Why US will lose a war with China over Taiwan island - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15171067
noemon wrote:This isn't about reality? :eh:

Reality is Taiwan is under the protection of the US, if China attacks, it is attacking the US and therefore NATO.

For those who wonder why China is doing this now, that is because China saw that nobody did anything for Hong Kong or Tibet or the Uyghurs so it assumed that the same will happen for Taiwan so she has eyed a window of opportunity to snatch Taiwan.

China is testing and determination is required to deter her from declaring war on the world.

Appeasement only emboldens dictators and brings the cause of war closer.


China is busting a move for having satellite nations. She will continue to do her 'reacquisition' of her stolen (that is how they view it) ex parts of her old Empire. The USA has handed the PRC a playbook on what is necessary to expand and conquer. Get a hold of little islands and small places, subjugate them and then place eventually military installations on them so you can be the major force in the world.

They are studying what they can do and how to do it in a way that is less controversial than the American way of doing it.

In the end? The USA did engage in 93 agressions and it is a horrible Empire. China has studied the playbook. That is why they are actively either constructing tiny island stations all over the world, lending the resource rich nations with young people, marriage age women in abundance, and cheap labor countries. They will continue to do this.

The only way to stop them Noemon? Is for the USA to stop spending money on these dumb wars, invest in its own people and stop being a captive market for the PRC's products. But since capitalism and profit and consumption are its cornerstone principles and talking about motivations outside of a profit margin is anathema to the USA's elite? It is highly unlikely to happen.
#15171070
Tainari88 wrote:China is busting a move for having satellite nations. She will continue to do her 'reacquisition' of her stolen (that is how they view it) ex parts of her old Empire. The USA has handed the PRC a playbook on what is necessary to expand and conquer. Get a hold of little islands and small places, subjugate them and then place eventually military installations on them so you can be the major force in the world.

They are studying what they can do and how to do it in a way that is less controversial than the American way of doing it.

In the end? The USA did engage in 93 agressions and it is a horrible Empire. China has studied the playbook. That is why they are actively either constructing tiny island stations all over the world, lending the resource rich nations with young people, marriage age women in abundance, and cheap labor countries. They will continue to do this.

The only way to stop them Noemon? Is for the USA to stop spending money on these dumb wars, invest in its own people and stop being a captive market for the PRC's products. But since capitalism and profit and consumption are its cornerstone principles and talking about motivations outside of a profit margin is anathema to the USA's elite? It is highly unlikely to happen.


Mentioning the USA every time Russia and China attack a foreign country is getting quite tiring and spammy.

It also means nothing at all.

The only way to prevent aggressors from making war on smaller nations is to criticize them, strongly & firmly.

Without ifs, buts and whatabouts.

Anything less is justifying war, aggression, pillage and death.
#15171074
@noemon

I disagree. I think an effective way for smaller countries from being bullied by bigger and stronger countries is for smaller countries to be prepared to fight and have a plan to make it very costly for bigger nations to bully them. This can be done through joining reliable alliances that have real teeth, obtaining nuclear weapons and developing a plan that centers around a war of exhausting a stronger opponent. An exhaustion strategy centers around protracting out a conflict in the occupied smaller nation and forces the bigger nation to spend a bunch of money to maintain that occupation that cannot in the long term be sustainable because of the cost to maintain it. Eventually, that bigger nation will have no choice but to leave.

However, this sort of plan should be the last resort as a smaller nation should seek nuclear weapons and join reliable effective alliances to prevent being occupied and bullied in the first place, thus ensuring their own security. That would be the strategy I would pursue if I were a small nation having to deal with the potential of being occupied by a larger, stronger power. Big powers don't care about being critcized for bullying or occupying smaller nations. They do care about getting nuked or having to fight a strong defensive alliance or having to spend a gigantic amount of money maintaining an occupation they can't afford over the long term all while casualties pile up from that occupation.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 06 May 2021 15:44, edited 1 time in total.
#15171078
noemon wrote:
Reality matters, late.

I should not have to tell you this, if there is some point you want to make you really should.



I did, you ignored it.

Which is not surprising, it's a complicated situation with a lot of history.

Again, I try to find a middle ground between Realpolitik and moralism. Both are recipes for failure. The real goal of diplomacy is to just keep people talking. That's what I want to see.

What I would have said, if I were you, is how Biden should push China on the issue. Not for moral reasons, but because it would work. My concern is that China has a massive chip on it's shoulder, we've pushed them a lot over the last several years, and history suggests they have a limit to what they will take.

Please note I did not say Biden was wrong, simply that it increases risk, and at an extremely awkward moment. It might work, but I doubt many in the dipcorp were happy to see it.
#15171089
noemon wrote:Mentioning the USA every time Russia and China attack a foreign country is getting quite tiring and spammy.

It also means nothing at all.

The only way to prevent aggressors from making war on smaller nations is to criticize them, strongly & firmly.

Without ifs, buts and whatabouts.

Anything less is justifying war, aggression, pillage and death.


All I am saying Noemon is thinking these nations don't learn these tactics from each other is quite naive.

Everyone is studying what the ones who hold or held power do and did and wondering how they can rip off the tactic.

My theory is don't imitate things that are immoral, and bad values.

Thinking the ones who grow powerful are moral actors with good values is a lie.

Nothing spammy about it. It is truthful.

He was a socialist. And a very moral man. Wrapped in a single garment of destiny. It is right. Stop imitating bad values.
#15171093
noemon wrote:Mentioning the USA every time Russia and China attack a foreign country is getting quite tiring and spammy.

It also means nothing at all.

The only way to prevent aggressors from making war on smaller nations is to criticize them, strongly & firmly.

Without ifs, buts and whatabouts.

Anything less is justifying war, aggression, pillage and death.

So when are you going to criticise the USA for its treatment of Puerto Rico over the past 123 years? Or is that different?
#15171142
Potemkin wrote:So when are you going to criticise the USA for its treatment of Puerto Rico over the past 123 years? Or is that different?


When you or Tainari make a thread about it and tell me about it, I'll be happy to call it as it is.

Tainari88 wrote:Nothing spammy about it. It is truthful.


Let's be honest please, we 've all been doing this for a while. There is not a single reason to mention past US aggression every time you make a post in a thread about Chinese aggression but you do it consistently and for some time because you feel that supporting those against the USA is the good thing to do. But you are wrong at it.

Trying to change the topic to US whataboutism is what Chinese nationalists do.

The rest of us can only denounce or justify the aggression of the aggressor, who in this case is China.

If you do not denounce China for its aggression like you denounce the US(even when it's not the topic) then what kind of justification will you have to denounce the US ever again, about anything, under what kind of principle?

Anyhow, talking about US past whataboutism is off-topic anyway you look at it and tired as well as it has been said more than anything else despite it being off-topic.

Politics_Observer wrote:
I disagree. I think an effective way for smaller countries from being bullied by bigger and stronger countries is for smaller countries to be prepared to fight and have a plan to make it very costly for bigger nations to bully them. This can be done through joining reliable alliances that have real teeth, obtaining nuclear weapons and developing a plan that centers around a war of exhausting a stronger opponent. An exhaustion strategy centers around protracting out a conflict in the occupied smaller nation and forces the bigger nation to spend a bunch of money to maintain that occupation that cannot in the long term be sustainable because of the cost to maintain it. Eventually, that bigger nation will have no choice but to leave.

However, this sort of plan should be the last resort as a smaller nation should seek nuclear weapons and join reliable effective alliances to prevent being occupied and bullied in the first place, thus ensuring their own security. That would be the strategy I would pursue if I were a small nation having to deal with the potential of being occupied by a larger, stronger power. Big powers don't care about being critcized for bullying or occupying smaller nations. They do care about getting nuked or having to fight a strong defensive alliance or having to spend a gigantic amount of money maintaining an occupation they can't afford over the long term all while casualties pile up from that occupation.


You are talking about what Taiwan should do(and she does) but I am talking about what the rest of us should do.

The only way to prevent aggressors from making war on smaller nations is to criticize them, strongly & firmly.

Without ifs, buts and whatabouts.

Anything less is justifying war, aggression, pillage and death.
#15171144
The issue with Taiwan is that it is technically China. They don't even have a seat in the UN. I could bring this to parallels with Crimea but I guess that would be classed as a whataboutism. However I do find users don't see their own contractions sometimes. If we support self determination we need to be consistent and perhaps bring that forward to the UN as a legal text. Or we support legal borders. You cannot have both. Although apart from a few fly overs, I doubt China has any intention in invading Taiwan. I would say a bigger risk for Taiwan is to have the US recognise them as a state actually. Once that happens I can see CCP invading them simply to remind America that China and Taiwan is one nation and only the leadership of the nation is in question for which the CCP actually have the seat in the UN.
#15171145
B0ycey wrote:The issue with Taiwan is that it is technically China.


How so? The government in Taiwan is the government of China prior to the communist take over of the mainland. How does this make them technically China is they managed to hold on the island and establish an independent government? Mao never invaded Taiwan.

As for a UN seat. Well, China doesn't allow it, so what's bringing it up to the UN going to solve?.... and who takes the UN seriously anyway? :lol:
#15171146
B0ycey wrote:The issue with Taiwan is that it is technically China. They don't even have a seat in the UN. I could bring this to parallels with Crimea but I guess that would be classed as a whataboutism. However I do find users don't see their own contractions sometimes. If we support self determination we need to be consistent and perhaps bring that forward to the UN as a legal text. Or we support legal borders. You cannot have both. Although apart from a few fly overs, I doubt China has any intention in invading Taiwan. I would say a bigger risk for Taiwan is to have the US recognise them as a state actually. Once that happens I can see CCP invading them simply to remind America that China and Taiwan is one nation and only the leadership of the nation is in question for which the CCP actually have the seat in the UN.


China is engaged in hybrid war against Taiwan for some time now.

Taiwan is not part of China in any meaningful way. It is a separate nation-state and has been since 1949.

Taiwan should be recognised as such and take its place at the UN and NATO as well to put an end to the anxiety of Taiwanese people.
#15171148
Rancid wrote:How so? The government in Taiwan is the government of China prior to the communist take over of the mainland. How does this make them technically China? Mao never invaded Taiwan.

As for a UN seat. Well, China doesn't allow it.... and who takes the UN seriously anyway? :lol:


It is technically China given the POC fled to Tiawan as the CCP took over the mainland. Tiawan has NEVER been declared its own state. The CCP basically have been playing the long game and call it a breakaway state. Anyone who says it is a different state basically gets disregarded by China. If America did likewise they would also lose diplomatic relations with China over night. And then I think China would invade Tiawan because America would have neglected their own deal and policy they had with China. In other words, only Americas actions will dictate whetwhr Chinas one country two system policy remains or not or whether they regain Tiawan by force.
#15171149
noemon wrote:China is engaged in hybrid war against Taiwan for some time now.

Taiwan is not part of China in any meaningful way. It is a separate nation-state and has been since 1949.

Taiwan should be recognised as such and take its place at the UN and NATO as well to put an end to the anxiety of Taiwanese people.


I agree Tiawan isn't part of China in a meaningful way, but it still is classed as China. Tiawan doesn't hold a seat in the UN and there is a reason for that given it is legally deemed part of China.
#15171150
@noemon

noemon wrote:You are talking about what Taiwan should do(and she does) but I am talking about what the rest of us should do.

The only way to prevent aggressors from making war on smaller nations is to criticize them, strongly & firmly.

Without ifs, buts and whatabouts.

Anything less is justifying war, aggression, pillage and death.


Well that's true. All the rest of us can do is simply criticize, make our voices heard and vote in our own national elections for candidates who fit our values and beliefs.
#15171152
B0ycey wrote:It is technically China given the POC fled to Tiawan as the CCP took over the mainland. Tiawan has NEVER been declared its own state. The CCP basically have been playing the long game and call it a breakaway state. Anyone who says it is a different state basically gets disregarded by China. If America did likewise they would also lose diplomatic relations with China over night. And then I think China would invade Tiawan because America would have neglected their own deal and policy they had with China. In other words, only Americas actions will dictate whetwhr Chinas one country two system policy remains or not or whether they regain Tiawan by force.


Meh. If China does the invading, then it's China being the dick face asshole aggressor. Doesn't matter if America "forces" their hand.
#15171157
Rancid wrote:Meh. If China does the invading, then it's China being the dick face asshole aggressor. Doesn't matter if America "forces" their hand.


It kind of does matter given that the US agreed to not recognise Tiawan as a state. China has had the means to take control of Tiawan by force for a while now and nobody could do anything about it given it is legally China. The mere fact they have not invaded means there is more to this story than just what you read in Western media. China seem more keen on the deal they made with America and as of yet hasn't threatened that in any meaningful way. If America recognise Tiawan as a state, that changes everything.
#15171161
Rancid wrote:Don't mind those jets and propaganda videos that threaten war on Taiwan.....

It kind of does matter given that China agreed to what the US agreed to, and decides to shit on it by threatening war.


They have agreed to not invade Tiawan and that is it. Jet fly overs are classed as Chinese territory under the UN charter. At the moment we are at a pissing contest. Perhaps that is why we have the current rhetoric with both sides walking up to but not crossing the line. So I do think everything depends on America. Declare Tiawan a state and China invade. If not, nothing changes.
#15171163
B0ycey wrote:They have agreed to not invade Tiawan and that is it. Jet fly overs are classed as Chinese territory under the UN charter. At the moment we are at a pissing contest. Perhaps that is why we have the current rhetoric with both sides walking up to but not crossing the line. So I do think everything depends on America. Declare Tiawan a state and China invade. If not, nothing changes.


Eventually, China will invade unprovoked as its power grows. It has to at some point. How else will it reintegrate people that don't want to be integrated?

So sure, the US holds the cards to escalate this to a war in the short/mid term. However, that will not be true further into the future. In either scenario there is an invasion of Taiwan from the mainland.

The only other course of action is China's disinformation campaign somehow convinces the population there that they want to live in a shithole authoritarian state.

These bratty toddler actions from China simply don't help. No matter how you want to justify it. It's bullshit and they need to cut it out. This is all being done by China in bad faith, to stir shit up, and then try to deflect blame for it. You are falling into. Doesn't matter if Taiwan is "technically" theirs or not.
#15171165
Rancid wrote:Eventually, China will invade unprovoked as its power grows. It has to at some point. How else will it reintegrate people that don't want to be integrated?

So sure, the US holds the cards to escalate this to a war in the short/mid term. However, that will not be true further into the future. In either scenario there is an invasion of Taiwan from the mainland.

The only other course of action is China's disinformation campaign somehow convinces the population there that they want to live in a shithole authoritarian state.


China is patient. They see Tiawan coming back to them eventually, they even offered Tiawan the one country two system promise to build trust. So I don't see them being the aggressors ever. I guess people want to see things that aren't there. China is clearly making statements with there fly overs but really I am more concerned with America right now. They know the red lines and if they over step them, they will defacto have to be part of a war by over playing their hand. We all know China's position so unless they do invade Tiawan I suggest you don't declare Tiawan sovereign.
#15171166
B0ycey wrote:
China is patient. They see Tiawan coming back to them eventually, they even offered Tiawan the one country two system promise to build trust. So I don't see them being the aggressors ever. I guess people want to see things that aren't there. China is clearly making statements with there fly overs but really I am more concerned with America right now. They know the red lines and if they over step them, they will defacto have to be part of a war by over playing their hand. We all know China's position so unless they do invade Tiawan I suggest you don't declare Tiawan sovereign.


I agree.

I don't know I buy that it will come back to them easy, but they might as well wait and see.

The threats and bullshit, doesn't build trust though.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 13

I agree with you on what he's doing, but I also t[…]

I've offered no definition of the word slavery. […]

CRT

Then show that this is actually happening. OH, P[…]

Sure, if you like, though I'd say that it's *ongo[…]