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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
they want to shift funding to fighting China, not cut it off. this conversation is going in circles.
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.
the """"anti-war"""" reactionaries aren't doing that though.
we are by not advancing a true anti-war movement to combat their fake movement that sucks all the oxygen out of the room
Removed by mod