• usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    they are opposed to the war in Ukraine. Blocking money to the Ukraine war isn't symbolic it's real

    • Tachanka [comrade/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      ah, but that's the sleight of hand. They'd rather be in a proxy war with China over Taiwan instead! Also another reason their opposition is purely symbolic is that it's a partisan opposition rather than a political opposition. If Ron DeSantis or Dan Crenshaw got elected tomorrow and continued escalating, I don't think they wouldn't care anymore.

      • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah but China isn't going to invade Taiwan and Taiwan is more resistant to US demands than Ukraine. For example Taiwan refused to toe the US policy line over Tibet

        • Tachanka [comrade/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          China isn’t going to invade Taiwan

          Taiwan isn't an independent country. It's part of China. This is acknowledged by the UN. So the entire logic of the country invading itself is an invention of US foreign policy.

          Taiwan and Taiwan is more resistant to US demands than Ukraine. For example Taiwan refused to toe the US policy line over Tibet

          True, but that doesn't change the fact that the """anti-war""" right wing in the US are more mad about the emphasis of US foreign policy than they are about US imperialism in general. It doesn't change the fact that their opposition is mostly to spending on the wrong war rather than spending on war at all. The """anti-war""" right is absolutely fine with NATO expansion and defense budget ballooning, they just hate when liberals spend money instead of them. This is the subject of the conversation. There is no real reason to build a coalition with these people or even critically support them when they do the """right thing""" for the wrong reasons.

          • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
            ·
            2 years ago

            Taiwan isn’t an independent country. It’s part of China. This is acknowledged by the UN. So the entire logic of the country invading itself is an invention of US foreign policy.

            Not that relevant a distinction pretty clearly whatever they are they have their own separate miltary and don't do what the Chinese government says.

            True, but that doesn’t change the fact that the “”“anti-war”“” right wing in the US are more mad about the emphasis of US foreign policy than they are about US imperialism in general

            yes but in order to be against something in general you must be against it in the specific. They are anti this war and until the next war that means they are anti war

            • Tachanka [comrade/them]
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              They are anti this war and until the next war that means they are anti war

              ask them if they want to decrease the defense budget or end NATO and see where that goes. They don't care about the root cause of it. They want to snip a branch (for the entirely wrong reasons) but they'll scream bloody murder if you try to pull the plant out by its roots.

              • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
                ·
                2 years ago

                that is true. But it is also true that the branch of it needs to go

                also their reasons don't matter they don't amount to anything more than contrarianism

                • Tachanka [comrade/them]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  also their reasons don’t matter they don’t amount to anything more than contrarianism

                  this is where i disagree fundamentally. Two people can identify the same problem, but will believe the problem is a problem for very different reasons, and offer very different solutions as a result. Because of that context, their reactionary solutions to the problem they have identified are horrible, and will make things worse, and they should not be permitted to steer the conversation or be supported as they fight to gain control of the situation.

                  • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    the solutions they have suggested are to cut off funding. Do you have a better idea if so I would legitimately love to hear it

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

                    they should not be permitted

                    Permitted? They need to pass an ideological barrier to advance material causes? Who is doing the permitting? Seems like most people here have an attachment to some notion of allowing or disallowing change based on their own ideological basis. We don't get to make that choice, as materialists we ought to critically support causes which move the needle away from imperialism regardless of intent or ideology, there is no coalition, only critical support for a cause which we both happen to support. This is how politics work, should Deng not have opened relations with the U.S in order to preserve an intangible ideological integrity? No of course not, you have to advance your interests even if it means working with those that do not share your goals.