▲ 34 ▼ The US is Fanning the Flames of War with China (truthout.org) submitted 2 years ago by shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml 314 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 years ago* (2 children) Your argument seems to be that we should oppose all sides equally, regardless of context. Do you even support anything? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] mashbooq@infosec.pub 7 points 2 years ago Are you more interested in categorizing ideologies or in actual material conditions? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blake@feddit.uk 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) My argument is that neither side should invade the other and that they should peacefully coexist. I support peace, balanced reconciliation, and the end of capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) You said appeasement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blake@feddit.uk 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, my comment included the word appeasement. What’s your point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) Seem contradictory to use charged language like 'appeasement '. And then to say you want everyone to coexist peacefully. It seems to advocate for containment which isn't peaceful coexistence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Would you explain what the contradiction is between a desire for peace and an opposition to imperialism? If “containment of x” means “making it harder for x to invade” then yes, I am advocating for that so long as the ends justify the means, and yes, that is peaceful coexistence. If you have a personal problem with that, then I don’t care. But it’s a perfectly coherent philosophy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 12 points 2 years ago The contradiction is saying that allowing a country to defend/enforce its borders is appeasement. The implications is that to do so is aggression. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mashbooq@infosec.pub 7 points 2 years ago Are you more interested in categorizing ideologies or in actual material conditions? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Blake@feddit.uk 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) My argument is that neither side should invade the other and that they should peacefully coexist. I support peace, balanced reconciliation, and the end of capitalism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) You said appeasement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blake@feddit.uk 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, my comment included the word appeasement. What’s your point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) Seem contradictory to use charged language like 'appeasement '. And then to say you want everyone to coexist peacefully. It seems to advocate for containment which isn't peaceful coexistence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Would you explain what the contradiction is between a desire for peace and an opposition to imperialism? If “containment of x” means “making it harder for x to invade” then yes, I am advocating for that so long as the ends justify the means, and yes, that is peaceful coexistence. If you have a personal problem with that, then I don’t care. But it’s a perfectly coherent philosophy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 12 points 2 years ago The contradiction is saying that allowing a country to defend/enforce its borders is appeasement. The implications is that to do so is aggression. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) You said appeasement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blake@feddit.uk 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, my comment included the word appeasement. What’s your point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) Seem contradictory to use charged language like 'appeasement '. And then to say you want everyone to coexist peacefully. It seems to advocate for containment which isn't peaceful coexistence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Would you explain what the contradiction is between a desire for peace and an opposition to imperialism? If “containment of x” means “making it harder for x to invade” then yes, I am advocating for that so long as the ends justify the means, and yes, that is peaceful coexistence. If you have a personal problem with that, then I don’t care. But it’s a perfectly coherent philosophy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 12 points 2 years ago The contradiction is saying that allowing a country to defend/enforce its borders is appeasement. The implications is that to do so is aggression. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Blake@feddit.uk 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yes, my comment included the word appeasement. What’s your point? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) Seem contradictory to use charged language like 'appeasement '. And then to say you want everyone to coexist peacefully. It seems to advocate for containment which isn't peaceful coexistence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Would you explain what the contradiction is between a desire for peace and an opposition to imperialism? If “containment of x” means “making it harder for x to invade” then yes, I am advocating for that so long as the ends justify the means, and yes, that is peaceful coexistence. If you have a personal problem with that, then I don’t care. But it’s a perfectly coherent philosophy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 12 points 2 years ago The contradiction is saying that allowing a country to defend/enforce its borders is appeasement. The implications is that to do so is aggression. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) Seem contradictory to use charged language like 'appeasement '. And then to say you want everyone to coexist peacefully. It seems to advocate for containment which isn't peaceful coexistence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Would you explain what the contradiction is between a desire for peace and an opposition to imperialism? If “containment of x” means “making it harder for x to invade” then yes, I am advocating for that so long as the ends justify the means, and yes, that is peaceful coexistence. If you have a personal problem with that, then I don’t care. But it’s a perfectly coherent philosophy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 12 points 2 years ago The contradiction is saying that allowing a country to defend/enforce its borders is appeasement. The implications is that to do so is aggression. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Blake@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) Would you explain what the contradiction is between a desire for peace and an opposition to imperialism? If “containment of x” means “making it harder for x to invade” then yes, I am advocating for that so long as the ends justify the means, and yes, that is peaceful coexistence. If you have a personal problem with that, then I don’t care. But it’s a perfectly coherent philosophy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 12 points 2 years ago The contradiction is saying that allowing a country to defend/enforce its borders is appeasement. The implications is that to do so is aggression. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PandaBearGreen@hexbear.net 12 points 2 years ago The contradiction is saying that allowing a country to defend/enforce its borders is appeasement. The implications is that to do so is aggression. permalink fedilink source parent