TomHardy

• Article about US provocating a war with China and violating their One-China principle
• "So we should just appease China or what?"
• "If anything, you appease Taiwan by opposing China"
• "No, I don't, what do you mean, I have a 4D chess move on this, it is nuanced"

Lmao you stand for absolutely nothing. Saying let China exercising their right for their sovereign territory is appeasement is bs, a Western-centric point of view, and China's claims are less and would result in more peace, as shown by my map above. Only thing you could attack was my sarcasm. Lmao, what a lib

You see - fuck the US - but if the US is putting 12 000 km away from their mainland military equipment on what they recognize as China's territory, it is actually "CCP imperialism" if they react ;)

“Oh I went to Harvard got really good grades”

Then next, guess where I did my PhD.

I haven’t backpedaled on shit. I wrote a top level reply in an off-site comments section. I am not required to take an all-or-nothing position, either wholeheartedly agreeing or disagreeing with every claim in the article. The world has nuance.

A lot of words for saying you have no consistent logic. If you understand the claims of Taiwan and that the US is supporting this state, you can't impossible speak of "CCP imperialism", in the context of ROC's claims, and call their right for their territory as appeasement. But I know that people outside of Harvard have liquid arguments.

Btw lmao I neither studied at US nor UK, that only a joke. Yes I think he said something along that with Harvard lol

the only claim being appeased is to what they already control, Taiwan

That's not true, or at least what I would argue. You can point me to any article where some Western politician is saying "as long as Taiwan want it's island we support that, but not more than that". In fact, I don't know of any conditions the US or anybody who defends Taiwanese independence, is making regarding their claims. There is no "Taiwan only" constitution that the US supports. This is the needle in the ass of the PRC. I think it would be a different situation, if Taiwan (and the US) would say "we want Taiwan to be its own country, and we recognize the PRC as the successor of China.

But they don't do that. They actually support the ROC and everything on their constitution. Including the 11-dash line in the South China Sea, that is larger than what China is drawing with their 9-dash line That they are for the "will of the Taiwanese to just be independant on their island" is for the public of the G7 countries. Nobody is willing to give up the territories of ROC afaik. Yes the ROC can't do anything about it in terms of military power, but they equally don't make any steps to remove them. (But I think if the US tells it's guys at the DPP to create such a constitution that claims only the island of Taiwan, they will only do it to provocate an attack by China. But that's beyond my point and the map above.)

ROC is a loser of the Chinese civil war, a separatist state, currently full with American funded politicians that paratize on the Chinese territory. And there is no state or constitution that calls itself Taiwan. Therefore the original commenters statement is plain wrong. I don't even know why somebody can make a false statement, and when called out, everybody in response come with complex analytics besides the point. I don't even understand what you mean.

Then get prepped, cause I did my postgraduate at MIT as well. There are no smarter guys than those graduating there. I knew you would now claim "where did I said we need support Taiwanese territorial claims mimimi". Did you read the article and what it is about? What is the US and what is China's point of conflict? Tell me, how can you say "we can't appease China blabla..." to do what? Taiwan is the exact part of their sovereign terrorial claims. Opposing them on the fact that Taiwan becomes/remains independant is exactly enabling the territorial claims of the state on that island, ROC.

And now you backpedal, "I'm commenting on the article but in fact I do not support US point of view and argue without the context of any article we comment on!!!1! Its my isolated opinion from those events and blabla" or "Actually I meant we should oppose China but also make demands on Taiwan's contitution and put conditions on their clams blabla...". I know that if you would understand any of this conflict or history you wouldn't actually call under the article of US warmongering, encirclement and violation of the One-China policy regarding China's claim of Taiwan, an act of "CCP imperialism". But know you backtrack and try to slip away like a oily snake. There is no escape from my superior arguing skills, and you're critic of appeasing hypocritical is false even on the level of formal logics.

whatever your parents paid for that education, unfortunately it would appear to have turned out a poor investment.

This is the real strawman in this thread.

No, I think you need to read my comment and your's again. You say appeasement politics will lead to no good, so... you protect the ROC's claims instead, which is even appeasing more that just leaving China. I caught your illogical argument, and distilled it to the meaningless content that it was. Now you pretend stupid to run away from that illogical claim. But you can't win against me, who studied at Oxford, Nato boy