Is the world at the beginning of a post-Western Order?

[Disir]

OK.

The only interest the US has in Taiwan or Hong Kong is proximity. It has nothing to do with flowers, freedom or democracy. When China saw the "Occupiers" in Hong Kong, they shut it down and got rid of the two candidates seeking independence. Again, proximity.

I am not arguing it is wrong or right but that it is.

Incidentally, the Philippines ceased to be a US territory July 4, 1946. Either it did or it did not.

China is included as a major player on the Security Council because.........it's a major player.

I'm confused as to why this is important? Are you saying that you don't care about the deaths of millions, by China, because of 1946? Taiwan is a ally. Always has been. Should we stand for what is right, or not?

If you support a pro-isolationist policy, then at least be consistent. Next time a genocide happens, shout heil hitler, and stay out of it. Just be consistent. If we are going to help defend allies, then we need to defend allies.

Because I can almost guarantee this. If you are not consistent, then this waffling on standing up for oppressed people will back fire. If China senses that we won't help, they will attack Taiwan, I promise you. And when they do, it will be a brutal bloody mess, and we'll end up being dragged into a war.

Taiwan is a part of China. They are not independent. Hence, the US being the only nation that recognizes Tawian's independence. It does so.............because of proximity.

There is no consistency. That is the problem that the international community has with the US and especially when it comes to genocide.

Taiwan is independent.

Again. Only the US recognizes that. One China two systems.
Taiwan - an Inalienable Part of China

 

[Unkotare]

OK.

The only interest the US has in Taiwan or Hong Kong is proximity. It has nothing to do with flowers, freedom or democracy. When China saw the "Occupiers" in Hong Kong, they shut it down and got rid of the two candidates seeking independence. Again, proximity.

I am not arguing it is wrong or right but that it is.

Incidentally, the Philippines ceased to be a US territory July 4, 1946. Either it did or it did not.

China is included as a major player on the Security Council because.........it's a major player.

I'm confused as to why this is important? Are you saying that you don't care about the deaths of millions, by China, because of 1946? Taiwan is a ally. Always has been. Should we stand for what is right, or not?

If you support a pro-isolationist policy, then at least be consistent. Next time a genocide happens, shout heil hitler, and stay out of it. Just be consistent. If we are going to help defend allies, then we need to defend allies.

Because I can almost guarantee this. If you are not consistent, then this waffling on standing up for oppressed people will back fire. If China senses that we won't help, they will attack Taiwan, I promise you. And when they do, it will be a brutal bloody mess, and we'll end up being dragged into a war.

Taiwan is a part of China. They are not independent. Hence, the US being the only nation that recognizes Tawian's independence. It does so.............because of proximity.

There is no consistency. That is the problem that the international community has with the US and especially when it comes to genocide.

Taiwan is independent.

Again. Only the US recognizes that. One China two systems.
Taiwan - an Inalienable Part of China

The reality of the situation is that Taiwan has an independent, democratically -elected government. They have a successful, independent economic system. They have a distinct culture from mainland China, and even an increasingly-divergent dialect of Mandarin. They are, for all intents and purposes, a separate and independent country. The "part of China" thing is a meaningless insistence on double-speak from the CCP.

 

[Disir]

OK.

The only interest the US has in Taiwan or Hong Kong is proximity. It has nothing to do with flowers, freedom or democracy. When China saw the "Occupiers" in Hong Kong, they shut it down and got rid of the two candidates seeking independence. Again, proximity.

I am not arguing it is wrong or right but that it is.

Incidentally, the Philippines ceased to be a US territory July 4, 1946. Either it did or it did not.

China is included as a major player on the Security Council because.........it's a major player.

I'm confused as to why this is important? Are you saying that you don't care about the deaths of millions, by China, because of 1946? Taiwan is a ally. Always has been. Should we stand for what is right, or not?

If you support a pro-isolationist policy, then at least be consistent. Next time a genocide happens, shout heil hitler, and stay out of it. Just be consistent. If we are going to help defend allies, then we need to defend allies.

Because I can almost guarantee this. If you are not consistent, then this waffling on standing up for oppressed people will back fire. If China senses that we won't help, they will attack Taiwan, I promise you. And when they do, it will be a brutal bloody mess, and we'll end up being dragged into a war.

Taiwan is a part of China. They are not independent. Hence, the US being the only nation that recognizes Tawian's independence. It does so.............because of proximity.

There is no consistency. That is the problem that the international community has with the US and especially when it comes to genocide.

Taiwan is independent.

Again. Only the US recognizes that. One China two systems.
Taiwan - an Inalienable Part of China

The reality of the situation is that Taiwan has an independent, democratically -elected government. They have a successful, independent economic system. They have a distinct culture from mainland China, and even an increasingly-divergent dialect of Mandarin. They are, for all intents and purposes, a separate and independent country. The "part of China" thing is a meaningless insistence on double-speak from the CCP.

The reality of the situation is Taiwan is a province of China and became increasingly economically dependent on China. They are a pr And there are many people in Taiwan that consider Taiwan to be a province. Not too many people keen on screwing the cash.

 

[Unkotare]

I'm confused as to why this is important? Are you saying that you don't care about the deaths of millions, by China, because of 1946? Taiwan is a ally. Always has been. Should we stand for what is right, or not?

If you support a pro-isolationist policy, then at least be consistent. Next time a genocide happens, shout heil hitler, and stay out of it. Just be consistent. If we are going to help defend allies, then we need to defend allies.

Because I can almost guarantee this. If you are not consistent, then this waffling on standing up for oppressed people will back fire. If China senses that we won't help, they will attack Taiwan, I promise you. And when they do, it will be a brutal bloody mess, and we'll end up being dragged into a war.

Taiwan is a part of China. They are not independent. Hence, the US being the only nation that recognizes Tawian's independence. It does so.............because of proximity.

There is no consistency. That is the problem that the international community has with the US and especially when it comes to genocide.

Taiwan is independent.

Again. Only the US recognizes that. One China two systems.
Taiwan - an Inalienable Part of China

The reality of the situation is that Taiwan has an independent, democratically -elected government. They have a successful, independent economic system. They have a distinct culture from mainland China, and even an increasingly-divergent dialect of Mandarin. They are, for all intents and purposes, a separate and independent country. The "part of China" thing is a meaningless insistence on double-speak from the CCP.

The reality of the situation is Taiwan is a province of China and became increasingly economically dependent on China. They are a pr And there are many people in Taiwan that consider Taiwan to be a province. Not too many people keen on screwing the cash.

You are wrong

 

[Unkotare]

OK.

The only interest the US has in Taiwan or Hong Kong is proximity. It has nothing to do with flowers, freedom or democracy. When China saw the "Occupiers" in Hong Kong, they shut it down and got rid of the two candidates seeking independence. Again, proximity.

I am not arguing it is wrong or right but that it is.

Incidentally, the Philippines ceased to be a US territory July 4, 1946. Either it did or it did not.

China is included as a major player on the Security Council because.........it's a major player.

I'm confused as to why this is important? Are you saying that you don't care about the deaths of millions, by China, because of 1946? Taiwan is a ally. Always has been. Should we stand for what is right, or not?

If you support a pro-isolationist policy, then at least be consistent. Next time a genocide happens, shout heil hitler, and stay out of it. Just be consistent. If we are going to help defend allies, then we need to defend allies.

Because I can almost guarantee this. If you are not consistent, then this waffling on standing up for oppressed people will back fire. If China senses that we won't help, they will attack Taiwan, I promise you. And when they do, it will be a brutal bloody mess, and we'll end up being dragged into a war.

Taiwan is a part of China. They are not independent. Hence, the US being the only nation that recognizes Tawian's independence. It does so.............because of proximity.

There is no consistency. That is the problem that the international community has with the US and especially when it comes to genocide.

Taiwan is independent.

Again. Only the US recognizes that. One China two systems.
Taiwan - an Inalienable Part of China

The reality of the situation is that Taiwan has an independent, democratically -elected government. They have a successful, independent economic system. They have a distinct culture from mainland China, and even an increasingly-divergent dialect of Mandarin. They are, for all intents and purposes, a separate and independent country. The "part of China" thing is a meaningless insistence on double-speak from the CCP.

.

 

[ThirdTerm]

A new poll in Taiwan shows that an overwhelming majority of Taiwanese people reject eventual unification with China. This comes a week after Tsai Ing-wen, the leader of the Taiwan’s pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), took office as president of Taiwan, having won an overwhelming and decisive electoral victory in January.

According to the new poll, 66.4% oppose unification and only 18.5% are in favor, while 15.1% remain noncommittal. The poll found that people in younger generations were more likely to favor Taiwan independence. In the 20-29 age group, 72% supported independence.

We should not meddle with the reunification issue and it's up the Taiwanese people to decide. A recent poll showed that 66.4% opposed unification and only 18.5% were in favor. Beijing would respect the will of the Taiwanese people and avoid any provocative action against the renegade province.

 

[Andylusion]

against a growing aggressive Japan

Japan takes historic step from post-war pacifism, OKs fighting for allies

Article 9. The changes to the Japans constitution were rammed in which pissed off about half of the Japanese people. The US supported that. Any "growing aggression" you see here is at odds with US current policy.

Which is my point. We're pulling back. Japan knows this. That's why they are slowing changing their constitution to become more militarized. And with a growing anti-Japanese sentiment in China.... this is not good. The more we pull back, the more Japan will step up, toe to toe with China.

I don't see this as a plus. I realize this is what the official US policy is. That doesn't mean I support it.

Japan did not slowly change their constitution. They rammed that in which much of the population objected to. The US did not pull back. You can't look at the joint military exercises, THAAD, the unification of Korea and even pretend there is pull back.

I would disagree with that. The BBC was talking about how Japanese ministers were pushing to changes to the constitution back in 2007 I believe, and the reasons according to the BBC documentary was that they saw the US as moving towards being less engaged with the world, and believed that the US may not be a reliable defense against potential Chinese aggression.

Now, I can't say for certain what definition of "rammed" you are using, but I don't see how 7 years of working on it, counts as 'rammed'.

And that's just been this recent push, that resulted in the 2014 re-interpretation. The debate, although smaller in scale prior to, really started in 1997. So we're talking about a 17 year process. What part of 'rammed' is 17 years long?

Whether there is a pull back, I don't know. Merely having exercises, doesn't mean we'd be there in the event of an attack.

And I think there has been a lot of talk since 2008, about bringing our troops home from abroad, and closing foriegn bases. Is that not true?

Do you think the concern by some Japanese politicians is not justified? And even if you do not, that is what they are saying.

 

[Disir]

against a growing aggressive Japan

Japan takes historic step from post-war pacifism, OKs fighting for allies

Article 9. The changes to the Japans constitution were rammed in which pissed off about half of the Japanese people. The US supported that. Any "growing aggression" you see here is at odds with US current policy.

Which is my point. We're pulling back. Japan knows this. That's why they are slowing changing their constitution to become more militarized. And with a growing anti-Japanese sentiment in China.... this is not good. The more we pull back, the more Japan will step up, toe to toe with China.

I don't see this as a plus. I realize this is what the official US policy is. That doesn't mean I support it.

Japan did not slowly change their constitution. They rammed that in which much of the population objected to. The US did not pull back. You can't look at the joint military exercises, THAAD, the unification of Korea and even pretend there is pull back.

I would disagree with that. The BBC was talking about how Japanese ministers were pushing to changes to the constitution back in 2007 I believe, and the reasons according to the BBC documentary was that they saw the US as moving towards being less engaged with the world, and believed that the US may not be a reliable defense against potential Chinese aggression.

Now, I can't say for certain what definition of "rammed" you are using, but I don't see how 7 years of working on it, counts as 'rammed'.

And that's just been this recent push, that resulted in the 2014 re-interpretation. The debate, although smaller in scale prior to, really started in 1997. So we're talking about a 17 year process. What part of 'rammed' is 17 years long?

Whether there is a pull back, I don't know. Merely having exercises, doesn't mean we'd be there in the event of an attack.

And I think there has been a lot of talk since 2008, about bringing our troops home from abroad, and closing foriegn bases. Is that not true?

Do you think the concern by some Japanese politicians is not justified? And even if you do not, that is what they are saying.

Technically there has been talk since the 1950s (from the LDP), because it was imposed by the US. Abe bypassed parliament to "reinterpret" the clause because he wasn't going to get an amendment passed. Then came 11 "security" bills allowing the military to fight in wars abroad to "support" allies and offer logistical support etc. Then there was a 3 day circus that included a knock down drag out brawl. It had nothing to do with the US withdrawing in any way, shape or form. In fact, Hagel applauded the package as being more effective.

One of the many concerns raised at the time by the Japanese opponents to this measure is they didn't want to be dragged into some kind of lengthy convoluted war like Iraq. The US absolutely supported these bills as a more "effective" tool to be used against China.

 

[Disir]

A new poll in Taiwan shows that an overwhelming majority of Taiwanese people reject eventual unification with China. This comes a week after Tsai Ing-wen, the leader of the Taiwan’s pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), took office as president of Taiwan, having won an overwhelming and decisive electoral victory in January.

According to the new poll, 66.4% oppose unification and only 18.5% are in favor, while 15.1% remain noncommittal. The poll found that people in younger generations were more likely to favor Taiwan independence. In the 20-29 age group, 72% supported independence.

We should not meddle with the reunification issue and it's up the Taiwanese people to decide. A recent poll showed that 66.4% opposed unification and only 18.5% were in favor. Beijing would respect the will of the Taiwanese people and avoid any provocative action against the renegade province.

Or else, amiright? Then we meddle.

 

[Moonglow]

The intrusion of aircraft-carrier battle groups—one from the United States, asserting its “freedom of navigation doctrine,” and the other from China, backing up its ownership claims—has raised the alarm level in the South China Sea dispute.

The US strike group apparently intends to launch regular patrols of the strategic waterway, in the wake of the show of force by the Chinese navy.

This month, the Americans, along with their South Korean allies, will also stage an elaborate military exercise in the East China Sea that will engage stealth jet fighters and long-distance bombers, plus one nuclear submarine.

Blunt gambit
Similarly, the rhetoric of the dispute is hitting a higher pitch. President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State says bluntly that “Chinese access to the islands is not going to be allowed.”

We have yet to see how things develop between the superpowers after that gambit; but we may be sure Hugh White, a strategist at the Australian National University (Canberra), speaks for many East Asians when he says, “Australia cannot risk supporting America at the expense of its relationship with China.”

China is Australia’s biggest market by far— taking more than 30% of all its exports. Most of the region’s states are similarly situated. But the question is larger than one of shifting markets.

At bottom, it seems a question of whether or not the world has reached “the limits of American stamina” (in the words of the English historian Niall Ferguson), and arrived at the beginning of a post-western order, in which China might have a leadership role.

A new world order?
Is the world at the beginning of a post-Western Order? - The Manila Times Online

I think that is going to be huge problem in the future. The quicker the US gets that the less problems there will be. Diplomacy all the way.

New world? I do believe the West is not concentrictic to the function of all humans on the planet..

 

[Marion Morrison]

against a growing aggressive Japan

Japan takes historic step from post-war pacifism, OKs fighting for allies

Article 9. The changes to the Japans constitution were rammed in which pissed off about half of the Japanese people. The US supported that. Any "growing aggression" you see here is at odds with US current policy.

Which is my point. We're pulling back. Japan knows this. That's why they are slowing changing their constitution to become more militarized. And with a growing anti-Japanese sentiment in China.... this is not good. The more we pull back, the more Japan will step up, toe to toe with China.

I don't see this as a plus. I realize this is what the official US policy is. That doesn't mean I support it.

Japan did not slowly change their constitution. They rammed that in which much of the population objected to. The US did not pull back. You can't look at the joint military exercises, THAAD, the unification of Korea and even pretend there is pull back.

I would disagree with that. The BBC was talking about how Japanese ministers were pushing to changes to the constitution back in 2007 I believe, and the reasons according to the BBC documentary was that they saw the US as moving towards being less engaged with the world, and believed that the US may not be a reliable defense against potential Chinese aggression.

Now, I can't say for certain what definition of "rammed" you are using, but I don't see how 7 years of working on it, counts as 'rammed'.

And that's just been this recent push, that resulted in the 2014 re-interpretation. The debate, although smaller in scale prior to, really started in 1997. So we're talking about a 17 year process. What part of 'rammed' is 17 years long?

Whether there is a pull back, I don't know. Merely having exercises, doesn't mean we'd be there in the event of an attack.

And I think there has been a lot of talk since 2008, about bringing our troops home from abroad, and closing foriegn bases. Is that not true?

Do you think the concern by some Japanese politicians is not justified? And even if you do not, that is what they are saying.

We're already there.

 

[Disir]

The intrusion of aircraft-carrier battle groups—one from the United States, asserting its “freedom of navigation doctrine,” and the other from China, backing up its ownership claims—has raised the alarm level in the South China Sea dispute.

The US strike group apparently intends to launch regular patrols of the strategic waterway, in the wake of the show of force by the Chinese navy.

This month, the Americans, along with their South Korean allies, will also stage an elaborate military exercise in the East China Sea that will engage stealth jet fighters and long-distance bombers, plus one nuclear submarine.

Blunt gambit
Similarly, the rhetoric of the dispute is hitting a higher pitch. President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State says bluntly that “Chinese access to the islands is not going to be allowed.”

We have yet to see how things develop between the superpowers after that gambit; but we may be sure Hugh White, a strategist at the Australian National University (Canberra), speaks for many East Asians when he says, “Australia cannot risk supporting America at the expense of its relationship with China.”

China is Australia’s biggest market by far— taking more than 30% of all its exports. Most of the region’s states are similarly situated. But the question is larger than one of shifting markets.

At bottom, it seems a question of whether or not the world has reached “the limits of American stamina” (in the words of the English historian Niall Ferguson), and arrived at the beginning of a post-western order, in which China might have a leadership role.

A new world order?
Is the world at the beginning of a post-Western Order? - The Manila Times Online

I think that is going to be huge problem in the future. The quicker the US gets that the less problems there will be. Diplomacy all the way.

New world? I do believe the West is not concentrictic to the function of all humans on the planet..

I agree. That said, the OP came from the Philippines where this has been an ongoing debate of being caught between China and the US.

 

[Moonglow]

The intrusion of aircraft-carrier battle groups—one from the United States, asserting its “freedom of navigation doctrine,” and the other from China, backing up its ownership claims—has raised the alarm level in the South China Sea dispute.

The US strike group apparently intends to launch regular patrols of the strategic waterway, in the wake of the show of force by the Chinese navy.

This month, the Americans, along with their South Korean allies, will also stage an elaborate military exercise in the East China Sea that will engage stealth jet fighters and long-distance bombers, plus one nuclear submarine.

Blunt gambit
Similarly, the rhetoric of the dispute is hitting a higher pitch. President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State says bluntly that “Chinese access to the islands is not going to be allowed.”

We have yet to see how things develop between the superpowers after that gambit; but we may be sure Hugh White, a strategist at the Australian National University (Canberra), speaks for many East Asians when he says, “Australia cannot risk supporting America at the expense of its relationship with China.”

China is Australia’s biggest market by far— taking more than 30% of all its exports. Most of the region’s states are similarly situated. But the question is larger than one of shifting markets.

At bottom, it seems a question of whether or not the world has reached “the limits of American stamina” (in the words of the English historian Niall Ferguson), and arrived at the beginning of a post-western order, in which China might have a leadership role.

A new world order?
Is the world at the beginning of a post-Western Order? - The Manila Times Online

I think that is going to be huge problem in the future. The quicker the US gets that the less problems there will be. Diplomacy all the way.

New world? I do believe the West is not concentrictic to the function of all humans on the planet..

I agree. That said, the OP came from the Philippines where this has been an ongoing debate of being caught between China and the US.

China was a world class power in the eras before western industrialization, why wouldn't it move back into that position after industrializing and playing the same game as the West?

 

[Disir]

The intrusion of aircraft-carrier battle groups—one from the United States, asserting its “freedom of navigation doctrine,” and the other from China, backing up its ownership claims—has raised the alarm level in the South China Sea dispute.

The US strike group apparently intends to launch regular patrols of the strategic waterway, in the wake of the show of force by the Chinese navy.

This month, the Americans, along with their South Korean allies, will also stage an elaborate military exercise in the East China Sea that will engage stealth jet fighters and long-distance bombers, plus one nuclear submarine.

Blunt gambit
Similarly, the rhetoric of the dispute is hitting a higher pitch. President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State says bluntly that “Chinese access to the islands is not going to be allowed.”

We have yet to see how things develop between the superpowers after that gambit; but we may be sure Hugh White, a strategist at the Australian National University (Canberra), speaks for many East Asians when he says, “Australia cannot risk supporting America at the expense of its relationship with China.”

China is Australia’s biggest market by far— taking more than 30% of all its exports. Most of the region’s states are similarly situated. But the question is larger than one of shifting markets.

At bottom, it seems a question of whether or not the world has reached “the limits of American stamina” (in the words of the English historian Niall Ferguson), and arrived at the beginning of a post-western order, in which China might have a leadership role.

A new world order?
Is the world at the beginning of a post-Western Order? - The Manila Times Online

I think that is going to be huge problem in the future. The quicker the US gets that the less problems there will be. Diplomacy all the way.

New world? I do believe the West is not concentrictic to the function of all humans on the planet..

I agree. That said, the OP came from the Philippines where this has been an ongoing debate of being caught between China and the US.

China was a world class power in the eras before western industrialization, why wouldn't it move back into that position after industrializing and playing the same game as the West?

Exactly. They have heavily invested in Africa and South America and will often go to more turbulent areas for oil. Further, they have engaged in proxy wars but don't take the center stage as much as Russia and the US do.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm confused as to why this is important? Are you saying that you don't care about the deaths of millions, by China, because of 1946? Taiwan is a ally. Always has been. Should we stand for what is right, or not?

If you support a pro-isolationist policy, then at least be consistent. Next time a genocide happens, shout heil hitler, and stay out of it. Just be consistent. If we are going to help defend allies, then we need to defend allies.

Because I can almost guarantee this. If you are not consistent, then this waffling on standing up for oppressed people will back fire. If China senses that we won't help, they will attack Taiwan, I promise you. And when they do, it will be a brutal bloody mess, and we'll end up being dragged into a war.

Taiwan is a part of China. They are not independent. Hence, the US being the only nation that recognizes Tawian's independence. It does so.............because of proximity.

There is no consistency. That is the problem that the international community has with the US and especially when it comes to genocide.

Taiwan is independent.

Again. Only the US recognizes that. One China two systems.
Taiwan - an Inalienable Part of China

The reality of the situation is that Taiwan has an independent, democratically -elected government. They have a successful, independent economic system. They have a distinct culture from mainland China, and even an increasingly-divergent dialect of Mandarin. They are, for all intents and purposes, a separate and independent country. The "part of China" thing is a meaningless insistence on double-speak from the CCP.

The reality of the situation is Taiwan is a province of China and became increasingly economically dependent on China. They are a pr And there are many people in Taiwan that consider Taiwan to be a province. Not too many people keen on screwing the cash.

First, that isn't true.

Analysis | The Taiwanese see themselves as Taiwanese, not as Chinese

Second, the theory of economic dependence, will prevent war, has never been true. Ukraine was, and some extent still is, economically dependent on Russia. That hasn't stopped them from waging a war against Russians, and adopting anti-russian policies.

Same is true of North Korea, which has threatened virtually all of the surrounding countries that they are economically dependent on. This recent problem with Malaysia is a perfect example. NKorea only had ONE real ally, and they pretty much screwed that over completely.

Again the same argument was made, as to way World War 1, can't ever happen. Apparently some nations missed that memo.