Why US will lose a war with China over Taiwan island - Page 8 - 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.
#15171271
Fasces wrote: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:


Northern Cyprus is occupied territory by the Turkish army and a Turkish colony where colonists are sent illegally for several decades now. North Macedonia is self-determined and independent, has also been named as such with my blessings.

How do you hope to justify the CCP snatching the Taiwanese people against their will by mentioning this whataboutism? :eh:

Fasces wrote: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.


Strawman that totally ignores the nation-state of Taiwan. It is not the US trying to snatch Taiwan but China.

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.


All these are irrelevant strawmen that you are discussing with yourself.

The nation-state of Taiwan does not want to be under CCP''s rule.

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?


You 're not making any sense. You falsely claimed that:

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".


That is a lie 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.
#15171273
None of what I said is irrelevant to my point - that US support for Taiwan is not based on a commitment to the protection of democratic principles or concern for human rights, and is independent of those. They are used as a pretext to justify a geopolitical strategy I don't agree with, and my disagreement with the strategy is being interpreted as a disagreement with "democracy" or "human rights". The idea that Taiwan wants to be independent is also not relevant to that point. That you don't want to discuss the point is another thing entirely, and I certainly can't force you too - but your deflection is painfully obvious, and frankly in bad faith.

Here's the argument:

0) Taiwan is a de facto independent state. Taiwan is a democracy. China should respect the self-determination of the Taiwanese people. Internally, China, as all states do, regularly violates the human rights of its subjects.

1) The US does not care about Taiwanese democracy (or Hong Kong or Tibet or Xinjiang). The US is not defending Taiwan in order to protect the self-determination or human rights of the Taiwanese people. If Taiwan were not a democracy, it would not impact US support for the island (and has not in the past).

2) The US is protecting Taiwan because it is a key asset in its island chain strategy. The US uses Taiwan to enforce its unjust hegemonic ambitions in Asia. The US uses Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, or Hong Kong to try to create internal unrest within China as a means of weakening the Chinese state apparatus.

3) I don't think US hegemony is a good thing. I don't think the West should play any leadership role in Asian (or African or South American) affairs in any capacity. I don't agree with the US transparently using human rights as a shield to defend its hegemonic ambitions and as a means to deflect criticism of its hegemonic aspirations. I would prefer the US not use propaganda techniques to manufacture consent within the West in order to prevent a multipolar world from existing. I don't think protecting US hegemony justifies a new Cold War. I think such a Cold War would hurt more people than it would help.

If you want to actually address the argument, feel free - but I doubt it, as you have consistently refused to address it in the past, choosing instead the lazy approach of "Fasces likes torturing Uyghers."

That is a lie 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.


They don't in articles published by academic journals.

They do in Taiwanese news reports, many of which frequently end up in right-wing tabloids in the US. By design.

The southwest corner of the Taiwanese ADIZ is hundreds of miles into international waters. Will you call the US sailing warships through international waters, as it frequently does in the Taiwanese strait and the South China Sea, a similar act of aggression and violation of Chinese sovereignty? (or will you avoid the question again?)
#15171289
Fasces wrote:Here's the argument:
0) Taiwan is a de facto independent state. Taiwan is a democracy. China should respect the self-determination of the Taiwanese people. Internally, China, as all states do, regularly violates the human rights of its subjects.


Chinese propaganda does not qualify as argument:

Taiwan is not an internal CCP matter and nor are the people of Taiwan, CCP's subjects.

The violation of Taiwanese human rights & sovereignty is not going to be a regular thing for China.

1) The US does not care about Taiwanese democracy (or Hong Kong or Tibet or Xinjiang). The US is not defending Taiwan in order to protect the self-determination or human rights of the Taiwanese people. If Taiwan were not a democracy, it would not impact US support for the island (and has not in the past). 2) The US is protecting Taiwan because it is a key asset in its island chain strategy. The US uses Taiwan to enforce its unjust hegemonic ambitions in Asia.


It is irrelevant as to whether I and others should support the people of Taiwan against a dictatorial takeover.

Fasces wrote:The US uses Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet, or Hong Kong to try to create internal unrest within China as a means of weakening the Chinese state apparatus.


That is the CCP's excuse to annihilate these people. CCP is going way far beyond than simply targeting those responsible for 'internal unrest' and is targeting entire populations instead.

3) I don't think US hegemony is a good thing. I don't think the West should play any leadership role in Asian (or African or South American) affairs in any capacity. I don't agree with the US transparently using human rights as a shield to defend its hegemonic ambitions and as a means to deflect criticism of its hegemonic aspirations. I would prefer the US not use propaganda techniques to manufacture consent within the West in order to prevent a multipolar world from existing. I don't think protecting US hegemony justifies a new Cold War. I think such a Cold War would hurt more people than it would help.


I do not care what kind of excuse you use to justify the CCP's invasion of Taiwan and the dictatorial takeover of its people.

For the people of Taiwan US protection affords them independence of their own affairs and is not intrusive to Taiwan's internal affairs. You use this propaganda to justify a dictatorial takeover of Taiwan which in your lingo is the antidote to "US hegemony", while for the people of Taiwan it is simply keeping their existing freedom and way of life.

It is Goebelian level of propaganda like your earlier crazy superlatives about the ADIZ.

If you want to actually address the argument, feel free - but I doubt it, as you have consistently refused to address it in the past, choosing instead the lazy approach of "Fasces likes torturing Uyghers."


These stuff have been addressed several times in several threads. It's pure spam at this point.

Fasces wrote:They don't in articles published by academic journals.
They do in Taiwanese news reports, many of which frequently end up in right-wing tabloids in the US. By design


Chinese military flights from Shangai to Fuzhou or Xiamen do not get registered as violations of the Taiwanese ADIZ as you falsely claimed. Your new goalpost has China violating Taiwanese airspace.

Will you call the US sailing warships through international waters, as it frequently does in the Taiwanese strait and the South China Sea, a similar act of aggression and violation of Chinese sovereignty?


It depends if the US navy is simply passing through in which case it is not an act of aggression or if it is engaging in an aggressive war of the kind that the CCP is engaging against Taiwan in which case it is.

The US is not interfering in the internal affairs of Taiwan, China is trying to totally take-over those affairs.
#15171297

Taiwan is not an internal CCP matter and nor are the people of Taiwan, CCP's subjects.


No idea how you understood that I said Taiwan was a part of China or the Taiwanese were Chinese subjects. I really have to assume, at this point, it's deliberate misrepresentation of my words. Your only goal in this thread is to pontificate. Go nuts.
#15171302
Fasces wrote:No idea how you understood that I said Taiwan was a part of China or the Taiwanese were Chinese subjects. I really have to assume, at this point, it's deliberate misrepresentation of my words. Your only goal in this thread is to pontificate. Go nuts.


If internally is meant as opposed to foreign countries like Taiwan, then I misunderstood you but it still needed to be clarified because Taiwan is indeed a foreign country for the CCP of China.

Calling Taiwan an internal Chinese matter is something you intended with your text.

That is how the CCP got away with the Hong Kong take-over but Taiwan can defend itself.
#15171307
Fasces wrote:Beginning and ending with how pro-American the government is. The democratic traditions of that government do not enter into the equation.


That's not even an attempt at explaining the correlation. Democratic governments are pro-American because the US protects their interests and vice-versa.

Fasces wrote:None of what I said is irrelevant to my point - that US support for Taiwan is not based on a commitment to the protection of democratic principles or concern for human rights, and is independent of those.


Then you're simply wrong. It is obviously an important factor in this ideological struggle.
#15171366
noemon wrote: Calling Taiwan an internal Chinese matter is something you intended with your text.


No it is not. I was referring to Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and Mainland Chinese populations. Did you not see the previous three sentences? In what meaningful way can the Chinese oppress the human rights of Taiwan, a territory over which it exercises no authority? Does the North Korean government violate your human rights? Your interpretation of my words makes no sense - unless it's deliberate.

Rugoz wrote: Democratic governments are pro-American because the US protects their interests and vice-versa.


Democracies which act against US interests get replaced by autocracies that defend them with staggering regularity in US history.

Rugoz wrote: Then you're simply wrong.


You're simply naive.
#15171433
Fasces wrote:No it is not. I was referring to Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and Mainland Chinese populations. Did you not see the previous three sentences? In what meaningful way can the Chinese oppress the human rights of Taiwan, a territory over which it exercises no authority? Does the North Korean government violate your human rights? In what meaningful way can the Chinese oppress the human rights of Taiwan, a territory over which it exercises no authority? Does the North Korean government violate your human rights? Your interpretation of my words makes no sense - unless it's deliberate.


Your post intentionally and deliberately mixed 2 things together without separating them in any meaningful way(Taiwan and Internal Chinese Policy), in the same bullet point. This is Goebelian levels of propaganda. Just like your plain obvious misinterpretation about the ADIZ, when you claimed that internal Chinese flights get registered as violations of the Taiwanese ADIZ; when I called you out on it, you retorted by showing a real violation of the Taiwanese ADIZ, not an internal flight from Shangai to Fuzhou or Xiamen as you had actually claimed.

In both separate cases, back-to-back, you were trying to blur the line of what is meant by "internally" which is precisely China's propaganda policy. So spare me your victim's tears, you 're not fooling anybody.

If you want to state that Taiwan is not an internal matter for CCP China, just say it out loud and be done with it instead of whining that people don't get you. Clear words are understood just fine. Sneaky props are also understood fine too.

Rugoz wrote:"with staggering regularity"? Is that why people always come up with the same two examples, namely Chile and Iran? Both bad examples anyway, because in both there was internal conflict between institutions and no "democratic side".


Whether the US historically cares more about "democracy" than its own interests has an easy reply and Fasces is correct in that.

If a democratic government went against "US interests" or the perception of them even rhetorically, then that democratic government did not last very long.

That does not mean that China is right to claim Taiwan.

There is Greece 1967-1974. US and Britain organized a coup to remove the democratically elected government of Greece and replace it with a CIA junta that lasted until 1974. The partition of Cyprus could be used at the time as a lever to control both Greece and Turkey and it would ensure that the British bases would remain on the island. Today those calculations no longer make any sense but 'c'est la vie'.

In 1954, after Britain failed to hand over Cyprus to Greece despite offering it twice in return for Greek entry in WW1 and again in WW2(where in both cases, Greek entry was decisive for the outcome of the war), Greece put the Cyprus matter to the UN in the name of self-determination.

The UN meeting was cancelled in 1955 when the Turks pogromed the Greeks of Istanbul, the Turkish government had created a false-flag operation in their Consulate in Greece by setting off a bomb in their own consulate(Ataturk's birth-house for which the Turkish PM was eventually hanged I believe). Once they set-off the bomb in their consulate, they had mobs ready to attack the Greek population of Istanbul, destroy their houses and shops in broad day-light, events for which the British were directly complicit:

Constantinople Pogrom wrote:The Greek government had appealed in 1954 to the United Nations to demand self-determination for Cyprus. Britain had a ruling mandate over the mostly ethnic Greek island, and wanted the Cyprus dispute to be resolved without being taken to the United Nations Security Council, due to fears of how the Greek and Greek Cypriot parties would portray the conflict.[13][22] To this end, the British government resolved to temper Greek demands by encouraging the Turkish government to publicly express their support for Turkish-Cypriot cause, which they estimated would ensure the issue would not reach the UN Security Council. British reports from the period made disparate assessments on the state of Greco-Turkish relations; one by the British Embassy on August 1954 stated that the relationship was of a superficial nature and that a minor source of tension, such as a hypothetical Greek destruction of Atatürk's house in Thessaloniki, would cause permanent damage; while an official of the Foreign Office said that a stern stance towards Greece would be to Turkey's benefit. MP John Strachey warned that Turkey had a large ethnic Greek minority in Istanbul as a card to play against Greece if it considered annexing an independent Cyprus against the wishes of Turkish-Cypriots.

Finally, the conference fell apart on 6 September, the first day the subject of Cyprus would be broached at the conference,[26] when news broke of the bombing of the Turkish consulate (and birthplace of Atatürk) in Greece's second-largest city, Thessaloniki.
[14][23]


At the time the Turkish population of Cyprus was about 15%, when the UN conference eventually took place, the Americans:

LSE paper on US participation in the Greek junta 1967-1974 wrote:
As Peurifoy’s memorandum acknowledges, the United States, at times, pursued its interests in Greece with a heavy-hand. As a result, the Greek people began to resent America’s “leadership.” By December 1954, American symbols were coming under attack. The “disengagement” of the Greek people from America’s preferred course was meticulously discussed in 1957.

In a 15-page memorandum, James K. Penfield, a political officer at the American Embassy in Greece, observed:

When the Greek public sees its desires with respect to Cyprus supported without stint in the United Nations by the Afro-Asian Bloc, by Tito, and, however tardily and hypocritically, by the Soviet Bloc, and sees the United States and each of its partners in NATO either thwart those desires or remain indifferent or neutral toward them, it lends an ever more receptive ear to those who in public speeches and in the daily press ask what Greece’s ties to the West have gained her and why she should continue to maintain them. . . . We and our policies have become less popular with the Greeks in recent years and months and we see no evidence of the existence of any force which will reverse this trend in the immediate future, barring an immediate settlement of the Cyprus issue in a manner satisfactory to Greece or a very large increase in the amount of American economic assistance.

The memo insisted, “We are not winning the battle for the Greek mind.” This led Penfield to conclude: We are passing through a period when our influence and prestige among the Greek people and with the Greek Government are undergoing a reassessment and readjustment in a changed world situation. We can no longer be as certain as we have been in the past that we shall have Greece’s support in foreign policy matters that are critical to us. . . . Unless [the reasons for disengagement] are corrected, however, there is a distinct possibility that Greece will find herself ultimately in the neutral bloc or in a “non-bloc” alignment where, we have reason to fear, a growing number of Greeks today are already finding themselves psychologically.

We have reached a new stage in Greek-American relations in which many of our decade-old assumptions and rules-of-thumb are no longer valid.


The Americans created an anti-American public by supporting the enemies of Greece and then to ensure that Greece stayed in line, they imposed a CIA dictator to ensure compliance(instead of simply correcting their own course as requested by Penfield). Doubling down on both the stupidity & the hubris. The Cyprus matter has been haunting, not just the Cypriots but also the Greeks and today both Americans, Anglo's, Europeans and the west as a whole who in hindsight may be able to see the error of their ways.

US policy readjustment in Greece begun with Bill Clinton who publicly apologized for these events during a visit in 1999 but the policy was only really changed with Obama and more properly adjusted with Biden.

Another major hubris that cost more prestige than it gained for the Americans was the destruction of Yugoslavia.

In both cases, the US, Britain and the allies went against their own allies during both World Wars.

In conclusion, you are correct in so far as US policy concerns Taiwan while Fasces is correct about historical US policy in the abstract. Fasces use of the abstract to build a case for the particular in Taiwan is definitively false and in bad faith as well.

Moreover, it is both unwise and improper(at least for irrelevant laymen) to sidestep the realities of the people involved namely the people of Taiwan and make them secondary to great power narratives.
#15171466
Pants-of-Dog wrote:But this also explains why so many developing countries see China as a better ally.


How? China is a dictatorship.

Ganeshas Rat wrote:China is definitely in its full right to claim Taiwan, and it already did so. Taiwan is China, all other parts of the country are occupied by a gang of international terrorists, why do we call them China anyway?


Taiwan has more of a claim to China than the vice-versa as Taiwan expresses true will of the people while the CCP has no proper mandate to rule.
#15171467
noemon wrote:Taiwan has more of a claim to China than the vice-versa as Taiwan expresses true will of the people while the CCP has no proper mandate to rule.

Yep. The only consistent choice in this matter is to systematically reject all forced attempts to take power. Because if a government that used force to grab power is suddenly legitimate than everything is allowed, you just keep it for some years and people forget you're a maniac who murdered a family and wears their skin, you suddenly get a claim to Taiwan and we all dispute if it's morally right or wrong for the 'mother' to take their last child's skin as well.
#15171469
I am suddenly curious what % of the budget goes to your military. Because if you're talking tough, and can't back it up, well...

Over half our real budget goes to the military. It's far too much, and we're crazy to keep doing that.

But now that war with China is a possibility, we could use some help. With the exception of Britain, none of you could do much.

As I said earlier, we've kept China out of Taiwan. Here's hoping the poop doesn't hit the fan...
#15171473
Ganeshas Rat wrote:
The half of your budget goes to the military because it's a beautiful way to launder state budget. Your elites are extremely corrupt.



As typed, that's wrong. The military is federal, not state. And while we have a serious problem with corruption, the profit margins when dealing with the military are high enough that money laundering isn't one of the problems.

Now, about that question...
#15171482
late wrote:As typed, that's wrong. The military is federal, not state.

Yeah, yeah, the United States is technically a state even though it consists of states. Or rather it planned to be states by XVIII century idealists but ended to be autonomous regions.

late wrote:And while we have a serious problem with corruption, the profit margins when dealing with the military are high enough that money laundering isn't one of the problems.

And why profit margins are so high? Because cashing out the budget. Selling napkins by the price of gold for stupid corrupts, investing billions into an innovative new generation fighter jet program that will be shamefully closed for the lack of results for the smart ones.
#15171517
Taiwanese people believe that Beijing is only flexing its military muscle to "subdue the enemy without fighting." Those who are not familiar with the region do not understand the real situation on the ground. This is what we call "gray zone" warfare to wear down the morale of Taiwanese people. What is important for the Biden administration is not to give Beijing an inch on the issue of the renegade province and to make it clear that America is determined to intervene if war breaks out, which effectively intimidates Beijing.

Many in Taiwan believe that rather than start a war, Beijing would instead prefer to "subdue the enemy without fighting," in the words of the ancient Chinese general and military strategist Sun Tzu.

And just because Beijing is flexing its military muscle, many Taiwanese say, does not mean it intends to follow through.

There is no denying that China has ratcheted up pressure on Taiwan, which split from the mainland after a civil war and has self-governed for more than 70 years. Beijing, which views it as an inseparable part of its sovereign territory, threatens to annex it, by force if necessary.

In addition to flying nearly daily sorties over Taiwan, Beijing has conducted naval and air force training exercises around the island, sailed a carrier group through the Taiwan Strait and sent spy boats to collect intelligence around Taiwanese waters, according to a report presented to legislators in March.

While the U.S. talks up the medium-term military threat, the democratic island sees the moves as part of a bigger, more immediate problem: "gray zone" warfare from Beijing that is meant to wear down the morale of not just the Taiwanese military, but also the island's people.

Alexander Huang, a former deputy chairperson of Taiwan's Cabinet-level Mainland Affairs Council, said there was a "perception gap" between the U.S. and Taiwan in evaluating the Chinese threat.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/taiw ... n-n1266216
#15171561
noemon wrote:How? China is a dictatorship.

China currently has a policy of not interfering with the internal affairs of other countries and it's foreign investment has helped improve the infrastructure and institutions in developing countries.
#15171566
late wrote:Do your forums have US and UK paid propaganda trolls?


I am so sorry to learn that the truth is so painful for you. Please understand that just listening to fake news on CNN is not good for your physical and mental health. However, any alternative opinion can be useful to you.
And please refrain from personal attacks, try to stay civilized.
God bless you.

Thank you
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 13

Moscow fleet 35 miles off Hawaii practices sinking[…]

Humanity is Crazy: Why Economies Fail

I gave this a like, but there is one major error. […]

RIP John McAfee....

Any updates on his dead man switch? Should have se[…]

Horrible and indeed, it seems some relatives of w[…]