China/Taiwan fight. (1 Viewer)

[Super44]

I think if China does pull a Russia, we will jump into that fight. If you allow China to take Taiwan and play mob gangsta politics with all that chip manufacturing that exists there, the world is in big trouble,. We're already in a bonafide shirtshow with a chip shortage, imagine greedy China extorting the entire world? Pretty much all the chip fabs are in Taiwan, this is why it was paramount to start building chip fabs in the USA long ago, the Intel chip fab being built in Arizona won't come online anytime soon. It is inevitable at some point China is gonna get brave and attempt to take Taiwan.

I briefly worked on the chip factory in Arizona! It is moving at break neck speed. The workflow process for engineering and design, through the execution phase, was/is vastly different, from a typical project. It is a huge project, along with one each in two other countries.

 

[efil4stnias]

I have little love for the Chinese Communist Party (which is in no way Communist and would better be described as a business oligarchy) and am happy to condemn its dismal human rights record and its moral and political bankruptcy. However, it is completely ludicrous to pretend that China does not have a case for sovereignty over one of its own provinces. Taiwan is not after all an independent nation - it is essentially a breakaway province. Even the KMT who founded Taiwan in its modern state have never argued against this.

So does China have the right to rule its own province even if that province wants to break away? Well I imagine the US might want to have a say in Alaskan politics if it broke away from the republic.

What does amaze me is that other countries which do not have any territorial claims to Taiwan or China and which are geographically and culturally far removed from this region and dispute think they have the right to intervene militarily and provoke a major international war.

Now you can say 'we are the world's policeman' but that has no legal basis in international law. Who appointed you? Who are you answerable to? And on whose behalf do you govern?

And yes you can make a case on moral grounds that a democratic government has more moral validity than an unelected, unaccountable dictatorship but then you have to take a good look at the massive human rights abuses committed by the Nationalist Chinese in WW2, their collusion with Japanese forces guilty of massacres and ethnic cleansing all over China, and their military finances which were almost entirely driven in the early days by the illegal presence of their Narco army in the golden triangle (inside Burma and Thailand).

So it's hard to champion intervention from a moral position, international law, historical prerogative, or even geographical proximity. Leaving aside the 'ally' argument and whether a breakaway province can legally have an ally in international law (possibility) it comes down to the rather obvious factor that the US is not happy that its strategic and business influence in the Far East and its massive intelligence gathering operations in Taiwan are under threat. But if we are going to fight a war on those grounds against a country which wants to take control of its own province....just who is the invader?

This dispute has not blown up into a major war since 1945 so there is no reason to believe that calm heads will not prevail and the dispute will fizzle out.

Sorry, I will no doubt get flamed for this but these things are important to point out in a free society.

So with regards to your coming out paragraph, who gets to decide what Taiwan is/becomes? China or the Taiwanese people?

I mean i dont see where the KMT, in its current state ( modern ) argue for reunification ( or against ). They are playing both sides. Thats politics.

Every publication ive seen on this matter clearly states the Taiwanese want to become own country/democracy. KMT arent arguing against that either.

Taiwan per capita income is almost 3x that of China. ( $33,000 vs 12,000 ) - they do not wish to have that diluted by incoming Chinese labor. They look to maintain economic independence and wealth which leads to national security interests.

US as always championed burgeoning democracy. Does that make us the "world police"? Hardly. It does make us the defenders of democracy across the globe.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

China has a stronger claim to Taiwan than Russia has to Ukraine.

We are much more likely to be directly involved with protecting Taiwan because there is much more money at stake, not because Taiwan is more deserving than Ukraine of protection.

 

[Geldo]

So with regards to your coming out paragraph, who gets to decide what Taiwan is/becomes? China or the Taiwanese people?

I mean i dont see where the KMT, in its current state ( modern ) argue for reunification ( or against ). They are playing both sides. Thats politics.

Every publication ive seen on this matter clearly states the Taiwanese want to become own country/democracy. KMT arent arguing against that either.

Taiwan per capita income is almost 3x that of China. ( $33,000 vs 12,000 ) - they do not wish to have that diluted by incoming Chinese labor. They look to maintain economic independence and wealth which leads to national security interests.

US as always championed burgeoning democracy. Does that make us the "world police"? Hardly. It does make us the defenders of democracy across the globe.

Who gets to decide what Taiwan is/becomes? China or the Taiwanese people?

Ideally a consensuse that represents the interests of both peoples and which can be achieved peacefully. Definitely not a foreign power.

US as always championed burgeoning democracy. Does that make us the "world police"? Hardly. It does make us the defenders of democracy across the globe.

The US champions the democracies it likes and destroys the democracies it does not.

Only a couple of years ago Bolivian democracy was crushed by a fascist coup which was backed by the US. Before that in 2009 the democratically elected president of Honduras was overthrown in another US backed coup because he wished to raise the minimum wage for the very poorest people.

There are literally scores of other examples. Here are just a few.

• Chile 1973 (democratically elected PM overthrown and probably murdered - replace by a fascist junta and death squad.
• Jamaica 1970s/80s - The US worked extremely hard to overthrow yes you guessed it twice democratically elected Michael Manley. Their efforts included the traditional tactic of 'making the economy scream' and saw automatic weapons and explosives pumped into the country where it was channelled into the hands of the JLP's gangsters who went on to become one of the most dangerous narco gangs in the world.
• Palestine 2006 - Another great example of only respecting the winner of an election if they are supportive of US policy. Hamas won the vote, so the US allegedly channeled money, weapons and training into Fatah to promote a Palestinian civil war. Now you can hate Hamas if you want but it won an election so is a democratic movement.
• Haiti - multiple times - normally whenever a president tried to raise minimum wage that threatened the profits of North American or European businesses.

The only way it can be honestly be said that the US excellent record of supporting democracy if we define democracy as 'supporting right wing client regimes and brutal dictators who run death squads to terrify the public into submission'

• Democracies like Iran under the Shah (and criticising the Shah doesn't mean supporting what came after). The Shah's SAVAK secret police would have won any popular vote, providing they could put the hands of their opponents in mincers and beat them daily in subterranean prisons.
• Democracies like Pinochet's in Chile where the regime was so secure in the knowledge it had full US support it even televised the detention of dissidents who were then taken below the national sports stadium to be tortured to death.
• Democracies like Paraguay where Stroesnner and the Nazi war criminal elite who helped run the country ran a reign of terror lasting over 30 years. No regime change needed there - while the terrifyingly huge Army of the democratically elected government of Grenada was such a threat to the US it warranted an invasion.

Championing democracy means respecting results you don't like, protecting regimes in danger of being overthrown from military tyrants, not blockading the harbours of democratically elected governments with mines, and not turning a blind eye to drug trafficking by former members of a favoured regime's national guard units to pay for their terrorist cause and then calling them freedom fighters.....just saying

 

[efil4stnias]

Who gets to decide what Taiwan is/becomes? China or the Taiwanese people?

Ideally a consensuse that represents the interests of both peoples and which can be achieved peacefully. Definitely not a foreign power.

US as always championed burgeoning democracy. Does that make us the "world police"? Hardly. It does make us the defenders of democracy across the globe.

The US champions the democracies it likes and destroys the democracies it does not.

Only a couple of years ago Bolivian democracy was crushed by a fascist coup which was backed by the US. Before that in 2009 the democratically elected president of Honduras was overthrown in another US backed coup because he wished to raise the minimum wage for the very poorest people.

There are literally scores of other examples. Here are just a few.

• Chile 1973 (democratically elected PM overthrown and probably murdered - replace by a fascist junta and death squad.
• Jamaica 1970s/80s - The US worked extremely hard to overthrow yes you guessed it twice democratically elected Michael Manley. Their efforts included the traditional tactic of 'making the economy scream' and saw automatic weapons and explosives pumped into the country where it was channelled into the hands of the JLP's gangsters who went on to become one of the most dangerous narco gangs in the world.
• Palestine 2006 - Another great example of only respecting the winner of an election if they are supportive of US policy. Hamas won the vote, so the US allegedly channeled money, weapons and training into Fatah to promote a Palestinian civil war.
• Haiti - multiple times - normally whenever a president tried to raise minimum wage that threatened the profits of North American or European businesses.

The only way it can be honestly be said that the US excellent record of supporting democracy if we define democracy as 'supporting right wing client regimes and brutal dictators who run death squads to terrify the public into submission'

• Democracies like Iran under the Shah (and criticising the Shah doesn't mean supporting what came after). The Shah's SAVAK secret police would have won any popular vote, providing they could put the hands of their opponents in mincers and beat them daily in subterranean prisons.
• Democracies like Pinochet's in Chile where the regime was so secure in the knowledge it had full US support it even televised the detention of dissidents who were then taken below the national sports stadium to be tortured to death.
• Democracies like Paraguay where Stroesnner and the Nazi war criminal elite who helped run the country ran a reign of terror lasting over 30 years. No regime change needed there - while the terrifyingly huge Army of the democratically elected government of Grenada was such a threat to the US it warranted an invasion.

Championing democracy means respecting results you don't like, protecting regimes in danger of being overthrown from military tyrants, not blockading the harbours of democratically elected governments with mines, and not turning a blind eye to drug trafficking by former members of a favoured regime's national guard units to pay for their terrorist cause and then calling them freedom fighters.....just saying

Oh im not saying every single thing the US has done under the guise of protecting democracy was correct. ( i should have elaborated as much in my reply ) Im not saying we have some excellent record of it either.

There are instances where US policy makers were beholden to other interest groups that "clouded" their judgement. No doubt.

I look at Taiwan not from an angle of "what is our track record" but from "what do the people want" and i dont think of it along the lines of "and synergistically to US interests" - although, as you pointed out, does play a role in where we choose to take a stance.

 

[Geldo]

Oh im not saying every single thing the US has done under the guise of protecting democracy was correct. ( i should have elaborated as much in my reply ) Im not saying we have some excellent record of it either.

There are instances where US policy makers were beholden to other interest groups that "clouded" their judgement. No doubt.

I look at Taiwan not from an angle of "what is our track record" but from "what do the people want" and i dont think of it along the lines of "and synergistically to US interests" - although, as you pointed out, does play a role in where we choose to take a stance.

No problem - everyone has the right to their opinion. I enjoy a debate with people because it's what opens our eyes to what is happening all over the world

The problem is nothing is ever as it seems. So take Hamas. Terrorist group and much despised by Israel....

Perfectly understandable until you discover that Israel helped the rise of Hamas. It did not actually create the movement as the headline below suggests but it was happy to see it attack Fatah when Fatah was considered a stronger enemy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/07/30/how-israel-helped-create-hamas/

 

[efil4stnias]

No problem - everyone has the right to their opinion. I enjoy a debate with people because it's what opens our eyes to what is happening all over the world

The problem is nothing is ever as it seems. So take Hamas. Terrorist group and much despised by Israel....

Perfectly understandable until you discover that Israel helped the rise of Hamas. It did not actually create the movement as the headline below suggests but it was happy to see it attack Fatah when Fatah was considered a stronger enemy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/07/30/how-israel-helped-create-hamas/

Trust me...ive always kept an open mind when it comes to geopolitical speak. 1) because im woefully immature when it comes to knowing the history behind a specific issue and 2) because while i know every intention starts out as a "good" intention, along the way, things get complicated ( especially in geopolitics )

you simply cant please everyone, ever time.

So my thoughts on it are that we back Taiwan as it seems its the popular thing ( amongst Taiwanese ) and coincides with our own US interests ( read-Natl Sec )

 

[baarbogast]

 

[ChrisinNOLA]

North Korea vs South Korea annual war games stare down should happen next as we wind down the summer?

 

[baarbogast]

 

[gboudx]

North Korea vs South Korea annual war games stare down should happen next as we wind down the summer?

Maybe so. And possibly a good old fashioned skirmish on the Pakistan/Kashmir border.

 

[faceman]

I think if China does pull a Russia, we will jump into that fight. If you allow China to take Taiwan and play mob gangsta politics with all that chip manufacturing that exists there, the world is in big trouble,. We're already in a bonafide shirtshow with a chip shortage, imagine greedy China extorting the entire world? Pretty much all the chip fabs are in Taiwan, this is why it was paramount to start building chip fabs in the USA long ago, the Intel chip fab being built in Arizona won't come online anytime soon. It is inevitable at some point China is gonna get brave and attempt to take Taiwan.

Once again Mainland China has done this for years. They know the U.S, supports Taiwan independence. It's nearly
100% support from both parties. They will take a hurting if they declare full war. In the words of Admiral Yomomoto
Don't awaken a sleeping giant

 

[ChrisinNOLA]

Oh good round 2.

 

[baarbogast]

 

[Saintman2884]

I have little love for the Chinese Communist Party (which is in no way Communist and would better be described as a business oligarchy) and am happy to condemn its dismal human rights record and its moral and political bankruptcy. However, it is completely ludicrous to pretend that China does not have a case for sovereignty over one of its own provinces. Taiwan is not after all an independent nation - it is essentially a breakaway province. Even the KMT who founded Taiwan in its modern state have never argued against this.

So does China have the right to rule its own province even if that province wants to break away? Well I imagine the US might want to have a say in Alaskan politics if it broke away from the republic.

What does amaze me is that other countries which do not have any territorial claims to Taiwan or China and which are geographically and culturally far removed from this region and dispute think they have the right to intervene militarily and provoke a major international war.

Now you can say 'we are the world's policeman' but that has no legal basis in international law. Who appointed you? Who are you answerable to? And on whose behalf do you govern?

And yes you can make a case on moral grounds that a democratic government has more moral validity than an unelected, unaccountable dictatorship but then you have to take a good look at the massive human rights abuses committed by the Nationalist Chinese in WW2, their collusion with Japanese forces guilty of massacres and ethnic cleansing all over China, and their military finances which were almost entirely driven in the early days by the illegal presence of their Narco army in the golden triangle (inside Burma and Thailand).

So it's hard to champion intervention from a moral position, international law, historical prerogative, or even geographical proximity. Leaving aside the 'ally' argument and whether a breakaway province can legally have an ally in international law (possibility) it comes down to the rather obvious factor that the US is not happy that its strategic and business influence in the Far East and its massive intelligence gathering operations in Taiwan are under threat. But if we are going to fight a war on those grounds against a country which wants to take control of its own province....just who is the invader?

This dispute has not blown up into a major war since 1945 so there is no reason to believe that calm heads will not prevail and the dispute will fizzle out.

Sorry, I will no doubt get flamed for this but these things are important to point out in a free society.

In the context of geopolitics and history, there really wouldn't be a pretext for making an analogy between Alaska deciding to secede from the US or how it might be comparable to Chinese claims that Taiwan is a breakaway province?

First and foremost, we purchased Alaska from the Russians at kind of then-bargain basement deals in 1867 between then-Secretary of State William Sewell and the Russian ambassador partly due to Russia's wish that their Alaskan colony didnt Falcons into British/Canadian hands. You may not be aware of this, but if the Russians hadn't sold us Alaska, their is a very good chance Alaska eventually becomes part of Canada because up until WWI, although Canada was its own sovereign, independent nation, Britain still controlled their foreign policy and from the 1830's till signing of the Entente Cordialle in 1907, Czarist Russia and UK were involved in a near-century long military, diplomatic chessmatch historians have called, "The Great Game". " The Great Game" was sort of the 19th century's Cold War and it involved territorial disputes from Balkans, Crimean War, Baku, Afghanistan, British control over India, British expedition to Tibet in 1903, dividing Persia(Iran) into spheres of influence, how British/French and Russians were arguing about how they were going to divide up the dwindling, unreformable, centuries-old Ottoman Empire, "sick man of Europe". Russia, amazingly during the Civil War, was a staunch Union ally, while the British held deep pro-Confederate sympathies, Lord Russell even argued before the House of Commons in 1864 for British military intervention to prevent a potential race war. Russia had also discovered immense oil, natural gas resources in Siberia in the early 1860's so it made Alaskan ownership a bit of a moot point by then.

Also, most Taiwanese, if they were polled or asked, likely wouldn't want to revert back to some one-party authoritian Communist regime opposed to a parliamentary democracy, they shouldn't be forced to accept or tolerate a compromise solution which makes that a distant possibility, its not fair to them. A Hong Kong-type solution wouldn't work either because Chinese Communist leadership has actually broken or bended the terms of the handover deal brokered between UK And China back in 1984 where Hong Kong would enjoy its long-cherished democratic institutions for 50 years after their handover, "two systems, one government " agreement. Based on how riot police handled and beat up pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong 3 years ago amid accusations of press/media crackdowns, limiting civil liberties, individual rights of city citizens, arresting dissidents, honestly how can any reasonable, realistic Taiwanese politician, citizen take any claims of Chinese respecting their rights as face value? Theyll gradually bend then break the rules, albeit over a decade or two, of most or any agreements they make.