China remains a threat to Taiwan - Trump is trying to prepare but the disloyal democrats are not cooperating

[martybegan]

Except China's claims aren't from 500 years ago.

China had a valid claim to those Islands as recently as WWII. Only after Vietnam and the Philippines became independent did they try to make claims on these Islands they have no historical link to.

(And I love the Filipinos, I think they are wonderful people. But this is stupid.)

"valid"

**** them.

Just because you are getting ChiComm poontang doesn't mean you have to dicksuck their government.

 

[JoeB131]

"valid"

**** them.

Just because you are getting ChiComm poontang doesn't mean you have to dicksuck their government.

And just because you aren't isn't a good reason to encourage a war over crappy little Islands.

No blood for Oil.
No blood for microchips

 

[drudge X]

Chinese officials and scholars trace China’s maritime claims back to the Qin and Han dynasties (circa 221 BC–220 AD) and claim its maritime boundary was established during the Qing dynasty (circa 1644–911): “China has maintained her sovereignty over these island chains by ways of discovery, naming, mapping, patrol and control, public and private use, administrative allocation of jurisdiction, and other manifestations of authority throughout history.”1

Nope, China was given a chance to prove the China is the owner of the S. China Sea. All the CCP dud was produced a book which no one can make out what's in the book but said the book detailing how fishermen navigated the routes and therefore automatically belongs to China. Kim Jong is the only ally who recognized the claim. The rest, hogwash.

 

[drudge X]

Oh, it's probably true. What's your point?

The problem with Westerners is that they don't recognize most of China's attitudes come from the 100 years of humiliation between 1839 and 1945.

That's like saying we should hand out reparations for slavery when no one alive in this country today owns a slave from 1860.

 

[drudge X]

By the way Joe, didn't I tell you China is eyeing for the resources rich Siberia? China knows Russia is weaken. Why do you think China is encouraging Russia to continue with the war against Ukraine? They are allies for window dressing only. The moment Vlad hits the bucket, expect confrontation or could be sooner knowing the Russian military's morale is low. Most troops are on the West. About 50,000 are in that disputed, sparsely, and underdeveloped region. Easy target for China.

Is China planning a Russian land grab? What to know

Beneath the surface of the quasi-alliance exists territorial tensions dating back to the 19th century.

www.newsweek.com

 

[ThirdTerm]

The conclusion of the Newsweek article is that China-Russia ties have never been closer and none of the border disputes are on the horizon. All they can do is purchasing and leasing farmland in Siberia, exerting Chinese soft power in the border region. If China invades a neighboring country, economic sanctions will end China's economic boom for good, which benefits its rivals such as Japan and South Korea.

Lyle Goldstein, Director of Asia Engagement at the Defense Priorities think tank, argues that China-Russia ties have never been closer.

"Are there day-to-day frustrations and some bitter complaints here and there? Sure," he told Newsweek. "Russians, in particular, are a little bit bitter that the Chinese have not helped them more in the Russia-Ukraine War, for example. But overall, the relationship is healthy and developing robustly in all directions."

"I do believe that one reason the Chinese and Russians are getting along so well is that they have both faced substantial strategic pressure from 'excessive balancing' by the U.S. and its allies," Goldstein added. "Nevertheless, the bilateral China-Russia relationship is healthy and stable. There have been no real crises in the last 30-plus years and, despite some dire predictions in the West, I see none on the horizon."

 

[JoeB131]

Nope, China was given a chance to prove the China is the owner of the S. China Sea. All the CCP dud was produced a book which no one can make out what's in the book but said the book detailing how fishermen navigated the routes and therefore automatically belongs to China. Kim Jong is the only ally who recognized the claim. The rest, hogwash.

Um, no. China's claim goes back to the Qing Dynasty (which ended in 1911) and the Republic of China (Taiwan claims the same Islands.)

Here's the problem. These Islands were (and still are) largely uninhabited. China has been expanding the ones they claim by dumping tons of gravel onto them to expand them.

The Philippines is just beaching an old freighter to give their guys a place to stand. (This must be the shit detail of the Philippine Navy.)

That's like saying we should hand out reparations for slavery when no one alive in this country today owns a slave from 1860.

Why not?

By the way Joe, didn't I tell you China is eyeing for the resources rich Siberia? China knows Russia is weaken. Why do you think China is encouraging Russia to continue with the war against Ukraine? They are allies for window dressing only. The moment Vlad hits the bucket, expect confrontation or could be sooner knowing the Russian military's morale is low. Most troops are on the West. About 50,000 are in that disputed, sparsely, and underdeveloped region. Easy target for China.

Farily unlikely, given Russia will still have nukes.

If China wanted to claim something, they could claim Outer Mongolia. They haven't.

Why?

Because it's not Chinese.

Taiwan is Chinese. That's why they are claiming it.

 

[drudge X]

Um, no. China's claim goes back to the Qing Dynasty (which ended in 1911) and the Republic of China (Taiwan claims the same Islands.)

Here's the problem. These Islands were (and still are) largely uninhabited. China has been expanding the ones they claim by dumping tons of gravel onto them to expand them.

The Philippines is just beaching an old freighter to give their guys a place to stand. (This must be the shit detail of the Philippine Navy.)



Why not?



Farily unlikely, given Russia will still have nukes.

If China wanted to claim something, they could claim Outer Mongolia. They haven't.

Why?

Because it's not Chinese.

Taiwan is Chinese. That's why they are claiming it.

There is no basis for China’s claim. Zero, nada, zilch despite you running interference for them. If the CCP has the evidence as claimed, China would challenge the Philippines in court. By not challenging and using this might is right attitude, their claim has no bearings. It doesn’t matter what you believe. International law already invalidated their claim.

As for the Philippines, let’s just say the country was managed by morons leading from behind. China didn’t do any reclamation when US had two monstrous bases there. Filipinos were so proud after they kicked the Yankees out when the lease expired. They didn’t feel like being the vassal role for the US. China easily made the move. S. Korea and Japan once thought about fostering closer ties with China because of the US foreign policy when Bush was in office. Today, fat chance.

Russia has nukes and then what? China has nukes too. I doubt both of them are stupid enough to wipe each other off the map. It will be a conventional war. Nuking your neighbor who also has nukes isn’t a good idea. What resources are available in Mongolia that China turned away but prefer the S. China Sea and Siberia? In case you forgot, oil powers the global economy. Mongolia has no oil but Siberia and S. China Sea have oil.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no basis for China’s claim. Zero, nada, zilch despite you running interference for them. If the CCP has the evidence as claimed, China would challenge the Philippines in court. By not challenging and using this might is right attitude, their claim has no bearings. It doesn’t matter what you believe. International law already invalidated their claim.

We've pretty much seen the ICC is worthless, so why bother? Especially when you have a Navy to stake your claim and Bongbong doesn't. (Yes, the leader of the Philippines is nicknamed Bongbong. He's the son of the guy who was a brutal dictator in the 1980s.)

As for the Philippines, let’s just say the country was managed by morons leading from behind. China didn’t do any reclamation when US had two monstrous bases there. Filipinos were so proud after they kicked the Yankees out when the lease expired. They didn’t feel like being the vassal role for the US. China easily made the move. S. Korea and Japan once thought about fostering closer ties with China because of the US foreign policy when Bush was in office. Today, fat chance.

Um, S. Korea does 328 billion in trade with China, and Japan does 308 billion. (Making them their second and third largest trading partners, with the US being #1.) Taiwan, incidentally, is #4. So all their screaming about "China is being mean to us", they all belly up to the bar.

The Philippines is #20, because they don't have any money. I think their biggest export to China right now is mail-order brides.

Russia has nukes and then what? China has nukes too. I doubt both of them are stupid enough to wipe each other off the map. It will be a conventional war. Nuking your neighbor who also has nukes isn’t a good idea. What resources are available in Mongolia that China turned away but prefer the S. China Sea and Siberia? In case you forgot, oil powers the global economy. Mongolia has no oil but Siberia and S. China Sea have oil.

Exactly, they are too stupid to start a nuclear war over some frozen Tundra when China can get the same result through trade. Oh, Russia, #6 on China's Dance Partner card, with 244.88 billion in trade.

 

[martybegan]

And just because you aren't isn't a good reason to encourage a war over crappy little Islands.

No blood for Oil.
No blood for microchips

Oil runs our economy, microchips are required for a modern society.

Those two phrases ring hollow.

 

[JoeB131]

Oil runs our economy, microchips are required for a modern society.

Those two phrases ring hollow.

Then we should just pay a fair price for them or make our own.

Not go to war for them.

I think you should sign up right now, if you think this is so important.

"I want to be an airborne ranger
Fight for chips for total strangers."

 

[martybegan]

Then we should just pay a fair price for them or make our own.

Not go to war for them.

I think you should sign up right now, if you think this is so important.

"I want to be an airborne ranger
Fight for chips for total strangers."

We aren't at war for them. But you think we should let international bullies bully because you hate your own country.

 

[JoeB131]

We aren't at war for them. But you think we should let international bullies bully because you hate your own country.

No, I'm just a pragmatist.

The only international Bully I see right now is us, kidnapping foreign leaders and demanding they turn over their oil.

Here's the thing. We don't recognize a country called "Taiwan". There is a government on Taiwan that calls itself "The Republic Of China". Its people are 98% Han Chinese, they speak Mandarin, and they write in Hanzi.

So by our own definitions, the conflict between Beijing and Taipei is an internal Chinese civil matter.

 

[martybegan]

No, I'm just a pragmatist.

The only international Bully I see right now is us, kidnapping foreign leaders and demanding they turn over their oil.

Here's the thing. We don't recognize a country called "Taiwan". There is a government on Taiwan that calls itself "The Republic Of China". Its people are 98% Han Chinese, they speak Mandarin, and they write in Hanzi.

So by our own definitions, the conflict between Beijing and Taipei is an internal Chinese civil matter.

he had a warrant out for his arrest.

Again, our de jure position is not our de facto position. You just don't seem to get that.

 

[JoeB131]

he had a warrant out for his arrest.

Was there also an arrest warrant out for their oil?

And the US was perfectly free to request extradition. However, invading a country to arrest a foreign Leader is a violation of the UN Charter.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/legality-us-capture-venezuelas-maduro-focus-united-nations-2026-01-04/

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres views the U.S. operation as setting "a dangerous precedent," his spokesperson said on Saturday. Many legal experts also say the U.S. action was illegal, although Washington will be able to block any attempts by the U.N. Security Council to hold it accountable.

Again, our de jure position is not our de facto position. You just don't seem to get that.

Because it's a pretty stupid policy. 'Hey, kid, we want you to die needlessly in a war over a place we don't recognize as a country, to keep the flow of chips going!"

 

[martybegan]

Was there also an arrest warrant out for their oil?

And the US was perfectly free to request extradition. However, invading a country to arrest a foreign Leader is a violation of the UN Charter.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/legality-us-capture-venezuelas-maduro-focus-united-nations-2026-01-04/

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres views the U.S. operation as setting "a dangerous precedent," his spokesperson said on Saturday. Many legal experts also say the U.S. action was illegal, although Washington will be able to block any attempts by the U.N. Security Council to hold it accountable.



Because it's a pretty stupid policy. 'Hey, kid, we want you to die needlessly in a war over a place we don't recognize as a country, to keep the flow of chips going!"

Again, we did it with Noriega, so there is plenty of precedent.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, we did it with Noriega, so there is plenty of precedent.

Noriega wasn't a head of state.

The president of Panama at that time was a fellow named Rodríguez.

 

[martybegan]

Noriega wasn't a head of state.

The president of Panama at that time was a fellow named Rodríguez.

He was the guy in charge, regardless of his title.

Gorbachev was the head of the communist party, not the actual government of the Soviet Union, but he ran things.

Semantics.

 

[JoeB131]

He was the guy in charge, regardless of his title.

Gorbachev was the head of the communist party, not the actual government of the Soviet Union, but he ran things.

Semantics.

Not semantics at all.

There's a difference between a party boss and a duly appointed Head of State.

Here's the thing. The "actual" President of Panama went along with the arrest of Noriega. Then you had that silly thing of him hiding in the Vatican Embassy while we played Rock Music to keep him up at night.

 

[martybegan]

Not semantics at all.

There's a difference between a party boss and a duly appointed Head of State.

Here's the thing. The "actual" President of Panama went along with the arrest of Noriega. Then you had that silly thing of him hiding in the Vatican Embassy while we played Rock Music to keep him up at night.

Not really, and only on paper.

Same as with your fixation on following the CCP party line on Taiwan.