Military exercises suggest China is getting ‘ready to launch a war against Taiwan,’ island’s foreign minister tells CNN

[rabas]

6 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

So, 2027 is the big year, that's four years from now. Let's hope that in four years time, most of the world's computer chips will be manufactured in China, California and Britain. That way, when Peoples' Republic of China re-starts it's civil war with Republic of China, well, there's no need for America's soldiers to see action. Great.

Remove all IC manufacturing technology from Taiwan then China would not invade Taiwan.

 

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

Remove all IC manufacturing technology from Taiwan then China would not invade Taiwan.

 

That's not actually totally true or gauranteed.

Yes, re-locate any manufacturing in Republic of China that the rest of the world needs. Relocate it to Peoples' Republic of China, South Korea, Japan, California, Britain, Thailand, any place that China is certain to not attack.

And once it's been re-located, well, China will still claim ownership of Taiwan. They've been claiming ownership since, since 1949.

The important thing is, is not Peoples Republic of China re-starting it's civil war. The important thing is, is American and Brritish soldiers don't have to fight in a war against China. Such a war will trigger World War Three, a nuclear war.  Just like, if NATO sends soldiers to Ukraine.
And Republic of China without it's IC manufacturing, well, Washington will regard Republic of China as not worth fighting for. Actually, removal of IC manyfacturing will mean, that the big excuse to fight against Peoples Republic of China, has been removed.   ????

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, rabas said:

Remove all IC manufacturing technology from Taiwan then China would not invade Taiwan.

 

Do you think the Taiwanese people will go along with this?

[rabas]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Do you think the Taiwanese people will go along with this?

My comment was only meant to help understand CPP motives. You pose a practical and interesting question.

 

If geographic diversification of Taiwan's IC manufacturing industry provides expanded business, increased profits, and helps to insure Taiwan's freedom then why not?  The US and the West have been diversifying manufacturing for decades because doing so was highly profitable and helped to expand IC business. In fact, Taiwan has already started to move in this direction.

 

[eisfeld]

8 hours ago, rabas said:

Remove all IC manufacturing technology from Taiwan then China would not invade Taiwan.

 

The opposite is true. It would accelerate the invasion. A lot of countries depend on Taiwan for leading edge chip manufacturing and that's a big reason they are trying to prevent China from invading. Remove that and Taiwan loses a lot of defense. China wanted to control Taiwan long before the chip manufacturing there was even a thing. For historical but also current geopolitical reasons (sea blockades).

 

Of course Taiwan would never be so crazy as to give away a major part of their economy.

[sscc]

On 4/18/2023 at 3:05 PM, heybruce said:

This was addressed earlier in the topic:  https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/2-charts-show-how-much-the-world-depends-on-taiwan-for-semiconductors.html

 

If China is self-sufficient in chip manufacturing, why are they so upset on the restrictions on imports of chips and chip manufacturing technology imposed by the US?

 

The Link you quoted dated to March 2021.    So do you think China had been just ideal and done nothing in their end for the past couples year ?   TSMC had gone through much change in 2022 and 2023.   And the global chip demand and chip business had gone through much change too in 2023. 

 

Do your indulgence of YESTERYEAR report and data for whatever satisfaction you get.  

 Thanks but no thanks to your Link. 

[sscc]

17 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/taiwan-foreign-minister-says-preparing-115200315.html


The above article is from the Independent newspaper. Okay,  " Taiwan’s foreign minister has expressed his concerns regarding the possibility of conflict with China in 2027, stating that the island nation is taking the Chinese military threat seriously. "

So, 2027 is the big year, that's four years from now. Let's hope that in four years time, most of the world's computer chips will be manufactured in China, California and Britain. That way, when Peoples' Republic of China re-starts it's civil war with Republic of China, well, there's no need for America's soldiers to see action. Great.

 

PRC will integrate Taiwan for sure.   1.4 Billion PRC citizens are committed to implement and complete the process in the long term.   How and Time are unknown.   

 

TSMC status is not relevant.    China will just do, period. 

And as Xi had face-to-face told EU Ursula in public in early on April 6, 2023,  outsiders want to interfere is Completely OUT of LINE. 

 

 

 

[Lorry]

2 hours ago, eisfeld said:

The opposite is true. It would accelerate the invasion. A lot of countries depend on Taiwan for leading edge chip manufacturing and that's a big reason they are trying to prevent China from invading. Remove that and Taiwan loses a lot of defense. China wanted to control Taiwan long before the chip manufacturing there was even a thing. For historical but also current geopolitical reasons (sea blockades).

 

Of course Taiwan would never be so crazy as to give away a major part of their economy.

This is how things are seen in Taiwan.

The decision of TSMC to build a fab in Arizona has drawn a lot of criticism in Taiwan. 

[sscc]

On 4/18/2023 at 3:06 PM, heybruce said:

Actually it's China that claims it doesn't interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, but it is very flexible on what it considers interference when it comes to what it claims are "traditional" Chinese territories.

 

The US has made commitments to help Taiwan defend itself from a Chinese attack, and the US will keep these commitments.  That is why China hasn't attacked.

Where does China interfere in the internal affairs of other countries ? 

You failed to name anywhere Specific and  "Fudge Your words"  on a false narrative as I concern. 

 

China had made commitments to defend Taiwan from 1950 to 1970's.  

Further to establishing diplomat relations between Washington ( signed by Jimmy Carter 1979 and re-iterated by Reagan years later )   USA had  gone with "Strategic ambiguity" policy from 1980's onwards -----  A policy of strategic ambiguity is the fundamental policy of the US toward Taiwan. The US takes very ambiguous positions on its commitment to Taiwan's security, 

 

Too bad your second paragraph info was very much OUTdated. 

 

 

[eisfeld]

27 minutes ago, sscc said:

outsiders want to interfere is Completely OUT of LINE. 

The same out of line as mainland China interfering in Taiwan?

 

It's amazing how most people simply don't care what the people of Taiwan want. It's just what China wants, what the US wants what XYZ wants. How about we all leave them be in peace?

[sscc]

( Not China )   USA had made commitments to defend Taiwan from 1950 to 1970's.  

 

My error in one of the posting earlier today. 

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, sscc said:

 

The Link you quoted dated to March 2021.    So do you think China had been just ideal and done nothing in their end for the past couples year ?   TSMC had gone through much change in 2022 and 2023.   And the global chip demand and chip business had gone through much change too in 2023. 

 

Do your indulgence of YESTERYEAR report and data for whatever satisfaction you get.  

 Thanks but no thanks to your Link. 

Is last month current enough for you?

 

"Taiwan produces over 60% of the world’s semiconductors and over 90% of the most advanced ones. Most are manufactured by a single company, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (TSMC). Until now, the most advanced have been made only in Taiwan."  https://www.economist.com/special-report/2023/03/06/taiwans-dominance-of-the-chip-industry-makes-it-more-important

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, sscc said:

Where does China interfere in the internal affairs of other countries ? 

You failed to name anywhere Specific and  "Fudge Your words"  on a false narrative as I concern. 

 

China had made commitments to defend Taiwan from 1950 to 1970's.  

Further to establishing diplomat relations between Washington ( signed by Jimmy Carter 1979 and re-iterated by Reagan years later )   USA had  gone with "Strategic ambiguity" policy from 1980's onwards -----  A policy of strategic ambiguity is the fundamental policy of the US toward Taiwan. The US takes very ambiguous positions on its commitment to Taiwan's security, 

 

Too bad your second paragraph info was very much OUTdated.

You don't think claiming all of the South Chna Sea as its own, building military outposts, denying countries the right to fish in their territorial waters, rejecting the ruling of the international tribunal in the Hague, etc. is interfering int other countries internal affairs?  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china

 

How is my second paragraph outdated?

[tonbridgebrit]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

You don't think claiming all of the South Chna Sea as its own, building military outposts, denying countries the right to fish in their territorial waters, rejecting the ruling of the international tribunal in the Hague, etc. is interfering int other countries internal affairs?  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china

 

How is my second paragraph outdated?

 Hello heybruce.   ????
Look, if you want to condemn China because of the points you've raised, well, go and do it. But those things you've listed are not interfering with other countries internal affairs.   ????
They're actually external affairs.

I will try to explain. Vietnam is claiming ownership of certain parts of the South China Sea. China is claiming ownership of all of the South China Sea. And so, there are parts of the SCS where both Vietnam and China claim. Hence, China and Vietnam are in conflict, there's a dispute/fight over who owns that bit of the SCS. It's not an internal dispute.

What would be an internal dispute ?  I'ill give an examople. Okay, a group of guys inside Vietnam, they've got something against the government of Vietnam. There is conflict. And Beijing is now supporting these rebels, hoping that the rebels will throw out the Vietnamese government. Now, this is called interfering with an internal dispute.
If USA backs Vietnam in the SCS, or if USA backs China in the SCS, well, USA is not actually interfering with any countries internal affairs. But if a group of anti-communists in Vietnam are trying to remove the Communist regime that runs Vietnam, and if Washington backs the anti-communists, well, yes, that is interfering with Vietnam's internal affairs.

With China and Vietnam's dispute over the SCS, Vietnam is united with itself in claiming ownership of those parts of the SCS.

By the way, Republic of China is involved in this dispute over the SCS. How ?
It was back in 1947, Chiang Kai-Shek's Republic of China drew up the nine-dash-line map. This map claimed that the SCS belonged to Republic of China. In 1949, Mao Zedong won the civil war in China, he declared China's new name as Peoples' Republic of China. And very important, he claimed ownership of all the parts and bits that made up Republic of China. Hence, Mao Zedong claimed ownership of the SCS through that map.
Republic of China carried on claiming ownership of the SCS. And to this day, Republic of China, Taiwan, still claims ownership of the SCS because of that map. Taiwan has in island called Itu Aba (it's also called Taiping Island ) right in the middle of the SCS.  Here's the link on wikipedia.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Island

And by the way, Washington is neutral in the dispute over the SCS. Washington is not backing Vietnam in Vietnam's claims of ownership. And Washington is not backing Peoples' Republic of China over it's claims. And Washington is not backing Republic of China on Republic of China's claims over ownership.

How comes Washington is not backing Vietnam on it's claim ?   How comes Washington is not backing Republic of China on it's claim of ownership of the SCS ?  I'm sorry, I'm smirking in an evil way, I think you know why.    ????

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 Hello heybruce.   ????
Look, if you want to condemn China because of the points you've raised, well, go and do it. But those things you've listed are not interfering with other countries internal affairs.   ????
They're actually external affairs.

I will try to explain. Vietnam is claiming ownership of certain parts of the South China Sea. China is claiming ownership of all of the South China Sea. And so, there are parts of the SCS where both Vietnam and China claim. Hence, China and Vietnam are in conflict, there's a dispute/fight over who owns that bit of the SCS. It's not an internal dispute.

What would be an internal dispute ?  I'ill give an examople. Okay, a group of guys inside Vietnam, they've got something against the government of Vietnam. There is conflict. And Beijing is now supporting these rebels, hoping that the rebels will throw out the Vietnamese government. Now, this is called interfering with an internal dispute.
If USA backs Vietnam in the SCS, or if USA backs China in the SCS, well, USA is not actually interfering with any countries internal affairs. But if a group of anti-communists in Vietnam are trying to remove the Communist regime that runs Vietnam, and if Washington backs the anti-communists, well, yes, that is interfering with Vietnam's internal affairs.

With China and Vietnam's dispute over the SCS, Vietnam is united with itself in claiming ownership of those parts of the SCS.

By the way, Republic of China is involved in this dispute over the SCS. How ?
It was back in 1947, Chiang Kai-Shek's Republic of China drew up the nine-dash-line map. This map claimed that the SCS belonged to Republic of China. In 1949, Mao Zedong won the civil war in China, he declared China's new name as Peoples' Republic of China. And very important, he claimed ownership of all the parts and bits that made up Republic of China. Hence, Mao Zedong claimed ownership of the SCS through that map.
Republic of China carried on claiming ownership of the SCS. And to this day, Republic of China, Taiwan, still claims ownership of the SCS because of that map. Taiwan has in island called Itu Aba (it's also called Taiping Island ) right in the middle of the SCS.  Here's the link on wikipedia.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Island

And by the way, Washington is neutral in the dispute over the SCS. Washington is not backing Vietnam in Vietnam's claims of ownership. And Washington is not backing Peoples' Republic of China over it's claims. And Washington is not backing Republic of China on Republic of China's claims over ownership.

How comes Washington is not backing Vietnam on it's claim ?   How comes Washington is not backing Republic of China on it's claim of ownership of the SCS ?  I'm sorry, I'm smirking in an evil way, I think you know why.    ????

You think denying other countries their fishing rights, mineral rights, and territorial rights in general is not interfering in their internal affairs.

 

I disagree.

[ChicagoExpat]

On 4/18/2023 at 8:24 PM, sscc said:

USA Government can choose Beijing or Taipei,  all up to the Americans. 

 

But USA recognizes Beijing diplomatically and agrees to ONE China policy,  

so how Taiwan  and mainland China deals in which way they choose is NONE of American business 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You say that about everything.  But Taiwan says it IS the U.S.'s business.  Being Chinese and always promoting the Chinese agenda on this forum, you'd like to force a false, binary choice... but neither you nor your Chinese leaders can do that.

[placeholder]

On 4/25/2023 at 7:08 AM, tonbridgebrit said:

 Hello heybruce.   ????
Look, if you want to condemn China because of the points you've raised, well, go and do it. But those things you've listed are not interfering with other countries internal affairs.   ????
They're actually external affairs.

I will try to explain. Vietnam is claiming ownership of certain parts of the South China Sea. China is claiming ownership of all of the South China Sea. And so, there are parts of the SCS where both Vietnam and China claim. Hence, China and Vietnam are in conflict, there's a dispute/fight over who owns that bit of the SCS. It's not an internal dispute.

What would be an internal dispute ?  I'ill give an examople. Okay, a group of guys inside Vietnam, they've got something against the government of Vietnam. There is conflict. And Beijing is now supporting these rebels, hoping that the rebels will throw out the Vietnamese government. Now, this is called interfering with an internal dispute.
If USA backs Vietnam in the SCS, or if USA backs China in the SCS, well, USA is not actually interfering with any countries internal affairs. But if a group of anti-communists in Vietnam are trying to remove the Communist regime that runs Vietnam, and if Washington backs the anti-communists, well, yes, that is interfering with Vietnam's internal affairs.

With China and Vietnam's dispute over the SCS, Vietnam is united with itself in claiming ownership of those parts of the SCS.

By the way, Republic of China is involved in this dispute over the SCS. How ?
It was back in 1947, Chiang Kai-Shek's Republic of China drew up the nine-dash-line map. This map claimed that the SCS belonged to Republic of China. In 1949, Mao Zedong won the civil war in China, he declared China's new name as Peoples' Republic of China. And very important, he claimed ownership of all the parts and bits that made up Republic of China. Hence, Mao Zedong claimed ownership of the SCS through that map.
Republic of China carried on claiming ownership of the SCS. And to this day, Republic of China, Taiwan, still claims ownership of the SCS because of that map. Taiwan has in island called Itu Aba (it's also called Taiping Island ) right in the middle of the SCS.  Here's the link on wikipedia.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Island

And by the way, Washington is neutral in the dispute over the SCS. Washington is not backing Vietnam in Vietnam's claims of ownership. And Washington is not backing Peoples' Republic of China over it's claims. And Washington is not backing Republic of China on Republic of China's claims over ownership.

How comes Washington is not backing Vietnam on it's claim ?   How comes Washington is not backing Republic of China on it's claim of ownership of the SCS ?  I'm sorry, I'm smirking in an evil way, I think you know why.    ????

They're only external affair because China claims them to be. By your logic, country A could occupy territory widely recognized as belonging to country B and deny that they are interfering in country B's internal affairs.. Given that all the nations that border on the South China Sea, apart from China, disagree with the Chinese claim, which is patently ridiculous as a glance at a map show, it's clear who has the better claims.

[placeholder]

If China does attack Taiwan most likely the motive will be to distract from the fact that Xi has badly screwed the Chinese economy. As long as he and the CCP are in power, China will remain a middle income nation.

[Harsh Jones]

On 4/12/2023 at 12:45 AM, Seppius said:

I believe its sabre-rattling in response to American drills, and their anti-Chinese rhetoric. They will not invade, just showing that they can

No it isn't. They are 100% going to invade. There is no way they are going to allow the US to recognize Taiwan and then start landing US naval ships on it. This was is more obvious than the Ukraine war was. The state of war already exists. The US is crossing China's red lines and there is no negotiations. 

 

Do you want to bet if there will be a war in the next 3-5 years or not  ?

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

No it isn't. They are 100% going to invade. There is no way they are going to allow the US to recognize Taiwan and then start landing US naval ships on it. This was is more obvious than the Ukraine war was. The state of war already exists. The US is crossing China's red lines and there is no negotiations. 

 

Do you want to bet if there will be a war in the next 3-5 years or not  ?

If a war occurs, I don't think it's going to be about red lines, whatever they are, but rather as a distraction from the poor state of the economy and China's future prospects. Xi may launch an attack on Taiwan. He has already launched one on the Chinese economy.

[Harsh Jones]

On 4/12/2023 at 5:10 AM, placeholder said:

Misleading? It's clear who's being misleading here.

So what you you call it if the Chinese military attacks Taiwan in order to establish control over it? Please, share with us those your enlightening term for it.

It is not China that is trying to change the status quo of Taiwan. It is the US who is violating the UN binding 1 China agreements. Not China. 

 

Right now Taiwan doesn't have Chinese naval bases on it. But it also doesn't have US naval bases on it. This is the essence of the conflict. The US is slowly trying to change the status quo of the island and if this process is not interrupted by China, the US will build naval bases on the island. Then the US controls Taiwan. This is obviously totally unacceptable to China. Just as Soviet naval bases and missile stations in Cuba were totally unacceptable to the US. 

 

This is exactly what the US did in Ukraine too. The US planned on building naval bases on Crimea in 2014. Russia took Crimea. So the US and UK just moved them a little ways over on the coast of Odessa.

 

2017 U.S. Navy Seabees Building Maritime Operations Center on Black Sea Coast

 

2019 U.S. Plan to Modernize Naval Base at Ukraine

Edited August 23, 2023 by Harsh Jones

[Harsh Jones]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If a war occurs, I don't think it's going to be about red lines, whatever they are, but rather as a distraction from the poor state of the economy and China's future prospects. Xi may launch an attack on Taiwan. He has already launched one on the Chinese economy.

So you think the US blockaded Cuba and depth charged a Soviet nuclear submarine in 1962 for the same reason?

 

Or maybe, just maybe, the USSR crossed the US's red line. Every major country has red lines. China's is very clearly and very obviously Taiwan. Russia's was Ukraine. Hitler staged his armies in Ukraine, the Japanese attacked China from Taiwan. Neither country is going to allow the next big power of the day, to set up shop in those regions. 

 

And the US is basically doing everything it can to provoke war by crossing those red lines. This is Ukraine all over again. US needs to speed up delivery of weapons to Taiwan, US general says

 

 

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

45 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

It is not China that is trying to change the status quo of Taiwan. It is the US who is violating the UN binding 1 China agreements. Not China. 

 

Right now Taiwan doesn't have Chinese naval bases on it. But it also doesn't have US naval bases on it. This is the essence of the conflict. The US is slowly trying to change the status quo of the island and if this process is not interrupted by China, the US will build naval bases on the island. Then the US controls Taiwan. This is obviously totally unacceptable to China. Just as Soviet naval bases and missile stations in Cuba were totally unacceptable to the US. 

 

This is exactly what the US did in Ukraine too. The US planned on building naval bases on Crimea in 2014. Russia took Crimea. So the US and UK just moved them a little ways over on the coast of Odessa.

 

2017 U.S. Navy Seabees Building Maritime Operations Center on Black Sea Coast

 

2019 U.S. Plan to Modernize Naval Base at Ukraine

I don't know why you are bringing Ukraine into this. Ukraine is a sovereign nation. There was no agreement not to build bases in Ukraine.

As for Cuba, that's ancient history now, isn't it?

And where is the evidence that the US is planning to build a naval base on Taiwan?

[eisfeld]

1 hour ago, Harsh Jones said:

This is exactly what the US did in Ukraine too. The US planned on building naval bases on Crimea in 2014

The article you linked to states they built the naval base for Ukraine. No permanent US troops stationed there. It was a reaction to Russia taking crimea and increasing military presence further in the area. We all know where that ended.

 

The US has no bases in Taiwan and have no plans to do so either. They don't have permanent stationed personel there.

 

Red lines or not. There is zero legitimacy to invade and destroy another country just because you feel threatened. Neither Ukraine nor the US threatened to invade Russia. Neither Taiwan nor the US threaten to invade China. But it is Russia who invaded Ukraine and it is China who is threatening of invading Taiwan. Simple as that.

Edited August 23, 2023 by eisfeld

[tonbridgebrit]

On 8/23/2023 at 5:52 AM, placeholder said:

I don't know why you are bringing Ukraine into this. Ukraine is a sovereign nation. There was no agreement not to build bases in Ukraine.

As for Cuba, that's ancient history now, isn't it?

And where is the evidence that the US is planning to build a naval base on Taiwan?

 

On 8/23/2023 at 6:39 AM, eisfeld said:

The article you linked to states they built the naval base for Ukraine. No permanent US troops stationed there. It was a reaction to Russia taking crimea and increasing military presence further in the area. We all know where that ended.

 

The US has no bases in Taiwan and have no plans to do so either. They don't have permanent stationed personel there.

 

Red lines or not. There is zero legitimacy to invade and destroy another country just because you feel threatened. Neither Ukraine nor the US threatened to invade Russia. Neither Taiwan nor the US threaten to invade China. But it is Russia who invaded Ukraine and it is China who is threatening of invading Taiwan. Simple as that.

Look, let's agree on a basic point.

If one US soldier, or one NATO soldier, dies defending Ukraine, well, that's a waste of one life.
And if one US soldier, or one NATO soldier, dies defending Republic of China (Taiwan) well, that's also a waste of one life.

Why on earth would America or NATO fight a war against Russia, because of Ukraine ? From that, why on earth would America or NATO fight a war against China, because of Republic of China ?

Yes, if Putin invades Britain, then yes, America has to nuke Russia. And if China invades Britain, then yes, America has to attack or nuke China. But Ukraine and Republic of China, well, leave it alone. And indeed, America is NOT fighting against Russia right now.

Who is crazy enough to think it's a good idea for NATO or America to send soldiers or combat jets to Ukraine ?  Who is crazy enough to reckon that American soldiers defending Taiwan, when/if China invades, is a reasonable idea ?

Edited August 24, 2023 by tonbridgebrit

[eisfeld]

12 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Look, let's agree on a basic point.

If one US soldier, or one NATO soldier, dies defending Ukraine, well, that's a waste of one life.
And if one US soldier, or one NATO soldier, dies defending Republic of China (Taiwan) well, that's also a waste of one life.

Why on earth would America or NATO fight a war against Russia, because of Ukraine ? From that, why on earth would America or NATO fight a war against China, because of Republic of China ?

Yes, if Putin invades Britain, then yes, America has to nuke Russia. And if China invades Britain, then yes, America has to attack or nuke China. But Ukraine and Republic of China, well, leave it alone. And indeed, America is NOT fighting against Russia right now.

I wouldn't agree on that. You are saying some allies are worth defending and some are not. You say Britain should be defended but Ukraine should be left to rot. And you know full well that it wont stop at Ukraine or Taiwan because both are not the first either. It's also about containing imperialistic ambitions of Russia and China. There are plenty of reasons to not just ignore it when some countries get brutally invaded. So yea, can't agree at all on this basic point.

 

17 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Who is crazy enough to think it's a good idea for NATO or America to send soldiers or combat jets to Ukraine ?  Who is crazy enough to reckon that American soldiers defending Taiwan, when/if China invades, is a reasonable idea ?

A very loaded question. They did not send soldiers to Ukraine to fight. Jets are being sent. They are sending only hardware and economical support. Defending a small player when a bully comes can be a very good idea because it puts the bully into his place. And if you do it only on a defensive basis then what's so bad about that? It's the only viable way to actually prevent invasions. No country would dare to attack a NATO country because they know all too well it wouldn't end well for them. These defense alliances work extremely well and allow smaller countries to actually survive in the presence of a powerful hostile neighbour.

[tonbridgebrit]

4 hours ago, eisfeld said:

I wouldn't agree on that. You are saying some allies are worth defending and some are not. You say Britain should be defended but Ukraine should be left to rot. And you know full well that it wont stop at Ukraine or Taiwan because both are not the first either. It's also about containing imperialistic ambitions of Russia and China. There are plenty of reasons to not just ignore it when some countries get brutally invaded. So yea, can't agree at all on this basic point.

 

A very loaded question. They did not send soldiers to Ukraine to fight. Jets are being sent. They are sending only hardware and economical support. Defending a small player when a bully comes can be a very good idea because it puts the bully into his place. And if you do it only on a defensive basis then what's so bad about that? It's the only viable way to actually prevent invasions. No country would dare to attack a NATO country because they know all too well it wouldn't end well for them. These defense alliances work extremely well and allow smaller countries to actually survive in the presence of a powerful hostile neighbour.

There are no NATO soldiers in Ukraine, nobody, and that includes you, nobody reckons that it will be a good idea to send NATO/American soldiers to Ukraine. Even if the war in Ukraine is still going on in two years time, it will be the case, of nobody thinking it's a good idea to send soldiers.

The above comment can be repeated with "Ukraine" removed, and "Republic of China, Taiwan" inserted.

What about combat jets ?  There's a huge difference between sending combat jets with NATO pilots, and selling/giving combat jets to Ukraine.  And with Taiwan, all the American military hardware that they've got was sold to them. None of it given, it's costing US taxpayers zero. This simply smacks of US companies making a profit from the situation.

It boils down to you, and others, avoiding a basic issue.   ????
The issue being this. America/NATO is not sending soldiers to fight in Ukraine. NATO is not sending combat jets to the sky above Ukraine. Sending NATO jets to fly above Ukraine (and having those jets firing missiles at Russia, or those jets can fired at by Russia) is the same as sending soldiers to Ukraine. That's why it hasn't been done. From this, why on earth send soldiers and combat jets to Taiwan when/if they get invaded, when there's been no soldiers sent to Ukraine.

And let's be clear, you're not interested in sending NATO soldiers to Ukraine.  ????

[tonbridgebrit]

4 hours ago, eisfeld said:

I wouldn't agree on that. You are saying some allies are worth defending and some are not. You say Britain should be defended but Ukraine should be left to rot. And you know full well that it wont stop at Ukraine or Taiwan because both are not the first either. It's also about containing imperialistic ambitions of Russia and China. There are plenty of reasons to not just ignore it when some countries get brutally invaded. So yea, can't agree at all on this basic point.

 

A very loaded question. They did not send soldiers to Ukraine to fight. Jets are being sent. They are sending only hardware and economical support. Defending a small player when a bully comes can be a very good idea because it puts the bully into his place. And if you do it only on a defensive basis then what's so bad about that? It's the only viable way to actually prevent invasions. No country would dare to attack a NATO country because they know all too well it wouldn't end well for them. These defense alliances work extremely well and allow smaller countries to actually survive in the presence of a powerful hostile neighbour.

 No country would dare attack NATO ?   You're right.
And Ukraine is not in NATO.  And Republic of China is not in NATO.  So, NATO is not being attacked.

And no country would dare attack Russia, why ?  Because Russia has got nukes. 
NATO has got nukes, that's why NATO (NATO, that includes Britain) will never be attacked. I said Britain should be defended. I'm saying, if Russia attacks/invades Britain, then NATO must nuke Russia, no two ways about it. As soon as Russia does any attack on Britain, yes, America must launch it's nukes (nukes in America, and elsewhere) onto Russia. That's because Britain is in NATO.

And when/if China invades Republic of China, no country would dare attack China, why ?  Because China, just like Russia, just like NATO, has got nukes.   ????

Edited August 24, 2023 by tonbridgebrit

[eisfeld]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

There are no NATO soldiers in Ukraine, nobody, and that includes you, nobody reckons that it will be a good idea to send NATO/American soldiers to Ukraine. Even if the war in Ukraine is still going on in two years time, it will be the case, of nobody thinking it's a good idea to send soldiers.

Maybe don't tell others what their opinion is. And to say that absolutely nobody thinks that sending NATO soldiers into Ukraine is obviosly false. You can find people who'd support that if you just bother to look.

 

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

What about combat jets ?  There's a huge difference between sending combat jets with NATO pilots, and selling/giving combat jets to Ukraine.  And with Taiwan, all the American military hardware that they've got was sold to them. None of it given, it's costing US taxpayers zero. This simply smacks of US companies making a profit from the situation.

I am not aware of any plans of western pilots actually manning the jets for Ukraine.

 

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

It boils down to you, and others, avoiding a basic issue.   ????
The issue being this. America/NATO is not sending soldiers to fight in Ukraine. NATO is not sending combat jets to the sky above Ukraine. Sending NATO jets to fly above Ukraine (and having those jets firing missiles at Russia, or those jets can fired at by Russia) is the same as sending soldiers to Ukraine. That's why it hasn't been done. From this, why on earth send soldiers and combat jets to Taiwan when/if they get invaded, when there's been no soldiers sent to Ukraine

I don't even understand what you are saying here. It is correct that having NATO pilots actually fly jets in Ukraine would be the same as sending soldiers that fight on the ground. But it's not happening. Neither in Ukraine nor Taiwan. No western soldier has done any fighting in Taiwan. So what's the point? Of course NATO tries to not get into a direct military confrontation if it can be avoided. And the same applies to Taiwan.

 

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

And let's be clear, you're not interested in sending NATO soldiers to Ukraine.  ????

Let's be clearer: what you meant to say is that I *should not* be interested in sending NATO soldiers to Ukraine (at this point). Because things would escalate quickly.

 

54 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

 No country would dare attack NATO ?   You're right.
And Ukraine is not in NATO.  And Republic of China is not in NATO.  So, NATO is not being attacked.

Correct but what's the point? A country not being a NATO member doesn't mean that NATO completely ignores whatever happens to them. All it means is that the Article 5 defense clause dose not automatically trigger. Russia invading Ukraine nonetheless poses a threat to the west. And so would China invading Taiwan pose an issue.

 

54 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

And no country would dare attack China, why ?  Because China, just like Russia, just like NATO, has got nukes.   ????

Even without nukes no country would be speaking about invading Russia or China. There is zero interest in doing so. These two powers are very big. Ukraine and Taiwan are not. They cannot defend themselves as is pretty obvious in Ukraine. They'd be defeated a long time ago without the support from their allies. It can't be a solution to hand everyone nukes and so we arrive at the present situation where big countries have to step in and help the smaller ones that can't defend themselves from aggressors.

Edited August 24, 2023 by eisfeld

[Neeranam]

On 4/12/2023 at 9:42 AM, vandeventer said:

China may move sooner that later against Taiwan with Biden at the helm. They seem to fear Trump as he will show strength and not weakness. Even with all the road blocks that Trump has in his way, the chances  are looking good for 2024 Trump victory.

Sad state of affairs, bring world peace, vote Trump.