China sharpens language, warns Taiwan that independence 'means war'

[kingdong]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

How well did Cambodia do in feeding its population under the Khmer Rouge?  How well does North Korea do at feeding its population when the weather is bad?  

 

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, and many others are prosperous, productive nations that do not produce all the things that their citizens want and need.  Global trade makes the people of these nations happy and productive.

 

To make it as simple as possible:  Some nations are good at producing food and raw materials.  Some nations are good at manufacturing stuff.  Both groups of nations are better off if they exchange what they are good at producing with nations that are good at producing the other necessary stuff.  That is what globalization does.

Yeah yeah yeah,i know how it all works,but as i pointed out there should be limits,and when " globilisation"puts your countries security at risk then theres obviously something wrong.

[kingdong]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

global trade makes the people of these nations happy and productive.

 

 

I,m sure it does,especially those in the west lost their jobs because other countries can do it cheaper,

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, kingdong said:

I,m sure it does,especially those in the west lost their jobs because other countries can do it cheaper,

What jobs are you referring to?  If my country can produce something cheaper than another country (for example, US rice vs Japanese rice), shouldn't the consumers of the more expensive country be allowed to purchase my product?

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, kingdong said:

I know about how markets work,am just pointing out the pitfalls of globilisation

Good to know that you understand danger. 

 

The mouse that scurries out of its hole to look for food risks being eaten by the cat, the hunter-gatherer stalking a deer risks encountering a lion, the entrepreneur opening a restaurant risks a bad change in the market (such as a pandemic).

 

Everything in life has risks (pitfalls).  I suggest nations get together to acknowledge mutual dependency and attempt to agree on rules of trade (regularly updated as circumstances change) to strike a balance between benefits and risks.

 

What do you suggest?

Edited January 31, 2021 by heybruce

[kingdong]

17 hours ago, heybruce said:

What jobs are you referring to?  If my country can produce something cheaper than another country (for example, US rice vs Japanese rice), shouldn't the consumers of the more expensive country be allowed to purchase my product?

 

You,re not looking at the bigger picture and combining trade with globilisation,if the usa rice is keeping usa workers in emp!oyment yes,there is also the pollution problem of transporting the rice from japan to the usa,check out ..greta thunderberg.

 

also as we,ve seen all this " buying the cheaper product " has now enriched china to the point it can afford an army and weapons that could become a viable threat to world peace....

Edited February 1, 2021 by onthedarkside
personal/flame comments removed

[heybruce]

17 hours ago, kingdong said:

You,re not looking at the bigger picture and combining trade with globilisation,if the usa rice is keeping usa workers in emp!oyment yes,there is also the pollution problem of transporting the rice from japan to the usa,check out ..greta thunderberg.also as we,ve seen all this " buying the cheaper product " has now enriched china to the point it can afford an army and weapons that could become a viable threat to world peace....

 

By "bigger picture" do you mean "generalities for which I have no specific examples or proof"?

 

If not, please be more specific.

 

Regarding China being a viable threat to world peace... I'm a retired USAF officer who spent more than half his career on nuclear weapons delivery systems, and I've spent a lot of time considering what I've done and what it might have led to.  I prefer negotiations to confrontation.

[teacherclaire]

On 1/29/2021 at 8:20 AM, Salerno said:

Or let China know it will shoot down the next fighter that encroaches on it's airspace.

An American Stealth bomber that China had "encoded" to make it visible on any radar? 

 

 Get real, please. China has all technology from the West. Stolen, copied, but they have all to fight the US. Oops,. the Nato has to join in and Germany will "only" use spy planes to find the right places to drop bombs, as they did before. 

 

Then again, you'll see the friendly fire that will kill thousands of their own men, kids and other innocent people, and so on. The next bigger war seems to be not too far away. 

 

Considering that 90 % of all used medicine in the US is from China or contains chemicals from China, they only have to ask the US if they would like to be cut off? 

 

The US should never be dependant on other countries, the first rule for a president, or other politicians. 

Edited January 31, 2021 by teacherclaire

[brianp0803]

With the election of Biden, relationships with China have softened. You got your wish.
I am surprised Chyna acted so quickly after the inauguration of Biden. I expected them to wait about a month after his inauguration to reenact their expansionist policies.

That is likely why China is now being more aggressive and will probably be more aggressive and adding more taxes to American products and increasing their monopoly on critical products. Trump was starting to reverse this trend but likely all those executives orders were cancelled 

 

I would expect long-range missile testing in North Korea to begin soon also. They expect under Biden they will not be challenged by the US

Edited January 31, 2021 by brianp0803

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, robblok said:

I don't honestly think that the US would get into a war with China over Taiwan. Maybe an initial fight but once the Americans take too many losses (China wont care about its losses) the population will revolt. So I don't think there will be a real war. That was my point actually. 

 

But on the other hand I am not completely sure China will risk it, because it could mean a blow to their economy too.

I'm sure that China will risk it if they believe that America will not protect Taiwan militarily. However if they succeed there the prospects of further expansion are obvious to me.

I guess it depends on how many of the US elites care enough to take a hit on their earnings in China.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

What jobs are you referring to?  If my country can produce something cheaper than another country (for example, US rice vs Japanese rice), shouldn't the consumers of the more expensive country be allowed to purchase my product?

You appear to accept that workers in your own country become unemployed as long as they can pay less to buy what they used to make themselves.

A government is supposed to take care of it's own people over those in other countries, but seems that the locals are now only of interest to the rich when it comes to elections.

Edited January 31, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed.

 

[brianp0803]

It’s likely, but unfortunate, that the US is the only country that will assist in defense of Taiwan acting as an independent country.

 

All the war is horrible, if the US and China get to a battle, it will force Biden to revert to Trump’s policies and start to become more independent from China. Many people want their cheap products from China instead of defending the economy of their own country, while China puts  tariffs on their country’s products. 

 

My fear is that China already feels they are too powerful and nobody will mess with them and they can do what they want. 

[Jeffr2]

7 hours ago, brianp0803 said:

It’s likely, but unfortunate, that the US is the only country that will assist in defense of Taiwan acting as an independent country.

 

All the war is horrible, if the US and China get to a battle, it will force Biden to revert to Trump’s policies and start to become more independent from China. Many people want their cheap products from China instead of defending the economy of their own country, while China puts  tariffs on their country’s products. 

 

My fear is that China already feels they are too powerful and nobody will mess with them and they can do what they want. 

China is just saber rattling.  They for sure won't invade Taiwan.  The US has facilities all over that area.  Japan, Guam, South Korea, etc.  China would be no match for what the US could bring.  IMHO.

[BKKBike09]

On 1/31/2021 at 5:13 AM, jcsmith said:

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think everyone recognizes that China is a rising superpower, and one that has a long history of human rights violations. As they grow in power their behavior will likely worsen rather than improving. I think Taiwan could be a rallying call for the new administration to try to repair the alliances with Europe and to make a stand against what's happening in the South China Sea. I can see it escalating.

I agree that the situation will likely escalate, but I also still believe there will be no appetite in the USA to engage in a military conflict with China to protect Taiwan. You can forget a 'coalition of the willing' involving NATO; much hand wringing, yes, and UN Security Council condemnation, but military action? Only if approved by Security Council.

 

Since it is impossible to conceal the force build up required for a full-scale airborne/amphib invasion, I expect that the playbook would begin with naval blockading, or a manufactured 'incident' Gulf Of Tonkin style that saw Chinese forces take limited action against Taiwanese forces following an alleged provocation by Taiwan that couldn't be ignored etc. Actions that the West would deplore but which, on their own, wouldn't be sufficient to justify Western involvement.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. I do hope so, because the broader implications of a Chinese move on Taiwan are terrifying.

 

[Jeffr2]

Interesting analysis...

 

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2020/09/01/what-war-with-china-could-look-like/

[robblok]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You appear to accept that workers in your own country become unemployed as long as they can pay less to buy what they used to make themselves.

A government is supposed to take care of it's own people over those in other countries, but seems that the locals are now only of interest to the rich when it comes to elections.

I disagree people should be able to buy where things are cheapest (advantage for the people). Otherwise you got communism. Maybe that is something you like more. I mean communism means no competition no incentive to do better. 

 

Protectionism is wrong only benefits certain sectors while the people pay for it. Better to school and adapt on the governments cost then to buy stuff at inflated prices because your own people can't make it good / cheap enough.

[Eric Loh]

2 hours ago, BKKBike09 said:

I agree that the situation will likely escalate, but I also still believe there will be no appetite in the USA to engage in a military conflict with China to protect Taiwan. You can forget a 'coalition of the willing' involving NATO; much hand wringing, yes, and UN Security Council condemnation, but military action? Only if approved by Security Council.

 

Since it is impossible to conceal the force build up required for a full-scale airborne/amphib invasion, I expect that the playbook would begin with naval blockading, or a manufactured 'incident' Gulf Of Tonkin style that saw Chinese forces take limited action against Taiwanese forces following an alleged provocation by Taiwan that couldn't be ignored etc. Actions that the West would deplore but which, on their own, wouldn't be sufficient to justify Western involvement.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. I do hope so, because the broader implications of a Chinese move on Taiwan are terrifying.

 

US is unlikely to involve in a war between Taiwan and China as it would cause catastrophic harm to the country and may not even ensure they can help Taiwan win. The general public will again asked why Washington would defend an island thousands of miles away with seemingly high human and economic costs. Deja vu? A recent poll taken as early as in October revealed only 35% of Americans would support US military action if the island was attacked. Washington will continue with their strategic ambiguity in their Taiwan Relation Act (1979) which has no promises of military intervention. Trump adminstration made a lot of threats but remained to be ambigious without any direct change to the agreement. NATO has enough problems with Russia to be concerned and binded by their constitution on military aid to only NATO ally.

 

China too will not want a war with Taiwan and condemnation from the world. War with Taiwan will be costly in terms of casualties and economic for both countries and will be an extremely unpopular war of the same race. IMO, both countries will try to avoid war although we can accept some sabre rattling and skirmishes. Both countries have prospered  to a high living standard in last 70 days in the current defacto form. Both will not wish to risk destroying that status quo. 

[Pattaya Spotter]

It will be interesting to see if President Xi tests the Biden Administration's commitment to guarantee the territorial integrity of Taiwan by continuing over flights of Taiwanese airspace by PLAAF aircraft or moving to retake Quemoy and Matsu islands, which are within shouting distance of the Chinese mainland. He would never attempt such a provocation under President Trump.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Pattaya Spotter

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You appear to accept that workers in your own country become unemployed as long as they can pay less to buy what they used to make themselves.

A government is supposed to take care of it's own people over those in other countries, but seems that the locals are now only of interest to the rich when it comes to elections.

You seem to think the government has an obligation to keep unproductive parts of the economy going regardless of the cost.  That's how communism worked, until it failed. 

 

You also seem to think that restricting imports to your country won't provoke equivalent restrictions against your country's export industries, which is clearly wrong.  You would protect the workers in unproductive industries at the expense of the workers in the productive industries.

 

Of course if you really want to protect jobs you should restrict technology.  Think of how many bank teller jobs have been lost to ATM's, and how many typists were put out of work by word processors.  Of course the biggest job gains would come by banning mechanized farming; 90% of the population could once again work doing manual labor in the fields.

[heybruce]

14 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

It will be interesting to see if President Xi tests the Biden Administration's commitment to guarantee the territorial integrity of Taiwan by continuing over flights of Taiwanese airspace by PLAAF aircraft or moving to retake Quemoy and Matsu islands, which are within shouting distance of the Chinese mainland. He would never attempt such a provocation under President Trump.

All hostile autocrats get around to testing new US Presidents.  Regarding Xi never attempting provocation with Trump in office, why not?  Trump made it clear he wouldn't let the US be the world's police.

[Jeffr2]

14 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

It will be interesting to see if President Xi tests the Biden Administration's commitment to guarantee the territorial integrity of Taiwan by continuing over flights of Taiwanese airspace by PLAAF aircraft or moving to retake Quemoy and Matsu islands, which are within shouting distance of the Chinese mainland. He would never attempt such a provocation under President Trump.

Right.  They had several "encounters" in the South China seas while Trump was president. 

 

And this is what provoked the latest problems.  Arms sales while Trump was president.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-54641076

The US has approved arms sales to Taiwan worth around $1.8bn (£1.4bn), in a move that is likely to increase tensions with China.

 

The island has also been seeking backing from the current administration, which, unlike its predecessors, seems willing to challenge the delicate balance Washington has maintained for decades with China and Taiwan, says our correspondent.

[chilli42]

Just curious, has anyone noticed that a lot of people die in wars ... not to mention the waste of resources?  Sure, I understand that you are too old to serve but maybe give some thought to those young men and women who you would so eagerly send off face off with China.

[onthedarkside]

Some off-topic posts regarding European history have been removed.

 

[brianp0803]

2 hours ago, chilli42 said:

Just curious, has anyone noticed that a lot of people die in wars ... not to mention the waste of resources?  Sure, I understand that you are too old to serve but maybe give some thought to those young men and women who you would so eagerly send off face off with China.

Just curious, has anyone noticed how many people suffer horribly and die when a government, with no regard for human life, gets so much power they fear nothing?

[Pilotman]

10 minutes ago, brianp0803 said:

Just curious, has anyone noticed how many people suffer horribly and die when a government, with no regard for human life, gets so much power they fear nothing?

I have just watched a documentary on the Poll Pot regime in Cambodia.  I wish that I hadn't, as it upset me more than I expected. China is just one more manifestation of this and by no means the only one, nor the worst one around right now.   I have felt for many years now that the human race is a violent, genocidal and cruel animal, beyond belief or redemption, more perhaps than any other species on the planet.  The Earth and the Universe would be better off without humanity.  Perhaps I should have written not 'would be', but 'will be', as I have no doubt that we will destroy ourselves eventually.  

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, chilli42 said:

Just curious, has anyone noticed that a lot of people die in wars ... not to mention the waste of resources?  Sure, I understand that you are too old to serve but maybe give some thought to those young men and women who you would so eagerly send off face off with China.

Plenty Americans died already in wars this century. Are they not worthy of your concern?

BTW, do you think a war involving Taiwan would involve conscripting US citizens? I do not. China has to cross the sea to get to Taiwan- all that is needed are ship and plane killing missiles to prevent an invasion, in my opinion.

[tonbridgebrit]

8 hours ago, BKKBike09 said:

I agree that the situation will likely escalate, but I also still believe there will be no appetite in the USA to engage in a military conflict with China to protect Taiwan. You can forget a 'coalition of the willing' involving NATO; much hand wringing, yes, and UN Security Council condemnation, but military action? Only if approved by Security Council.

 

Since it is impossible to conceal the force build up required for a full-scale airborne/amphib invasion, I expect that the playbook would begin with naval blockading, or a manufactured 'incident' Gulf Of Tonkin style that saw Chinese forces take limited action against Taiwanese forces following an alleged provocation by Taiwan that couldn't be ignored etc. Actions that the West would deplore but which, on their own, wouldn't be sufficient to justify Western involvement.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. I do hope so, because the broader implications of a Chinese move on Taiwan are terrifying.

 

 The United Nations ?   The UN Security Council ? ????

You're forgetting that China is one of the Big Five in the UN.  USA, Britain, France, Russia and China are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and each one has the vital importance of the 'power of veto'.

And by the way, why is it that them five are in that powerful position ? Well, after World War Two, the League of Nations was converted to being the United Nations. And basically, the winners of World War Two chose to give themselves the special status of being permanent members of the security council, and having 'power of veto' over whatever issues.
A country having power of veto, means that country is allowed to play their 'power of veto' card, and it blocks whatever proposal.

And so, seeing as Peoples' Republic of China is one of the Big Five, well, the UN are not going to do much against China.   ????

Edited February 1, 2021 by tonbridgebrit

[tonbridgebrit]

7 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 The United Nations ?   The UN Security Council ? ????

You're forgetting that China is one of the Big Five in the UN.  USA, Britain, France, Russia and China are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and each one has the vital importance of the 'power of veto'.
 

 

And seeing as we're talking about Taiwan, what about Taiwan and the UN, and the Big Five ?   ????

Well, yes, in 1945, Republic of China was one of the Big Five, a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Alongside USA, Britain, France and Russia. China did do some massive fighting against Japan during World War Two.  Republic of China had Chiang Kai-Shek as it's leader.

Chiang Kai-Shek lost the civil war against Mao Zedong and the Communists, and fled/re-located to the island of Taiwan. Taiwan carried on being called Republic of China, whilst China became Peoples' Republic of China, in 1949.

And it's hilarious. The UN decided to accept Republic of China as China. And indeed, up until 1971, China's seat at the United Nations was held by Republic of China, Taiwan.  So, Taiwan sat on China's seat at the UN. It was in 1971, when finally, the UN decided that Peoples' Republic of China, and not Republic of China, will have the seat and be recognised.

And so, looking at the history of the UN, only one China has been at the UN. Republic of China or Peoples' Republic of China, but not both.   ???? 

I think all of us should accept that, there will never be two Chinas on planet earth, only one.

[Pattaya Spotter]

3 hours ago, Pilotman said:

I have felt for many years now that the human race is a violent, genocidal and cruel animal, beyond belief or redemption, more perhaps than any other species on the planet.  The Earth and the Universe would be better off without humanity.

99%+ of all species that have existed on earth have gone extinct...the odds are very much in your favor that you'll get your wish. It's nothing more than hubris to think our fate will be any different. 

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 

And seeing as we're talking about Taiwan, what about Taiwan and the UN, and the Big Five ?   ????

Well, yes, in 1945, Republic of China was one of the Big Five, a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Alongside USA, Britain, France and Russia. China did do some massive fighting against Japan during World War Two.  Republic of China had Chiang Kai-Shek as it's leader.

Chiang Kai-Shek lost the civil war against Mao Zedong and the Communists, and fled/re-located to the island of Taiwan. Taiwan carried on being called Republic of China, whilst China became Peoples' Republic of China, in 1949.

And it's hilarious. The UN decided to accept Republic of China as China. And indeed, up until 1971, China's seat at the United Nations was held by Republic of China, Taiwan.  So, Taiwan sat on China's seat at the UN. It was in 1971, when finally, the UN decided that Peoples' Republic of China, and not Republic of China, will have the seat and be recognised.

And so, looking at the history of the UN, only one China has been at the UN. Republic of China or Peoples' Republic of China, but not both.   ???? 

I think all of us should accept that, there will never be two Chinas on planet earth, only one.

Right.  And there will be only one Yugoslavia, one Czechoslovakia, and one USSR.