EU to help China invade Taiwan

[Jocko]

Actually, it won't come to nukes or planes. The US, despite all the posturing, won't interfere in China/Taiwan.

Yeah, that's what Saddam thought.

This one statement of yours completely exposes what an ill-informed dolt you are. Has "posturing" been a hallmark of this administration? After all, according to you, we've "subjugated" Iraq, "punished" France and "conquered" Afghanistan.

It will very likely come to "nukes and planes." That's... why... it... won't... happen... at... all.

Get it yet?

 

[Jocko]

Are you saying you think the US actually could 'slap down' China militarily? I think that's a laugh; we're tied down in the middle east, we couldn't even put up a good fight.

Considering it would largely be a naval engagement, I don't see any conflict with current deployments.

 

[CBL4]

It is a myth that China has ruled Taiwan for centuries. Only for 12 years has mainland China ruled Taiwan as a province. (As a contrast, Mongolia was a Chinese province from 1691 to 1911 but is considered a separate country.) In the last 110 years, 50 have been under Japan rule and 57 have been under local control.

Here is more complete timeline of the last 400 years:
1624 – 1661 Dutch ruled
1662 – 1682 Local ruled
1683 – 1886 China ruled but very loosely e.g.

In the 1870's Taiwanese pirates captured American, Japanese and French ships passing the island, these governments protested to Peking, but the Manchu emperor said: "Taiwan is beyond our territory."

1884-5, the French ruled part of Taiwan.
1886 – 1895 Chinese province
1895 – 1945 Japanese Rule (China ceded Taiwan to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki)
1945 – 1948 Chinese province
1948 – 1988 Chaing Kai-Shek and KMT rule
1989 to present – democratic rule by Taiwanese
http://www.taiwandc.org/hst-1624.htm

CBL

 

[a_unique_person]

I must disagree with you, AUP, I think that in any action that is not done at least with the 'pretense' of peaceful reunion (i.e., demonstrations/revolution in Taiwan--perhaps incited by Mainland China-that lead to reunification), in other words military action to "retake control of the rebellious province", will be met with a US Military reaction.

I don't see how any US Government, especially a Republican one, could let a democratic society be conquered and subjugated by a autocratic one. Some action would be demanded, and it would be political suicide for the party in power to stand by.

That said, nukes are not needed. Planes and especially the Pacific fleet could interdict follow-on support for any invasion and leave any Chinese troops of the inital invasion force to "die on the vine".

As I said in a thread on the BABB, war over or about Taiwan makes no economic, political, or common sense for any of the protaginists (China, Taiwan, USA, Japan) and would only lead to a great deal of disruption and the potential for future wars.

But then again, wars seldom start with sense--they often begin with 'a damn fool thing in the Balkans' as Bismarck said.

We shall see...

China has a motivated, large and competent armed forces, as distinct to Iraq that was largely the opposite in all respects. China has a massive trade with the rest of the world. Australia has already said that, despite ANZUS, it would not back the US in a conflict over the issue. Other countries would be totally opposed to starting a war with China over this issue. China has nukes. Look at how NK is treated compared to Saddam. China is not in any condition to go on military adventures around the world, but for defense and Taiwan, it is a formidable foe.

China contains a sizeable part of the worlds population. It just doesn't add up.

 

[gnome]

I believe that under the circumstances, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would almost certainly lead to war with the US.

I'm still making up my mind how I feel about it... but as much as I cringe at the idea of war with China, I expect the US to intervene if another democracy (especially one of economic importance) was invaded. Have there been examples where we haven't?

 

[crimresearch]

Vietnam?


(Sorry, couldn't resist).

 

[RussDill]

I believe that under the circumstances, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would almost certainly lead to war with the US.

I'm still making up my mind how I feel about it... but as much as I cringe at the idea of war with China, I expect the US to intervene if another democracy (especially one of economic importance) was invaded. Have there been examples where we haven't?

I don't know, I think if there was some kind of treaty that was signed by china that said x y and z will happen or not happen with taiwan, or human rights in china, or something to do with north korea, the US might sign on.

 

[gnome]

Vietnam?


(Sorry, couldn't resist).

No, seriously, bring it on. I'd love to compare the situations... I might think of something I didn't before.

 

[crimresearch]

Different situations, but Vietnam was an independent and burgeoning democracy when the French decided to re-colonize them, with tacit approval from the US..
And one could view the whole Iran/Mossadegh business as the US more or less 'letting' the Pahlavis re-instate a defunct monarchy over an incipient democracy.

And Taiwan has had several decades of pretty much minding their own business AFAIK....

I'd hate to see them be forcibly repatriated with the mainland.

 

[Jocko]

China has a motivated, large and competent armed forces, as distinct to Iraq that was largely the opposite in all respects.

Just the kind of thing our hardware is designed to combat, also distinct with Iraq. If it comes to that, I promise you 99% of these forces will never see the bomber that takes them out.

China has a massive trade with the rest of the world.

Which is an advantage that only an idiot would throw away, yes?

Australia has already said that, despite ANZUS, it would not back the US in a conflict over the issue.

Oh no, how will we ever persevere?

Other countries would be totally opposed to starting a war with China over this issue. China has nukes. Look at how NK is treated compared to Saddam. China is not in any condition to go on military adventures around the world, but for defense and Taiwan, it is a formidable foe.

Do you really think that would stop the US if they thought it was critical? We spent 50 years going nose-to-nose with the friggin' Soviets, remember. China is a pushover comparatively.

China contains a sizeable part of the worlds population. It just doesn't add up.

Sure it does. A lot of people can translate into a lot of graves very quickly and easily. Don't tell me this is news to you?

 

[H3LL]

Yes, I do. I wish to gamble millions--if not billions--of lives, just to save a few lousy millions of Taiwanese from Communist dictatorship.

Is there any particular reason you use words at random?

Would you be so kind as to let us and the CIA know who the dictator is in China? The CIA don't know and I certainly don't. I'm sure we would both value this bit of interesting information.

You might want to do a little more research on China, its culture, and its history...

It's a big subject and I'm learning all the time. This thread alone is proving interesting.

IIRC in one of your other threads it turned out that you were very much in the dark on both China and on current US attitudes about China.

Where exactly are you getting your information from?

Quite possible so. I may be in the dark, but others also have their eyes closed. Current US attitudes I can only glean from threads here and news reports and what I experienced while living in the USA.

My friends and acquaintances from and in China seem to have a much better grasp of the situation than you do.

I don't know your friends and acquaintances. They are perhaps more switched-on to politics than I. All I know is that I actually live in China, my wife and family are Chinese, all my co-workers, friends, business associates and government employees I know here are Chinese and many of my foreign friends have degrees up to and including Ph.D. in various Chinese subjects, and I have a bad habit of listening to what they all say. I'll be sure to tell them all that they have a poor grasp of Chinese issues.

And I didn't see any posts in this thread that claimed that Chairman Mao was behind the current PRC sabre rattling.
Where did you get that from?

Thank you for the pointer. I'm not sure how you drew this conclusion from what I wrote, my bad maybe, but your statement is certainly true and valid.

Aren't you doing exactly what you accuse others of...building your viewpoint on outdated American attitudes from the previous century?

As I said above: "Some thoughts. I'm not addressing the right or wrong of the Taiwan issue, just trying to show a different perspective as best I can. Take them or leave them."

I'm no political debater, and wouldn't attempt to argue one way or another. I'm just attempting to inject a little insight from the other pov and counter ridiculous comments such as that made by skeptic above and other "red-under-the-bed" posters.

I'm unaware that I'm arguing from a 50's, 60's and 70's cold war attitude and don't understand how I'm doing so. If pointing out that some American posters seem unable to extract their thinking from cold war mentality, then guilty as charged.

 

[H3LL]

Sure it does. A lot of people can translate into a lot of graves very quickly and easily. Don't tell me this is news to you?

You may be interested to know that the attitude of ordinary people, bizarre as it may seem, is that most Chinese would survive an all-out attack from the air. Also the fact that they currently manage to feed 1.3 billion people using mainly donkeys, manual carrying and bicycles means that they are not unduly disturbed about disruption of infrastructure and there already exists underground shelter for most of the population. I believe that none of the above applies to US citizens.

Whether they are correct in this attitude or not is irrelevant, but threatened with a strike it could mean that there may be less hesitance in 'retaliating' first.

Vietnam should have taught that carpet bombing a mud track still leaves you with a mud track, but a wider one. It actually improves transportation.

One would hope that responsible people in the US government are aware of the above and are giving it due consideration and are less gung-ho than some ill informed people here.

 

[Grammatron]

You may be interested to know that the attitude of ordinary people, bizarre as it may seem, is that most Chinese would survive an all-out attack from the air. Also the fact that they currently manage to feed 1.3 billion people using mainly donkeys, manual carrying and bicycles means that they are not unduly disturbed about disruption of infrastructure and there already exists underground shelter for most of the population. I believe that none of the above applies to US citizens.

Whether they are correct in this attitude or not is irrelevant, but threatened with a strike it could mean that there may be less hesitance in 'retaliating' first.

Vietnam should have taught that carpet bombing a mud track still leaves you with a mud track, but a wider one. It actually improves transportation.

One would hope that responsible people in the US government are aware of the above and are giving it due consideration and are less gung-ho than some ill informed people here.

A very important point that you and I think others are not figuring into the equation is that we don't need to fight in China or even that much over China. Our chief and only objective would be keeping chinese out of Taiwan, that is not a very difficult task considering our and Taiwan's military strength.

In fact, any action China could take under these condition would cause massive civilian death in Taiwan which would quickly evaporate any support or even lack of opposition to that war.

 

[crimresearch]

"Just the kind of thing our hardware is designed to combat, also distinct with Iraq. If it comes to that, I promise you 99% of these forces will never see the bomber that takes them out."

Not exactly...

We were playing ping pong with the Soviets on fighter aircraft development, and when they went bankrupt, we stopped trying to catch up to their last fighter...and that is the point at which the Chinese started pouring money into making their military 21st century ready.

The Japanese military has also beefed up significantly, but I think they are no more sophisticated than we are...they have just expanded their size, range, and operational readiness.
China hasn't made that mistake, because they know they can convert their booming economy into making mundane armaments to support the hi tech stuff.

Our hi tech stuff is still on the drawing board, and our industrial infrastructure has been outsourced.

As Grammatron said above, we might be able to help defend a 'Festung Formosa', but taking on China in WWIII would be different.

 

[crimresearch]

" I'm just attempting to inject a little insight from the other pov and counter ridiculous comments such as that made by skeptic above and other "red-under-the-bed" posters.

I'm unaware that I'm arguing from a 50's, 60's and 70's cold war attitude and don't understand how I'm doing so. If pointing out that some American posters seem unable to extract their thinking from cold war mentality, then guilty as charged."

I don't know if you were in America in the 50s and 60s, but I see a huge difference between the cold war attitudes of those days, and the current perception of China's potential role in the modern world.

So when you post that Americans think Mao is still in charge, and that Americans still follow a 'red-under-the-bed' fear response, it is ancient and misplaced rhetoric to my ears.

I know people in Beijing who were Red Guard that don't think of Americans that way, and so I do really wonder where you are getting such impressions.

I could understand it if your exposure to China had all been to rural areas where they still long for the past, but even there things are moving forward.

 

[Jocko]

You may be interested to know that the attitude of ordinary people, bizarre as it may seem, is that most Chinese would survive an all-out attack from the air.

I'm sure they will, since they won't be a target. Perhaps you've notice that little body of water separating Taiwan from mailand China? you're pretty vulnerable when crossing it.

Also the fact that they currently manage to feed 1.3 billion people using mainly donkeys, manual carrying and bicycles means that they are not unduly disturbed about disruption of infrastructure and there already exists underground shelter for most of the population. I believe that none of the above applies to US citizens.

Completely moot to any realistic military scenario. Conquering China would not be the objective under any circumstances.

Whether they are correct in this attitude or not is irrelevant, but threatened with a strike it could mean that there may be less hesitance in 'retaliating' first.

MAD... ain't it grand? It's ugly but it has a history of getting the job done.

Vietnam should have taught that carpet bombing a mud track still leaves you with a mud track, but a wider one. It actually improves transportation.

The bombing campaign in Vietnam was too little, too late. It was the timing, not the tactic, that failed. Find a reputable source that thinks otherwise.

One would hope that responsible people in the US government are aware of the above and are giving it due consideration and are less gung-ho than some ill informed people here.

One would be grateful that unified Germany more resembles West Germany than East Germany. But some people never learn, I guess.

 

[H3LL]

So when you post that Americans think Mao is still in charge, and that Americans still follow a 'red-under-the-bed' fear response, it is ancient and misplaced rhetoric to my ears.

So you seem to be suggesting that when a post, made by someone claiming to be American, uses Mao in relation to 21st century issues, that is my misplaced rhetoric.

I understand now. Thanks.




Stupid (Rule 8) forum search...Try searching for Mao.

 

[crimresearch]

I already asked you once where that post was, and you failed to produce it...but you still insist it exists?

Maybe if you could produce this mysterious post claiming Mao is involved in 21st century issues, the rest of us could understand what you are talking about.

Or is asking you to provide evidence of your claims too much?

 

[The Fool]

what you are talking about.

Or is asking you to provide evidence of your claims too much?

Its too much for you ....so why should you expect more from anybody else?

 

[Art Vandelay]

The part of China I'm living in has been Mongolian, Russian, British, American, Japanese and Korean at some time in the past. With a few exceptions, within living memory. That says a lot about Chinese "expansionism".

It seems to me that it suggests the opposite of what you think it does. The reason you don't consider China to be "expansionist" is because you've bought into the idea that all the places that China has taken over are "really" part of China to begin with.

Here the China-Tiawan issue is considered a Chinese-Tiawan problem and from almost any practical sense, historically, economically and politically should be left to China and Taiwan without others poking their noses in causing more problems than they solve.

Why do the Chinese get to poke their noses into Taiwan, but Americans don't? To quote A Christmas Carol, "Mankind is my business".

Most Chinese enjoy Japan telling them what to do about what is considered part of their country about as much as Americans would enjoy France telling them what to do with, say, Alaska.

If Alaska and the rest of the US had a political difference, would it be appropiate to settle it through invading Alaska? I don't see how this "part of their country" business is all that important. How does being "part of their country" give them the right to tell them what to do? Would mainland China take seriously the idea that Taiwan should be able to tell them what to do? According to this "same country" argument, doesn't Taiwan have just as much right to take over the mainland as vice versa?

I say all this to try to add some perspective and a small insight into Chinese thinking, from a country where the last 5,000 years of history is actually important to most of the population and it doesn't get ignored just because is doesn't fit comfortably with Japan or fickle America for this current tick of the clock.

No, in China, history gets ignored if it doesn't fit comfortably with Communism. See CBL4's post for how accurate this "history" is. While living in China may give you some advantages in understanding it, it also means that your information is filtered through current and past censorship.

Chairman Mao is still dead and as I have become tired of repeating, judging modern China by the politics of the 50's, 60's and 70's makes as much sense as doing the same for America.

What about the late '80s? Should that be ignored, too? How about last year?

IMHO if Taiwan just kept quiet and concentrated on trade instead of creating a big fuss when their strings are pulled by Japan/American, the "issue" would be quietly ignored and arbitrary lines on maps would not be an issue.

You expect to be taken seriously after spouting that bit of Communist paranoia? You really think this is some sort of American conspicacy, and Taiwanese concern over the issue is not due to, say, China repeatedly firing missles at them? Or are you just repeating propaganda without commenting on it?

Almost any claim of territory can legitimately be claimed by one side or the other and as far as time of occupation is concerned, Taiwan comes a long way down the list and as, in Chinese eyes, it was occupied by a foreign power's runaway puppet, even less so.

And the mainland wasn't occupied by a foreign power's puppet?

I am curious as to why America/Japan wish to turn it into a war-zone? Will America's big successes with warfare in Korea and Vietnam prove invaluable against a country a little bit bigger?

Are you serious? How does China threatening to attack Taiwan mean that America wants to turn it into a war zone? Are you that divorced from reality? And do you seriously think Korea and Vietnam could have held off America by themselves? Korea was the battlefield, but the participants were the US and China (plus other countries). If the Chinese think that Korea is a good guide for how America would fare, they will probably find it very surprising to discover that America can fight a country much more easily when they are able to actually fight that country, rather than pretend that they are fighting another country.