Wasn't Biden the first to eschew ambiguity to say that US would defend Taiwan?
Taiwan
- Thread starter IUCrazy2
- Start date
Wasn't Biden the first to eschew ambiguity to say that US would defend Taiwan?
It would likely depend on the scale of the Chinese invasion. If it’s just a little invasion of a sovereign nation, “just the tip” per se. Then our response will be much more subdued than if it’s a full scale invasion.
Correct. There's not a chance in hell we fire on the Chinese military unless they fire on us directly.
We'll give arms and lip service to support for Taiwan - probably in the form of a strongly worded letter to the UN.
But trying to stop China directly if they invade Taiwan without firing on us first? Ain't gonna happen.
Article 1) - there’s a red line, don’t cross it
Article 2) - just don’t , (whisper) just don’t
Turns, shake the hand of Harvey the Rabbit.
Harvey was a rabbit hired under DEI rules, he didn’t show. He’s passed out on the White House lawn, after tagging the guy with the great boobs.
Anyone ever seen a man in a rabbit costume roll over (rabbit style) after tranny sex?
That describes Bidens foreign policy.
Can you or anyone expand: how does it turn into a worldwide war and not just in the China sea and Asia?
my two cents: the two largest economies in the world, with the largest and most far reaching economic networks, going to war with each other would cause sudden and dramatic lines to be drawn all over the globe. the amount of resources needed to fight such a war would draw in the resource-heavy exporters. All the big oil and mineral producers would have to pick sides at gun point. Russia would obviously be heavily involved and would undoubtedly take a major war in the S China Sea as a window to push its interests in Europe, Asia , and Africa; it just would not be able to let an opportunity like that go. India, no friend of China but a good customer to Russia, would have to commit to one side in a big way. the US Navy would start policing the globe for ships carrying Chinese "contraband, " whether that's inbound raw materials or outbound export goods.
The US's deal with the world is clear cut. If you are in our network, submit to our security dominance, and trade by sea, we will protect you. Conversely, if you are less accessible by sea and abut Russia, we'll just send you guns and bombs (See Ukraine). Backing down from this "obligation" would change the very fabric of the world order. I think the US would use all of its vast resources and security network to remain dominant. The alternative would be unimaginable and unacceptable (from the US perspective).
In short, it would become WW3 because the US would make it what way. The stakes would be that high.
Last edited:
Wow. Don't even remember these posts.... Race weekend getting a little off the rails over here
We routinely have planes and ships in and around the straight. It would take incredible luck for none to be hit.
They could but it would be a mistake. They have a 100 mile supply chain across water. Their best bet would be to launch a "surprise" attack on USAF and Navy assets around the Pacific Rim to try and delay a US response and then hope they could shock and awe the island into submission before we were able to launch a counter attack. Otherwise their invasion forces are likely to be sitting at the bottom of the strait, victims of US fighters and naval assets.
I don't know and for the sake of this thread I don't care. I am honestly avoiding that whole angle of the topic as it just invites people to come along and start that "but Trump...." stuff and we have that in every other thread.
I don't know if it would necessarily but dealing with China would have us pretty tied down for awhile. If someone were looking to reconstitute their former Soviet Empire (or attempt it), that would be the time to maybe make a run at the Baltics...
Also, some of the things manichi mentioned would be in play. His tone seems to place blame on the US for that but if China started the war, I wouldn't view the response from the US as being the ones who drug the world into it. China knows who Taiwan's friends are and it isn't just the US. The G7 and NATO countries have that economic relationship and other countries around the Pacific Rim (Australia, Phillipines, Vietnam, Japan, etc.) would also have an interest in not seeing China have more access to the Pacific at large that a Taiwanese base would give them a jumping off point from.
But, part of US strategy would be strangling their economy by blocking shipping lanes in the Middle East and the lanes around Malaysia to stop Chinese exports in part but mostly to choke oil flow getting to China.
Last edited:
wasn't blaming the US in this hypothetical war, just pointing out how and why (I think) the US response would turn it into a global war.
Look at the map:
Can you blame any country if its feels that its surrounded based on that map?
What if Russia did the same thing to the continental US?
This isnt about some chest beating flag waving exercise here. Real people live in Asia and all this shit has to be toned down.
Wanting to start endless wars is just stupid considering the budget deficit and the $34T and growing. The US has been in conflict in 220+ years since independence.
Why not try spending money on building things instead of giving money away to select companies and corrupt dictators and blowing things up? A wild, crazy novel idea.
Besides, Taiwan is part of China full stop. It was recognised/ agreed upon by Nixon going back to 1972 -- unless agreements don't count for shit nowadays?
All this shit reminds me to the build up to the illegal Iraq war -- yellow cake, WMD ..
There is either mass dementia being suffered by half the population or people are just dumb. Barely over 20 years ago and no one has been accounted for and yet we are still going down the same track.
Why not start spending on the American people and stop worrying about 'building democracy' etc in other countries. And forget about this BS 'human rights' excuse -- Biden just approved sale of offensive weapons to the Saudis, the bone sawers.
Barking out 'human rights', 'democracy' and 'rule of law' etc now only expose the stratospheric level of hypocrisy and a complete lack of self-awareness.
Its embarrassing.
Besides after trillions of dollars spend, is the world a better place? Name me one successful outcome after trillions of dollars?
I think we all know the answer.
Imagine if we accepted other people for what they are or different systems -- and not wasted all that $$$$$. And spend it at home? You wouldn't be bitching about the falling infrastructure, homeless, crime etc.
Its not like other countries dont have the news and cant see whats going on in the States!!! Are we asking them to emulate what's going on in the States?
I think a lot of self-awareness will go a long way here.
Enough of these slow drumming of wars.
Look at the map:
Can you blame any country if its feels that its surrounded based on that map?
What if Russia did the same thing to the continental US?
This isnt about some chest beating flag waving exercise here. Real people live in Asia and all this shit has to be toned down.
Wanting to start endless wars is just stupid considering the budget deficit and the $34T and growing. The US has been in conflict in 220+ years since independence.
Why not try spending money on building things instead of giving money away to select companies and corrupt dictators and blowing things up? A wild, crazy novel idea.
Besides, Taiwan is part of China full stop. It was recognised/ agreed upon by Nixon going back to 1972 -- unless agreements don't count for shit nowadays?
All this shit reminds me to the build up to the illegal Iraq war -- yellow cake, WMD ..
There is either mass dementia being suffered by half the population or people are just dumb. Barely over 20 years ago and no one has been accounted for and yet we are still going down the same track.
Why not start spending on the American people and stop worrying about 'building democracy' etc in other countries. And forget about this BS 'human rights' excuse -- Biden just approved sale of offensive weapons to the Saudis, the bone sawers.
Barking out 'human rights', 'democracy' and 'rule of law' etc now only expose the stratospheric level of hypocrisy and a complete lack of self-awareness.
Its embarrassing.
Besides after trillions of dollars spend, is the world a better place? Name me one successful outcome after trillions of dollars?
I think we all know the answer.
Imagine if we accepted other people for what they are or different systems -- and not wasted all that $$$$$. And spend it at home? You wouldn't be bitching about the falling infrastructure, homeless, crime etc.
Its not like other countries dont have the news and cant see whats going on in the States!!! Are we asking them to emulate what's going on in the States?
I think a lot of self-awareness will go a long way here.
agree with all this except for the different systems part at the end. China's geography requires centralized government but no one that doesn't have to be wants to be governed that way.
Ultimately, just let other countries govern themselves. Who are we to judge?
It takes some level of arrogance, ignorance, or dementia to go around thinking that they need to emulate the US considering all the problems there is.
Besides, how do you tell a government in Beijing to change when they probably had the most transformative change in human history -- bringing over 800million out of poverty and into the middle class within a space of a generation? Give credit where credit is due.
The problem is that geopolitics has been gamified. People think in terms of losers and winners when real lives are at stake.
One of the key ingredients of strategy thinking is a huge dollop of empathy. If you cant think what your competitor is thinking or facing and why, then you cant really develop a strategic plan. (I used to have to plan five to ten years out of where the business is going.)
And empathy is severely lacking in todays thinking. Its that constant either you are with me or against me mindset. That's really for the simple-minded folks.
Everything's just tactical -- and worse still for political gains. Its really like the last days of the Roman Empire. Constant internal bickering, redirecting to external parties and not actually doing anything to help its own citizens.
Explain. Re: geography.
What geographical conditions are more conducive to self-government and which to autocracy?
Last edited:
in China's case, they aren't a republic or a federation like the different incarnations of Russia, but they are a country containing many diverse nations. keeping a country like that sewn together takes strong central government and lots of internal policing. that's not to be confused with a country like the US, where we have a diverse population. handling multiple nations within one state has historically been brutal work.
also like Russia, China has a long history of being invaded. When it's strong and rich, it seeks to push outward wanting to secure buffer regions. when it's weak and poor, it often collapses inward towards its core. at these times its very rich coastal cities will align with outside powers, sometimes splitting China into multiple parts. not an accident China is very wary of outside influence. that's more than just a mechanism to control its people.
but it's much different than Russia in that China does have the geography to be very rich, as it's proving once again in this day and age. The Yangtze River Delta and its coastal cities can generate as much capital as anyplace in the world but the huge Chinese interior is just the opposite. the standard of living in the countryside, as sglorider noted, has improved dramatically but can't sustain itself, taking a huge centralized effort. China also heavily subsidizes industries in its coastal cities, practically bribing them to stay in the fold. it's quite a balancing act.
countries who can more "organically" generate capital, like the Western great powers, need less centralized touch or at least that's one snapshot from 30,000 feet up.
There's no magic reason "China" has to exist as it is, then.
Would you rather have the border of current China and be ruled by a communist system, or live in a smaller country, with different borders and live in a democracy with constitutional rights, freedom of speech and thought, religious liberties, and a vibrant economy?
good question. when china has splintered, those smaller kingdoms/ states have typically gone to war with each other. when china's central government is weak and ineffective, events like the Rape of Nanjing have occurred. moments like that have greatly influenced China's social contract. in a vacuum, of course I'd rather live in the smaller state w more rights but the alternative to a strong, intrusive central govt there has always led to absolute nightmares.
I have no interest in a military engagement with China or any other nation. I'm pretty sure no one in the American establishment wants a war either. I've never heard any one on here champion the idea of going to war with China. I wish the Chinese people a better life, though, and a better system of government; I don't think the US should sacrifice our people to make that happen.
But you don't think empathy plays a part in most thinking about China?
Any empathy for the Uyghurs? I've asked this before yet you refuse to even acknowledge it.
China’s Repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang
More than a million Muslims have been arbitrarily detained in China’s Xinjiang region. The reeducation camps are just one part of the government’s crackdown on Uyghurs.
www.cfr.org
Or the people living in Taiwan that don't want to live under a communist regime? You don't--why can't they live under a free government too? Any empathy for them?
Regarding the map you posted: what do you notice that all those green nations have in common? They're all (or nearly all) democracies of one sort or another with fairly strong commitment to individual and human rights.
You're right that the U.S., in its strategic interests, needs to think like the CCP dictatorship (notice, NOT the average Chinese citizen) to figure out their goals and motivations. But they also need to understand that the CCP isn't some benevolent organization in the world. It is, in effect, a dictatorship.
Sorry prime minister, Joe Biden was right – Xi Jinping really is a ‘dictator’
When is a dictatorship not a dictatorship? When you’re a New Zealand prime minister and you’re due to meet Chinese leader Xi Jinping, that’s when.
theconversation.com
Those were much, much different times. China doesn't have to worry about the Mongols or an aggressive militaristic Japan anymore.
I think the notion that China's current government is dictated by its geography is far-fetched. But even if it did require a "strong" central govt., that govt. doesn't have to be a communist dictatorship.
I have no interest in a military engagement with China or any other nation. I'm pretty sure no one in the American establishment wants a war either. I've never heard any one on here champion the idea of going to war with China. I wish the Chinese people a better life, though, and a better system of government; I don't think the US should sacrifice our people to make that happen.
But you don't think empathy plays a part in most thinking about China?
Any empathy for the Uyghurs? I've asked this before yet you refuse to even acknowledge it.
China’s Repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang
More than a million Muslims have been arbitrarily detained in China’s Xinjiang region. The reeducation camps are just one part of the government’s crackdown on Uyghurs.
Or the people living in Taiwan that don't want to live under a communist regime? You don't--why can't they live under a free government too? Any empathy for them?
Regarding the map you posted: what do you notice that all those green nations have in common? They're all (or nearly all) democracies of one sort or another with fairly strong commitment to individual and human rights.
You're right that the U.S., in its strategic interests, needs to think like the CCP dictatorship (notice, NOT the average Chinese citizen) to figure out their goals and motivations. But they also need to understand that the CCP isn't some benevolent organization in the world. It is, in effect, a dictatorship.
Sorry prime minister, Joe Biden was right – Xi Jinping really is a ‘dictator’
When is a dictatorship not a dictatorship? When you’re a New Zealand prime minister and you’re due to meet Chinese leader Xi Jinping, that’s when.
You have been brainwashed by the corporate media dude. China is as much a communist party as the US is capitalist. (China has the 2nd most billionaires in the world -- how's that for a communist country?)
I was responsible for the A-P region in my past corporate life. I know the region pretty well.
All this talk about democracies is just hogwash. Travel to Asia and even China and then let's have a discussion. If you have been there, you will know all these talking points of politics is just for the purpose of division.
As far as the 'green country' why aren't the most successful democracies of the world, the Scandinavia countries going around the world trying to regime change?
FYI: the US is considered a democracy under threat. Its considered a 'deficient democracy' -- 36th in the world. So why not talk about things at home first before looking at other folks.
As far as I am concerned, there has to be a discussion on what exactly is democracy? All these trillions spent, are we trying to regime change them into some what of an American model? A Scandinavian model?
But honestly if you believe in all that BS, then I have some land to sell you. It spure self interest cloaked under the guise of some fear mongering (domino effect/theory, Red are coming etc) or virtue signaling (human rights or democracy, freedom.)
You know when you undergo marriage counselling for example, the first thing they teach you is to talk about yourself first.
Address things under the prefix 'I' -- rather than 'you' did this etc. There is something to be said about there when talking about geo-politics.
People are suckered into labels --- because it enables those who have control to manipulate. Its easy to think in binary term, good v evil. This is what I mean by gamification. Winners and losers.
Or worse; even sub-humanising them -- when most people just want to have a fruitful life, place they can make money to provide for their children -- whether in the US or 'communist' China.
It make it easier to hate another group of people this way. That's manipulation.
Ultimately, any serious thinker will know that in any conflict there will always be two truths and not some binary choice.
Its funny that goes -- all this Uyghers' genocide accusation but where's the evidence other than a few reporters incl NY Times who claim all sorts of things. And this is the same NTY that bought into the WMD, slam dunk claims? And the same NYT that half of the WC claims is full of fake news?
Plus you have politicians and folks here supporting the extermination of muslims? And you think the Uygher problem is the issue? (Fyi the radicalised Uygher Muslim had bombed, knife attacked and killed many Chinese on many occasions which started all this.)
Its funny how that works out.
Ultimately you can go visit Xinjiang and see for yourself.
Also if half of the people here think that Jan 6th isn't nothing but a protest march; what does accusation of some 'genocide' without any evidence even mean?
And with all the video evidence of an actual genocide in Gaza, 45,000 deaths and counting where is the uproar here? And people are reluctant to use the G word.
Why isnt everyone supportive of the student protests unless you dont think its a just cause?
I'm not one of those people... I hold Netanyahu's Israel with as much contempt as I do China and Russia. He's no different than Trump or Putin, greedy opportunistic criminal POS .. This does not mean I support Hamas .. to me they're all evil and I hope they all rot in hell ...
I give my sympathy to those who suffer from all of the above regardless of race, nationality, religion or creed..
You can't fence people in and treat them like dirt. You also can't rape your way to freedom. Tibet needs to be given back to the people of Tibet. Fking hypocritical to claim Taiwan is part of China only because they once were ..while occupying Tibet ... which was not a threat to China in any f**king way ...
Last edited:
The us government has recognised that Taiwan is part of china since 1972 in and agreement.
It always goes back to my two principles -- focus domestically.
Spend the trillions on Americans instead of endless wars and corrupt leaders.
Secondly quit lecturing countries when the hypocrisy is all for the world to see -- its just embarrassing the lack of self-awareness. We can cherry pick all we want on who has done what -- but ultimately, you know that people in glass house, stones etc.
Everyone has blood on their hands; from 'forced labour' and their answer is but, but.. you had institutionalised slavery to human rights and yet today Biden approved offensive weapons sales to the Saudis.
If the government was more honest -- and just call it what it is -- self interest and $$$$ then at least I would respect that. Instead we are getting gas lit.
Last edited:
Get over yourself clown. No one hates the Chinese or dehumanizes them. People take exception with the Chinese Communist Party (which you’ve just informed us isn’t actually communist) and its encroachment on Taiwan.
There are real tangible reasons why every American should be willing to support Taiwanese independence.
It’s not just fear mongering and virtue signaling as you say.
For someone who spent so much time in the A/P, do you mind if I ask why your understanding of that regions geopolitics is so shitty?
Last edited:
All. Chinese. Propaganda.The us government has recognised that Taiwan is part of china since 1972 in and agreement.
It always goes back to my two principles -- focus domestically.
Spend the trillions on Americans instead of endless wars and corrupt leaders.
Secondly quit lecturing countries when the hypocrisy is all for the world to see -- its just embarrassing the lack of self-awareness. We can cherry pick all we want on who has done what -- but ultimately, you know that people in glass house, stones etc.
Everyone has blood on their hands; from 'forced labour' and their answer is but, but.. you had institutionalised slavery to human rights and yet today Biden approved offensive weapons sales to the Saudis.
If the government was more honest -- and just call it what it is -- self interest and $$$$ then at least I would respect that. Instead we are getting gas lit.
He has shared his background. He is a Chinese colonizer in Singapore. Everything makes sense when you realize how his bread is buttered.
When you cut through the clutter of his China posts they can always be distilled down to a couple talking points.
- I live(d) in the region and thus am impervious to U.S. propaganda about the CCP and my opinion should count more
- The U.S. has issues too
I find it wholely unconvincing.
"Corporate media" wants to foment a war with China now? LOL. US corporate interests, if they were in control, want peace and access to Chinese markets. See, e.g., the NBA and Apple.
I'm ready, willing, and able to have a serious conversation about what it means to be a democracy or, more importantly, what the West uses that word to mean nowadays. But "any serious thinker" would deal with all of what was written: "all (or nearly all) democracies of one sort or another with fairly strong commitment to individual and human rights."
You do not. And you never have in discussing China. You have no interest in writing anything negative about Chinese life, policy, or leadership. You've ignored the Uyghur issue for years, despite direct requests for a response. And now, you're denying it, saying anyone can "go see for themselves." That's a very unserious response.
As for your challenge that China is being governed as a communist nation, let's take the CCP at their word (from the above linked article):
". . . one of the CCP’s “Four Cardinal Principles”. According to the CCP constitution:
So their best bet would be to repeat Japan’s strategy bringing us into WWII? I don’t think they’d go that way.
I don't think they can win and they have to account for us, what do you think they would do?
If US/China go to war nobody wins. Read Ken Follett’s “Never”. Fiction but…
