Saying it like that, maybe lmao… But did they ever really denied it? When Snowden revealed Merkel was spied on by the US, who gave a fuck? Here they could at least try and say “we had no choice, the burger empire, being the economic rival and an LNG supplier that it is, convinced us to tank our gas imports. We never saw this coming and trusted them.”

I think at this point it is less embarrassing to admit that they were ordered by the imperial core to f. up their economy than to keep claiming it was their own decision

And who believes their lies? Who votes those guys into power? This country is still a democracy, not a dictatorship.

That’s the point that voting the “correct” guys who “don’t lie this time” will never work, hence it’s a dictatorship of capitalists. I agree that if anything, the people are too stupid to realize that in a bourgeois dictatorship such as Germany they do not have any mechanisms on the decisions made by the government. So even if they don’t believe the lies, who do they vote for then? The only parties who get attention by the one’s who have most media representation, means a lot of budget to promote themselves, that’s the Mr. moneybags.

But if the demos is stupid, villains get the kratos.

Yes but is this really the point you made in your first comment? More like “if the demos is stupid it can’t get it right”. I mean that’s coming from the economic system from a country such as Germany’s. If you meant this before, I agree. My point was that arguments such as this

Literally every change, whatsoever, will find at least 50 people arguing against it,

Annegret thinks computers are a fad

“we’re not an immigration country”

is exactly because the corruption in a capitalist country like Germany. They will evaluate problems based on who of the richies gets how much money out of which outcome, and not because they are having some ideological “views” typical to Germans on it that is stalling the process.

Edit: I think we talk about two different types of stupidity: the first, where unpopular policies are passed in capitalist countries are explained by “the politician is too stupid or lacks knowledge therefore it was made” and the second is about the people, who stupidly believe in that, hoping the next government is not stupid. I meant the first one, it is a popular justification in Germany, that hides the fact that unpopular decisions are made because of the inherent corruption in a capitalist country.

not because of any grand economical failure, but because the Germans as a people are idiots

What no material analysis does to a mf. I like how in every capitalist economy, the rise of a crisis is always explained by anything but the fact that Germany is a corrupt, bourgeois dictatorship. It’s always the mindset, the attitude, the rejection of some progress by some people or politicians appear to be dumb. Dude, it’s not that some politicians or people do not understand some basic things, or they didn’t expect that to happen. The government is driven by politicians that are puppets of top 1%. There are no really parties who represent the majority, the only difference between them is that they have stocks in different branches at different corporations. Stuff like coal is favored is not that “somehow” they value coal workers more, it’s that the coal lobby pushed its influence.

And finally we see what such an economic systems does to even successful countries, there are no safety mechanisms that prevent dismantling the industry and lowering life qualities of the majority after all.

I think legit they’re that dense. Suddenly suporting ROC during a fight over the mainland is apparently not recognizing their claims. LMAO

Dude, you like have never heard of the Chinese civil war? And on which side the US was? The US supported the Guomindang of ROC because they should have been according to them the successor of mainland China. And long after they escaped to Taiwan, the US was putting sactions, economic blockades and manipulations on the PRC because according to the US they were just terrorists residing on the mainland, and in the beginning they wanted to re-establish the ROCs rule on the mainland.

You now demand from me to post some specific stuff that is never explicitly stated. You also won’t find any document from Western countries in Europe recognizing that the Donbass is a region of Ukraine, what matters is when they recognize it’s constution and accept that state on international levels.

Its time for you to put up some of that bold claims. I actually am interested, if you have any constitution or proposal of that Taiwan nation you keep talking, you can send it to me, I would really like to know what they have in mind if there is something like this.

Not only has US never endorsed their claims outside Taiwan

You keep pulling shit from your ass. The US has formerly recognized the ROC and all its claims, then put the PRC into UN instead in the cold war to get them on their side. And recognized the One-China Policy.

Now, if the US is again violating the One-China Policy, that means they deal with ROC as a state again. Here you start to pull out without sources or proof an assumption that there is an imaginary state called Taiwan, with a constitution with claims only about the island itself, and that the US is exactly protecting this state, which I said does not exist in that form.

My whole point is the absence of that nuance, and that this state the US de facto recognized has claims worse that any other country in Asia.

They dont support RoC’s constitution

I mean yes now they don’t recognize it officially, but they and the government on Taiwan do not make any considerations regarding these claims, they just still have them? That is literally my whole point.

“local language” lmao Curious, what about those up to 100 million cantonese speaking in mainland China? They forgot to surpress them too? Oops! Clearly, gents, this guy got arrested because the cantonese language of those 7 million living in HK are a thread!

Good question, wasn’t Russia appearing on an international summit right after blowing him up? Also it made the most sense to kill him after resolving a coup in no way another country would do, and throw that show of diplomacy away? And lose influcence in Africa with his death? You’re like the high iq people who think Nemzov gets shot right in front of the Kreml is not made for Western audiences and media?

Also, blazero, how 'bout doing something else than creeping through my profile, like blazing some skunk or idk finding your Taiwan nation

I don’t think you have proved that case at all. How is increasing the likelihood of an invasion of Taiwan the lesser evil, pray tell?

Who and why would anybody invade them? The elections are in January, the pro-mainland politicians will win, if one followed their general public opinion in the slightest, and will stop buying weapons from the US and work towards a solution to join like an autonomous region. The only difference? The claims above will disappear, and they will continue calling Taiwan a region like they do now.

The only way they will get invaded if the US creates a color revolution before January, keep this ROC alive with all it’s claims, and if you read the article, will increase their military presence on and around the island. In case of a successful provocation, they will throw Koreans and Japanese as well into the meatgrinder.

I guess you’re like an anarchist whose talking points just happend to align with the US department. I proved my case that the “appeasement” of China is the lesser “evil”, and there is nothing that they demand that is crazy and actually would result to more peace than even Taiwan’s constitution, which was the point of the map.

I have to say that you are wearing my patience very thin.

gonna cry?

• 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.

Wdym? I said it does not make sense to say appeasement politics is bad but then by supporting the government on Taiwan, and appeasing their claims. If anything we need to define sovereignity first and then support a side on conditions. Which are obvioulsy not made regarding Taiwan’s claims because of Westerners lust for hegemony.

Yes I know what you mean, but see, there is ROC whose contitution currenlty says Taiwan is only a region, and the PRC, who says the same. This is what I adressed before. And besides, by the poll you mention, that even undermines it, as when the rest supports things stay the same, means the majority supports Taiwan is a part of ROC.

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