Why US will lose a war with China over Taiwan island - Page 7 - 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.
#15171171
B0ycey wrote: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.


It is not legally deemed part of CCP China.

It is China without the Communist dictatorship.

CCP China has no claim over Taiwan, legal or otherwise.

CCP is a dictatorship that would destroy the human rights and political culture of the Taiwanese people.

If Xi had any honour, he would turn China into a democracy before putting such demands to Taiwan.

B0ycey wrote: 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.


Some people will say anything it seems.

China is acting very aggressively against Taiwan, while the US is not doing anything.

This thing of trying to justify Chinese aggression against Taiwan by either calling it "its turf" or by accusing the US for distraction is part of China's hybrid war against Taiwan attempting to isolate Taiwan and make it appear as a fact of life when it is anything but.

China has already used these tactics to sort out Tibetans, Cantonese and Uighurs without any protest, invading Taiwan would be China's Hitler moment, like the invasion of Poland.

It may start promising like it did for Hitler but it will end in total disaster for China and Chinese nationalists and their apologists ought to get that through their heads before they bring WW3 upon the world.
#15171175
noemon wrote:When you or Tainari make a thread about it and tell me about it, I'll be happy to call it as it is.



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.



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.



Ok noemon you want on topic rap about this? I will tell you what I think?

The USA is not going to go nuclear on China over Taiwan. Why? Because the USA has a lot of financial interests in China. The USA has promised to protect Taiwan? Will they? The answer is in what the UK did with HongKong. It will abandon the promise. Because these cowardly two forked tongue empires won't be losing money and men in a war with a nuclear power and they don't have the political will to back up the threats of Chinese ambitions.

I hate aggressors in general. But that is the world we are living in Noemon?

It is comfortable to talk about all this shit like a chess board between two big powerful nations. China vs USA. China vs UK (has been Empire), etc. and who is going to do what.

They should be realizing that all these little nations like Hong Kong and Taiwan should be allowed INDEPENDENCE from all these graspy moves. But no. The premise is the grasping will continue for a long time. Why? Because no one really likes what the unaligned group says about not wanting to be part of the big nukey countries fighting for supremacy. Most of these nations just want a deal that is about their needs. Not China's or the USA's. But again, no one talks about that problem. Why?

Accepting that paradigm of superpower cutting of the cake of different parts of the world. This slice for Russia and this one for China and this one for USA and this one for UK. Because let us be real. Hong Kong was a pressured release of territory from the UK's wonderful Opium Wars and her need to trade with China and get some tea, porcelain and silk and etc. And the same with India. The UK needing captive markets and being able to make lots of money off of the Far East spices, cotton, food, tea and etc. By what means? Opium is heroine and it is bad. Getting lots of people in China hooked on that damn shit and then pressuring for an outpost favoring British rule. Is it MORAL that kind of behavior? No, it is nasty Noemon. Bad and immoral. But it is IMPERIAL. And China wants their little plaything island back. It reminds me of other Empires who play with little islands that are their little backyard toys.

But the outrage over this type of move on the PRC's part? Is because the USA promised to fight for Taiwan's right to self determination. I am supposed to believe this? When everything I know in my life is that the USA is not concerned about self determination. They are concerned about CONTROL of their military installations and their trade routes in the Far East.

So, I would suggest we don't play holier than thou and start thinking will the USA defend Taiwan when China has them in a tough spot. They make a lot of money with the PRC. They won't be getting into a nuclear threat situation over Taiwan. The excuses they use to the PRC are about what?

Sanctioning them for not playing nice? The most probable thing is that it all results in the USA wanting special status and China negotiating something that favors them and somehow the aggressive PRC is acceptable to Washington DC again. Not because they are human rights lovers but because a lot of wealthy asshole people in the USA control political policy in Washington DC.

That is what happens when you got bad morals in political history. And in political life. Contradictions and being in a position to be always breaking promises made that are not about serving with sincerity the needs of Taiwanese freedom but your own self interests.

Again. bad values.

That is my point Noemon.
#15171180
Tainari88 wrote:Ok noemon you want on topic rap about this? I will tell you what I think?

The USA is not going to go nuclear on China over Taiwan. Why? Because the USA has a lot of financial interests in China. The USA has promised to protect Taiwan? Will they? The answer is in what the UK did with HongKong. It will abandon the promise. Because these cowardly two forked tongue empires won't be losing money and men in a war with a nuclear power and they don't have the political will to back up the threats of Chinese ambitions.

I hate aggressors in general. But that is the world we are living in Noemon?

It is comfortable to talk about all this shit like a chess board between two big powerful nations. China vs USA. China vs UK (has been Empire), etc. and who is going to do what.

They should be realizing that all these little nations like Hong Kong and Taiwan should be allowed INDEPENDENCE from all these graspy moves. But no. The premise is the grasping will continue for a long time. Why? Because no one really likes what the unaligned group says about not wanting to be part of the big nukey countries fighting for supremacy. Most of these nations just want a deal that is about their needs. Not China's or the USA's. But again, no one talks about that problem. Why?

Accepting that paradigm of superpower cutting of the cake of different parts of the world. This slice for Russia and this one for China and this one for USA and this one for UK. Because let us be real. Hong Kong was a pressured release of territory from the UK's wonderful Opium Wars and her need to trade with China and get some tea, porcelain and silk and etc. And the same with India. The UK needing captive markets and being able to make lots of money off of the Far East spices, cotton, food, tea and etc. By what means? Opium is heroine and it is bad. Getting lots of people in China hooked on that damn shit and then pressuring for an outpost favoring British rule. Is it MORAL that kind of behavior? No, it is nasty Noemon. Bad and immoral. But it is IMPERIAL. And China wants their little plaything island back. It reminds me of other Empires who play with little islands that are their little backyard toys.

But the outrage over this type of move on the PRC's part? Is because the USA promised to fight for Taiwan's right to self determination. I am supposed to believe this? When everything I know in my life is that the USA is not concerned about self determination. They are concerned about CONTROL of their military installations and their trade routes in the Far East.

So, I would suggest we don't play holier than thou and start thinking will the USA defend Taiwan when China has them in a tough spot. They make a lot of money with the PRC. They won't be getting into a nuclear threat situation over Taiwan. The excuses they use to the PRC are about what?

Sanctioning them for not playing nice? The most probable thing is that it all results in the USA wanting special status and China negotiating something that favors them and somehow the aggressive PRC is acceptable to Washington DC again. Not because they are human rights lovers but because a lot of wealthy asshole people in the USA control political policy in Washington DC.

That is what happens when you got bad morals in political history. And in political life. Contradictions and being in a position to be always breaking promises made that are not about serving with sincerity the needs of Taiwanese freedom but your own self interests.

Again. bad values.

That is my point Noemon.


The only thing that matters here is what you and me does or does not support.

Do you support the people of Taiwan or the dictatorship of China to enslave them against their will?

Hong Kong has been separate for much longer than the CCP has been ruling over China.

Taiwan's independence is about being democratic and not being under the dictatorship of the CCP.

It does not matter why the US supports Taiwan nor should it matter because Taiwan is a country on its own right and it does not want to be under the CCP.
#15171187
noemon wrote:The only thing that matters here is what you and me does or does not support.

Do you support the people of Taiwan or the dictatorship of China to enslave them against their will?

Hong Kong has been separate for much longer than the CCP has been ruling over China.

Taiwan's independence is about being democratic and not being under the dictatorship of the CCP.

It does not matter why the US supports Taiwan nor should it matter because Taiwan is a country on its own right and it does not want to be under the CCP.


Noemon I always hated imposed crap that goes against what a national group chooses for themselves without coercion.

Taiwan doesn't want to be part of Mainland China. It has spoken. That should be respected. But China is going to go for reacquiring it. Why? Because it feels that 100 miles from its shores the USA used its military to protect the nationalist one Kai Shek who was pushed out by Mao. The USA recognized Taiwan divided China by two ideologies. Mao Communism versus pro Capitalist fascist nationalism by Kai Shek. When did the financial trade grow with the PRC? They (the USA got colder about the whole thing of supporting Taiwan).

I am going, to be honest about my opinion as I always am. I think Taiwan wants its own sovereignty and they also benefit from trading with China. But they don't want state-capitalist CCP style authoritarian rule over them. The Chinese should be incredibly diplomatic, and let them be independent and at the same time create agreements with Taiwan that favor both sides without losing their dignity. Some kind of mutually beneficial agreement.

The Renegade province is something that has to be accepted as a fallout from the West interfering. The USA needs to stop being the world's cops and use its influence to help nations make peace, and respect sovereignty.

I will never be on the side of aggressive takeovers. They never end well and those people who voted in Taiwan won't be at all conforming to the reality. Again, the way you win over nations is going to be about diplomacy and respect that is about mutually beneficial relationships. If it was up to me? You respect, you acknowledge and you create mutually beneficial relations. If you can't do that? You are going to go down the path of authoritarianism and lack of legitimacy. That is my view.

The Economist view:



The USA has to stop being the cops for their own purposes. It is going bad in too many parts of the world.


The Economist talks about why it is complicated.

#15171189
noemon wrote:Do you support the people of Taiwan or the dictatorship of China to enslave them against their will?

Hong Kong has been separate for much longer than the CCP has been ruling over China.

Taiwan's independence is about being democratic and not being under the dictatorship of the CCP.

It does not matter why the US supports Taiwan nor should it matter because Taiwan is a country on its own right and it does not want to be under the CCP.


This type of rhetoric just demonstrates the efficacy of US propaganda and manufacturing consent. It makes any reasonable discussion impossible by its use of thought-terminating clichés.

People in China are not 'enslaved' by the CCP.

Taiwan's independent has nothing to do with democracy, which didn't exist until the 90s anyway, but US geopolitical interests and the First Island Chain.

If China were democratic, the US would still be in opposition to it because it would still represent a challenge to its regional interests - much like how it supports the autocracy of Saudi Arabia over the democracy in Iran. If we can't accept these realities, then the discussion is meaningless - just a bunch of masturbatory virtue-signaling.
#15171190
@Fasces

China is not by any means a free and democratic society where citizens have any real rights. It's a dictatatorship controlled by force, disinformation and blocking information. I mean heck, they can't even go to websites like Facebook because the Great Firewall of China prevents them from doing so. The Chinese government fears the internet. They fear truth. They fear well educated and well informed citizens. They fear the idea of a free society and people having real rights with the real rule of law. In some sense, Chinese citizens are slaves. The government controls them by denying them information and giving them disinformation. Of course, some of the well educated Chinese citizens are not fooled i am sure.
#15171194
In some sense, Chinese citizens are slaves.


They're not in any sense slaves - any more than taxation is theft or conscription is slavery. They're not property. They do have rights. To call them slaves is a transparent rhetorical device that shuts down conversation and impedes compromise or discourse. Dogmatic statements of this type belong on propaganda posters, not discussion forums.

Yes, it is true that China is not a multiparty liberal pluralistic democracy. It is also true that there are democratic structures within the party and in local level governance.

The Chinese government fears the internet. They fear truth.


No, they fear foreign competition against a domestic tech industry and they fear the ability of the internet to serve as a vehicle for conspiracy theories, fake news, and the propagation of misinformation and propaganda by both domestic and foreign bad actors.

They fear well educated and well informed citizens.


Absolutely not the case. They make an active effort to encourage the education of their citizens.

They fear the idea of a free society


They fear a pluralistic society that can be abused by bad actors as a vector to divide and conquer China.

and people having real rights with the real rule of law.


If Xi has accomplished anything, it is in establishing a more coherent and consistent application of law in the daily lives of Chinese citizens through his anti-corruption measures. There is far more confidence in the rule of law within China today than there was in the chaotic era of Jintao and Zemin.

The fundamental problem with these discussions is that most of you have all your knowledge of China filtered through and adjusted to fit a particular worldview. None of you show the slightest interest in trying to access Chinese news sources, Chinese social media, or engaging with Chinese citizens on any real level. You acknowledge the ignorance of others when it comes to trying to understand your culture or your people's worldview, when they don't speak Greek or Spanish or demonstrate a basic comprehension of your history, culture or religion, but turn around and talk with such a basic, fundamental level of ignorance about what China actually is, rather than what it is portrayed as, that it is hard to meaningfully engage with it. It's like listening to Tucker Carlson talk about Puerto Rican culture or politics. China and Chinese society has loads of problems, but you guys don't even know what they are, and any attempt to point this out is dismissed.
Last edited by Fasces on 07 May 2021 02:51, edited 1 time in total.
#15171198
I am not so sure those activists who survived the Tienanmen Square massacre and were imprisoned for about 17 years would agree with you.


You're not even trying to address the discussion. That's how shallow your knowledge of China is - it begins and ends with an incident from 32 years ago.

In any case, could you even tell me what the protests were about? Freedom and liberal democracy, right? :roll:

And which protestors were held in prison for 17 years? Most were released within a year. Even the organizers were free and allowed to leave China after a year or two.
#15171201
@Fasces

Here is an article that discusses an activist who was imprisoned for 17 years. Seems you are trying to white wash the reality of Chinese Communist Party.

Anna Fifield of the Washington Post wrote:Dong Shengkun survived June 4, 1989, with his life, but with little else.

His decision to go to Tiananmen Square in the days and weeks leading up to the violent crackdown ended up costing him almost everything: his wife, his son, saying farewell to his father. It also cost him his job and any hope of a halfway decent job in the future.

But Dong, who is now 59 years old, says it was worth it.

“Yes, I paid a price, but I have never regretted it for a moment,” he said in an interview in Beijing, where he still lives despite everything. “I feel so much more fortunate than those who lost their lives, and I feel a responsibility to make sure that our people know our history — not the history written by those in power, but the truth.”

Now, near the 30th anniversary of that bloody event in Tiananmen, Dong is doing his bit to counter the authorities’ efforts to erase the memory of those days in 1989, when hope and solidarity quickly turned into despair and then apathy.

The Communist Party apparatus has powerful tools to try to mold China’s collective consciousness, including rewriting textbooks and controlling state media.

But a small group of people have told and retold their stories of Tiananmen. Some of the student leaders have recounted the events of 1989, usually from the safety of Taiwan or the United States.

The mothers of the students who were killed that night have become inadvertent activists. Artists try to convey the feelings that have remained. The photo of the still-unknown man who stood in front of a column of tanks has become the quintessential image of that day.

But often forgotten in the efforts to remember what happened are the ordinary people who joined the students to show their support for the movement. The uneducated, the apolitical, the simply interested, who were pulled into the square by some kind of magnetic conscience.

People like Dong. Their role in the 1989 protests has often been overlooked. And their punishments were often much harsher than those endured by the high-profile student leaders.


Here is another part from the article:

Anna Fifield of the Washington Post wrote:The students’ slogans about democracy and about changing their society affected him, and he began to believe in the cause. He went back to his print factory and put up posters telling his co-workers about what he had seen in the square. He encouraged them to come with him. Some did.


Here is the article mentions his 17 year imprisonment:


Anna Fifield of the Washington Post wrote:
When he’d been in the square the morning of June 4, he’d seen some students trying to burn army vehicles. They’d given him a rag soaked in gasoline, he said. But he said he had not used it to set fire to anything.

In the prison, a police officer held a pistol to his head and threatened to shoot him if he didn’t confess. “After what I saw on the streets, I knew what they were capable of,” he said. He confessed.

He was originally sentenced to death, but that was ultimately commuted to a prison sentence. He felt lucky. Other inmates had been sentenced to life in prison, or executed. In prison, he worked hard to win his release. He studied and earned the equivalent of a college diploma.

It took 17 years and three months, but he was finally let out on Sept. 9, 2006.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/as ... story.html

There you have it.
#15171216
Political_Observer wrote:Here is an article that discusses an activist who was imprisoned for 17 years. Seems you are trying to white wash the reality of Chinese Communist Party.


No one is whitewashing shit. Looks like he got 17 years for setting fire to some military vehicles and throwing Molotov cocktails. A bit excessive, IMO, but excessive sentencing is hardly a unique ill of the CCP.

The students’ slogans about democracy and about changing their society affected him, and he began to believe in the cause.


About what sort of democracy? Not the liberal Western style the article implies, at least, not outside the student faction led by Fang (who played a greater role in the 1986 protests than the famous 1989 ones).

The root of the protests was threefold:

1) a protest against nepotism and the lack of ability of common folks to become members of the Communist Party (something that both Hu and Xi have attempted to address since, trying to greatly expand CCP membership);

2) a protest against the illegal power of informal and retired leaders. Some headway was made here, though Xi seems to have simply decided the best approach is to remove mandatory retirement policies to formalize the role of these elders, rather than actually try to limit their influence (himself included);

and 3) in 1989, the largest protest movement present in Beijing was anti-reform (the BWAF). They protested economic liberalization as enabling corruption within the CCP by party leaders, a fair criticism - their biggest success has actually been the adoption of their cause by Xi Jingping, who championed anti-corruption all the way into the chief job, from a lowly city manager, and his anti-corruption work is what makes him quite popular within China. (Incidentally, this is perhaps the single biggest issue I see with the critiques on here: the idea that a 'democratic' China would be any more deferential to Western strategic interests in the Pacific. The CCP is often a restrained actor, relative to the loudest voices within China. If China were democratic, whoever promised to invade Taiwan, crush the Islamist Uiyghers, and roll tanks into and integrate Hong Kong would easily win any election. They'd still be antagonistic toward the US-led order in the Pacific, and they wouldn't abandon any of their foreign policy goals or take on the submissive attitude many commentators on here seem to expect they should be taking.)

Incidentally, none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand. It's just deflection and avoiding the crux of the criticism - that you have internalized a distorted image of China in your head, that this distortion is deliberately cultivated by the US as part of its strategic plans in the region and its policy of manufacturing consent, and that the issue the US has with China has nothing to do with democracy, human rights, Taiwanese sovereignty or anything of the sort - only the fact that China is the first serious challenger to US hegemony since the 1950s.

----------------

Here's a super simple example of how it's done:

Taiwan’s Air Force Command on Sunday (Oct. 4) stated that a Chinese Y-8 anti-submarine aircraft entered the southwestern corner of Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ).

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4023233


Taiwanese news reports that the dastardly Chinese violated the Taiwanese ADIZ.

Think tanks take up the issue, and issue 'non-partisan reports' on the issue.

https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020 ... Report.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep2613 ... b_contents

Then you get reporting in Western newspaper about "unprecedented Chinese aggression".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56728072

But at which point is the Taiwanese ADIZ actually discussed?

Any Chinese flight from Shanghai to Fuzhou or Xiamen violates the Taiwanese ADIZ. A navy flight from mainland Chinese territory, to a Chinese naval vessel in international waters violates the Taiwanese ADIZ. The Taiwanese ADIZ is far larger than standard, and the result is an easy stream of stories that prove "Chinese aggression".
#15171222
Fasces wrote:the issue the US has with China has nothing to do with democracy, human rights, Taiwanese sovereignty or anything of the sort - only the fact that China is the first serious challenger to US hegemony since the 1950s.


Anybody who says this is simply ignorant to the point of being delusional. US foreign policy in a broad sense can only be understood ideologically. It's fair to argue capitalism, democracy and human rights are incredibly overrated, but that doesn't make them politically irrelevant.
#15171223
Rugoz wrote:Anybody who says this is simply ignorant to the point of being delusional. US foreign policy in a broad sense can only be understood ideologically. It's fair to argue capitalism, democracy and human rights are incredibly overrated, but that doesn't make them politically irrelevant.


Ideology is used to justify, not form, US foreign policy. US defense of Taiwan in 1949 had nothing to do with protecting democracy, capitalism, or respect of human rights - the Taiwanese government practiced none of them. They were a brutal and tyrannical military dictatorship. Support for Taiwan was solely given to maintain US control of the first island chain.
#15171224
Fasces wrote:Ideology is used to justify, not form, US foreign policy. US defense of Taiwan in 1949 had nothing to do with protecting democracy, capitalism, or respect of human rights - the Taiwanese government practiced none of them. They were a brutal and tyrannical military dictatorship.


I said "in a broad sense" for a reason. The US occasionally allying with dictatorships doesn't disprove my point. It's the long game vs. the short game.

The US has always been supportive of European integration for example*, including militarily, even though a united Europe challenges US power in many ways, such as the EU's anti-trust policies.

*needless to say Trump is exluded from this entire argument.
#15171234
Fasces wrote:This type of rhetoric just demonstrates the efficacy of US propaganda and manufacturing consent. It makes any reasonable discussion impossible by its use of thought-terminating clichés.

People in China are not 'enslaved' by the CCP.

Taiwan's independent has nothing to do with democracy, which didn't exist until the 90s anyway, but US geopolitical interests and the First Island Chain.

If China were democratic, the US would still be in opposition to it because it would still represent a challenge to its regional interests - much like how it supports the autocracy of Saudi Arabia over the democracy in Iran. If we can't accept these realities, then the discussion is meaningless - just a bunch of masturbatory virtue-signaling.


The only reality that matters is that Taiwan does not want to be under the rule of the CCP.

If you as a Chinese apologist cannot accept this very basic reality then everything you write is simply off-topic Chinese apologies for warmongering, imperialism and dictatorship. This is what is a thought-terminating cliche.

Thought-terminating is the blatant anti-american apologies that ignore the people of Taiwan and nominally place Uncle Sam in it instead so that imperialist apologists dehumanise the Taiwanese by replacing them with something "other".

That is what is thought-terminating spam.

Iran being "democratic" is a good joke and if China were democratic instead of a totalitarian dictatorship things would certainly be different. But all this is off-topic anyway.

The topic is the war the Communist CCP is engaged in against the people of Taiwan.

You support the CCP in this and all its inhumane endeavors (Uyghur internment camps, anti-Tibetan policies, the imprisoning of the elected MP's of Hong Kong), while I do not. Dehumanizing the Taiwanese by replacing with "Americans" is the oldest propaganda trick in the book. The Nazis did the same with the Jews and Anglos.

Fasces wrote:Any Chinese flight from Shanghai to Fuzhou or Xiamen violates the Taiwanese ADIZ. A navy flight from mainland Chinese territory, to a Chinese naval vessel in international waters violates the Taiwanese ADIZ. The Taiwanese ADIZ is far larger than standard, and the result is an easy stream of stories that prove "Chinese aggression".


This is Goebbels level of propaganda and does not correspond to the links you have yourself posted in the thread.

1) Civilian flights do not get registered as violations,

2) Chinese military flights from Shangai to Fuzhou or Xiamen do not get registered as violations of the Taiwanese ADIZ.

Image

It is rightfully considered an aggression when the Chinese military crosses the non-dotted median line which she does with increased frequency.
#15171238
Fasces wrote:The word occasionally is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. :lol:


In a world with only autocracies, a democratic country would only be allied with autocracies. Your argument by itself is worthless. Fact is, there's a huge ideological bias in with whom the US has friendly relations.
#15171240
noemon wrote:It is not legally deemed part of CCP China.

It is China without the Communist dictatorship.

CCP China has no claim over Taiwan, legal or otherwise.

CCP is a dictatorship that would destroy the human rights and political culture of the Taiwanese people.

If Xi had any honour, he would turn China into a democracy before putting such demands to Taiwan.



Some people will say anything it seems.

China is acting very aggressively against Taiwan, while the US is not doing anything.

This thing of trying to justify Chinese aggression against Taiwan by either calling it "its turf" or by accusing the US for distraction is part of China's hybrid war against Taiwan attempting to isolate Taiwan and make it appear as a fact of life when it is anything but.

China has already used these tactics to sort out Tibetans, Cantonese and Uighurs without any protest, invading Taiwan would be China's Hitler moment, like the invasion of Poland.

It may start promising like it did for Hitler but it will end in total disaster for China and Chinese nationalists and their apologists ought to get that through their heads before they bring WW3 upon the world.


The CCP does not claim Taiwan.
The Chinese people claim Taiwan because 97% of Taiwanese are Han Chinese.
Therefore, Taiwan is not inhabited by the Americans or the British, but by the Chinese. The South China Sea is not called the South American Sea.
Dude learn geography and stop considering the whole world your property.
:)
#15171241
Russianbear wrote:The CCP does not claim Taiwan.
The Chinese people claim Taiwan because 97% of Taiwanese are Han Chinese.


When the Chinese people of the mainland elect their own MP's in a multi-party system just like they do in Taiwan then the Chinese people of Taiwan may be happy to discuss terms of reunification. CCP dictatorship has been rejected by the majority of the 97% of Han Chinese people in Taiwan.

Just because the Taiwanese are Han people, it does not mean that the totalitarian CCP has any right over them, especially when they do not want to be under CCP rule.
#15171262
noemon wrote: The only reality that matters is that Taiwan does not want to be under the rule of the CCP.


I've never said otherwise - though your stringent support for self determinations seems to fail when it comes to topics like Macedonia naming itself or Northern Cyprus. :lol:

noemon wrote: If you as a Chinese apologist cannot accept this very basic reality then everything you write is simply off-topic Chinese apologies for warmongering, imperialism and dictatorship. This is what is a thought-terminating cliche.

You support the CCP in this and all its inhumane endeavors (Uyghur internment camps, anti-Tibetan policies, the imprisoning of the elected MP's of Hong Kong), while I do not.


I've never once condoned Chinese actions in this forum, because I do not condone them.

I have explained falsehoods and false media reports as they are, yes, as well as the hypocritical and self serving motivations behind making these human rights complaints, sure.

I do not for one second think any concern voiced by the US State Department is authentic/out of genuine concern for the well being of these populations. They are motivated entirely as a mechanism to manufacture consent for a new Cold War and to maintain the current world order led by the US. The concerns are completely independent of any reality on the ground, and even if China were a perfect Saint, which I reiterate they are not, it would be necessary for the US to make it seem otherwise - and the US absolutely would.

noemon wrote: Iran being "democratic" is a good joke and if China were democratic instead of a totalitarian dictatorship things would certainly be different.


Iran has a far greater democratic tradition than any other US partner in the region bar Israel and Turkey - though both are becoming flawed democracies on a comparable level as Iran. The US is not motivated in any way by "democracy". It is at the bottom of the list of priorities. If Taiwan were a brutal pro-US North Korea-esque dictatorship and China were an authentic but anti-American democracy, the US would support Taiwan in a heartbeat - much like how the US has supported autocratic states against pro-Soviet democracies in Europe, South Asia, the Middle East, and South America in the past.

Trying to wrap up any conflict in emotional and value-driven language is fundamentally dishonest, dehumanizing, and serves only to create an "other". It renders meaningful dialogue or constructive compromise impossible. This is true, whether the topic is domestic politics or geopolitics.

noemon wrote: It is rightfully considered an aggression when the Chinese military crosses the non-dotted median line which she does with increased frequency.


What does the "south western corner of the Taiwanese ADIZ" mean to you? To me it means: not over Taiwanese territorial airspace or territorial waters, not within range of either, not in a direct trajectory toward either, and not in any meaningful sense an aggressive move toward Taiwan except as a demonstration of Taiwanese impotence - a directly comparable action to the constant sailing of US warships through disputed international waters.

Do you consider that aggressive? If not, why is a Chinese flight?

Rugoz wrote: In a world with only autocracies, a democratic country would only be allied with autocracies. Your argument by itself is worthless. Fact is, there's a huge ideological bias in with whom the US has friendly relations.


Beginning and ending with how pro-American the government is. The democratic traditions of that government do not enter into the equation.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 13
CRT

You can read a judge's opinions , yes. Perhaps, […]

I hope just they will not be so strict with the […]

A few could. But you are doomed from the start. […]

RIP John McAfee....

Nope. Nor have I ever broached the Southern Hemis[…]