China threatens to send Lithuania to garbage bin of history

[Ethel mermania]

Taiwan is a country, it fits every criteria for being one.

The Trump analogy doesn't work, because there wasn't any election to legitimize the CCP or the KMT

This is a poorly-written post and I'm only responding to it because it condenses the two points in this thread into one post after snipping.

Please explain the criteria which Taiwan completes to be a country, which were not completed by the American Confederacy (which was not internationally recognized as sovereign during the American civil war) and which are not completed, generally, by any land-holding civil war faction in any country divided by civil war, at any time.

Within the Trump analogy - China, as a Communist country, does not consider the sacred cow of elections to be legitimizing of a State. They consider having a Communist revolution to be legitimacy ritual of their State. American Hawaii would not consider the declared electoral victory of the mainland American government to be legitimizing, because it would not be a Democratic State.

If you think "only governments which follow my model of government are legitimate" then you should get off the forum, jump in a time machine, join Infantry, and put your boots on the ground for the invasion of Afghanistan.

I'm glad that the opinion factory on this forum is run by people who don't get to make policy decisions, and I'm an in existential horror that these are the cream of the political intellectual elite that vote in elections which is so perpetual that I'm used to it.

While comparing 1949 China to 1860 America is pretty poor to begin with, if we were to use that analogy in this game the south won. Chang was the head of the recognized government, Mao was the rebel. Taiwan started the war under the KMT's control and the defeated state moved there. Taiwan never had the PRC as a government, only the KMT.

[Rusozak]

This is a poorly-written post and I'm only responding to it because it condenses the two points in this thread into one post after snipping.

Please explain the criteria which Taiwan completes to be a country, which were not completed by the American Confederacy (which was not internationally recognized as sovereign during the American civil war) and which are not completed, generally, by any land-holding civil war faction in any country divided by civil war, at any time.

Within the Trump analogy - China, as a Communist country, does not consider the sacred cow of elections to be legitimizing of a State. They consider having a Communist revolution to be legitimacy ritual of their State. American Hawaii would not consider the declared electoral victory of the mainland American government to be legitimizing, because it would not be a Democratic State.

If you think "only governments which follow my model of government are legitimate" then you should get off the forum, jump in a time machine, join Infantry, and put your boots on the ground for the invasion of Afghanistan.

I'm glad that the opinion factory on this forum is run by people who don't get to make policy decisions, and I'm an in existential horror that these are the cream of the political intellectual elite that vote in elections which is so perpetual that I'm used to it.

While comparing 1949 China to 1860 America is pretty poor to begin with, if we were to use that analogy in this game the south won. Chang was the head of the recognized government, Mao was the rebel. Taiwan started the war under the KMT's control and the defeated state moved there. Taiwan never had the PRC as a government, only the KMT.

And what's more, the PRC never even touched the island of Taiwan, which makes any claims that Taiwan belongs to the PRC all that more ridiculous. The PRC has about as much claim to Taiwan as Hitler had to Britain.

[Kaczynskisatva]

While comparing 1949 China to 1860 America is pretty poor to begin with, if we were to use that analogy in this game the south won. Chang was the head of the recognized government, Mao was the rebel. Taiwan started the war under the KMT's control and the defeated state moved there. Taiwan never had the PRC as a government, only the KMT.

This doesn't matter. As written English words, it doesn't even signify anything - it has relation to zero objects, except that it gives strong hints about which football politics team you're "sending your prayers" to.

Cue the guy who stands up and says that the South had the natural and constitutional right to declare independence, always had this right, that this right is inherent in Statehood and inalienable, and that the South exercised its right to withdraw peacefully from the Union and was attacked by them in an act of imperialistic conquest and fratricidal betrayal.

Cue the guy who stands up and says that the KMT was an instrument of class oppression, that Real China(tm) is the Chinese People(tm) and that they seized the means of production which belong to them by natural right because they are the ones who actually use them to produce things, casting off the burden of a small, parasitic class which then ran away to an island with some of their stolen money. They were always oppressors, so they were never legitimate, and all the money they ran away with belongs to the Chinese people, and is owed with interest.

Cue the guys with the Washington opinions on these two issues.

Do I care about any of these opinions? Do they matter, at all, to the material facts of the situation - do they relate to any objects? Is Kurdistan a legitimate State? Does the "legitimacy" of a State exist, as a real thing, based on something other than force projection?

No!

Here's this quote for you again:

If you think "only governments which follow my model of government are legitimate" then you should get off the forum, jump in a time machine, join Infantry, and put your boots on the ground for the invasion of Afghanistan.

I'm glad that the opinion factory on this forum is run by people who don't get to make policy decisions, and I'm in an existential horror spiral that these are the cream of the political intellectual elite that vote in elections, which is so perpetual that I'm used to it.

[Rusozak]

Do I care about any of these opinions? Do they matter, at all, to the material facts of the situation - do they relate to any objects? Is Kurdistan a legitimate State? Does the "legitimacy" of a State exist, as a real thing, based on something other than force projection?

No!

You care enough to keep objecting and debating people about them.

[The North Polish Union]

While comparing 1949 China to 1860 America is pretty poor to begin with, if we were to use that analogy in this game the south won. Chang was the head of the recognized government, Mao was the rebel. Taiwan started the war under the KMT's control and the defeated state moved there. Taiwan never had the PRC as a government, only the KMT.

This doesn't matter. As written English words, it doesn't even signify anything - it has relation to zero objects, except that it gives strong hints about which football politics team you're "sending your prayers" to.

Cue the guy who stands up and says that the South had the natural and constitutional right to declare independence, always had this right, that this right is inherent in Statehood and inalienable, and that the South exercised its right to withdraw peacefully from the Union and was attacked by them in an act of imperialistic conquest and fratricidal betrayal.

Cue the guy who stands up and says that the KMT was an instrument of class oppression, that Real China(tm) is the Chinese People(tm) and that they seized the means of production which belong to them by natural right because they are the ones who actually use them to produce things, casting off the burden of a small, parasitic class which then ran away to an island with some of their stolen money. They were always oppressors, so they were never legitimate, and all the money they ran away with belongs to the Chinese people, and is owed with interest.

Cue the guys with the Washington opinions on these two issues.

Do I care about any of these opinions? Do they matter, at all, to the material facts of the situation - do they relate to any objects? Is Kurdistan a legitimate State? Does the "legitimacy" of a State exist, as a real thing, based on something other than force projection?

No!

Here's this quote for you again:

If you think "only governments which follow my model of government are legitimate" then you should get off the forum, jump in a time machine, join Infantry, and put your boots on the ground for the invasion of Afghanistan.

I'm glad that the opinion factory on this forum is run by people who don't get to make policy decisions, and I'm in an existential horror spiral that these are the cream of the political intellectual elite that vote in elections, which is so perpetual that I'm used to it.

But now you've subtly shifted the terms of discussion from whether Taiwan can be considered a country because the US Confederacy met the same characteristics and was unrecognized to some nebulous idea of the legitimacy of a state being predicated on the material reality of force projection.

Just as the "no land-holding factions in civil wars" rule of thumb becomes complicated in pages suchas Korea and Yugoslavia, a force projection paradigm also quickly becomes reductionist in the face of the actual practice of geopolitics.

There are a variety of small states in Europe and the Pacific Ocean that have near-universal recognition as legitimate and also have nearly no ability to protect force. Palau has no military at all and Andorra has only a ceremonial force that only exists for the occasional parade and is armed with medieval weaponry. Conversely, there are plenty of armed groups in Africa that have the ability to project force internationally fat more effectively than the recognized "legitimate" government, with militants in countries such as DR Congo and Mali being particularly notable

For all of your bombast about other posters not signifying anything, the paradigms you've proposed perform little better

[Ethel mermania]

While comparing 1949 China to 1860 America is pretty poor to begin with, if we were to use that analogy in this game the south won. Chang was the head of the recognized government, Mao was the rebel. Taiwan started the war under the KMT's control and the defeated state moved there. Taiwan never had the PRC as a government, only the KMT.

This doesn't matter. As written English words, it doesn't even signify anything - it has relation to zero objects, except that it gives strong hints about which football politics team you're "sending your prayers" to.

Cue the guy who stands up and says that the South had the natural and constitutional right to declare independence, always had this right, that this right is inherent in Statehood and inalienable, and that the South exercised its right to withdraw peacefully from the Union and was attacked by them in an act of imperialistic conquest and fratricidal betrayal.

Cue the guy who stands up and says that the KMT was an instrument of class oppression, that Real China(tm) is the Chinese People(tm) and that they seized the means of production which belong to them by natural right because they are the ones who actually use them to produce things, casting off the burden of a small, parasitic class which then ran away to an island with some of their stolen money. They were always oppressors, so they were never legitimate, and all the money they ran away with belongs to the Chinese people, and is owed with interest.

Cue the guys with the Washington opinions on these two issues.

Do I care about any of these opinions? Do they matter, at all, to the material facts of the situation - do they relate to any objects? Is Kurdistan a legitimate State? Does the "legitimacy" of a State exist, as a real thing, based on something other than force projection?

No!

Here's this quote for you again:

If you think "only governments which follow my model of government are legitimate" then you should get off the forum, jump in a time machine, join Infantry, and put your boots on the ground for the invasion of Afghanistan.

I'm glad that the opinion factory on this forum is run by people who don't get to make policy decisions, and I'm in an existential horror spiral that these are the cream of the political intellectual elite that vote in elections, which is so perpetual that I'm used to it.

The end of your post does apply to you, agreed.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Looks like I missed a lot of enraged bleating about how PRC!colonialism is good and proper.

[The Blaatschapen]

Looks like I missed a lot of enraged bleating about how PRC!colonialism is good and proper.

Hey!

Poor choice of words. I'd never bleat that.

[Gallia-]

International recognition is

The only thing that matters.

Being a recognized country isn't conditional. This is good for obvious reasons.

[Europa Undivided]

Taiwan is a country, it fits every criteria for being one.

The Trump analogy doesn't work, because there wasn't any election to legitimize the CCP or the KMT

This is a poorly-written post and I'm only responding to it because it condenses the two points in this thread into one post after snipping.

Please explain the criteria which Taiwan completes to be a country, which were not completed by the American Confederacy (which was not internationally recognized as sovereign during the American civil war) and which are not completed, generally, by any land-holding civil war faction in any country divided by civil war, at any time.

Within the Trump analogy - China, as a Communist country, does not consider the sacred cow of elections to be legitimizing of a State. They consider having a Communist revolution to be legitimacy ritual of their State. American Hawaii would not consider the declared electoral victory of the mainland American government to be legitimizing, because it would not be a Democratic State.

If you think "only governments which follow my model of government are legitimate" then you should get off the forum, jump in a time machine, join Infantry, and put your boots on the ground for the invasion of Afghanistan.

I'm glad that the opinion factory on this forum is run by people who don't get to make policy decisions, and I'm in an existential horror spiral that these are the cream of the political intellectual elite that vote in elections, which is so perpetual that I'm used to it.

I would consider making a serious response, but I won't, because I like annoying CCP apologists.

Besides, if you think that the CCP are the ones that are right, I will consider you far beyond salvation.

[Europa Undivided]

International recognition is

The only thing that matters.

Being a recognized country isn't conditional. This is good for obvious reasons.

The only reason Taiwan isn't officially recognized by most countries is because the CCP will throw a hissy fit and start cutting off existing and incoming trade deals.

[Rusozak]

The only thing that matters.

Being a recognized country isn't conditional. This is good for obvious reasons.

The only reason Taiwan isn't officially recognized by most countries is because the CCP will throw a hissy fit and start cutting off existing and incoming trade deals.

Maybe they should. Temporary economic hardship is worth being less reliant on China and being able to sleep at night.

[Ethel mermania]

The only reason Taiwan isn't officially recognized by most countries is because the CCP will throw a hissy fit and start cutting off existing and incoming trade deals.

Maybe they should. Temporary economic hardship is worth being less reliant on China and being able to sleep at night.

The problem is VW auto group sells over 3 million cars a year in china. PRC says sell to estonia no more sales in china, what is VW going to do?

[Europa Undivided]

The only reason Taiwan isn't officially recognized by most countries is because the CCP will throw a hissy fit and start cutting off existing and incoming trade deals.

Maybe they should. Temporary economic hardship is worth being less reliant on China and being able to sleep at night.

First world countries are already shifting to India. It won't be too long before they are no longer reliant on the PRC.

[Doniport]

Tbh that title's funny
Grand Duchy of Lithuania?
More like Grand Duchy of West Belarus

[American Legionaries]

Maybe they should. Temporary economic hardship is worth being less reliant on China and being able to sleep at night.

First world countries are already shifting to India. It won't be too long before they are no longer reliant on the PRC.

We need to accelerate this process, although I sonewhat fear what China will get up to as they lose their grasp on the world's labor market.

[Europa Undivided]

Tbh that title's funny
Grand Duchy of Lithuania?
More like Grand Duchy of West Belarus

The only based Lithuania is the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

[The North Polish Union]

Tbh that title's funny
Grand Duchy of Lithuania?
More like Grand Duchy of West Belarus

Sorry Biełaruś, you only started existing in 1795 after Catherine II decided to make you a Governorate, nothing like ancient Lithuania.

Tbh that title's funny
Grand Duchy of Lithuania?
More like Grand Duchy of West Belarus

The only based Lithuania is the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

[Imperial Old Mexico]

The VIRGIN PRC vs the CHAD Lithuania

And the THAD Taiwan!

I doubt that the PRC leaders are anything but chads themselves. It's the young men who are "lying flat" who are likely virgins. Same with the young women involved in the same movement (and yes, it has a growing female contingent).

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

And the THAD Taiwan!

I doubt that the PRC leaders are anything but chads themselves. It's the young men who are "lying flat" who are likely virgins. Same with the young women involved in the same movement (and yes, it has a growing female contingent).

billionaires are automatically disqualified from any claims of chadness.

[Imperial Old Mexico]

I doubt that the PRC leaders are anything but chads themselves. It's the young men who are "lying flat" who are likely virgins. Same with the young women involved in the same movement (and yes, it has a growing female contingent).

billionaires are automatically disqualified from any claims of chadness.

Be careful. Don't want the nerds hero-worshiping Bill Gates and Bezos more than they already do. Since chadness is negative, do you really want distance it from the ruling class? I have a lot more sympathy for nerds and incels than I ever do for the likes of Bezos, Bill Gates, Soros, or Elon Musk. Those guys will never lack for women again. The nerds and incels will never be in that boat unless they become billionaires themselves. I hope that they don't, since we need some angsty and angry young men to help organize the revolutionary cades of the future.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

billionaires are automatically disqualified from any claims of chadness.

Be careful. Don't want the nerds hero-worshiping Bill Gates and Bezos more than they already do. Since chadness is negative, do you really want distance it from the ruling class?

i think you got some terms wrong. might wanna consult urban dictionary again.

[Imperial Old Mexico]

Be careful. Don't want the nerds hero-worshiping Bill Gates and Bezos more than they already do. Since chadness is negative, do you really want distance it from the ruling class?

i think you got some terms wrong. might wanna consult urban dictionary again.

How so?

[Ethel mermania]

I doubt that the PRC leaders are anything but chads themselves. It's the young men who are "lying flat" who are likely virgins. Same with the young women involved in the same movement (and yes, it has a growing female contingent).

billionaires are automatically disqualified from any claims of chadness.

Billionaires marry salma hayak. Sleeping with her makes anyone by definition chad.

[Imperial Old Mexico]

billionaires are automatically disqualified from any claims of chadness.

Billionaires marry salma hayak. Sleeping with her makes anyone by definition chad.

Chad or not, if I had to settle down with a woman, I could do worse than Salma Hayek. Most of us could. Whatever her age.