|
|
|
On August 02 2022 12:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2022 12:44 gobbledydook wrote:
I think the answer depends heavily on whether Americans are ready to send their sons to die for Taiwan.
So far this question hasn't even really been discussed on news.
Thats one hell of a slippery slope.
It does need to be discussed though - because defending Taiwan is going to put American soldiers in the line of fire.
It was, for decades, just a hypothetical, since it was believed China did not have both the will and power to invade.
If, as many observers believe, that China will soon have the capability to do it, then it stops being a hypothetical and becomes a real scenario that needs to be prepared for, not just by the military, but by the general population.
|
On August 02 2022 12:44 gobbledydook wrote:
I think the answer depends heavily on whether Americans are ready to send their sons to die for Taiwan.
So far this question hasn't even really been discussed on news.
There is a zero % chance of China engaging the US militarily. China is not close to being able to do anything. They would be tossing the last 50 years of progress down the drain and have no realistic shot of ever being a world power ever again.
|
On August 02 2022 14:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2022 12:44 gobbledydook wrote:
I think the answer depends heavily on whether Americans are ready to send their sons to die for Taiwan.
So far this question hasn't even really been discussed on news.
There is a zero % chance of China engaging the US militarily. China is not close to being able to do anything. They would be tossing the last 50 years of progress down the drain and have no realistic shot of ever being a world power ever again.
So did we think about Russia and yet here we are.
If the Chinese judge that the US will not engage in full scale war in the case of an invasion of Taiwan, they may well judge, correctly or not, that the risk is worth it.
They know just as well as everyone else that they cannot win a war against the US. But they might think they can threaten the US with sufficient losses that they choose not to pay the price for intervening.
|
On August 02 2022 13:09 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2022 12:51 JimmiC wrote:On August 02 2022 12:44 gobbledydook wrote:
I think the answer depends heavily on whether Americans are ready to send their sons to die for Taiwan.
So far this question hasn't even really been discussed on news.
Thats one hell of a slippery slope. It does need to be discussed though - because defending Taiwan is going to put American soldiers in the line of fire. It was, for decades, just a hypothetical, since it was believed China did not have both the will and power to invade. If, as many observers believe, that China will soon have the capability to do it, then it stops being a hypothetical and becomes a real scenario that needs to be prepared for, not just by the military, but by the general population.
I don't think it's a given, that China can just overwhelm Taiwan with the US not engaging immediately. The country is a fortress by nature and pretty well prepared. Does Chinese equipment and military doctrine work? Maybe it will leave a lot to be desired, like the originals from Russia. It's not by accident that we have the situation we have.
I hope i will not see the consequences of an Invasion.
|
On August 02 2022 16:18 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2022 14:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 02 2022 12:44 gobbledydook wrote:
I think the answer depends heavily on whether Americans are ready to send their sons to die for Taiwan.
So far this question hasn't even really been discussed on news.
There is a zero % chance of China engaging the US militarily. China is not close to being able to do anything. They would be tossing the last 50 years of progress down the drain and have no realistic shot of ever being a world power ever again. So did we think about Russia and yet here we are. If the Chinese judge that the US will not engage in full scale war in the case of an invasion of Taiwan, they may well judge, correctly or not, that the risk is worth it. They know just as well as everyone else that they cannot win a war against the US. But they might think they can threaten the US with sufficient losses that they choose not to pay the price for intervening.
And what has happened in UA? Russia did exactly that:
They would be tossing the last 50 years of progress down the drain and have no realistic shot of ever being a world power ever again.
|
United States43905 Posts
On August 02 2022 12:44 gobbledydook wrote:
I think the answer depends heavily on whether Americans are ready to send their sons to die for Taiwan.
So far this question hasn't even really been discussed on news.
They have been for years. For Taiwan and every other US commitment postwar. The main point of US commitments is that US hegemony is unchallenged but yes, obviously we’re all willing to die for it. Just as the entire US population was theoretically ready to die in a nuclear exchange over west Germany.
The Taiwan visit is massively overhyped. Pelosi isn’t in the US government and the US government has publicly disapproved of it. As a matter of forms it’s nothing to do with them.
|
United States43905 Posts
On August 02 2022 16:18 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2022 14:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 02 2022 12:44 gobbledydook wrote:
I think the answer depends heavily on whether Americans are ready to send their sons to die for Taiwan.
So far this question hasn't even really been discussed on news.
There is a zero % chance of China engaging the US militarily. China is not close to being able to do anything. They would be tossing the last 50 years of progress down the drain and have no realistic shot of ever being a world power ever again. So did we think about Russia and yet here we are. If the Chinese judge that the US will not engage in full scale war in the case of an invasion of Taiwan, they may well judge, correctly or not, that the risk is worth it. They know just as well as everyone else that they cannot win a war against the US. But they might think they can threaten the US with sufficient losses that they choose not to pay the price for intervening.
The correct comparison is not with Russia and Ukraine as there was no US military defence commitment there. The correct comparison was with the Soviet Union and West Germany. Let me know when that happens.
|
On August 02 2022 14:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2022 12:44 gobbledydook wrote:
I think the answer depends heavily on whether Americans are ready to send their sons to die for Taiwan.
So far this question hasn't even really been discussed on news.
There is a zero % chance of China engaging the US militarily. China is not close to being able to do anything. They would be tossing the last 50 years of progress down the drain and have no realistic shot of ever being a world power ever again.
You forgot Korea war too fast. The army strength difference is still there but it's not that much compared to back then.
|
|
|
On August 02 2022 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can understand different perspectives on the practicality and righteousness of Pelosi going to Taiwan, but it is also a pretty naked provocation diplomatically. I expect a response, the severity of which is uncertain.
Thats the whole point. Your thinking is backwards. China's like 'this is ours, noone can come here'. Pelosi (and the US) is just reminding china that they can say w.e the fuck they want, it has no basis in reality and will be ignored.
Sometimes one can wonder if your lenses are broken.
On August 02 2022 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just to be clear, long established official US policy is that Taiwan is part of one China. Trump basically began the departure from that policy and Biden is continuing to escalate it.
People can rationalize or justify it all however they like, but the fact is that the US is on an escalatory path against China in contradiction to long established official US policy and the consequences (of the ongoing bipartisan escalatory path against China) could be catastrophic. Not just for China, the US, and/or Taiwan but the entire world.
Even if people think it's wholly righteous (nothing the US does ever is), disregarding the potential ramifications so haphazardly is irresponsibly dangerous.
Also the us doesnt recognize (and never did) china's claims over taiwan. They dont recognize taiwans independance either. Its the strategic ambiguity that keeps the statu quo.
Washington's "one China" policy, however, does not mean that the United States recognizes, nor agrees with Beijing's claims to sovereignty over Taiwan. On July 14, 1982, the Republican Reagan Administration gave specific assurances to Taiwan that the United States did not accept China's claim to sovereignty over the island (Six Assurances), and the U.S. Department of State informed the Senate that "[t]he United States takes no position on the question of Taiwan's sovereignty."
And since you advocate doing nothing to cool down the situation, i'd like to remind you that doing nothing is still an action. Which has consequences.
There actually were so many errors in your previous posts, its quite jarring. It started way before trump, Bush jr said in 2001 that if china attacked taiwan, the us would defend it at all costs.
President Bush was asked on 25 April 2001, "if Taiwan were attacked by China, do we (The U.S.) have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?" He responded, "Yes, we do...and the Chinese must understand that. The United States would do whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself." He made it understood that "though we (China and the U.S.) have common interests, the Chinese must understand that there will be some areas where we disagree."On the advice of his advisors, Bush later made clear to the press that there was no change in American policy.
|
On August 02 2022 22:46 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2022 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can understand different perspectives on the practicality and righteousness of Pelosi going to Taiwan, but it is also a pretty naked provocation diplomatically. I expect a response, the severity of which is uncertain.
Thats the whole point. Your thinking is backwards. China's like 'this is ours, noone can come here'. Pelosi (and the US) is just reminding china that they can say w.e the fuck they want, it has no basis in reality and will be ignored. + Show Spoiler +Sometimes one can wonder if your lenses are broken. On August 02 2022 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just to be clear, long established official US policy is that Taiwan is part of one China. Trump basically began the departure from that policy and Biden is continuing to escalate it.
People can rationalize or justify it all however they like, but the fact is that the US is on an escalatory path against China in contradiction to long established official US policy and the consequences (of the ongoing bipartisan escalatory path against China) could be catastrophic. Not just for China, the US, and/or Taiwan but the entire world.
Even if people think it's wholly righteous (nothing the US does ever is), disregarding the potential ramifications so haphazardly is irresponsibly dangerous. Also the us doesnt recognize (and never did) china's claims over taiwan. They dont recognize taiwans independance either. Its the strategic ambiguity that keeps the statu quo. Washington's "one China" policy, however, does not mean that the United States recognizes, nor agrees with Beijing's claims to sovereignty over Taiwan. On July 14, 1982, the Republican Reagan Administration gave specific assurances to Taiwan that the United States did not accept China's claim to sovereignty over the island (Six Assurances), and the U.S. Department of State informed the Senate that "[t]he United States takes no position on the question of Taiwan's sovereignty." And since you advocate doing nothing to cool down the situation, i'd like to remind you that doing nothing is still an action. Which has consequences. There actually were so many errors in your previous posts, its quite jarring. It started way before trump, Bush jr said in 2001 that if china attacked taiwan, the us would defend it at all costs. President Bush was asked on 25 April 2001, "if Taiwan were attacked by China, do we (The U.S.) have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?" He responded, "Yes, we do...and the Chinese must understand that. The United States would do whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself." He made it understood that "though we (China and the U.S.) have common interests, the Chinese must understand that there will be some areas where we disagree."On the advice of his advisors, Bush later made clear to the press that there was no change in American policy.
It's this hubris that I'm referencing as dangerously irresponsible and nakedly provocative.
|
On August 03 2022 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2022 22:46 Erasme wrote:On August 02 2022 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can understand different perspectives on the practicality and righteousness of Pelosi going to Taiwan, but it is also a pretty naked provocation diplomatically. I expect a response, the severity of which is uncertain.
Thats the whole point. Your thinking is backwards. China's like 'this is ours, noone can come here'. Pelosi (and the US) is just reminding china that they can say w.e the fuck they want, it has no basis in reality and will be ignored. + Show Spoiler +Sometimes one can wonder if your lenses are broken. On August 02 2022 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just to be clear, long established official US policy is that Taiwan is part of one China. Trump basically began the departure from that policy and Biden is continuing to escalate it.
People can rationalize or justify it all however they like, but the fact is that the US is on an escalatory path against China in contradiction to long established official US policy and the consequences (of the ongoing bipartisan escalatory path against China) could be catastrophic. Not just for China, the US, and/or Taiwan but the entire world.
Even if people think it's wholly righteous (nothing the US does ever is), disregarding the potential ramifications so haphazardly is irresponsibly dangerous. Also the us doesnt recognize (and never did) china's claims over taiwan. They dont recognize taiwans independance either. Its the strategic ambiguity that keeps the statu quo. Washington's "one China" policy, however, does not mean that the United States recognizes, nor agrees with Beijing's claims to sovereignty over Taiwan. On July 14, 1982, the Republican Reagan Administration gave specific assurances to Taiwan that the United States did not accept China's claim to sovereignty over the island (Six Assurances), and the U.S. Department of State informed the Senate that "[t]he United States takes no position on the question of Taiwan's sovereignty." And since you advocate doing nothing to cool down the situation, i'd like to remind you that doing nothing is still an action. Which has consequences. There actually were so many errors in your previous posts, its quite jarring. It started way before trump, Bush jr said in 2001 that if china attacked taiwan, the us would defend it at all costs. President Bush was asked on 25 April 2001, "if Taiwan were attacked by China, do we (The U.S.) have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?" He responded, "Yes, we do...and the Chinese must understand that. The United States would do whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself." He made it understood that "though we (China and the U.S.) have common interests, the Chinese must understand that there will be some areas where we disagree."On the advice of his advisors, Bush later made clear to the press that there was no change in American policy. It's this hubris that I'm referencing as dangerously irresponsible and nakedly provocative.
Because piling up rocks in the south sea to claim it as chinas isnt hubris ? Making claims on japanese islands isnt nakedly provocative ?
You need to take a step back and rethink your position if you take this move by pelosi as some kind of attack on chinas sovereignty.
Its literally just reaffirming the US-Taiwan relationship to squash any attempt by china following the ukr invasion. If you view it as some kind of provocation, you're just spewing ccp propaganda and will be treated as such.
Getting big flashbacks of "nato caused this" rn buddy
|
On August 03 2022 00:31 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2022 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 02 2022 22:46 Erasme wrote:On August 02 2022 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can understand different perspectives on the practicality and righteousness of Pelosi going to Taiwan, but it is also a pretty naked provocation diplomatically. I expect a response, the severity of which is uncertain.
Thats the whole point. Your thinking is backwards. China's like 'this is ours, noone can come here'. Pelosi (and the US) is just reminding china that they can say w.e the fuck they want, it has no basis in reality and will be ignored. + Show Spoiler +Sometimes one can wonder if your lenses are broken. On August 02 2022 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just to be clear, long established official US policy is that Taiwan is part of one China. Trump basically began the departure from that policy and Biden is continuing to escalate it.
People can rationalize or justify it all however they like, but the fact is that the US is on an escalatory path against China in contradiction to long established official US policy and the consequences (of the ongoing bipartisan escalatory path against China) could be catastrophic. Not just for China, the US, and/or Taiwan but the entire world.
Even if people think it's wholly righteous (nothing the US does ever is), disregarding the potential ramifications so haphazardly is irresponsibly dangerous. Also the us doesnt recognize (and never did) china's claims over taiwan. They dont recognize taiwans independance either. Its the strategic ambiguity that keeps the statu quo. Washington's "one China" policy, however, does not mean that the United States recognizes, nor agrees with Beijing's claims to sovereignty over Taiwan. On July 14, 1982, the Republican Reagan Administration gave specific assurances to Taiwan that the United States did not accept China's claim to sovereignty over the island (Six Assurances), and the U.S. Department of State informed the Senate that "[t]he United States takes no position on the question of Taiwan's sovereignty." And since you advocate doing nothing to cool down the situation, i'd like to remind you that doing nothing is still an action. Which has consequences. There actually were so many errors in your previous posts, its quite jarring. It started way before trump, Bush jr said in 2001 that if china attacked taiwan, the us would defend it at all costs. President Bush was asked on 25 April 2001, "if Taiwan were attacked by China, do we (The U.S.) have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?" He responded, "Yes, we do...and the Chinese must understand that. The United States would do whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself." He made it understood that "though we (China and the U.S.) have common interests, the Chinese must understand that there will be some areas where we disagree."On the advice of his advisors, Bush later made clear to the press that there was no change in American policy. It's this hubris that I'm referencing as dangerously irresponsible and nakedly provocative. Because piling up rocks in the south sea to claim it as chinas isnt hubris ? Making claims on japanese islands isnt nakedly provocative ? You need to take a step back and rethink your position if you take this move by pelosi as some kind of attack on chinas sovereignty. Its literally just reaffirming the US-Taiwan relationship to squash any attempt by china following the ukr invasion. If you view it as some kind of provocation, you're just spewing ccp propaganda and will be treated as such. Getting big flashbacks of "nato caused this" rn buddy
I think Pelosi's trip is a nakedly provocative move with nothing substantive to gain from it. Basically a matter of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".
Interesting that people think it's both disapproved by the US government and a reaffirmation of US government foreign policy though.
|
On August 03 2022 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2022 00:31 Erasme wrote:On August 03 2022 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 02 2022 22:46 Erasme wrote:On August 02 2022 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can understand different perspectives on the practicality and righteousness of Pelosi going to Taiwan, but it is also a pretty naked provocation diplomatically. I expect a response, the severity of which is uncertain.
Thats the whole point. Your thinking is backwards. China's like 'this is ours, noone can come here'. Pelosi (and the US) is just reminding china that they can say w.e the fuck they want, it has no basis in reality and will be ignored. + Show Spoiler +Sometimes one can wonder if your lenses are broken. On August 02 2022 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just to be clear, long established official US policy is that Taiwan is part of one China. Trump basically began the departure from that policy and Biden is continuing to escalate it.
People can rationalize or justify it all however they like, but the fact is that the US is on an escalatory path against China in contradiction to long established official US policy and the consequences (of the ongoing bipartisan escalatory path against China) could be catastrophic. Not just for China, the US, and/or Taiwan but the entire world.
Even if people think it's wholly righteous (nothing the US does ever is), disregarding the potential ramifications so haphazardly is irresponsibly dangerous. Also the us doesnt recognize (and never did) china's claims over taiwan. They dont recognize taiwans independance either. Its the strategic ambiguity that keeps the statu quo. Washington's "one China" policy, however, does not mean that the United States recognizes, nor agrees with Beijing's claims to sovereignty over Taiwan. On July 14, 1982, the Republican Reagan Administration gave specific assurances to Taiwan that the United States did not accept China's claim to sovereignty over the island (Six Assurances), and the U.S. Department of State informed the Senate that "[t]he United States takes no position on the question of Taiwan's sovereignty." And since you advocate doing nothing to cool down the situation, i'd like to remind you that doing nothing is still an action. Which has consequences. There actually were so many errors in your previous posts, its quite jarring. It started way before trump, Bush jr said in 2001 that if china attacked taiwan, the us would defend it at all costs. President Bush was asked on 25 April 2001, "if Taiwan were attacked by China, do we (The U.S.) have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?" He responded, "Yes, we do...and the Chinese must understand that. The United States would do whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself." He made it understood that "though we (China and the U.S.) have common interests, the Chinese must understand that there will be some areas where we disagree."On the advice of his advisors, Bush later made clear to the press that there was no change in American policy. It's this hubris that I'm referencing as dangerously irresponsible and nakedly provocative. Because piling up rocks in the south sea to claim it as chinas isnt hubris ? Making claims on japanese islands isnt nakedly provocative ? You need to take a step back and rethink your position if you take this move by pelosi as some kind of attack on chinas sovereignty. Its literally just reaffirming the US-Taiwan relationship to squash any attempt by china following the ukr invasion. If you view it as some kind of provocation, you're just spewing ccp propaganda and will be treated as such. Getting big flashbacks of "nato caused this" rn buddy I think Pelosi's trip is a nakedly provocative move with nothing substantive to gain from it. Basically a matter of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". Interesting that people think it's both disapproved by the US government and a reaffirmation of US government foreign policy though.
Did you not read my post ? Strategic ambiguity.
Once again, there's much to gain when you take in factor chinas recent actions. Unless you're a big chamberlain fan, but recent events reaffirmed how stupid of a position it is.
Yay lets give south asia to china, eastern europe to russia, sk to nk and call it a day. Nothing bad could ever follow.
|
Pelosi's visit to Taiwan gave China an excuse for military action against Taiwan。
Starting from the evening of August 2, the eastern theater of the Chinese people's Liberation Army will carry out a series of joint military operations around Taiwan Island, conduct joint sea and air training in the airspace of the north, southwest and East South China Sea of Taiwan Island, conduct long-range fire live fire in the Taiwan Strait, and organize normal missile fire test in the waters east of Taiwan Island.
The Chinese media has driven the mood of the Chinese people. After Pelosi leaves Taiwan tomorrow, substantive military action may be taken.
China chose to attack Taiwan without attacking American targets. Will the US military declare war with China?
I don't know what will really happen, and I don't know what degree of military action will happen. What should happen in these days.
|
Then a lot of chinese sailors will visit the bottom of the sea courtesy of the us carrier group. It's also the best way to completly miss the 100year mark. What happens to a country in full economic turmoil starting a war it cannot win ?
Guess we'll see after tonight, but i predict that youre full of shit  .
|
On August 03 2022 01:01 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2022 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2022 00:31 Erasme wrote:On August 03 2022 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 02 2022 22:46 Erasme wrote:On August 02 2022 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can understand different perspectives on the practicality and righteousness of Pelosi going to Taiwan, but it is also a pretty naked provocation diplomatically. I expect a response, the severity of which is uncertain.
Thats the whole point. Your thinking is backwards. China's like 'this is ours, noone can come here'. Pelosi (and the US) is just reminding china that they can say w.e the fuck they want, it has no basis in reality and will be ignored. + Show Spoiler +Sometimes one can wonder if your lenses are broken. On August 02 2022 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just to be clear, long established official US policy is that Taiwan is part of one China. Trump basically began the departure from that policy and Biden is continuing to escalate it.
People can rationalize or justify it all however they like, but the fact is that the US is on an escalatory path against China in contradiction to long established official US policy and the consequences (of the ongoing bipartisan escalatory path against China) could be catastrophic. Not just for China, the US, and/or Taiwan but the entire world.
Even if people think it's wholly righteous (nothing the US does ever is), disregarding the potential ramifications so haphazardly is irresponsibly dangerous. Also the us doesnt recognize (and never did) china's claims over taiwan. They dont recognize taiwans independance either. Its the strategic ambiguity that keeps the statu quo. Washington's "one China" policy, however, does not mean that the United States recognizes, nor agrees with Beijing's claims to sovereignty over Taiwan. On July 14, 1982, the Republican Reagan Administration gave specific assurances to Taiwan that the United States did not accept China's claim to sovereignty over the island (Six Assurances), and the U.S. Department of State informed the Senate that "[t]he United States takes no position on the question of Taiwan's sovereignty." And since you advocate doing nothing to cool down the situation, i'd like to remind you that doing nothing is still an action. Which has consequences. There actually were so many errors in your previous posts, its quite jarring. It started way before trump, Bush jr said in 2001 that if china attacked taiwan, the us would defend it at all costs. President Bush was asked on 25 April 2001, "if Taiwan were attacked by China, do we (The U.S.) have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?" He responded, "Yes, we do...and the Chinese must understand that. The United States would do whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself." He made it understood that "though we (China and the U.S.) have common interests, the Chinese must understand that there will be some areas where we disagree."On the advice of his advisors, Bush later made clear to the press that there was no change in American policy. It's this hubris that I'm referencing as dangerously irresponsible and nakedly provocative. Because piling up rocks in the south sea to claim it as chinas isnt hubris ? Making claims on japanese islands isnt nakedly provocative ? You need to take a step back and rethink your position if you take this move by pelosi as some kind of attack on chinas sovereignty. Its literally just reaffirming the US-Taiwan relationship to squash any attempt by china following the ukr invasion. If you view it as some kind of provocation, you're just spewing ccp propaganda and will be treated as such. Getting big flashbacks of "nato caused this" rn buddy I think Pelosi's trip is a nakedly provocative move with nothing substantive to gain from it. Basically a matter of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". Interesting that people think it's both disapproved by the US government and a reaffirmation of US government foreign policy though. Did you not read my post ? Strategic ambiguity.
I prefer the description of 'hypocritical doublespeak'.
|
On August 03 2022 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2022 01:01 Erasme wrote:On August 03 2022 00:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 03 2022 00:31 Erasme wrote:On August 03 2022 00:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 02 2022 22:46 Erasme wrote:On August 02 2022 01:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can understand different perspectives on the practicality and righteousness of Pelosi going to Taiwan, but it is also a pretty naked provocation diplomatically. I expect a response, the severity of which is uncertain.
Thats the whole point. Your thinking is backwards. China's like 'this is ours, noone can come here'. Pelosi (and the US) is just reminding china that they can say w.e the fuck they want, it has no basis in reality and will be ignored. + Show Spoiler +Sometimes one can wonder if your lenses are broken. On August 02 2022 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:
Just to be clear, long established official US policy is that Taiwan is part of one China. Trump basically began the departure from that policy and Biden is continuing to escalate it.
People can rationalize or justify it all however they like, but the fact is that the US is on an escalatory path against China in contradiction to long established official US policy and the consequences (of the ongoing bipartisan escalatory path against China) could be catastrophic. Not just for China, the US, and/or Taiwan but the entire world.
Even if people think it's wholly righteous (nothing the US does ever is), disregarding the potential ramifications so haphazardly is irresponsibly dangerous. Also the us doesnt recognize (and never did) china's claims over taiwan. They dont recognize taiwans independance either. Its the strategic ambiguity that keeps the statu quo. Washington's "one China" policy, however, does not mean that the United States recognizes, nor agrees with Beijing's claims to sovereignty over Taiwan. On July 14, 1982, the Republican Reagan Administration gave specific assurances to Taiwan that the United States did not accept China's claim to sovereignty over the island (Six Assurances), and the U.S. Department of State informed the Senate that "[t]he United States takes no position on the question of Taiwan's sovereignty." And since you advocate doing nothing to cool down the situation, i'd like to remind you that doing nothing is still an action. Which has consequences. There actually were so many errors in your previous posts, its quite jarring. It started way before trump, Bush jr said in 2001 that if china attacked taiwan, the us would defend it at all costs. President Bush was asked on 25 April 2001, "if Taiwan were attacked by China, do we (The U.S.) have an obligation to defend the Taiwanese?" He responded, "Yes, we do...and the Chinese must understand that. The United States would do whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself." He made it understood that "though we (China and the U.S.) have common interests, the Chinese must understand that there will be some areas where we disagree."On the advice of his advisors, Bush later made clear to the press that there was no change in American policy. It's this hubris that I'm referencing as dangerously irresponsible and nakedly provocative. Because piling up rocks in the south sea to claim it as chinas isnt hubris ? Making claims on japanese islands isnt nakedly provocative ? You need to take a step back and rethink your position if you take this move by pelosi as some kind of attack on chinas sovereignty. Its literally just reaffirming the US-Taiwan relationship to squash any attempt by china following the ukr invasion. If you view it as some kind of provocation, you're just spewing ccp propaganda and will be treated as such. Getting big flashbacks of "nato caused this" rn buddy I think Pelosi's trip is a nakedly provocative move with nothing substantive to gain from it. Basically a matter of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". Interesting that people think it's both disapproved by the US government and a reaffirmation of US government foreign policy though. Did you not read my post ? Strategic ambiguity. I prefer the description of 'hypocritical doublespeak'.
Sure, but it works and china can't do shit about it in any way.
|
United States43905 Posts
On August 02 2022 21:32 geod wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2022 14:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 02 2022 12:44 gobbledydook wrote:
I think the answer depends heavily on whether Americans are ready to send their sons to die for Taiwan.
So far this question hasn't even really been discussed on news.
There is a zero % chance of China engaging the US militarily. China is not close to being able to do anything. They would be tossing the last 50 years of progress down the drain and have no realistic shot of ever being a world power ever again. You forgot Korea war too fast. The army strength difference is still there but it's not that much compared to back then.
Unless they’re excellent swimmers I fail to see how the strength of the Korean War PLA relates to Taiwan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
