6 ms·

The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". Claiming sovereignty over land you have not controlled for an entir

The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". Claiming sovereignty over land you have not controlled for an entire human lifetime quite certainly is. I'll end my participation in this discussion with a quote from the Taiwanese: "We fill fight a war if we need to fight a war, and if we need to defend ourselves to the very last day, then we will defend ourselves to the very last day" https://www.businessinsider.com/taiwan-warns-fight-to-end-conflict-with-china-2021-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/taiwan-warns-fight-to-end-co...

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". So it was geopolitical aggression for the 40+ years Taiwan couldn't even pretend to be a free democracy? I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  > So it was geopolitical aggression for the 40+ years Taiwan couldn't even pretend to be a free democracy? Yes, it was still aggression. The US opposed it then under the grounds of "containing Communism" rather than "defending democracy". > I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive. If you invade somewhere to take it over against the wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard to understand?
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    >If you invade somewhere to take it over against the wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard to understand? I have no idea what part of my post made it seem like I wouldn't find an invasion aggressive, it clearly would be. I wasn't discussing an invasion at all.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Then I clearly misunderstood this line: > I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive. Would you explain what you meant by it? (And, my apologies for the yelling. I in fact thought that you were saying that an invasion would not be aggression, which... yeah. We both agree that such an idea is wrong.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        That providing substantial military support to a nation bordering an empire is an aggressive act no matter the form of government the border nation has.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Yes, kind of, but also no. Yes, it riles up the empire. They don't like it. They certainly regard it as a hostile, aggressive act. But you're not providing enough military support for the smaller nation to invade and conquer the empire. It makes it more expensive (perhaps prohibitively so) for the empire to conquer the other country. That's only "aggressive" if the empire was intending to conquer the other country, and only because it removed from them an option that they really wanted to use. They don't lose a foot of ground. All they lose is the option of themselves invading.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        >But you're not providing enough military support for the smaller nation to invade and conquer the empire. The fear isn't that the border country tried to invade, the fear is that the country providing the arms will use them as a stockpile to invade. A buildup of arms along the border has been seen as an aggressive provocation for millennia.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Bringing this back to the specific instance at hand: China sees the buildup of arms in Taiwan as a stockpile for the US to invade mainland China? No way. (I mean, yes, they might be paranoid enough to see it that way, but it's completely divorced from reality. There is exactly zero chance that the US would do so. What's much more likely is that they would use it as an excuse to move to "counter US aggression".)
  - 8note 5y ago
    Unless you succeed, in which case you become the locals and kicking you out is aggression
wonnage 6y ago
Taiwan was run by a military dictatorship until 1986 *edit: 1986 was a long time ago, but the point is that the KMT was a corrupt and unpopular government which lost to the Communists, but the US held its nose and propped it up for 30+ years until Nixon needed a counterweight to the USSR and opened relations with China.
f6v 6y ago
> The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". This is a naïve view of geopolitics. Check out where Kurds ended up by counting on the US.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  I never said the U.S. was likely to uphold their promise to prevent an invasion. The U.S. is however providing the Taiwanese with advanced military equipment. And their threat of defending Taiwan, no matter how hollow you judge it to be, is perhaps the only reason Taiwan is still an independent nation in 2021.
- 8note 5y ago
  The US has interests in Taiwan, and none in Kurdistan. Some of those interests are economic, and Taiwan knows not to give them up. Others are geographic, and won't go away unless china finds another way to the ocean
  - f6v 5y ago
    > The US has interests in Taiwan, and none in Kurdistan. So they stayed in Syria just for fun? Middle East invasion is about pressuring Iran, as much as Taiwan is about Mainland China.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". So it was geopolitical aggression for the 40+ years Taiwan couldn't even pretend to be a free democracy? I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
> So it was geopolitical aggression for the 40+ years Taiwan couldn't even pretend to be a free democracy? Yes, it was still aggression. The US opposed it then under the grounds of "containing Communism" rather than "defending democracy". > I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive. If you invade somewhere to take it over against the wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard to understand?
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  >If you invade somewhere to take it over against the wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard to understand? I have no idea what part of my post made it seem like I wouldn't find an invasion aggressive, it clearly would be. I wasn't discussing an invasion at all.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Then I clearly misunderstood this line: > I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive. Would you explain what you meant by it? (And, my apologies for the yelling. I in fact thought that you were saying that an invasion would not be aggression, which... yeah. We both agree that such an idea is wrong.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      That providing substantial military support to a nation bordering an empire is an aggressive act no matter the form of government the border nation has.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Yes, kind of, but also no. Yes, it riles up the empire. They don't like it. They certainly regard it as a hostile, aggressive act. But you're not providing enough military support for the smaller nation to invade and conquer the empire. It makes it more expensive (perhaps prohibitively so) for the empire to conquer the other country. That's only "aggressive" if the empire was intending to conquer the other country, and only because it removed from them an option that they really wanted to use. They don't lose a foot of ground. All they lose is the option of themselves invading.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        >But you're not providing enough military support for the smaller nation to invade and conquer the empire. The fear isn't that the border country tried to invade, the fear is that the country providing the arms will use them as a stockpile to invade. A buildup of arms along the border has been seen as an aggressive provocation for millennia.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Bringing this back to the specific instance at hand: China sees the buildup of arms in Taiwan as a stockpile for the US to invade mainland China? No way. (I mean, yes, they might be paranoid enough to see it that way, but it's completely divorced from reality. There is exactly zero chance that the US would do so. What's much more likely is that they would use it as an excuse to move to "counter US aggression".)
- 8note 5y ago
  Unless you succeed, in which case you become the locals and kicking you out is aggression

wonnage 6y ago

Taiwan was run by a military dictatorship until 1986 *edit: 1986 was a long time ago, but the point is that the KMT was a corrupt and unpopular government which lost to the Communists, but the US held its nose and propped it up for 30+ years until Nixon needed a counterweight to the USSR and opened relations with China.

f6v 6y ago

> The U.S. guaranteeing the independence of a free democracy is not "geopolitical aggression". This is a naïve view of geopolitics. Check out where Kurds ended up by counting on the US.

chitowneats 5y ago
I never said the U.S. was likely to uphold their promise to prevent an invasion. The U.S. is however providing the Taiwanese with advanced military equipment. And their threat of defending Taiwan, no matter how hollow you judge it to be, is perhaps the only reason Taiwan is still an independent nation in 2021.
8note 5y ago
The US has interests in Taiwan, and none in Kurdistan. Some of those interests are economic, and Taiwan knows not to give them up. Others are geographic, and won't go away unless china finds another way to the ocean
- f6v 5y ago
  > The US has interests in Taiwan, and none in Kurdistan. So they stayed in Syria just for fun? Middle East invasion is about pressuring Iran, as much as Taiwan is about Mainland China.