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

[tonbridgebrit]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

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

You've got to bear in mind, USSR was one of the Big Five, Russia actually allowed Ukraine, Belo-Russia, etc, to break away and be recognised as nations at the UN.   So Russia allowed it to happen, and it happened. China, also one of the Big Five, China will never allow Taiwan to become a place that is recognised by the UN and having any seat.

And Yugoslavia, Serbia weren't in the Big Five. Czechoslovakia, they weren't in the Big Five either. The UN is all about being in the Big Five. The 'power of veto', the right to play that card, the right to scupper any proposal. Yes, the Big Five earned it by winning World War Two.

And the Big Five, all of them are not interested in countries like Japan, Germany, India, Brazil, they're not interested in these countries having the same special status as the Big Five. The Big Five, and that includes the USA, they simply don't want to the Big Five to become the Big Seven, or Big Eight.   ????

[kingdong]

9 hours ago, Pilotman said:

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.  

Seen both s 21 and the killing fields,and who were the goverments at the time who helped put him in and supported him while he was in power.?

Edited February 1, 2021 by kingdong

[BKKBike09]

18 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.

Thank you for your analysis. You are quite correct that China is a P5 Member of the Security Council. But just as the 'Chinese' seat has changed once in the past, it is possible it could change again. The composition of the P5 bloc is anachronistic in the extreme; neither France nor UK wield the global influence they did in 1945, and never again will. 

 

I agree we should all accept there will never be two Chinas, only one: namely China, co-existing peacefully with a sovereign Taiwan.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by onthedarkside
personal comment removed

[ExpatOilWorker]

21 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

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. 

Fair point, but it leaves China with a couple of problems.

It is a political dream for the CCP to have China united be the time they celebrate 100 years in 2047, so the clock is ticking down for status que.

Secondly,  you don't build and train a $200 billion military and don't use it. 

The danger is that it turn inward and China have a long history and close to 100 million  dead bodies to prove they are good at slaughtering each other.

[sscc]

15 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.

 

 

You know some of the relevant history,  so I quoted your posting and add more info. 

 

Mainland PRC and Taiwan ROC  both claim as the ONE and SOLE China for a long period. 

 

Taiwan ROC had been "thinking and planning" to take over Mainland PRC in all of 1950's and up until around 1965.   Taiwan ROC had also enjoyed a rather progressively prosperous and advancing period from 1975 to 1995.   Then Taiwan ROC has turned stagnant in many ways till now.  

 

On the other hand,   Mainland PRC was very, very poor economically and was in disarray and disaster from late 1950's to late 1970's.   

 

Only starting 1978, Mainland PRC had done 180 degree change ---  converting to capitalistic socialism,  gradually abandoning Communist Karl Marx economic policy and reserving the socialism part.     The advance in Mainland PRC in the past 40 years is obvious and undeniable.   

As reference point,  In 1980's  GDP of India to Mainland PRC were equal,  in 2019,  it is 100 : 450 in percent ratio.   

 

The sheer confidence of PRC actually had gotten strong after 2008,  post-Beijing Olympic time and the extra high GPD growth period started from 2001.    ( Sarcastically India is eyeing to stage an Olympic nowadays. ) 

 

 

Ultimately it is about which side is stronger and the stronger side is to take over the other side. 

It is not about  Authoritarian Vs Democracy  or communism Vs Capitalism.        

 

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Fair point, but it leaves China with a couple of problems.

It is a political dream for the CCP to have China united be the time they celebrate 100 years in 2047, so the clock is ticking down for status que.

Secondly,  you don't build and train a $200 billion military and don't use it. 

The danger is that it turn inward and China have a long history and close to 100 million  dead bodies to prove they are good at slaughtering each other.

The 2047 pledge was actually part of President Xi Jinping's speech but stepped short of issuing a firm deadline. It is meant more as a carrot and stick offering to Taiwan. In his speech he offered Taiwan a peaceful unification under a One-China-two-systems policy. No doubt Taiwan take this offer with much apprehension after what happened in Hong Kong. Whether the future Presidents may have their own policy dealing with the Taiwan issue. 

 

The Taiwanese politics and their citizens will have a big role on the eventualities of the issue. Pro China and pro independence political parties have been occupying the seat of the government for last 70 years. Opinion polls showed that only a small minority of Taiwanese support pursuing one or the other at the moment with most preferring to stick with the current middle ground. Seem practical as Taiwan's economy is heavily dependent on China. Taiwanese have invested almost 60 B in China and has up to 1 million of their people working in China, most running their own factories. Similarly, this economic factor may just be the deterrent to any military action because of the cost to China's economy. 

 

IMHO I think both sides will continue with the current status quo. At the end of the day, if the Taiwan continue to prosper and the middle class keep growing and Taiwan maintain their very low percentage of citizens living below poverty line, politics will cancel out their pursuit of independence. But all in the future and we both are not fortune tellers. 

[kingdong]

On 2/1/2021 at 2:00 AM, robblok said:

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.

Even if the " cheap "goods you buy are financing a possible rogue states arsenal?

[tonbridgebrit]

3 hours ago, BKKBike09 said:

Thank you for your analysis. You are quite correct that China is a P5 Member of the Security Council. But just as the 'Chinese' seat has changed once in the past, it is possible it could change again. The composition of the P5 bloc is anachronistic in the extreme; neither France nor UK wield the global influence they did in 1945, and never again will. 

 

I agree we should all accept there will never be two Chinas, only one: namely China, co-existing peacefully with a sovereign Taiwan.

 

 

About Britain being in the P5 at the UN.  Seeing as Britain fought a massive bit during World War Two, there's no way I'm supporting Britain losing it's P5 special status at the UN. And I'm really convinced that the P5 will stay as they are, there won't be any changes, unless we have World War Three.

Supposedly, there's talk about Germany, Japan and India being given special status. But none of the existing P5 actually want change. China and Russia don't want Japan, Germany and India to be given special status.  America, Britain and France don't want India added to the list. And seeing as Britain normally sides with America, well, America will make sure that Britain stays in the P5.    ????

And yes, one China, co-existing with a de facto independent Taiwan. Let's hope so. I think people exaggerate China's desire to attack Taiwan. They're only going to do it IF Taiwan declares independence. And even if Taiwan does declare it, China might still not attack.

Edited February 2, 2021 by onthedarkside
reply to personal comment removed

[tonbridgebrit]

2 hours ago, sscc said:

You know some of the relevant history,  so I quoted your posting and add more info. 

 

Mainland PRC and Taiwan ROC  both claim as the ONE and SOLE China for a long period. 

 

Taiwan ROC had been "thinking and planning" to take over Mainland PRC in all of 1950's and up until around 1965.   Taiwan ROC had also enjoyed a rather progressively prosperous and advancing period from 1975 to 1995.   Then Taiwan ROC has turned stagnant in many ways till now.  

 

On the other hand,   Mainland PRC was very, very poor economically and was in disarray and disaster from late 1950's to late 1970's.   

 

Only starting 1978, Mainland PRC had done 180 degree change ---  converting to capitalistic socialism,  gradually abandoning Communist Karl Marx economic policy and reserving the socialism part.     The advance in Mainland PRC in the past 40 years is obvious and undeniable.   

As reference point,  In 1980's  GDP of India to Mainland PRC were equal,  in 2019,  it is 100 : 450 in percent ratio.   

 

The sheer confidence of PRC actually had gotten strong after 2008,  post-Beijing Olympic time and the extra high GPD growth period started from 2001.    ( Sarcastically India is eyeing to stage an Olympic nowadays. ) 

 

 

Ultimately it is about which side is stronger and the stronger side is to take over the other side. 

It is not about  Authoritarian Vs Democracy  or communism Vs Capitalism.       

Great post. I'ill add a bit more myself.
During the last two decades, China has given big benefits to Taiwan's economy.  Beijing has allowed vast numbers of mainland Chinese tourists to visit Taiwan, and rich Chinese have turned up in Taiwan to buy real estate. This has boosted Taiwan's economy and real estate prices. Also, China allows Taiwanese goods to enter China with zero or minimal taxes. Cynics will claim that Beijing is deliberately doing this to make Taiwan dependent on China. This might be the case, but it still benefits Taiwan in a big way. And there's a large number of Taiwanese factories that have re-located to China, cheaper labour, this actually was already happening in the 1980s and 90s.
Also, Taiwan has got one of the lowest birth-rates in the world, and Taiwanese women are not easy to go on a date with. Hence, stacks of Taiwanese men go to mainland China and get a girlfriend, marry her, and take her to Taiwan. Some of the babies being born in Taiwan have mainland women as their mothers.

So, basically, Taiwan IS reliant on China. People talk about Britain being reliant on Europe, I reckon Taiwan is more reliant on China, than Britain is reliant on Europe.

And I totally agree with "It is not about  Authoritarian Vs Democracy  or communism Vs Capitalism. "
I reckon it's more about "America using the issue of Taiwan as an excuse to declare war on China, just in case if America does want to fight China" .   ????
See, that vast trade deficit that America has got with China. Them billions of US government bonds that China has got. How can America clear these bonds held by China ? Well, defeat China in a war, that will do it.   ????

[robblok]

1 hour ago, kingdong said:

Even if the " cheap "goods you buy are financing a possible rogue states arsenal?

The moment China breaks international law they are a rogue state and a trade blockade can be put on. But to put on something without something having happened is unfair. Germany started a war because of the Versailles treaty that broke their economy. I think blockading Chinese products preemptive would be unfair and a punishment that could worsen things.

 

If you go total blockade already you giving up a lot, you can then only escalate to violence. I think its best to save this step for later. But thatis my opinion. Others might think different.

 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Great post. I'ill add a bit more myself.
During the last two decades, China has given big benefits to Taiwan's economy.  Beijing has allowed vast numbers of mainland Chinese tourists to visit Taiwan, and rich Chinese have turned up in Taiwan to buy real estate. This has boosted Taiwan's economy and real estate prices. Also, China allows Taiwanese goods to enter China with zero or minimal taxes. Cynics will claim that Beijing is deliberately doing this to make Taiwan dependent on China. This might be the case, but it still benefits Taiwan in a big way. And there's a large number of Taiwanese factories that have re-located to China, cheaper labour, this actually was already happening in the 1980s and 90s.
Also, Taiwan has got one of the lowest birth-rates in the world, and Taiwanese women are not easy to go on a date with. Hence, stacks of Taiwanese men go to mainland China and get a girlfriend, marry her, and take her to Taiwan. Some of the babies being born in Taiwan have mainland women as their mothers.

So, basically, Taiwan IS reliant on China. People talk about Britain being reliant on Europe, I reckon Taiwan is more reliant on China, than Britain is reliant on Europe.

And I totally agree with "It is not about  Authoritarian Vs Democracy  or communism Vs Capitalism. "
I reckon it's more about "America using the issue of Taiwan as an excuse to declare war on China, just in case if America does want to fight China" .   ????
See, that vast trade deficit that America has got with China. Them billions of US government bonds that China has got. How can America clear these bonds held by China ? Well, defeat China in a war, that will do it.   ????

You think the US wants to go to war with China?  You further think the motivation for the war would be to eliminate the trade deficit? Not even Trump is that delusional.  Well, maybe not.

[Morch]

On 1/30/2021 at 10:38 PM, mfd101 said:

The history of Taiwan is one thing. The democratically-expressed views of a majority of the current  inhabitants is another.

 

The Chinese government has no more interest in what the citizens of Taiwan think than it has in the views of its own people. If The West still stands for anything at all, it has no choice but to stand with the people of Taiwan against the authoritarians of the mainland, and that includes conventional warfare clashes if necessary.

 

How did it work out with HK, then?

[Morch]

On 1/30/2021 at 10:41 PM, mike787 said:

Yea....whatever....I would fight to die than concede to slow miserable death under Chinese rule. 

 

Talk is cheap. At the end of the day, most people choose to live.

[Morch]

On 1/30/2021 at 3:16 AM, tonbridgebrit said:

Interesting post, I agree with some of what you've written, but not all.

You're right, the indigenous people of Taiwan are not Chinese, they're Polynesians.  The vast majority of people in Taiwan today are Chinese, and these Chinese are from, or descended from, two seperate waves that turned up in Taiwan. The first lot went to Taiwan a few hundred years ago, and yes, they stole land and carried out genocide of the indigenous people. And yes, the second wave was made up of Chinese who lost the civil war in China, and fled to Taiwan after World War Two.
You mentioned Chiang Kai-Shek. You're right, he was recognized by America and Britain as the leader of China, and fled to Taiwan after losing the civil war. And yes, he was a dictator of China and Taiwan. There was no freedom of speech for anti-government activists.  Yes, Taiwan was a military dictatorship prior to todays democracy.

Let's look at the other countries who are in the area. It's funny.
South Korea ? They might send ships to patrol the area ?  South Korea are more interested in making sure North Korea don't invade them, they don't want to take part in a fight against China.  Japan ?  They lost World War Two against Britain, America and China. They're not interested in a war.   Vietnam ?  Any war against China needs America's support. So American forces will fight alongside Vietnamese ? It's unlikely. America sent soldiers to fight that Vietnam War against Vietnam. The Viet Cong were the enemy, they took over Vietnam after the Vietnam War. So, today, the communist dictatorship we see in Vietnam fought against the USA. The US government does not actually have a great desire to fight alongside the Vietnamese.
Philipinnes ?  They are a democracy, Duterte is their leader, Duterte is actually far more friendly towards China than America. What about Thailand ? Thailand is waiting for Covid to dissappear, and then welcome back a flood of Chinese tourists. What about India ?  India's more interested in fighting Pakistan over Kashmir. And, on a map, India is bit further away from the South China Sea.  And also, China has created that RCEP.  A new trade zone involving Far East countries. India was invited, but India said no. So, India is the odd one out.

I'm trying to say, that most or all of the countries in the area, are not in a serious position to fight China.

 

Reality is a bit more complicated than propaganda-like posts paint it to be...

 

USA and Vietnam carry some military maneuvers and cooperation. Still a ways to go, but angers China.

 

The Philippines are a democracy? So why bang on about their 'leader''s leanings? Also, if you check his words and moves, he actually plays both sides, as suits.

 

India more interested in fighting Pakistan over Kashmir? Guess you 'missed' them repeated clashes with the Chinese up north. And that's one more country slowly warming up to military cooperation with the USA.

 

Thailand got nothing much to do with the topic.

 

All of the nonsense on offer was posted on past topics (even verbatim) and addressed. Get better at it.

 

EDIT - oh yeah, may want to check up on Japan's military build up since China started flexing it's muscles. Not interested...sure.

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by Morch

[placnx]

On 2/1/2021 at 9:00 AM, robblok said:

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.

Well, the problem is dumping. It is like monopolistic behavior to drive competitors out of the market, but on an international scale. Steel and aluminium are examples where China has done this. So free trade cannot be unregulated. With the example of PPE for Covid, countries had to scrounge because China controlled most of world production. Some things have strategic value, so a certain amount of production should be done at home. 

[mike787]

37 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Talk is cheap. At the end of the day, most people choose to live.

Or move to China????

[placnx]

On 2/1/2021 at 11:11 AM, Eric Loh said:

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. 

You are right that most people in Taiwan and China would like to maintain the status quo, though people in Taiwan certainly don't like the way China under Xi is changing, becoming more and more belligerent.

 

As for Americans, most probably don't know the difference between Taiwan and Thailand, so if they are asked questions about defending Taiwan, the answer would be "no". As China has gotten a very negative image after Covid, more Americans will eventually become aware of the current China/Taiwan situation, and various implications. Any aggression on Taiwan would likely provoke a stronger popular reaction than recent events in Hong Kong, as Americans no doubt thought Britain should take the lead on reacting to China's move on HK.

 

The US can continue to provide defensive weapons without changing formal policy, but as China keeps upgrading offensive weapons it's logical that the US will provide a more potent defense. Obviously, at some point these defensive weapons could have a first strike capability, but it's China's choice to keep upping the ante. 

[mfd101]

41 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

How did it work out with HK, then?

The Brits gave HK away in 1997. Not that they had much choice.

 

In the demonstrations over the last couple of years as China tightened its grip, it's hard to say what the majority of HKers thought or how they would vote today in the unlikely event they were given a free, fair & unthreatened vote on the matter. Certainly the demonstrations were more than just students.

 

I suspect much the same can be said of Taiwan. When the invasion comes, it will be interesting to see how long the Taiwanese military hold out and what the reaction of the civilian population is. We could be surprised either way - quick surrender + welcome, or long & bitter but hopeless resistance.

 

We could know within days, or perhaps not for another couple of decades.

 

[placnx]

On 2/1/2021 at 5:05 PM, 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 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.   ????

Some countries want to reform the Security Council. The absolute power of veto was a tragic planning mistake in 1945. The UN has been so often undermined by this at critical moments. The UN would be out of the picture in a China/Taiwan conflict.

[mike787]

Oh dear...China is getting upset again...

[placnx]

7 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

The 2047 pledge was actually part of President Xi Jinping's speech but stepped short of issuing a firm deadline. It is meant more as a carrot and stick offering to Taiwan. In his speech he offered Taiwan a peaceful unification under a One-China-two-systems policy. No doubt Taiwan take this offer with much apprehension after what happened in Hong Kong. Whether the future Presidents may have their own policy dealing with the Taiwan issue. 

 

The Taiwanese politics and their citizens will have a big role on the eventualities of the issue. Pro China and pro independence political parties have been occupying the seat of the government for last 70 years. Opinion polls showed that only a small minority of Taiwanese support pursuing one or the other at the moment with most preferring to stick with the current middle ground. Seem practical as Taiwan's economy is heavily dependent on China. Taiwanese have invested almost 60 B in China and has up to 1 million of their people working in China, most running their own factories. Similarly, this economic factor may just be the deterrent to any military action because of the cost to China's economy. 

 

IMHO I think both sides will continue with the current status quo. At the end of the day, if the Taiwan continue to prosper and the middle class keep growing and Taiwan maintain their very low percentage of citizens living below poverty line, politics will cancel out their pursuit of independence. But all in the future and we both are not fortune tellers. 

Yes, the Taiwanese want to maintain the status quo, but what has been changing is that the party which has inherited the KMT mantle has been forced by events in Hong Kong to distance itself from the concept of eventual unification. So now they are solidly in the middle position - status quo. Is that just for appearances? 

[placnx]

5 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

And I totally agree with "It is not about  Authoritarian Vs Democracy  or communism Vs Capitalism. "
I reckon it's more about "America using the issue of Taiwan as an excuse to declare war on China, just in case if America does want to fight China" .   ????
See, that vast trade deficit that America has got with China. Them billions of US government bonds that China has got. How can America clear these bonds held by China ? Well, defeat China in a war, that will do it. 

These are conspiracy theories. Where did you find them?

[tonbridgebrit]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

You think the US wants to go to war with China?  You further think the motivation for the war would be to eliminate the trade deficit? Not even Trump is that delusional.  Well, maybe not.

I don't reckon the USA actually wants to fight China, but I reckon the American government wants to have the option to attack China in the future. Obviously, the US government needs an excuse to attack China if it does attack, and yes, Taiwan would be an obvious excuse. As in, attack China on the grounds that China is a threat to Taiwan. Or, order Taiwan to declare independence, knowing full well that China has to attack Taiwan, and then, attack China.

Let's change 'World War Three' to a 'brief but decisive military conflict'.

A conflict carried out for economic /financial reasons.  See, the US government carried out that invasion of Iraq. It was done supposedly, because Iraq was a threat and danger to world peace. It was done with the supposed goal to create a new Iraq. A country that would go on to be a democracy, with religious freedom, freedom of expression, etc.  Most people now do reckon, it was done mainly because Iraq has oil. It was done for economic reasons. Same as Libya, when removing Gaddafi.

And let's not forget about Britain fighting two wars against China back in the 1800s.  History itself calls these wars the "Opium Wars".  They were fought mainly because, the Chinese government at the time, Chinese government wanted to stamp out the flood of opium entering China. Britain was importing Chinese gooods, had a big trade deficit, and responded by exporting opium to China. This resulted in China having a large deficit. Chinese government attempted to stamp out opium, Britain responded by fighting two wars against China. It was nothing to do with China being a threat to Britain.  ????

And today, we see the huge trade surplus China has with the USA. The problem is, is China not buying enough goods made in America and Europe. So, yes, how about history repeats itself ? I mean, if they removed Saddam and Gaddafi because of oil, if the Opium Wars were fought because of opium and money, and the list goes on. Well, why not repeat the system, fight a war to clear up the problem of China holding billions of dollars of US government bonds.    ????

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, placnx said:

These are conspiracy theories. Where did you find them?

They're conspiracy theories ?  Where did I find them ?   ????

Please read the post immediately above, the one put up in response to "heybruce".  

[kingdong]

8 hours ago, robblok said:

The moment China breaks international law they are a rogue state and a trade blockade can be put on. But to put on something without something having happened is unfair. Germany started a war because of the Versailles treaty that broke their economy. I think blockading Chinese products preemptive would be unfair and a punishment that could worsen things.

 

If you go total blockade already you giving up a lot, you can then only escalate to violence. I think its best to save this step for later. But thatis my opinion. Others might think different.

 

Answered your own question there,germany started a war because europe sat scratching itself while germany got militarily stronger,then when they did react it was too late you think it would be unfair  to blockade china?with their recent track record?

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

I don't reckon the USA actually wants to fight China, but I reckon the American government wants to have the option to attack China in the future. Obviously, the US government needs an excuse to attack China if it does attack, and yes, Taiwan would be an obvious excuse. As in, attack China on the grounds that China is a threat to Taiwan. Or, order Taiwan to declare independence, knowing full well that China has to attack Taiwan, and then, attack China.

Let's change 'World War Three' to a 'brief but decisive military conflict'.

A conflict carried out for economic /financial reasons.  See, the US government carried out that invasion of Iraq. It was done supposedly, because Iraq was a threat and danger to world peace. It was done with the supposed goal to create a new Iraq. A country that would go on to be a democracy, with religious freedom, freedom of expression, etc.  Most people now do reckon, it was done mainly because Iraq has oil. It was done for economic reasons. Same as Libya, when removing Gaddafi.

And let's not forget about Britain fighting two wars against China back in the 1800s.  History itself calls these wars the "Opium Wars".  They were fought mainly because, the Chinese government at the time, Chinese government wanted to stamp out the flood of opium entering China. Britain was importing Chinese gooods, had a big trade deficit, and responded by exporting opium to China. This resulted in China having a large deficit. Chinese government attempted to stamp out opium, Britain responded by fighting two wars against China. It was nothing to do with China being a threat to Britain.  ????

And today, we see the huge trade surplus China has with the USA. The problem is, is China not buying enough goods made in America and Europe. So, yes, how about history repeats itself ? I mean, if they removed Saddam and Gaddafi because of oil, if the Opium Wars were fought because of opium and money, and the list goes on. Well, why not repeat the system, fight a war to clear up the problem of China holding billions of dollars of US government bonds.    ????

There you go again:  The US wants to attack China because of the trade deficit.

 

A war with China would be devastatingly expensive for the winner.  It would be catastrophic for the loser.  And it would have massive consequences for the world economy that are difficult to imagine.  Then there's the "you break it, you bought it" rule for the victor.

 

That's just looking at it from the hard cold economics of the situation.  Nobody in their right mind wants such a war.

 

This isn't the 1800's.  Wars have far more devastating consequences now.  How can you not understand this?

[kingdong]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

There you go again:  The US wants to attack China because of the trade deficit.

 

A war with China would be devastatingly expensive for the winner.  It would be catastrophic for the loser.  And it would have massive consequences for the world economy that are difficult to imagine.  Then there's the "you break it, you bought it" rule for the victor.

 

That's just looking at it from the hard cold economics of the situation.  Nobody in their right mind wants such a war.

 

This isn't the 1800's.  Wars have far more devastating consequences now.  How can you not understand this?

Its stupid to declare war over a trade deficit,what you should do is put tariffs on their exports to limit the damage,and if dealing with a country that starts misbehaving cut trade altogether,this prevents possible rogue states financing their armed forces financially.

[heybruce]

33 minutes ago, kingdong said:

Its stupid to declare war over a trade deficit,what you should do is put tariffs on their exports to limit the damage,and if dealing with a country that starts misbehaving cut trade altogether,this prevents possible rogue states financing their armed forces financially.

You seem to think that trade deficits are inherently bad.  Why?

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, kingdong said:

Its stupid to declare war over a trade deficit,what you should do is put tariffs on their exports to limit the damage,and if dealing with a country that starts misbehaving cut trade altogether,this prevents possible rogue states financing their armed forces financially.

 

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

You seem to think that trade deficits are inherently bad.  Why?

The trade deficit. On a monthly basis, China's exports to America are worth billions more than it's imports from America. Hence, America's deficit. The monthly deficit has meant that Beijing has built up a vast quantity of US dollars. The power and influence that Beijing has because it has got a vast pile of dollars is not minimal. And this vast pile of dollars is getting bigger every month, due to China exporting more than it imports.

It was over fifteen years ago, the US dollar was weakening on the world markets, when the US government hinted and implied to China "the dollar is our currency, but it's your problem".   ????

It's your problem.  As in, it's you who has got this huge plie of dollars, the dollar's collapse is your problem. And that was over fifteen years ago. The pile is, off-course, far bigger today.

Edited February 3, 2021 by tonbridgebrit

[tonbridgebrit]

2 hours ago, kingdong said:

Its stupid to declare war over a trade deficit,what you should do is put tariffs on their exports to limit the damage,and if dealing with a country that starts misbehaving cut trade altogether,this prevents possible rogue states financing their armed forces financially.

Let's put it this way. The war is not going to be done to actually remove the monthly deficit. Once America beats China in this war, America will take away China's vast pile of US dollars. And tell China that they've now got a giant debt with America. And then, during the decades after this war, America can then go back to having a big monthly deficit with China.
And give it another four or five decades, when China has got back a huge pile of dollars, well, do it all over again. ????

The cynics talk about what really happened after World War Two. Yes, Japan started the war against America. America defeated Japan. So, what really happened during the 1950s and 60s, in Japan ?  Japan became a 'sweat shop' or land of cheap labour, mass producing goods for the USA. Yes, that was the victory prize for the USA.   ????

Edited February 3, 2021 by tonbridgebrit