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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
#Opinion: If Japan continues to act as a pawn of the US in the Asia-Pacific region to stir up trouble here, Japan must be wary of becoming a victim itself of the US or even the Ukraine of East Asia. https://t.co/l8Sk9vx5aJ
The U.S. is markedly increasing the number of troops deployed to Taiwan, more than quadrupling the current number to bolster a training program for the island’s military amid a rising threat from China.
The U.S. plans to deploy between 100 and 200 troops to the island in the coming months, up from roughly 30 there a year ago, according to U.S. officials. The larger force will expand a training program the Pentagon has taken pains not to publicize as the U.S. works to provide Taipei with the capabilities it needs to defend itself without provoking Beijing.
This is basically a tripwire, a way of changing facts on the ground to ensure that the US will defend Taiwan even if it hasn't made any guarantees in public. If China were to invade Taiwan and kill American troops, everyone knows we'd send in the Seventh Fleet without hesitation—and with enormous public support.
This is the same thing we've done in South Korea, deploying a small number of troops that are militarily unnecessary but decisive for gaining the support of the American public for war.
The Journal says the Pentagon has "taken pains" not to make its Taiwan mission public. Really? A tripwire does little good unless it's extremely public, so it's unlikely they were trying very hard to keep this a secret.
China is following the Putin playbook, to create tension and ultimately blame the United States if China decides to invade Taiwan.
"But even as Mr. Xi has offered a glad hand to those and other world leaders in recent weeks, it has been only the cold shoulder for the United States. China has rebuffed attempts by the Biden administration to restart high-level talks and lower tensions over Taiwan. And Mr. Xi’s government has intensified a campaign of ridicule and criticism of the United States and Western democracy."
In particular, China shows that it does not want to reduce tensions, but instead keep them ratcheted up.
"The Biden administration says it wants to establish 'guardrails' to prevent an incident from flaring over a misunderstanding in heavily contested areas such as the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, where China conducted live-fire drills in response to Ms. Tsai’s visit. ... Beijing views guardrails as another form of containment because they would disclose to the United States how far it can be pressured without triggering a military response. China would prefer its red lines to remain ambiguous and leave Washington guessing."
Very good essay in today's NY Times. It's "free to read" since I think reading it would help anyone be better informed about what the people, who actually would be affected, think about China's maneuvering.
"We’re proud of the vibrant democracy and economic success that we’ve built in spite of these conditions. We’ve shown that democracy can function in Chinese culture. This mix of anxiety, pride and perseverance is the essence of Taiwan’s character and something often overlooked by a world that tends to view Taiwan as a pawn in China’s rivalry with the United States. We are flesh and blood, too."
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?