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 ?
"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.
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
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.
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?
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?
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
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 ?
"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.
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
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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
Why are you asking me what im asking you ?
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?
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