Yes, an authoritarian government with a lot of economic and military power just made it a crime to even speak about their own country’s independence, so they have legitimate reason to be afraid.
Skill issue. If I wanted to have a recognized independent country I would simply win the civil war instead of losing and then hiding in America’s skirt like a coward.
International recognition in line with the principles of customary international law as codified in the Montivedeo Convention make right, but that’s not very snappy.
I would simply win the civil war instead of losing
Which indicates quite clearly that you believe military power should decide whether a nation has the right to independence. You don’t get to try to deflect that ex post facto. You either admit that this is what you genuinely believe in spite of its obvious morality problem, or you admit that you were wrong to make such a statement and acknowledge that your ideas about national independence need changing.
The Chinese Nationalists thought that military power should decide that they were in charge of China, right up until the People’s Liberation Army fucking bodied them and they fled to their little island with their tails between their legs (and then conducted massacres against the native population and anyone remotely leftist).
This “”“independence dispute”“” would have been resolved seventy years ago had the US Navy not stuck their fucking imperial beak in and stopped the communists chasing down these fascist war criminals and finishing the job.
The outcomes of civil wars is widely acknowledged by both state practice and opinio juris as being a legitimate factor in the determination of sovereignty over a territory. If you don’t believe me, ask the Confederate States of America and the Republic of Vietnam about their experiences and get back to me.
There is no “morality problem” because there is no issue of morality here. Morality is not a factor in international law.
We’re not talking about what is ‘widely acknowledged’, we are talking about what you have expressed as your personal belief. And you do have a morality problem:
Skill issue. If I wanted to have a recognized independent country I would simply win the civil war instead of losing and then hiding in America’s skirt like a coward.
You believe that in order to be independent from mainland China, Taiwan should have used military force - or again, that might makes right.
You made this statement. It is not about international law, or opinio juris, or any other deflection you want to attempt. It is about what you believe justifies a nation’s independence, and it is solely based on the exercise of military power.
Taiwan should have used military force - or again, that might makes right.
“Should have” used military might? Are you from a parallel dimension where the First United Front didn’t end in the Shanghai Massacre? Tell me how it went down in your reality then. Chiang embraced the CPC from behind with hugs and kisses as a show of his appreciation for their alliance against the warlords?
I don’t have a morality problem because Chiang was an incompetent and corrupt jackass who started the civil war that he ended up losing on the mainland and having to flee to Taiwan Island.
It is about what you believe justifies a nation’s independence
My arguments as to international law go precisely towards your factually incorrect and repeated assertion that Taiwan Island is a “nation” or a “country”. You accuse me of “deflection” but you repeatedly asserted a factual and legal inaccuracy and refuse to address it. Your problem if you can’t engage with the argument, not mine. There is no such thing as a country or nation called “Taiwan” in the world.
What is the weird childish liberal need to reduce everything to good guys and bad guys and what’s “right and wrong” (as if we, the genocidal collective west could recognize either at this point) without ever looking into the facts, the history of a place or what the people living there have decided already. This is a conversation about geopolitics, about the logical and predictable working of state machinery. “Justified” is not a word that means anything in this field. You might as well hold up everything to weepily condemn the authoritarianism of physics. Something either is or it isn’t. “Right” is a nonsense hueristic in this situation. Might makes reality.
No, that is not the point that was made in this comment:
Skill issue. If I wanted to have a recognized independent country I would simply win the civil war instead of losing and then hiding in America’s skirt like a coward.
This comment makes very plain that the writer believes that a nation only achieves independence through military force.
The United states used military power to defeat the slavers in the south(and to get their independence in the first place), and the allies used military power to crush nazi Germany and their fascist allies. Not every use of military force is unwarranted or “immoral”
Nah, the funny part here is you not understanding that any government’s power (not “morality”) is upheld through violence (whether implicit or explicit), and that the idea of a “non-authoritarian” government is completely nonsensical.
Yes, an authoritarian government with a lot of economic and military power just made it a crime to even speak about their own country’s independence, so they have legitimate reason to be afraid.
Skill issue. If I wanted to have a recognized independent country I would simply win the civil war instead of losing and then hiding in America’s skirt like a coward.
I see, so “might makes right” for you then?
I appreciate you making your sense of morality - or lack thereof - so very clear.
International recognition in line with the principles of customary international law as codified in the Montivedeo Convention make right, but that’s not very snappy.
No, you said:
Which indicates quite clearly that you believe military power should decide whether a nation has the right to independence. You don’t get to try to deflect that ex post facto. You either admit that this is what you genuinely believe in spite of its obvious morality problem, or you admit that you were wrong to make such a statement and acknowledge that your ideas about national independence need changing.
The Chinese Nationalists thought that military power should decide that they were in charge of China, right up until the People’s Liberation Army fucking bodied them and they fled to their little island with their tails between their legs (and then conducted massacres against the native population and anyone remotely leftist).
This “”“independence dispute”“” would have been resolved seventy years ago had the US Navy not stuck their fucking imperial beak in and stopped the communists chasing down these fascist war criminals and finishing the job.
The outcomes of civil wars is widely acknowledged by both state practice and opinio juris as being a legitimate factor in the determination of sovereignty over a territory. If you don’t believe me, ask the Confederate States of America and the Republic of Vietnam about their experiences and get back to me.
There is no “morality problem” because there is no issue of morality here. Morality is not a factor in international law.
We’re not talking about what is ‘widely acknowledged’, we are talking about what you have expressed as your personal belief. And you do have a morality problem:
You believe that in order to be independent from mainland China, Taiwan should have used military force - or again, that might makes right.
You made this statement. It is not about international law, or opinio juris, or any other deflection you want to attempt. It is about what you believe justifies a nation’s independence, and it is solely based on the exercise of military power.
“Should have” used military might? Are you from a parallel dimension where the First United Front didn’t end in the Shanghai Massacre? Tell me how it went down in your reality then. Chiang embraced the CPC from behind with hugs and kisses as a show of his appreciation for their alliance against the warlords?
I don’t have a morality problem because Chiang was an incompetent and corrupt jackass who started the civil war that he ended up losing on the mainland and having to flee to Taiwan Island.
My arguments as to international law go precisely towards your factually incorrect and repeated assertion that Taiwan Island is a “nation” or a “country”. You accuse me of “deflection” but you repeatedly asserted a factual and legal inaccuracy and refuse to address it. Your problem if you can’t engage with the argument, not mine. There is no such thing as a country or nation called “Taiwan” in the world.
What is the weird childish liberal need to reduce everything to good guys and bad guys and what’s “right and wrong” (as if we, the genocidal collective west could recognize either at this point) without ever looking into the facts, the history of a place or what the people living there have decided already. This is a conversation about geopolitics, about the logical and predictable working of state machinery. “Justified” is not a word that means anything in this field. You might as well hold up everything to weepily condemn the authoritarianism of physics. Something either is or it isn’t. “Right” is a nonsense hueristic in this situation. Might makes reality.
The point is not whether it should, the point is that it definitely is the primary factor.
No, that is not the point that was made in this comment:
This comment makes very plain that the writer believes that a nation only achieves independence through military force.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-would-simply
The United states used military power to defeat the slavers in the south(and to get their independence in the first place), and the allies used military power to crush nazi Germany and their fascist allies. Not every use of military force is unwarranted or “immoral”
Yes, the DPP is authoritarian for shutting down Taiwanese news stations that refuse to toe a pro-separatist line and must be overthrown in order for democracy to flourish. DPP politicians should fear for their lives.
Ah, another appeal to violence as the source of morality.
It’s very funny for you to accuse anyone else of being authoritarian.
Nah, the funny part here is you not understanding that any government’s power (not “morality”) is upheld through violence (whether implicit or explicit), and that the idea of a “non-authoritarian” government is completely nonsensical.
Damn, I guess you like authoritarianism but only when it’s authoritarianism that your side is doing.