Neither Russia or China are peaceful, dovish, or isolationist. You know that, you aren’t an idiot. The fact that you don’t care, and are only ignoring imperialism when it’s a nation you like doing it is what makes you a tankie, and a hypocrite.
I feel like I answered literally exactly this in my response.
What you’re saying is exactly what British social democrats would have said to people opposing the war, that Germany isn’t peaceful, dovish, or isolationist, that they know that, they don’t care, and are only ignoring imperialism when Germany does it, and it’s also what German social democrats would have said to people opposing the war, that Britain isn’t peaceful, dovish, or isolationist, that they know that, they don’t care, and are only ignoring imperialism when Britain does it, and so on.
You’re still avoiding the question. How are you advocating for “peaceful, dovish, and isolationist” countries if neither Russia or China is any of those things?
And don’t keep trying that “well that’s just your viewpoint” bullshit. You and I both know neither of those countries could be objectively described with any of those adjectives, no matter how much you want to try to justify them.
I never said, “well that’s just your viewpoint,” or anything like that. Not sure where you’re getting that from.
I answered the question very clearly. Advocating for peace necessarily means rejecting the idea that a given war is necessary to confront foreign threats. Peace advocates in every conflict, by every side, are frequently labeled as traitors who support the worst offenses of the other side, “you’re either with us or with the terrorists,” as Bush said. The tankie label is simply another form of this. I don’t see what’s confusing about that.
Neither Russia or China are peaceful, dovish, or isolationist. You know that, you aren’t an idiot. The fact that you don’t care, and are only ignoring imperialism when it’s a nation you like doing it is what makes you a tankie, and a hypocrite.
I feel like I answered literally exactly this in my response.
What you’re saying is exactly what British social democrats would have said to people opposing the war, that Germany isn’t peaceful, dovish, or isolationist, that they know that, they don’t care, and are only ignoring imperialism when Germany does it, and it’s also what German social democrats would have said to people opposing the war, that Britain isn’t peaceful, dovish, or isolationist, that they know that, they don’t care, and are only ignoring imperialism when Britain does it, and so on.
You’re still avoiding the question. How are you advocating for “peaceful, dovish, and isolationist” countries if neither Russia or China is any of those things?
And don’t keep trying that “well that’s just your viewpoint” bullshit. You and I both know neither of those countries could be objectively described with any of those adjectives, no matter how much you want to try to justify them.
I never said, “well that’s just your viewpoint,” or anything like that. Not sure where you’re getting that from.
I answered the question very clearly. Advocating for peace necessarily means rejecting the idea that a given war is necessary to confront foreign threats. Peace advocates in every conflict, by every side, are frequently labeled as traitors who support the worst offenses of the other side, “you’re either with us or with the terrorists,” as Bush said. The tankie label is simply another form of this. I don’t see what’s confusing about that.