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Kind. China only has 2 commissioned carriers, one of which is primarily a training ship. Moreover, China doesn't go around waving it's dick in everyone's face like the US does, so those carriers don't stray far from home.

          When US carriers come to wave their dicks in China's face, those ships are within range of dozens of airfields and probably thousands of missiles. It's like waving your penis a centimeter away from an active meat slicer and thinking you're winning.

          • CanYouFeelItMrKrabs [any, he/him]
            ·
            2 years ago

            No matter where they are specifically around Taiwan the US ships would still be in range of Chinese airfields and missiles so I'm hoping it would go without incident as it has till now

            • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
              ·
              2 years ago

              It's only gone without incident because China exhibits a level of calm and restraint that countries like the US and UK could never possibly match. Just imagine the amount of shrill screeching from the Brits if the PLAN did a freedom of navigation patrol to their illegally occupied islands in the Chagos Archipelago.

    • ajouter [she/her]
      ·
      2 years ago

      let me just fire up usaf.com and get my points card out to book a normal civilian flight

      • FirstToServe [they/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Gonna bust out dictionary.com here in a second if I keep getting these big brain responses

        What do you think 'civilian' means? What is Nancy Pelosi's military rank? What branch of the military does the US congress fall under?

        • geikei [none/use name]
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          An official visit of her in Taiwan along with visits to southeast asian countries is a diplomatic visit of a high ranking standing US politician to it which is an escelation and breakaway of the status quo. She can visit after she retires without issues but this is an official US delegation and a visit to Taiwan is something that breaks away from the 92 consensus and that hasnt happened in 20+ years and is indeed a challenge and an act of agression against Chinese sovereignty. Its a clear push towards political secessionism of Taiwan and towards closer ,even military, US-Taiwan alliance and it represents a stance of the US government and military on the issue. She isnt an indivisual or civilian deciding to visit taiwan

                • ajouter [she/her]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  :blob-no-thoughts: China and Taiwan are two totally independent countries with no unresolved conflicts

                  • FirstToServe [they/them]
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    This is the pure ideology I'm talking about. "Unresolved conflicts"

                    "I really wanted to also control that territory" is not a conflict. I'm sorry you don't like the status quo. But they are geographically distinct, they exist under different governments. One China Policy was founded as a lie. If you want to be lied to, if you want to be pandered to like that, you are baby.

                    • geikei [none/use name]
                      ·
                      2 years ago

                      "that territory"

                      you mean chinese territory that the fascist losers of a still unresolved civil war against communists fled towards and the only reason they were allowed to exist and not lose completely was foreign intervention and imperialism by the US. If without imperial intervention and medling Taiwan ,a part of China before the revolution, would have been no different in being liberated and part of the PRC as any other part of China then it is its existance that is a historical lie and a colonial remnant

                    • ajouter [she/her]
                      ·
                      2 years ago

                      It honestly doesnt matter how you think things ought to be, this is how they are. Online poster FirstToServe thinks one china is bullshit? Cool, cool. Unfortunately nuclear power China that is 180km from Taiwan disagrees with you.

                      • FirstToServe [they/them]
                        ·
                        edit-2
                        2 years ago

                        "It honestly doesn't matter how you think things ought to be" is literally my thesis here lmao

                        NuClEaR pOwEr ChiNA 180km from Taiwan isn't going to do shit. It doesn't matter what they think as long as they insist on this rhetorical lie that is OCP. Taiwan isn't theirs. They would have to fight a war to claim it, and that war would be the end of life on earth. So the status quo will remain.

                        If you think differently you're huffing ideology from a paint can.

                        • ajouter [she/her]
                          ·
                          2 years ago

                          “It honestly doesn’t matter how you think things ought to be” is literally my thesis here lmao

                          I dont think it is. If it is it’s incoherent. Your thesis mostly seems to be “im gonna pretend all these shitposters actually want nuclear war and get mad about it”

                          It doesn’t matter what they think as long as they insist on this rhetorical lie that is OCP

                          Who agrees with you? Redditors? You really think thay calling OCP a lie means the US can be as provocative as they want?

                          Like you’re out here saying were all huffing pure ideology because we think China is within its rights to tell the US to fuck off, meanwhile your reasoning is based on ignoring the status quo you’re so excited to maintain.

                          • FirstToServe [they/them]
                            ·
                            edit-2
                            2 years ago

                            You really think thay calling OCP a lie means the US can be as provocative as they want?

                            I'm sorry... who do you think adjudicates what countries are and aren't allowed to do?

                            • geikei [none/use name]
                              ·
                              edit-2
                              2 years ago

                              The very real effects of preventing the US from making Taiwan into a giant Okinawa military base a 100 miles of China's shores and completely and utterly controlling its politicial and economic actions. Which is what would happen within a decade of the OCP going away even if China was the most peacefull and friendly nation to the New Taiwan. Disagree with this?

                              And if you say " but but the sides can agree and sign that Taiwan will never host US bases or get into a military pact with them" then your brain is barely at the size of a reptile's . Especially looking at Nato's behavior and seeing that rn China is 10 times the priority post collapse Russia has been for the US and west and that the US

                            • CanYouFeelItMrKrabs [any, he/him]
                              ·
                              2 years ago

                              It does affect things like the UN and the diplomatic relationships between different countries and China or Taiwan

                              • FirstToServe [they/them]
                                ·
                                2 years ago

                                Yeah but it doesn't affect what sphere of influence Taiwan lies under. Doesn't change their role in US military procurement and strategy.

                                If you're talking about how Portugal's ambassadors couch language then you're missing the forest for the trees, wouldn't you say?

                              • FirstToServe [they/them]
                                ·
                                2 years ago

                                The unpopularity of my obviously true observations isn't going to change the world I'm referring to. It's just going to make me even more smug.

                                • InsideOutsideCatside [they/them]
                                  ·
                                  2 years ago

                                  China isn't shooting shit but you're an absolute fucking moron for thinking they'd be the aggressors if they did, you fucking liberal

                                  • FirstToServe [they/them]
                                    ·
                                    edit-2
                                    2 years ago

                                    Well then we have an irreconcilable difference regarding who the fucking moron is here. It is objectively true that the person who initiates hostilities is the aggressor. That's what that word means. If belief in dictionary definitions of words is cause to be considered 'an absolute fucking moron' in your mind, then I guess that makes you an absolute fucking moron. How could you disagree?

                      • FirstToServe [they/them]
                        ·
                        edit-2
                        2 years ago

                        A generational civil war in which there has been no fighting. One country that has two geographically distinct regions controlled by two distinct governments.

                        Implicit in these statements are how they are lies.

                              • FirstToServe [they/them]
                                ·
                                edit-2
                                2 years ago

                                Do I have to link articles in order to be arguing from a common understanding of reality? We do agree that China has been making military threats towards this trip, don't we?

                                Do we not agree on the basic facts of reality that this is a symbolic, diplomatic trip Pelosi is taking?

                                  • FirstToServe [they/them]
                                    ·
                                    2 years ago

                                    They're threatening to respond to symbolic gestures with lethal force.

                                    Are you in marketing? Couldn't help but notice how you pivoted away from the current situation to put "China" and "peaceful" in the same sentence for no other reason.

                                      • FirstToServe [they/them]
                                        ·
                                        edit-2
                                        2 years ago

                                        The operative question is nothing less than whether China is willing to start a nuclear war to stop Pelosi from shaking some hands.

                                        Symbolism matters only so far as it affects the material world. This symbol does not matter when measured against the extinction of all life.

                                        Framing it as American provocation is fucking child schoolyard shit. It won't matter if it's actually used as an excuse. Everyone will be dead and unable to cast blame.

                                          • FirstToServe [they/them]
                                            ·
                                            2 years ago

                                            Yeah well OCP is a joke China has been telling on itself since it began. And a buildup of troops would be a different conversation entirely, but it's not one we're having right now. That's not what China is threatening war over.

                                              • FirstToServe [they/them]
                                                ·
                                                2 years ago

                                                It's not real in any way that doesn't stem from China demanding to be patronized. They do not hold Taiwan. They would provoke world ending conflict to change that fact.

                                                That's what is real.

                                                      • FirstToServe [they/them]
                                                        ·
                                                        edit-2
                                                        2 years ago

                                                        The terms are such that they agree to pretend the de facto is not so. On its own terms it's not real. It's not a misconception.

                                                        It’s not real in any way that doesn’t stem from China demanding to be patronized.

                                                        Hey look I already said what you said here. Wow it sure is frustrating to have 2 out of 3 sentences completely ignored.

                                            • geikei [none/use name]
                                              ·
                                              2 years ago

                                              but it’s not one we’re having right now

                                              Because of the OCP. Taiwan would have been Okinawa-ed other wise military wise

                                    • geikei [none/use name]
                                      ·
                                      2 years ago

                                      How is it just symbolic. It sympolizes but also IS it self an action of the US against the status quo with an official deplomatic delegation visit to Taiwanese territory as part of visits to US allied countries in the region, an action not seen or even thought of in a generation . It IS an important event that IS or at least WOULD BE a signifier of a new era for the issue on the US terms and by US decision towards secessionism and "independence" . That is if it was allowed to happen (cause if it was allowed it would become the normal new status quo after a couple of visits in a few years). And then what? ANother US action to push the issue even further that China should again not respond to according to you, leading where ?

                                      • FirstToServe [they/them]
                                        ·
                                        2 years ago

                                        "How is it just symbolic" is a bankrupt argument in the context of justifying a war. It's symbolic because it's bloodless.

                                        You act like you want to die. As if you want China to instigate a world ending nuclear war rather than be insulted. That level of pride and ideology is dangerous.

                                        • geikei [none/use name]
                                          ·
                                          edit-2
                                          2 years ago

                                          If you think this isnt enough to start a war sure, but you can still believe that and believe that US is the agressor here and this action is an important escelation, just one that you think China should eat up and that it isnt worth fighting over. "Its symbolic because its bloodless" is a dumbass argument. You said its just symbolic to exclude it from being a serious and agressive unilateral escelation from the US and to describe it as immaterial . US military pact with Taiwan would be bloodless, Nato expansion was bloodless , a complete control of Taiwanese political and economic life will be bloodless. All of these will be next when deplomatic relations and visits from US politicians become the normal if China allows this and you are a moron if you think otherwise.

                                          Every unilateral aggressive step of the US from creating this sitiuation , to keeping it alive for decades to escelating it away from the status quo now is bloodless. But its not the US ,with full understanding of Chinese positions, that is the agressor by unilateraly leading the situation into its breaking point ? Its Chinese pride i guess. What level of bloodless expansion and escelation should China start responding to and how in your opinion that would be effective in preventing a situation where you would justify their agression . (presumably US military being stationed all over Taiwan and it joining a Nato alliance). Or you think that that wont be the outcome regardless so no reason to worry

                                          • FirstToServe [they/them]
                                            ·
                                            2 years ago

                                            I invite you to answer for me. When do you end all life on earth in response to nonviolent diplomatic positioning?

                                            If you have an answer at all, you're a blood crazed animal.

                                            • geikei [none/use name]
                                              ·
                                              2 years ago

                                              I have answered you already and you and i not wanting war over this or praying it doesnt escelate to isnt the same convo as to who would be and is the agressor in all this and as to how material or immaterial, symbolic or non symbolic this US action is , what it actualy means and what countering or not countering it means.

                                                • geikei [none/use name]
                                                  ·
                                                  edit-2
                                                  2 years ago

                                                  You’ve added ‘liar’ to your growing list of personal failings.

                                                  Damn i hope i can come back from this lol. This reads like a satire of how a redditor would argue btw, you should turn your account to that full time and provide more of a value to the website

                                                  When did you say that we should all die? When did you say that China should start a war over being insulted, or outmaneuvered diplomatically?

                                                  Why are you asking me what im asking you ?

                                                  • FirstToServe [they/them]
                                                    ·
                                                    edit-2
                                                    2 years ago

                                                    I guess I'm asking you what you're asking me because I understand your point and you don't?

                                                    You gave me a slippery slope of US actions that would involve only nonmilitary and diplomatic positioning that would worsen China's relative position. You implied I was wrong for not justifying the act of China declaring war and destroying all life on earth as a consequence of one of these steps. Your implication is correct. I would not start a war.

                                                    So if you're implying that's the wrong answer, why don't you tell me what the right answer is? Now can you stop fucking around and say out loud what your opinion is finally?

                                                    • geikei [none/use name]
                                                      ·
                                                      2 years ago

                                                      Everything i debated was within the convo of who is the agressor and the gravity and meaning of this stunts as well as a historical retrospective of the situation . And these things are only in conversation because you brought them up one way or the other and made statements about them. I simply see them as historical and geopoitical facts. If they make you uncomfortable and can only read them as saying "yes Xi you are right destory the plane and start a war" then it is your issue and inability to seperate you being right of not wanting WW3 over this to you being wrong about your analysis of the situation. These comments and debates arent a response or refute of you saying "damn i hope China doesnt attack the plane and starts WW3 over this" , cause simply both in your initial and other comments your statements and judgements were mostly beyond that. People have expressed that feeling and take dozens of times both in these days and in the last year on this site and it didnt devolve into this debates cause its a very understandable position and wish that most people have, even here and even me

                                • ajouter [she/her]
                                  ·
                                  edit-2
                                  2 years ago

                                  symbolic

                                  symbolic of what :blob-no-thoughts:

                                  • FirstToServe [they/them]
                                    ·
                                    edit-2
                                    2 years ago

                                    There isn't an answer to this question that could possibly make a difference. Who cares? Symbolic of a planned US invasion of the mainland. If so, what? Now is it okay to end life on earth with a nuclear war?

                                    I'd love for someone here to stop looking at my user page to see if I'm a wrecker and start actually saying some of these things out loud.

                                    Reply to this comment if you agree that we should all die in nuclear fire if the US insults China with this visit.

                                • geikei [none/use name]
                                  ·
                                  2 years ago

                                  Do we not agree on the basic facts of reality that this is a symbolic, diplomatic trip Pelosi is taking?

                                  And what this sympolic trip of an official congressional delegation that has no precedent after the 90s consensus symnolises but a clear move against that and away from the status quo(that is supported by the majority of taiwanese people) and a US initiated political and deplomatic kickstart of secessionist route for the Taiwanese issue. Thats kind of action from the US is what China has stated that might understandably lead to escelation with military measures not off the table, not a random meaningless visit of a senile reptile lady to Taiwan in a vacuum

                                    • geikei [none/use name]
                                      ·
                                      2 years ago

                                      Not my first language so i apologize if a couple of the replies you get to your dumb opinions are harder to read than others. It would help to not just have reactionary and dumb takes , easy fix

                                      • FirstToServe [they/them]
                                        ·
                                        edit-2
                                        2 years ago

                                        Reactionary opinions like "everyone in the world should die before the motherland suffers an insult"?

                                        My opinions are better than yours because I value life. I pity you for thinking my takes are dumb. Perhaps some day you will know better.

                                        • geikei [none/use name]
                                          ·
                                          2 years ago

                                          Where do you see me wishing WW3 starts over this or wishing Chinese military action against Taiwan and the US . This has been purely a convo on the gravity of theses stunt , its implications and who is or isnt the agressor and about your historical or current misunderstandings of the general situation. Im pretty sure i value life more than you and i support the successfull Chinese threats and saber rattling over this that prevented a step towards a status quo closer to war. We retain a status quo further away from war now that Pelosi wont go than the one that opens up if she did and became the new normal and the Chinese flex and US blinking to it is the reason that this. It has kept the situation as still salvagable in the future without military confrontation of superpowers. Thats how the world works

                                          • FirstToServe [they/them]
                                            ·
                                            2 years ago

                                            "I value life more than you because I support threats of death that prevent nonviolent actions"

                                            I'm done being insulted by someone so deserving of those insults themselves. You called me ignorant of history and current events? While being under the mistaken impression that Pelosi's trip was cancelled? I've taken you far too seriously up to this point.

                                            • geikei [none/use name]
                                              ·
                                              2 years ago

                                              Oh no you taken someone who shit on you on a niche leftist forum too seriously cause they challenged your dumb analysis over a situation to which you just responded with calling them omnicidal. Also Pelosi's visit to Taiwan is considerably less likely to happen now than it was half a day ago and im talking from that new presumtion

                                              • FirstToServe [they/them]
                                                ·
                                                2 years ago

                                                I made an unpopular observation and defended it against every idiot and emotionally rattled child that pursued the issue. You are correct that you took a shit.

                    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]
                      ·
                      2 years ago

                      “I really wanted to also control that territory” is not a conflict. I’m sorry you don’t like the status quo.

                      How about "the delusional losers who had to flee to a tiny island due to their own rampant corruption and ineptitude maintain a claim to all of my country, so I'm going to do the same right back."?

                        • BerserkPoster [none/use name]
                          ·
                          2 years ago

                          From what I can tell you're saying china should capitulate to avoid nuclear war. Should the US form joint military relationships with Taiwan military? Should they build bases in Taiwan? That is what's coming next. You're aware that the US basically sees Taiwan as an ideal forward operating base for a strike against China right?

                          • FirstToServe [they/them]
                            ·
                            2 years ago

                            From what I can tell you’re saying china should capitulate to avoid nuclear war.

                            This framing is genuinely fucking unhinged. "Capitulation" as if this were a battle already. Over a diplomatic visit.

                            So what if 'what comes next' is what you say? You're saying we should pull the trigger on the apocalypse over a slippery slope?

    • geikei [none/use name]
      ·
      2 years ago

      If any military conflict arises around Taiwan in the future it will be one the US has sought and inititated , not the Chinese. I guess Nato holds the minority of the blame for the Ukrainian war as well ? Very nice takes here lol

      • FirstToServe [they/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Taiwan has been shelling the Chinese coast? What kind of comparison is this?

        Twist yourself into knots explaining how the side that initiates lethal force is not the aggressor in a conflict. There's little that can be said in response to that kind of pure ideology.

        • InsideOutsideCatside [they/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Twist yourself into knots explaining how the side that initiates lethal force is not the aggressor in a conflict.

          lmao you are a fucking moron

          muh LeThAl FoRcE

          so if Venezuela fires any shots in retaliation to being under fucking siege via sanctions it's "the aggressor" nice big brain shit dummy

          • FirstToServe [they/them]
            ·
            2 years ago

            "Do business with me or I will murder you"

            Snorting ideology off a dead hooker

              • FirstToServe [they/them]
                ·
                2 years ago

                "So what you're saying is if someone does something I don't like and I murder them, I'm the asshole???"

                Yes, dummy. That's what I'm saying.

            • geikei [none/use name]
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              Dont take moves away from the status quo (that was only allowed to your secessionist ,colonized by fascists, chinese territory due to imperialism and intervention from the US ) and towards what would surely be the creation of a protectorat fully controled by an insane military enemy superpower 100 miles of our shore that will make you a giant military base or we will conclude the civil war for you

        • geikei [none/use name]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Ukraine and Donbass also werent part of Russia. I can find differences that rebalance the analogy as well.

          Also its utterly baby brained to judge who is the agressor in a situation like this and who is initiating a conflict by who fires the first shot. In the grander conflict the US has always been the agressor and interventionist in the Taiwanese issue and it pursuing a change in status quo is an escelation of agression against China. The only reason Taiwan exists as an entity in the first place is US intervention and agression in the erea.

          • FirstToServe [they/them]
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Ukraine and Donbass also werent part of Russia

            ??

            Also its utterly baby brained to judge who is the agressor in a situation like this and who is initiating a conflict by who fires the first shot.

            "It is utterly baby brained to say that 1 equals 1. 1 does not equal one. The aggressor of a conflict cannot be determined by the person who first acted with aggression."

            I can't deal with these replies. Once the topic becomes China all of the critical thinking on this website seems to evaporate into billowing fumes of ideology

            There is a difference between positioning yourself for a conflict and starting a conflict. Or I guess there isn't if :zizek-preference:

            • geikei [none/use name]
              ·
              2 years ago

              The aggressor of a conflict cannot be determined by the person who first acted with aggression

              The aggressor of an extremely compex geopolitical and historical conflict that has existed and perpetrated only throught the imperialist presence and intervention of the great satan dozens of thousands of miles from its shores cannot be determined by the person GEOPOLITICAL ENTITY who first fires the first shot with ammo yes. From the chinese POV and the pov of anyone with half a materialist analysis the US has been the aggressor on this conflict through the very befining when their military agression and intervention created it to now where they are unilaterlay pursue a break of the status quo. Even if you narrow down the scope to where China is the one that first kills someone that still doenst make them the agressors if you arent a lib. Just as if the DPRK was the one that fired the first shot in the Korean war (they didnt) they would still be in their right to do so and justifiable agressors in the definition of the world that just includes this actions. Its insanity to asign blame for the starting of a conflict to the person first pulling a trigger in a field no matter how many decades of brutal interventionism and agression exists on all levels . But thats just "staging a conflict" according to some weird liberal view of the world so its ok i guess

              Also the US has blew up a plane to kill even more important Chinese politician than Pelosi within living memory as well as bombing their embassies in multiple countries. Can we extend the US -china proxy confict and generalize it a bit and have multiple actions of death inducing agression by the US and none by China ?

              • FirstToServe [they/them]
                ·
                2 years ago

                The aggressor of an extremely compex geopolitical and historical conflict

                What convenient complexity that arises from "The guy who shot the gun" needing not to be the aggressor. Oh please tell me what the materialist would say. Because these are not simply words to indicate you're on the right side of an opinion. These are words that actually represent meaning.

                Surely the rest of the paragraph isn't simply restating your premise over and over. Surely any allusions towards the other side being aggressive would implicate threats to down a diplomatic aircraft. Or at least be substantive enough to respond to in any way.

                Can we extend the US -china proxy confict and generalize it a bit and have multiple actions of death inducing agression by the US and none by China ?

                If you want to make yourself feel better, you can do as you wish. But we're talking here about China threatening to murder a diplomatic attache.

    • KingPush [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      China won’t shoot her plane down, it’s a stupid and needless provocation nonetheless.

      • FirstToServe [they/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Agreed. Although personally I think One China Policy is and always was one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of and it's a lie that deserves to die.

        • geikei [none/use name]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Good luck with that. China will be the world power or at the very least dominant regional power and they wont drop it and its well within their rights to not do so. Taiwan would have been liberated half a century ago by the cpc like the rest of China if US fleet intervention didnt happen and thats the only reason Taiwan existed and exists in the first place. Its part of their territory that was occupied by the fleeing losing fascist side of their civil war and is protected and proped up by western imperialism as an geopolitical outpost. Any moves to break it away completely (and as a result turn it into a giant Okinawa military base for the US) should be opposed and if the US is pushing and initiating that process it is the one that initiates any conflict as well

        • KingPush [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          It reflects their own insecurities. But they are so close, and China is so much larger than Taiwan that it is hard to imagine a future where Taiwan is fully sovereign and independent. Even if China renounced its current policy it could still dominate Taiwan through other means.