The U.S. position on China and Taiwan

[BackAgain]

Actually, he did just fine.

You are just upset he beat your Orange Jesus.

Another false claim ^ from Joe Bitch.

How usual.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The problem is that our policy on Taiwan has been incoherent for 75 years. First we had the fantasy that Taiwan was the legitimate government of China and should have China's vote in the UN. Then we decided that there was only "one China" and it's government was in Beijing. But we will sell weapons to Taiwan and defend it if invaded, even though it's part of China.

To put it in comparison.

"China recognizes there is only one America, but we will sell weapons to the state of Alaska, and defend Alaska if the US attempts to reassert control over it. But we don't endorse Alaska declaring its independence under President Palin."

Now you see how truly absurd our policy is. But that's been our policy pretty much since Jimmy Carter.

terrible analogy

seriously terrible

do better

 

[JoeB131]

terrible analogy

seriously terrible

do better

Actually, it's a perfect analogy. We wouldn't tolerate a foreign country arming one of our states, why should China tolerate us arming one of their provinces?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Actually, it's a perfect analogy. We wouldn't tolerate a foreign country arming one of our states, why should China tolerate us arming one of their provinces?

perfect analogy?

There are no states in the USA that were created as breakaways from the USA.

Maybe try a civil war analogy.

and...

-

Welcome to the Official Portal Website of the Republic of China, Taiwan. Discover all the government's online information and services here.

www.taiwan.gov.tw

 

[JoeB131]

perfect analogy?

There are no states in the USA that were created as breakaways from the USA.

Maybe try a civil war analogy.

That's my whole point. We wouldn't tolerate it, and the world would completely back our position.

The thing was in 1950, most of our strategic planners expected the PRC to absorb Taiwan and we shouldn't get involved. Only when the Korean War broke out did we find Taiwan "useful".

 

[Rogue AI]

This country was not founded to go to war for other people, it was founded to create opportunities for the people here. Decades of idiotic foreign adventurism has taught us nothing. The best we can and should do is fix our problems and be the example for others to follow. Taiwan is not our problem, nor is any other country or territory.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That's my whole point. We wouldn't tolerate it, and the world would completely back our position.

The thing was in 1950, most of our strategic planners expected the PRC to absorb Taiwan and we shouldn't get involved. Only when the Korean War broke out did we find Taiwan "useful".

You appear to be wrong about "In 1950..."

WWII Potsdam and declaration on Formosa and the ROC. We found Formosa/Taiwan useful before 1950.

No US National Government ever relocated to Alaska or any other state. I do not dispute most facts, but it is your analogy that lacked any value or substance. The point you raise outside of the failed analogy is factual. It is your use of a false analogy that is of issue.

over with this


and history is important:

-

Welcome to the Official Portal Website of the Republic of China, Taiwan. Discover all the government's online information and services here.

www.taiwan.gov.tw

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This country was not founded to go to war for other people, it was founded to create opportunities for the people here. Decades of idiotic foreign adventurism has taught us nothing. The best we can and should do is fix our problems and be the example for others to follow. Taiwan is not our problem, nor is any other country or territory.

Hahahahahaha...

What is was founded on has no bearing on how it evolved. If the USA had not gotten involved in the World Wars, it would've ceased to exist on what it was founded upon.

Isolationism never ends up well.

 

[JoeB131]

You appear to be wrong about "In 1950..."

WWII Potsdam and declaration on Formosa and the ROC. We found Formosa/Taiwan useful before 1950.

Well, no, actually, we didn't. We returned Formosa to China in 1945, but the US had no real interest in it. There was an expectation that the Nationalists had lost, Mao had won, and them taking Taiwan was pretty much inevitable.

Only when we found ourselves more committed to the Region with Korea did we decide we needed to spend more money propping up "Peanut".

No US National Government ever relocated to Alaska or any other state. I do not dispute most facts, but it is your analogy that lacked any value or substance. The point you raise outside of the failed analogy is factual. It is your use of a false analogy that is of issue.

It's probably the best analogy you could come up with, since the US would never let anything like that happen.

The Civil War isn't a good analogy because the Confederates were openly in rebellion against the Union.

 

[Rogue AI]

Hahahahahaha...

What is was founded on has no bearing on how it evolved. If the USA had not gotten involved in the World Wars, it would've ceased to exist on what it was founded upon.

Isolationism never ends up well.

Who proposing isolation? Non-intervention is not the same thing. Sadly ignorant folks can't figure that out.

 

[drudge X]

Who proposing isolation? Non-intervention is not the same thing. Sadly ignorant folks can't figure that out.

Given the US as a superpower status, non-intervention is not an option. The US has too many national interest around the globe. Imagine if China can seize TSMC and choke the global supply or control the S. China Sea. Otherwise, we can save lots of money by shutting down 600 military bases around the world.

 

[Rogue AI]

Given the US as a superpower status, non-intervention is not an option. The US has too many national interest around the globe. Imagine if China can seize TSMC and choke the global supply or control the S. China Sea. Otherwise, we can save lots of money by shutting down 600 military bases around the world.

Of non-invention is an option. As the sole superpower our role should be neutral arbitrator. Clearly history shows us we cannot force our views and ways on others, it is for them to decide. We can however lead by example.

 

[JoeB131]

Given the US as a superpower status, non-intervention is not an option. The US has too many national interest around the globe. Imagine if China can seize TSMC and choke the global supply or control the S. China Sea. Otherwise, we can save lots of money by shutting down 600 military bases around the world.

Well, we could actually try not being so dependent on other countries.

China could probably wreck our economy by not shipping us stuff. They'd wreck their own economy in the process, of course.

 

[drudge X]

Well, we could actually try not being so dependent on other countries.

China could probably wreck our economy by not shipping us stuff. They'd wreck their own economy in the process, of course.

Yes, we should manufacture our own stuff but too many roadblocks. The elites want money and lots of money. Look at Jeff Bezos for example. He wants Prime subscribers to pay for another mega luxury yacht by adding commercials to Prime video unless subscribers fork out more money. He isn’t the only one. Walmart, Target, and Costco are all guilty parties along with Silicon Valley elites. This country’s elites are paying for the Chinese military only to have their nukes pointing at us. I blame both parties equally for this mess. If we cannot bring manufacturing back home, at least farm out to countries that cannot and have no plan to threaten us. Vietnam, Thailand, Mexico, and other Central and South American countries are good candidates. We can solve the illegal immigration problem while at it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Who proposing isolation? Non-intervention is not the same thing. Sadly ignorant folks can't figure that out.

Your comments I replied to were:

"This country was not founded to go to war for other people, it was founded to create opportunities for the people here. Decades of idiotic foreign adventurism has taught us nothing. The best we can and should do is fix our problems and be the example for others to follow. Taiwan is not our problem, nor is any other country or territory."

It if walks like a duck...

isolationism

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, we should manufacture our own stuff but too many roadblocks. The elites want money and lots of money. Look at Jeff Bezos for example. He wants Prime subscribers to pay for another mega luxury yacht by adding commercials to Prime video unless subscribers fork out more money. He isn’t the only one. Walmart, Target, and Costco are all guilty parties along with Silicon Valley elites. This country’s elites are paying for the Chinese military only to have their nukes pointing at us. I blame both parties equally for this mess. If we cannot bring manufacturing back home, at least farm out to countries that cannot and have no plan to threaten us. Vietnam, Thailand, Mexico, and other Central and South American countries are good candidates. We can solve the illegal immigration problem while at it.

Actually, what we should do is stop making an enemy of China, because China has no hostility towards us.

The roadblock to bringing manufacturing is that they don't want to follow our environmental laws or pay fair wages. That's kind of on us, not China.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well, no, actually, we didn't. We returned Formosa to China in 1945, but the US had no real interest in it. There was an expectation that the Nationalists had lost, Mao had won, and them taking Taiwan was pretty much inevitable.

Only when we found ourselves more committed to the Region with Korea did we decide we needed to spend more money propping up "Peanut".



It's probably the best analogy you could come up with, since the US would never let anything like that happen.

The Civil War isn't a good analogy because the Confederates were openly in rebellion against the Union.

The government in Taiwan came about because of a civil war.

next

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Actually, what we should do is stop making an enemy of China, because China has no hostility towards us.

China and the U.S. Are Long-term Enemies - Open to Debate

Is China’s ascendancy a threat to the U.S.? China’s rise as an economic and military power, coupled with its aggression in the South China Sea, have led some to call for a major rebalance of U.S. policy and strategy. Can China be trusted to act as a responsible global stakeholder? And will they...

opentodebate.org

 

[drudge X]

Actually, what we should do is stop making an enemy of China, because China has no hostility towards us.

The roadblock to bringing manufacturing is that they don't want to follow our environmental laws or pay fair wages. That's kind of on us, not China.

Our national interest always crosses path with China’s national interest. That will lead to confrontation even though not an enemy. They want to direct all shipping and flight traffic in the S. China Sea. That’s hostility especially in international airspace and water when they have no jurisdiction.

It’s not just environmental rules or decent wage China doesn’t want to pay. I blame the elites for telling Chinese manufacturers that this is what we are willing to pay you. It’s also easy for other government to blame big corporations for not paying decent wage to US workers when the government are major contributor to these problems.

 

[JoeB131]

The government in Taiwan came about because of a civil war.

next

It came about because we interferred in their civil war... otherwise the Commies would have taken it in 1945 and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

China and the U.S. Are Long-term Enemies - Open to Debate

Is China’s ascendancy a threat to the U.S.? China’s rise as an economic and military power, coupled with its aggression in the South China Sea, have led some to call for a major rebalance of U.S. policy and strategy. Can China be trusted to act as a responsible global stakeholder? And will they...

opentodebate.org

Boring.

China has never done anything bad to us.