Your understanding is flawed that's why. America traded allegiance from ROC to PRC in 1949 cuz money.
Taiwan Relations Act - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
My understanding is that Taiwan is not a country and never has been. At least not in the eyes of the UN and other global bodies.
Former Chinese leaders fled the mainland and holed up on the island offshore in a form of self exile. I'm not sure why it wasn't taken then, but if it had been, there would be no discussion of it now. I'm guessing it's all about money though. It probably wasn't worth bothering with back then, but it is now considering the manufacturing.
I see no reason why it isn't considered part of China.
I don't really claim to understand Chinese politics. Not just the specific details of China, but also the larger political processes and principles that its evolution embodies.
But on one level, it seems to me that Xi represents the exact triumph of the bureaucracy that Mao was trying to avert when he launched the Cultural revolution. Mao's 'cure' or 'prevention' turned out to be worse than the disease, certainly from a domestic Chinese perspective. But seems as if he did have an accurate assessment of what the CCP bureaucracy was otherwise likely to evolve into.
The bigger problem seems to me to be that, globally, nationalism has turned out to be a far more potent and resiliant force than leftists or liberals or free-marketers alike really expected.
Just to refute some of what you said,
The founder of Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, claimed to be able to perform miracles like, healing illnesses, and that aliens introduced science to the world to control humans and shit. The Epoch Times, a Falun Gong affiliated multimedia corporation, spreads QAnon conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine misinformation. The Epoch Times were so bad, even Facebook banned their ads. And Facebook will take money from anyone. They're a cult. Not that I condone how the members are treated by the Chinese government. Everyone deserves to be treated humanely.
While I am of Chinese descent, I was not born in China, am not a Chinese citizen in any way shape or form, nor have I spent any significant time there.
I voted not sure. It's a hugely complicated issue, and there is some validity to China's claim on Taiwan. But I'm not sure that Taiwan unifying with China is good for the world. Hong Kong has proven that if such unification were to occur, it's only a matter of time before China starts showing its claws.
And don't kid yourself. If China wanted to invade Taiwan, it will win.
There will be political and economical repercussions, but China will win. The only reason China has not done so is because the gains are not worth the losses, at least not at the moment. As soon as the scale tilts the other way, you bet your ass China is going in.
China is playing the long game. They have set up plans for making ties to developing areas like South America and Africa, as well as strengthening ties to North America and Europe. Do not underestimate China's plans for the long game. The US needed to prepare for China 20 years ago. Not now. Not yesterday, but 20 years ago.
I see no reason why it isn't considered part of China.
What are and are not parts of China has been a pretty variable situation over the centuries. Anyway all the historical arguments don't really mean anything to me. The communists never took the island and the vast majority of people who live there don't want reunification. Especially after seeing how that's gone down in HK. I don't blame them.
LOL all Mao had ever done is kill people to consolidate power to the top. The Great Leap Forward killed more people than Japan ever did in China.
Also, several people in this thread have formerly raged against this exact sort of action, and are now supporting it? Says a lot.
Well, I agree that's true, though I don't see it's something to "LOL" about. But it doesn't relate to the quesion of what the purpose of the Cultural revolution was supposed to be.
So there is some legal basis and argument from China that Taiwan belongs to it.
Defense of a practical ally that happens to be an important trade partner, a keystone global supplier, and a democracy with a liberal society has to be one of the better cases for use of the US military that I can think of. Like just a notch below repulsing a strike on NATO.
If your intent is to conflate our broad opposition to US adventurism in the Middle East with this situation I would reconsider.
Trade partner...sure...I'll buy that. However, NATO countries aren't provinces of China. Not even in the same ballpark as far as actions go. Your advocating violent conflict to take a province away from a country because the province wants "freedom" (whatever that means anymore). It's the same idea as taking Quebec away from Canada by force. I'm not O.K. with that.
Trade is great, freedom is great. Killing in the name of trade? I support the right of Taiwan, California and Quebec to seek "freedom". I don't expect it to happen, but if it did, I don't support violent suppression by their respective countries.
I've been on both ends of these guns that people are talking, and know that the United States is VERY good at smashing things when the leash is off. Would the U.S. public allow that? With the liberation of Kuwait as the sole exception, the answer has been "No" since WWII. Because of this, starting a conflict with China would at best be a zero sum game.
For a zero sum game...is violence ever worth it? I say no.
^ This x 100. I already mentioned that, somewhat uncharacteristically, the US has been very careful about dealing with the Taiwan/China situation. It's nice to see our government getting something right wrt to foreign policy in the face of so many blunders in So. American, Africa and the Middle east.Preservation of the status quo is very much in US interests.
Generally saying that arguing about military actions when you aren't versed in that arena is basically arguing for the sake of arguing. Many of the arguments in this thread weren't relevant or realistic.
Also, several people in this thread have formerly raged against this exact sort of action, and are now supporting it? Says a lot.
Military action is generally not a good thing.. Military force is an extreme form of diplomacy, and generally nothing good comes out of military intervention for personal gain of any kind. People that try and justify it should really take a long look at who they are, and what they are actually advocating.
That being said, I'm down with ANY non-lethal pressure that can be mustered.
| DETROIT | 1943 | Troops | Army put down Black rebellion. |
| IRAN | 1946 | Nuclear threat | Soviet troops told to leave north. |
| YUGOSLAVIA | 1946 | Nuclear threat, naval | Response to shoot-down of US plane. |
| URUGUAY | 1947 | Nuclear threat | Bombers deployed as show of strength. |
| GREECE | 1947-49 | Command operation | U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war. |
| GERMANY | 1948 | Nuclear Threat | Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift. |
| CHINA | 1948-49 | Troops/Marines | evacuate Americans before Communist victory. |
| PHILIPPINES | 1948-54 | Command operation | CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion. |
| PUERTO RICO | 1950 | Command operation | Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce. |
| KOREA | 1951-53 (-?) | Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats | U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases. |
| IRAN | 1953 | Command Operation | CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah. |
| VIETNAM | 1954 | Nuclear threat | French offered bombs to use against seige. |
| GUATEMALA | 1954 | Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat | CIA directs exile invasion after new gov’t nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua. |
| EGYPT | 1956 | Nuclear threat, troops | Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners. |
| LEBANON | l958 | Troops, naval | Army & Marine occupation against rebels. |
| IRAQ | 1958 | Nuclear threat | Iraq warned against invading Kuwait. |
| CHINA | l958 | Nuclear threat | China told not to move on Taiwan isles. |
| PANAMA | 1958 | Troops | Flag protests erupt into confrontation. |
| VIETNAM | l960-75 | Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats | Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969. |
| CUBA | l961 | Command operation | CIA-directed exile invasion fails. |
| GERMANY | l961 | Nuclear threat | Alert during Berlin Wall crisis. |
| LAOS | 1962 | Command operation | Military buildup during guerrilla war. |
| CUBA | l962 | Nuclear threat, naval | Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union. |
| IRAQ | 1963 | Command operation | CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba’ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service. |
| PANAMA | l964 | Troops | Panamanians shot for urging canal’s return. |
| INDONESIA | l965 | Command operation | Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup. |
| DOMINICAN REPUBLIC | 1965-66 | Troops, bombing | Army & Marines land during election campaign. |
| GUATEMALA | l966-67 | Command operation | Green Berets intervene against rebels. |
| DETROIT | l967 | Troops | Army battles African Americans, 43 killed. |
| UNITED STATES | l968 | Troops | After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities. |
| CAMBODIA | l969-75 | Bombing, troops, naval | Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos. |
| OMAN | l970 | Command operation | U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion. |
| LAOS | l971-73 | Command operation, bombing | U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; “carpet-bombs” countryside. |
| SOUTH DAKOTA | l973 | Command operation | Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas. |
| MIDEAST | 1973 | Nuclear threat | World-wide alert during Mideast War. |
| CHILE | 1973 | Command operation | CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president. |
| CAMBODIA | l975 | Troops, bombing | Gassing of captured ship Mayagüez, 28 troops die when copter shot down. |
| ANGOLA | l976-92 | Command operation | CIA assists South African-backed rebels. |
| IRAN | l980 | Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing | Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution. |
| LIBYA | l981 | Naval jets | Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers. |
| EL SALVADOR | l981-92 | Command operation, troops | Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash. |
| NICARAGUA | l981-90 | Command operation, naval | CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution. |
| LEBANON | l982-84 | Naval, bombing, troops | Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions. 241 Marines killed when Shi’a rebel bombs barracks. |
| GRENADA | l983-84 | Troops, bombing | Invasion four years after revolution. |
| HONDURAS | l983-89 | Troops | Maneuvers help build bases near borders. |
| IRAN | l984 | Jets | Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf. |
| LIBYA | l986 | Bombing, naval | Air strikes to topple Qaddafi gov’t. |
| BOLIVIA | 1986 | Troops | Army assists raids on cocaine region. |
| IRAN | l987-88 | Naval, bombing | US intervenes on side of Iraq in war, defending reflagged tankers and shooting down civilian jet. |
| LIBYA | 1989 | Naval jets | Two Libyan jets shot down. |
| VIRGIN ISLANDS | 1989 | Troops | St. Croix Black unrest after storm. |
| PHILIPPINES | 1989 | Jets | Air cover provided for government against coup. |
| PANAMA | 1989 (-?) | Troops, bombing | Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed. |
| LIBERIA | 1990 | Troops | Foreigners evacuated during civil war. |
| SAUDI ARABIA | 1990-91 | Troops, jets | Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel. |
| IRAQ | 1990-91 | Bombing, troops, naval | Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military. |
| KUWAIT | 1991 | Naval, bombing, troops | Kuwait royal family returned to throne. |
| IRAQ | 1991-2003 | Bombing, naval | No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions |
| LOS ANGELES | 1992 | Troops | Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising. |
| SOMALIA | 1992-94 | Troops, naval, bombing | U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction. |
| YUGOSLAVIA | 1992-94 | Naval | NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro. |
| BOSNIA | 1993-? | Jets, bombing | No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs. |
| HAITI | 1994 | Troops, naval | Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup. |
| ZAIRE (CONGO) | 1996-97 | Troops | Troops at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins. |
| LIBERIA | 1997 | Troops | Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners. |
| ALBANIA | 1997 | Troops | Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners. |
| SUDAN | 1998 | Missiles | Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be “terrorist” nerve gas plant. |
| AFGHANISTAN | 1998 | Missiles | Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies. |
| IRAQ | 1998 | Bombing, Missiles | Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions. |
| YUGOSLAVIA | 1999 | Bombing, Missiles | Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo. |
| YEMEN | 2000 | Naval | USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed. |
| MACEDONIA | 2001 | Troops | NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels. |
| UNITED STATES | 2001 | Jets, naval | Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC |
| AFGHANISTAN | 2001-21 | Troops, bombing, missiles | Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry out occupation. |
| YEMEN | 2002 | Missiles | Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen. |
| PHILIPPINES | 2002-? | Troops, naval | Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into combat missions in Sulu Archipelago, west of Mindanao. |
| COLOMBIA | 2003-? | Troops | US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline. |
| IRAQ | 2003-11 | Troops, naval, bombing, missiles | Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi’ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases. |
| LIBERIA | 2003 | Troops | Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader. |
| HAITI | 2004-05 | Troops, naval | Marines & Army land after right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington. |
| PAKISTAN | 2005-? | Missiles, bombing, covert operation | CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani Mehsud network. |
| SOMALIA | 2006-? | Missiles, naval, troops, command operation | Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against “pirates” and insurgents. |
| SYRIA | 2008 | Troops | Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians |
| YEMEN | 2009-? | Missiles, command operation | Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Backing Saudi-Yemeni military assaults on rebels |
| LIBYA | 2011-? | Bombing, missiles, troops, command operation | NATO coordinates air strikes and missile attacks against Qaddafi government during uprising by rebel army. Periodic Special Forces raids against Islamist insurgents. |
| IRAQ | 2014-? | Bombing, missiles, troops, command operation | Air strikes and Special Forces intervene against Islamic State insurgents; training Iraqi and Kurdish troops. Attacks on pro-Iran militias & Iranian general. |
| SYRIA | 2014-? | Bombing, missiles, troops, command operation | Air strikes and Special Forces intervene against Islamic State insurgents; training other Syrian insurgents; bombing alleged Syrian government chemical arms sites, bombing pro-Iran militia. |
| NIGER | 2017 | Troops | Special Forces combat against Islamist insurgents. |
| SAUDI ARABIA | 2019-20 | Troops | Mobilization against Iran in Saudi Arabia & UAE after drone attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure & Gulf tankers. |
Trade partner...sure...I'll buy that. However, NATO countries aren't provinces of China. Not even in the same ballpark as far as actions go. Your advocating violent conflict to take a province away from a country because the province wants "freedom" (whatever that means anymore). It's the same idea as taking Quebec away from Canada by force. I'm not O.K. with that.
Trade is great, freedom is great. Killing in the name of trade? I support the right of Taiwan, California and Quebec to seek "freedom". I don't expect it to happen, but if it did, I don't support violent suppression by their respective countries.
I've been on both ends of these guns that people are talking, and know that the United States is VERY good at smashing things when the leash is off. Would the U.S. public allow that? With the liberation of Kuwait as the sole exception, the answer has been "No" since WWII. Because of this, starting a conflict with China would at best be a zero sum game.
For a zero sum game...is violence ever worth it? I say no.
And don't kid yourself. If China wanted to invade Taiwan, it will win. There will be political and economical repercussions, but China will win. The only reason China has not done so is because the gains are not worth the losses, at least not at the moment. As soon as the scale tilts the other way, you bet your ass China is going in.
My understanding is that Taiwan is not a country and never has been. At least not in the eyes of the UN and other global bodies.
Former Chinese leaders fled the mainland and holed up on the island offshore in a form of self exile. I'm not sure why it wasn't taken then, but if it had been, there would be no discussion of it now. I'm guessing it's all about money though. It probably wasn't worth bothering with back then, but it is now considering the manufacturing.
I see no reason why it isn't considered part of China.
It's like it's OK for American's to take wealth from the 48 and takeover Alaska or Cuba for that matter. Just being devils advocate. I don't want to see Taiwan under the thumb of mainland China though.Just to refute some of what you said, Taiwan was a territory of the Qing Dynasty from 1683 to 1887. So there is some legal basis and argument from China that Taiwan belongs to it. China ceded Taiwan to Japan after the Qing Dynasty lost to Japan in the First Sino-Japanese War. There's also the Chinese civil war, where the Republic of China lost to the Chines Communist Party, with the RoC leadership fleeing to Taiwan.
The founder of Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, claimed to be able to perform miracles like, healing illnesses, and that aliens introduced science to the world to control humans and shit. The Epoch Times, a Falun Gong affiliated multimedia corporation, spreads QAnon conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine misinformation. The Epoch Times were so bad, even Facebook banned their ads. And Facebook will take money from anyone. They're a cult. Not that I condone how the members are treated by the Chinese government. Everyone deserves to be treated humanely.
While I am of Chinese descent, I was not born in China, am not a Chinese citizen in any way shape or form, nor have I spent any significant time there.
I voted not sure. It's a hugely complicated issue, and there is some validity to China's claim on Taiwan. But I'm not sure that Taiwan unifying with China is good for the world. Hong Kong has proven that if such unification were to occur, it's only a matter of time before China starts showing its claws.
And don't kid yourself. If China wanted to invade Taiwan, it will win. There will be political and economical repercussions, but China will win. The only reason China has not done so is because the gains are not worth the losses, at least not at the moment. As soon as the scale tilts the other way, you bet your ass China is going in.
China is playing the long game. They have set up plans for making ties to developing areas like South America and Africa, as well as strengthening ties to North America and Europe. Do not underestimate China's plans for the long game. The US needed to prepare for China 20 years ago. Not now. Not yesterday, but 20 years ago.
Lot of Americans are on this board.
Bombs are always the answer.
It's a hobby
Except that the govt. of the U.S. does not recognize Taiwan as sovereign. The U.S. would therefore have to invade "China" (the State Department adheres to the "One China" policy,) in order to invade Taiwan. Therefore they are very similar examples.The relationship of Taiwan to the PRC is not remotely similar to any of those examples.
Except that the govt. of the U.S. does not recognize Taiwan as sovereign. The U.S. would therefore have to invade "China" (the State Department adheres to the "One China" policy,) in order to invade Taiwan. Therefore they are very similar examples.
Good song to listen to by Grace Potter talks about this very thing......
Except that the govt. of the U.S. does not recognize Taiwan as sovereign. The U.S. would therefore have to invade "China" (the State Department adheres to the "One China" policy,) in order to invade Taiwan. Therefore they are very similar examples.
The U.S. sells weapons and military aid to EVERYONE. It's what they do. Then they wonder why bad things happen.... The same people worried about internal gun control sell aid and weapons to Afghan rebels, Saddam Hussein and Panamanian Dictators. What's your point again?The US is already selling weapons to Taiwan for the express purpose of defence from the PRC so no, it’s not the same at all.
should we.....what kind of question is that????The question is should we tho, not will we or not.
The U.S. sells weapons and military aid to EVERYONE. It's what they do. Then they wonder why bad things happen.... The same people worried about internal gun control sell aid and weapons to Afghan rebels, Saddam Hussein and Panamanian Dictators. What's your point again?
should we.....what kind of question is that????
Trade partner...sure...I'll buy that. However, NATO countries aren't provinces of China. Not even in the same ballpark as far as actions go. Your advocating violent conflict to take a province away from a country because the province wants "freedom" (whatever that means anymore). It's the same idea as taking Quebec away from Canada by force. I'm not O.K. with that.