Easy and non-controversial.
In the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, would you support a US intervention to defend Taiwan?
Easy and non-controversial.
In the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, would you support a US intervention to defend Taiwan?
Yes,but I wouldnt support a Taiwanese attack on China.
What a challenge that would be. That would be a war of astronomical measure. Their shear numbers are a challenge that would be difficult to combat. In Korea, the Chinese would just send human wave after human wave at us. Our troops would fire until they ran out of ammo or the barrels of their machine guns would literally melt and jam. They have the numbers to afford this type of offensive measures.
I don't know that it would ever come to that though. While the Chinese are now an international producer and trader, they are too dependent upon their trade partners worldwide to afford an all out war. The boycott of products would bankrupt them. Bedsides, WalMart would go bankrupt and not have any products to sell.
Talk about a situation that could escalate into a world wide nuclear catastrophy! I really dont know, tough question. Obviously, from a ethical perspective, i would think it would be appropriate to support tawain. On the other hand, i am not sure that it is in the usa's best national interest to do so, certainly not from an economic perspective. I appreciate that money isnt everything.
If china invaded russia, would/should the usa get involved?
ramming speed to all
Yes, I would support Taiwan.
The first time in my life, when I felt ashamed to be an American, was when Jimmy Carter, ceased to recognize Taiwan, and recognized Red China.
Jimmy Carter, certainly the weakest President this country has ever had. Nicest guy, but one of the worst Presidents.
Jimmy Carter was and is a very very smart man, but i agree 100% that he was a very weak and ineffective president. Just terrible, projected our country as weak and impotent. No coincidence that the hostages were released in iran as soon as reagan took office. c arter was a product of watergate, an anti washington (ie an outsider) democrat in an era of massive distrust of the republicans, an impression of ford as a bumbling fool and reagan as a conservative reactionary. talk about being in the right place at the right time- that says it all about jimmy carter!
ramming speed to all
No. If Hong Kong wasn't worth fighting for, neither is Taiwan.
A little different. Whilst HK island was Britain's in perpetuity, the dubious prize of an effective little opium war, the New Territories were only leased for a 100 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by adarian_too
As most of HK's water came from the N.T (as well as virtually everything else), the UK government, after briefly flirting with the idea of huge desalination plants, came to the conclusion that it all had to go back.
Just not practicable to keep it.
Taiwan's status, if we believe in national self determination, is one of an independent nation state. China's claim to Taiwan is centered on the ethnicity of its people (Han chinese, the indigenous people being in the minority) and the fact that it was once part of Imperial China. The Taiwanese themselves have never subscribed to this, but China has threatened Taiwan with war if it ever dared to carry out a national referendum on the subject. China you see, likes to know the answers in advance.
This is immensely important in Chinese eyes, not least because it relates to the national 'face' of China. The Chinese pursued their invasion of Tibet on the flimsy notion that Tibet (which actually conquered large swathes of China in the past), had once assumed the title of a protectorate of China.
Interestingly, because Genghis Khan, a mongolian, once conquered China and set up court at Beijing, the Chinese count him as a chinese emperor and there have been noises about subsuming Mongolia. They've already started to do it economically.
There are also parts of Russia that were once Chinese, so where does it end?
The Chinese make great play about being a responsible trading partner and member of the international community.
Watch what happens when they don't get their own way.............................
Incidentally, if I wasn't in HK and lived instead in southern China, I couldn't write this.
Here is my dilemma. Since I wasn't there I don't know the truth of any of this, but revisionist history tells us ... Japan's rule of Taiwan came to an end with its defeat in World War II. Its signing of the Instrument of Surrender on August 15, 1945, signaled that Taiwan was to be returned to China, one of the Allied objectives from the wartime declarations. On October 25, 1945, ROC troops, representing the Allied Command, accepted the formal surrender of Japanese military forces in Taihoku (today: Taipei).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Pang
The ROC administration, led by Chiang Kai-shek, announced October 25, 1945, as "Taiwan Retrocession Day." Reportedly, they were greeted as liberators by the island residents. However, the ROC military administration on Taiwan under Chen Yi, was viewed by many as corrupt. This view, compounded with a period of hyperinflation, and unrest due to the Chinese Civil War, and distrust due to political, cultural and lingual differences that had developed between the Taiwanese and the Mainland Chinese, quickly led to the loss of popular support for the new administration. This culminated in a series of severe clashes between the ROC administration and Taiwanese, in turn leading to the reign of White Terror.
At the same time, the Chinese Civil War was in progress. In 1949, Chiang's Kuomintang (Nationalist Party or KMT), which at the time controlled the government of the ROC, retreated to Taiwan after continued military defeats at the hands of the Communist Party of China drove it from most parts of China. Some 1.3 million refugees from mainland China arrived in Taiwan around that time. Initially, the United States abandoned the KMT and expected that Taiwan would fall to the Communists.
However, due to the Chinese Civil War between the Kuomintang (KMT) and the Chinese Communists, the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty between Japan and the Allies stipulated that the United States would be the main occupying power of Taiwan (a former Japanese territory) while not naming the recipient of Taiwan's sovereignty.
OK. So the point? Historically it appears as if China's claim to the island has greater force. Some argue that much of the civil conflcit across the globe results from the arbitrary divisions created from Potsdam and beyond.
If defending Taiwan should be based on the defense of individual liberty and freedom then we should be consistent and impose pax-americana across the board. We should have intervened at Tiananmen Square. We should be freeing Tibet. We should be occupying Syria and Iran. We should stop propping up the Saudi Kingdom.
Personally, I'm tired of playing world's policeman. The articifical boundaries that emerged post-WWII can be defended by the French since they seem to feel they are some sort of super-power that still deserves a permanent seat on the security council.
This is certainly a tougher choice than most. Considering the current pseudo-dictatorship in Washington (which, I believe, is taking us toward a more fascist-oriented state), US intervention would be most unwise, and would most likely result in a nuclear war.
Perhaps the best way to approach this would be with a neutral party. (i.e., a negotiator.) If the right person could be found, they might persuade talks to begin between the two countries. From my knowledge of the Taiwan-China situation, (which I admit is not much), there are several issues that need to be addressed.
1. Taiwan recognizing China's government as a legitimate organization.
2. China admitting the right of Taiwan to exist.
Then, once the above have been done:
3. Discussions as to why the rift between the philosophies of Chiang-Kai-Shek and Mao-Tse-Tung (forgive the 'old school spellings') should still be causing political shock waves 57 years later,
4. Concessions by both countries in some manner, for instance, Taiwan offering trade deals with China in exchange for limited autonomy. Yes, I said limited, as in Taiwan remaining an independent country, but limited to a status such as 'former Imperial Chinese territory'.
5. Setting a timetable to encourage economic and governmental cooperation between the countries.
My experience with Chinese people is limited. I once worked for a lady whose parents left Mainland China in 1949, moving to Taiwan. She, and many of her Chinese friends and family members, were very proud of their history and heritage, held tight to tradition, and believed in the time-honored traditions of proper behavior. If they are representative of the majority of the Chinese, there is indeed much work to be done before any type of reconciliation is possible.
Historically it appears as if China's claim to the island has greater force.
China's claim might be better, but the "People's Republic of China's", in my opinion, does not. Since the seat of the R.O.C. went to Taiwan, and was never defeated, I think the claim that Taiwan is iChina is reasonable. Now, if you want to consider Red China as a bunch of breakaway provinces, be my guest. But I have no interest in allowing the Butchers of Beijing with their one-child limit/forced-abortion/anti-"non-approved" religion policy anywhere near the innocent people of Taiwan. If I had my druthers, I'd tariff the Red Chinese heavily. If we are that hooked on "cheap stuff", we can get it from Malaysia, S. Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Taiwan, Indonesia, Singapore, India, Thailand and a whole bunch of other places that don't have nukes pointed at us or their neighbors (India being an exception to the "neighbors" part).
Maoist propaganda flash
Post-Mao propaganda flash (cuter and friendlier,
but look out for the CLAW!)
English translation of lyrics
adarian's post explaining what happened to the administration of Taiwan post WW2 is factually spot on. The reason that Mao and his gang of murderous thug's were able to kick the KMT out of mainland China rests largely on the KMT's military ineptitude and rapacious exploitation of the areas that were under it's control.
This behaviour was repeated in Taiwan and still remains a bone of contention in comtempoaray Taiwanese politics today. Opposition parties, for instance, have demanded the removal of the portrait of Chiang-Kai-Shek from the national assembly and an investigation into the KMT's behaviour in the 50's and 60's where abuse, terror and torture were routinely used.
What happened on the mainland was much worse.
China however rarely refers to the facts unearthed by adarian and more routinely refers to it's Imperial heritage when laying claim to the island. This manages to avoid the thorny questions of Japanese occupancy prior to WW2 and the unfortunate but very pertinent fact that no-one in Taiwan actually wants to be part of the PRC.
More routinely, China states "Taiwan is an inalienable part of China", and leaves it as that.
In supposing that China has greater historical claim to the island, we are ignoring the wishes of the Taiwanese people themselves, who have steadfastly refused to countenance the possibility of joining the 'motherland'.
I deplore the post-colonial division of land across the world, a lot of which was settled pre-potsdam. This resulted in an awful lot of straight lines as borders with no thought of cultural,social,ethnic or linguistic divides. Whenever you look at a map and see a straight line for a border you invariably look at a country blighted by civil war or border disputes.
If we are to be consistent on this issue then in deploring this post-colonial border drawing we also have to support national self-determination. This means defending from aggression those who have expressed a wish to remain as they are. Without concern for the economic consequences of doing so, I might add. It disgusts me to see how China uses the potential of it's markets to browbeat it's way through international negotiation on many issues.
It's behaviour in Tibet, it's behaviour in the Uigyur lands in the north west of China, it's behaviour towards the Falun Gong, underground spiritual groups of many faiths, it's comprehensive censorship of the internet, written media, television media, it's denial of democratic rights to the people of Hong Kong in defiance of the Sino-British agreement, it's behaviour over the Spratly's/Daioyu islands have all convinced me that if the people of Taiwan have expressed a wish to remain apart from this bunch of robber Baron capitalists in Beijing then they should be allowed to do so.
As far as a Pax-americana is concerned, I just don't see one. I see the expression of national self interest writ large and backed up by the ability to project force around the globe. This ordinarily leads to a series of unfortunate events particularly when oil is involved.
I would like us to be more consistent too adarian. If it's good enough to get rid of Saddam, then we should also be getting rid of Mugabe, Assad, Kim junior and the Saudi Royal family. We should have supported the people of East Timor, Tibet, Rwanda amongst others. We shouldn't be dealing with China until they agree to stop torturing, abusing and killing their own people. We certainly shouldn't have given them the olympics.
As for the French, they are prostitutes for the main chance and the biggest most unprincipled bunch of moral cowards I've seen for quite sometime. Their latest ruse is to sell arms to the Chinese in contradiction of the EU arms ban.
How on earth a serially defeated nation like France ever got on the security council is beyond me.
Bill Clinton said something very wise, something like, "America can't fix everything, but we can fix some things. America can't fight all the battles, but we can fight some battles."
What he was saying that there will be times when America will get involved, and times when it will not. It will not be based solely upon principle, but also upon our interests, the cost, the possibility of success, ect.
Now reflect that philosophy back upon yourselves. There are times when I'm sure most of you have lent a helping hand to a friend, neighbor, or even a strange. But we all know that there are hundreds of people near us who need helping hands. We just don't have the capacity to do it all as individuals. But, we can do some.
Per that approach, the USA doesn't have to accept responsibility for all the injustice in the world, but we can fix a few things.
I believe Fat Pang's point is that when we try to "fix a few things", it can set in motion a series of events that can cause more problems than they solve.
By the way, we DID finally support help for the folks in East Timor, though we used Aussies as proxies. That seemed to make sense in that part of the world.
However, some of our behaviour causes head-scratching, restoring the thug Aristide to Haiti and completely ignoring the genocide in the Sudan is unconscionable in my opinoin.
I think that's a fair summary of my opinion ch. I have no problem with American intervention where it's undertaken with a firm understanding of objective and risk and where it's own national interest isn't an overriding factor. On this basis I'd like to see America intervene more consistently as I outlined in my earlier post.Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboyhater
For those who'd point out that to wish for altruistic American intervention is naive in the extreme, I'd point out that the alternative is the status quo we've all agreed we find disagreeable.
The assasination of Allende and the support of Aristide are the type of interventions that give America's opponents the ammunition to crow.
Take the ammunition away from them.
We should be doing something about the Sudan, right now and the legalistic squabbling in the UN over what constitutes genocide is unedifying.
The UN isn't the Bush's caricature of an ineffectual talking shop, but it does have it's moments where it's machinery is hijacked by political grandstanders such as the shameless French jackal Chirac. Too eager to see the resumption of the code Napoleon...........
The late Robin Cook, who was once Britain's Foreign Secretary, passionately argued for an 'ethical' foreign policy. I had little sympathy with much of his politics but this struck a chord with me, and I believe it's the only way to counter much of the lunacy around the planet. It would provide a consistency we don't see much nowadays, if we ever did in fact.
Much of the old certainties are gone, and your enemy could be living next door rather than on the next continent. A progressive Foreign policy should reflect that.