China Maneuvering Against Taiwan

nan said:

This "garbage" is applicable to Ukraine, Taiwan and other areas.  It's the same playbook.  We are turning into a terrorist state.  We need to stop playing chicken with nuclear powers.  

Why is it always the US that is "playing chicken" with "nuclear powers" and not the "nuclear powers" playing chicken with the US.  Our nuclear capability is well-known as is our nuclear policy.  Why are those provocations not "playing chicken" with us?


Steve said:

nan said:

This "garbage" is applicable to Ukraine, Taiwan and other areas.  It's the same playbook.  We are turning into a terrorist state.  We need to stop playing chicken with nuclear powers.  

Why is it always the US that is "playing chicken" with "nuclear powers" and not the "nuclear powers" playing chicken with the US.  Our nuclear capability is well-known as is our nuclear policy.  Why are those provocations not "playing chicken" with us?

Because US bad.

Russia good.


nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

So are you willing to sacrifice yourself and your family for Taiwan?   Yea or nay?

I have family IN Taiwan, which I’ve told you before  

So, all the more reason for you to say no and yet, you don't answer.  Very telling. 

You have a perverse point of view about this.

I advocate for peace.  Neocons find that perverse. 

You're not "advocating for peace". Your reply is offensive.

It's offensive to a neocon.  You are a neocon.  


nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

So are you willing to sacrifice yourself and your family for Taiwan?   Yea or nay?

I have family IN Taiwan, which I’ve told you before  

So, all the more reason for you to say no and yet, you don't answer.  Very telling. 

You have a perverse point of view about this.

I advocate for peace.  Neocons find that perverse. 

You're not "advocating for peace". Your reply is offensive.

It's offensive to a neocon.  You are a neocon.  

you use that term so often that you've rendered it meaningless.

good job.


sbenois said:

Same crap, different thread.   

same siht… different smell 


Hey @nohero -- what is your definition of a "tankie"?


paulsurovell said:

Hey @nohero -- what is your definition of a "tankie"?

I believe you understand the reference.


nohero said:

I believe you understand the reference.

he’s in a good mood tonight… play nicely 


nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

Hey @nohero -- what is your definition of a "tankie"?

I believe you understand the reference.

Please put aside your "mentalist" personna long enough to convey in your own words, what you mean by a "tankie"? After all, it's the premise of your thread.

Seriously, what is your definition of a "tankie"?


Xi Jinping may be looking to change the subject from China's economy.  We'll see if the propaganda about Taiwan is ratcheted up.

Xi’s Power Grab Spurs Historic Market Rout as Foreigners Flee


    nohero said:

    Xi Jinping may be looking to change the subject from China's economy.  We'll see if the propaganda about Taiwan is ratcheted up.

    Xi’s Power Grab Spurs Historic Market Rout as Foreigners Flee


      cramer said:

      nohero said:

      Xi Jinping may be looking to change the subject from China's economy.  We'll see if the propaganda about Taiwan is ratcheted up.

      Xi’s Power Grab Spurs Historic Market Rout as Foreigners Flee

        Removing the one "no" vote.


        dave said:

        Removing the one "no" vote.


        What is the solution to the Taiwan situation that doesn't involve war?  In 1971, the U.S., China and the U.N. worked a deal whereby Taiwan was no longer recognized as a country and the PRC took it's place in the U.N.  I suppose at that time, Kissinger and Nixon never imagined that China would becomes as economically and militarily powerful as they are today.  But even then, I would imagine that thoughtful observers understood that the China-Taiwan issue would somebody become a real problem.

        So, now, China is determined to assert control over Taiwan and Taiwan, a country that has its own views contrary to U.S. puppet theory, doesn't want to be under Beijing's control.  If Taiwan elects to fight, I suppose the U.S. will provide support.

        What exactly is the solution then that doesn't involve war?


        Lots of banquets and business deals.


        On the "How Much of Ukraine Does Putin Want" thread (I think that's what it's about), the subject of Taiwan came up again.

        Just to re-cap: The democratically elected government in Taiwan is not interested, at this time, with joining Taiwan with China under the Communist Party of China (CPC).  To that end, and in light of the growth of the Chinese military, Taiwan has a defensive military force.  The United States helps Taiwan prepare its defensive military force.

        Over in China, the most recent "white paper" on Taiwan was published this past August, entitled, "The Taiwan Question and China's Reunification in the New Era".

        As mentioned, the government in Taiwan is not interested in coming under the rule of the CPC in China.  The aforementioned white paper refers to those in government who take that view as "separatists".

        As it states in that white paper, the CPC intends to bring Taiwan under the control of the government in Beijing. It specifically says that it will use force if necessary, if opposed by "separatists" in Taiwan:

        "We will work with the greatest sincerity and exert our utmost efforts to achieve peaceful reunification. But we will not renounce the use of force, and we reserve the option of taking all necessary measures. This is to guard against external interference and all separatist activities. In no way does it target our fellow Chinese in Taiwan. Use of force would be the last resort taken under compelling circumstances. We will only be forced to take drastic measures to respond to the provocation of separatist elements or external forces should they ever cross our red lines."

        If Taiwan decides in the future to agree to come under the control of the CPC government, then that will be agreed to as described in the white paper.  If Taiwan does not decide to agree to that, the CPC has made it clear that it does not rule out using force to make it happen.

        So, there are two possible courses of action. Either: (a) Taiwan agrees to come under rule by the CPC government in China; or (b) Taiwan does not agree, and China decides whether to use force to make it happen anyway.

        As I've stated in this and other threads, it's up to Taiwan's people to decide how to proceed.  In the "Putin Wants It" (or whatever it's called) thread, it has been claimed that my point of view is actually "pro-war": "You will support any military action, any military buildup, any threats of military action against China in the name of 'protecting' Taiwan from allowing the process of peaceful reunification with the mainland to proceed."

        I think it's dishonest to characterize any effort by Taiwan to defend itself against invasion or other military action by China, as supporting "military action against China". It's also "Orwellian" to argue that supporting Taiwan is opposition to "the process of peaceful reunification". If Taiwan wants to agree to come under the control of China, then that will take place peacefully.  The only military action which would occur would be if the CPC in China carries out its threat to use force to bring that about.

        So, the only supporter of "military action" between Taiwan and China, would be the person who does not want to let Taiwan decide for itself.


        The KMT's recent sweep of elections in Taiwan lessens the risk of war in the near term.


        dave said:

        The KMT's recent sweep of elections in Taiwan lessens the risk of war in the near term.

        Yes, but that may be offset by continued US military maneuvers and arms sales, Senate legislation that undercuts the One China policy and the incoming Republican majority's likely explicit support for Taiwan independence.


        paulsurovell said:

        dave said:

        The KMT's recent sweep of elections in Taiwan lessens the risk of war in the near term.

        Yes, but that may be offset by continued US military maneuvers and arms sales, Senate legislation that undercuts the One China policy and the incoming Republican majority's likely explicit support for Taiwan independence.

        Claiming that helping Taiwan prepare for its defense, increases the risk of war, is the point of view I was talking about.  The only way it "increases the risk of war" is if it allows the people of Taiwan to freely make their own choice - and they choose to remain apart from the government in Beijing.

        The refusal to blame China for any "risk of war" is another example of "Orwellian" thinking.


        dave said:

        The KMT's recent sweep of elections in Taiwan lessens the risk of war in the near term.

        Normally, maintaining the status quo should have that effect.  But Xi is facing opposition in other areas of his rule, and there's the danger that he could use pressure on Taiwan as a distraction.


        I remember when this guy was recommended here as an expert on Russia and Ukraine.  He's branching out. 


        The Taiwanese have no say in this?


        A surprise attack on Taiwan would one-up the wacky invasion of Iraq. 


        nohero said:

        I remember when this guy was recommended here as an expert on Russia and Ukraine.  He's branching out. 

        So all the weapons we sold Taiwan would be used against the US military.  How convenient for weapons makers.


        paulsurovell said:

        Seriously, what is your definition of a "tankie"?

        Apparently, it's a poor oppressed white dude like Ben Norton. 


        Steve said:

        nan said:

        This "garbage" is applicable to Ukraine, Taiwan and other areas.  It's the same playbook.  We are turning into a terrorist state.  We need to stop playing chicken with nuclear powers.  

        Why is it always the US that is "playing chicken" with "nuclear powers" and not the "nuclear powers" playing chicken with the US.  Our nuclear capability is well-known as is our nuclear policy.  Why are those provocations not "playing chicken" with us?

        China trying to use the Ukraine conflict as an "object lesson" and a "warning" to Japan.  Warmongering threats like this encourage nuclear proliferation.  


        In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

        Advertise here!

        Sponsored Business

        Find Business

        Rentals