H3LL
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,963
Hutch and Cleon seem to have a few more brains than most McCarthy-wanabees posting here.
Some thoughts. I'm not addressing the right or wrong of the Tiawan issue, just trying to show a different perspective as best I can. Take them or leave them.
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".
I suspect that some here would not bat an eyelid if America, Britain, Japan or even Russia said they wanted it back under their control.
Tibet once had control of most of southern China. Is it all Tibetan territory or is it Chinese?
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.
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. Even though France hasn't raped, tortured, murdered, imprisoned or experimented on too many Americans in the last two thousand years.
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.
The cold war is over...for those of you that have yet to notice. 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.
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. As an example, there are several lines on maps that are "in dispute" between China and Russia, China and India, China and [pick a country close by] but we hear little about them as it is economically practical for both sides to 'quietly ignore' them.
My fear is that this constant prattle may cause China to make a stand on all disputed (some rightly, some wrongly) lines on the map. I fail to see how anybody, least of all Americans, would benefit from a destabilisation of the entire area. Have a look on the map and see what fun it would be when you include India and Russia (yes, they have territory "in dispute").
With such a long history, it is very hard to argue one way or another for any one territory. Parts of Europe and the middle-east have been Chinese. Who is the legitimate "owner" of Macau? Should Normandy be British? 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.
China-Tiawan is a political and economic issue. 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?
Curiously, If I ask Chinese "Do you believe that Hong Kong would be back with China if it had been American before?" They answer "No!".
Some thoughts. I'm not addressing the right or wrong of the Tiawan issue, just trying to show a different perspective as best I can. Take them or leave them.
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".
I suspect that some here would not bat an eyelid if America, Britain, Japan or even Russia said they wanted it back under their control.
Tibet once had control of most of southern China. Is it all Tibetan territory or is it Chinese?
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.
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. Even though France hasn't raped, tortured, murdered, imprisoned or experimented on too many Americans in the last two thousand years.
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.
The cold war is over...for those of you that have yet to notice. 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.
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. As an example, there are several lines on maps that are "in dispute" between China and Russia, China and India, China and [pick a country close by] but we hear little about them as it is economically practical for both sides to 'quietly ignore' them.
My fear is that this constant prattle may cause China to make a stand on all disputed (some rightly, some wrongly) lines on the map. I fail to see how anybody, least of all Americans, would benefit from a destabilisation of the entire area. Have a look on the map and see what fun it would be when you include India and Russia (yes, they have territory "in dispute").
With such a long history, it is very hard to argue one way or another for any one territory. Parts of Europe and the middle-east have been Chinese. Who is the legitimate "owner" of Macau? Should Normandy be British? 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.
China-Tiawan is a political and economic issue. 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?
Curiously, If I ask Chinese "Do you believe that Hong Kong would be back with China if it had been American before?" They answer "No!".
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
You might want to do a little more research on China, its culture, and its history...
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?
My friends and acquaintances from and in China seem to have a much better grasp of the situation than you do.
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?
Aren't you doing exactly what you accuse others of...building your viewpoint on outdated American attitudes from the previous century?
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?
My friends and acquaintances from and in China seem to have a much better grasp of the situation than you do.
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?
Aren't you doing exactly what you accuse others of...building your viewpoint on outdated American attitudes from the previous century?
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
kimiko said:
Nukes?
Ouch. I always thought we had enough sense not to pre-emptively go nuclear, but now I'm not so sure.a_unique_person said:
Wouldn't we be surprised if North Korea or China did something like that? A little pre-emptive war to catch everyone off-guard.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
kimiko said:
I'll let you on a little secret, we don't need troops to "slap down" China militarily, we don't even need nukes. We have amazing flying machines!
An AUP wonders why his countrys needs such advance airplanes...
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Grammatron said:
Actually, it won't come to nukes or planes. The US, despite all the posturing, won't interfere in China/Taiwan.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
a_unique_person said:
I disagree.
Is Taiwan an official ally of the USA and vice-a-versa? E.g. is there a treaty in place that binds the country to mutual military support?
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
FWIW, the USA does not actually recognise Taiwan, IIRC. The official line is "one china". In practice, Taiwan buys plenty of US arms, there is plenty of trade and investment betweent the two, um, entities.
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2005/s1315171.htm
Only 25 countries recognise Taiwan, and these because they are the usual co-alition of the billing types, the Solomons, etc.
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2005/s1315171.htm
Only 25 countries recognise Taiwan, and these because they are the usual co-alition of the billing types, the Solomons, etc.
Cleon said:
OK,
So in practice what should be done? Were Carter and Reagan wrong to try to match the Soviet Intermediate missles in Eastern Europe with missles of our own?
Or were they playing cowboy?
I mean it is one thing to give cheap shots about this, but in actual practice what should be done?
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
a_unique_person said:
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...
Cleon said:
Let's be clear here, in the PRC how many people can meaningfully vote? In Taiwan 22 million Chinese can.
There's two governments. One of them oppresses more people, the other enfranchises more people... which one deserves* to be recognised as the legitimate government of China?
* Deserves in a moral sense, not in the million strong army realpolitic kind of sense.
Actually, it won't come to nukes or planes. The US, despite all the posturing, won't interfere in China/Taiwan.
Gee, I thought the US was an insane risk to the rest of the peace-loving world precisely because it inteferes with other nations irrationally and without thinking?
(Notthat your sage opinion of what the USA will or will not do is worth the electrons used to send it, of course, given your almost 100% failure rate with such predictions...)
Gee, I thought the US was an insane risk to the rest of the peace-loving world precisely because it inteferes with other nations irrationally and without thinking?
(Notthat your sage opinion of what the USA will or will not do is worth the electrons used to send it, of course, given your almost 100% failure rate with such predictions...)
On the contrary, you proved my point. The Cold War was all about MAD--Mutually Assured Destruction, a perfectly apt acronym if there ever was one.
Yup. And it was this-AND ONLY THIS-insane, irrational, doomsday policy that saved Western Europe from Communist invasion. It was, and still is, the only language some people understand.
You want to gamble with millions--if not billions--of lives.
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. Yes, just like I was quite willing to gamble (in effect) the entire biosphere--just to save a few lousy European countries from living under Communism.
What was the big deal? Was it REALLY worth risking elimination just to make sure the French have a better standard of living and no gulags? Surely the USA should have realized that, since the USSR keep saying that Marxism's victory in Europe is inevitable, that they means it and there is nothing to do about it, so the most rational course was to give France to Russia (hmmm, come to think of it...)
So, quite true, Cleon. You got it EXACTLY right. I AM indeed willing to risk millions of lives to save the Taiwanese. But you miss the most important point: first, there is no other honorable and brave course; and second, it is this--AND ONLY THIS--willingness that will save Taiwan from Communist domination.
Yup. And it was this-AND ONLY THIS-insane, irrational, doomsday policy that saved Western Europe from Communist invasion. It was, and still is, the only language some people understand.
You want to gamble with millions--if not billions--of lives.
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. Yes, just like I was quite willing to gamble (in effect) the entire biosphere--just to save a few lousy European countries from living under Communism.
What was the big deal? Was it REALLY worth risking elimination just to make sure the French have a better standard of living and no gulags? Surely the USA should have realized that, since the USSR keep saying that Marxism's victory in Europe is inevitable, that they means it and there is nothing to do about it, so the most rational course was to give France to Russia (hmmm, come to think of it...)
So, quite true, Cleon. You got it EXACTLY right. I AM indeed willing to risk millions of lives to save the Taiwanese. But you miss the most important point: first, there is no other honorable and brave course; and second, it is this--AND ONLY THIS--willingness that will save Taiwan from Communist domination.
