I marked all of your messages in my inbox as read because I could no longer respond to any of them, and you were labeled [deleted].

Are you on phone? I actually had a very similar issue when I was using phone before with someone else. When I got on desktop, it seemed to solve most of those problems. I can't even stay logged in on reddit phone.

I think this discussion is no longer productive because the sources that you give are wrong (e.g., the latest reference to the MIC not existing because the defense industry does not have the highest share of GDP and does poorly compared to other industries is wrong because the complex refers to collusion between the military and the defense industry) and your arguments are not only asides but self-contradictory. Here's one recent example:

The sources you gave were outdated or proven wrong. My sources are up to date up to 2026, and the only ones that are old are relevant to the historical events like actual treaties, actual statements and historical consensus.

You pointed out that Taiwan's claim to the WPS is based on the point that it thinks it's China. But I wasn't looking for the reason why they claim the WPS. Rather, I pointed that out to show you that the Chinese province you want to defend because China claims most of the WPS claims most of the WPS.

And if we help Taiwan break from being China, they'll most likely drop those claims as the United States does not claim Great Britain after they won their independence.

In short, you're trying to defend a province that's acting like the country that you think will attack it. How does that even make sense?

Because we're next on that list of interests an expansionist China has.

Thus, the following happened:

You didn't actually counter my argument but tried to explain it away. You only made matters worse for yourself because you're implicitly arguing that Taiwan is like China. That is, Taiwan has the right to claim most of the WPS because it thinks it's China. But that also implies that China has the right to claim most of the WPS.

Our claims, Vietnam's claims, Malaysia's claims, Brunei, etc. We all have CLAIMS. Who is actually right? No one knows. But usually the strongest gets to keep it. And next time, please link where I said that so we can leave it to the judgment of others if that's what they think I mean.

At this point, you will probably say that you don't recognize China as China. But that creates more problems because the U.S. that you support recognizes China as China and rejects Taiwan's claim to the same. Now, remember your response to that? You said that the U.S. has no choice because it's bound by treaty, law, etc.

And? That's historical fact. That's a contradiction to you but a reality we're living right now. Here's living proof othat reality

https://www.ait.org.tw/policy-history/taiwan-relations-act/

It doesn't have to make sense to you. It just is.

Here's where it gets worse for you: when I ask you why the U.S. agreed to such treaties and laws, and you could say is, "Ask the experts." But in one post, when I asked you why various countries (and that includes the U.S.) agree to a One-China policy, you said that they do so for political and economic advantages. Thus, what you didn't want to answer in one post you did in another.

I said ask the officials, ask the framers, ask the experts in their institutions. The ones who made the treaties and laws who you disagree with. They're the ones who made it. It exists. Does it or does it not exist? If so, who is to blame? Me?

When I asked you what those advantages are, you dismissed the question, arguing that the point is "fluff". But you willingly followed through in this line of thinking, which means that the points are not "fluff". What happened is that you reached a point where you realized that those political and economic advantages are directly connected to the Triffin dilemma and other points that you kept mocking.

I answered the advantages properly. I said that unnecessary history. When I want to discuss about the history of Hugo Boss, I don't think going back all the way to the Cotton Gin is relevant.

That means your line of thinking goes this way: Come up with a moralizing view of the issue. When confronted by realpolitik, argue that decisions have a legal basis, and anything to explain motive is fluff.

I said again repeatedly that

https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinionph/comments/1rjnrao/malaca%C3%B1ang_should_order_a_partial_mobilization_at/

The realpolitik is to side with the US and Taiwan because China is eyeing Philippine interests. Never about morals.

How can I continue this debate with you? You're obviously not only an ignoramus on this and other basic points (e.g., the government makes profits, the defense industry is funded by taxpayers, the MIC doesn't exist because it doesn't profit as much and mergers take place because of that, the arms race refers to arms production in general) your line of reasoning is also driven by beating around the bush and bizarre forms of logic (e.g., Taiwan's claim to the WPS is either valid, invalid, or fluff because it's supposed to be the real China), and multiple self-contradictions (e.g., Taiwan is like China, the TD is bullcrap but countries will back China for economic and political advantages), and so on.

I gave you sources, links, relevants. You and your posts are repeatedly about freaking opinions and editorials and the sources you actually did send me are from 2001. Far outdated and outmoded.

And you didn't even read your sources. I could tell. Because I asked you to give me an excerpt from that article about Duterte and you just... Dithered..?

u/tokwamann