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.
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.
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.
Your argument seems to be that we should oppose all sides equally, regardless of context.
Do you even support anything?
Are you more interested in categorizing ideologies or in actual material conditions?
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.
You said appeasement.
Yes, my comment included the word appeasement. What’s your point?
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.
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.
The contradiction is saying that allowing a country to defend/enforce its borders is appeasement. The implications is that to do so is aggression.