US Military To Prep For War If Pelosi Goes To Taiwan: REPORT

[Vrenn]

Already showing your ignorance. It is the United States of America. The States make up the Union, and the people decide the course of the states.

You aren't even trying to stay on mark. You are just stringing works at a attempt for you to sound brilliant. Most Morons do that.

Again, you have been led astray, possibly by design, possibly by ignorance. During the mid-twentieth century, China most certainly did adopt communist practices, which culminated in the formation of the current regime we see today. The communist element learned their art of deception from eastern European influences, and including Russia. That deception led to the massacre of hundreds of thousands of good Chinese people, as well as the antihalation of so much great Chinese history, art and even religion. In fact, the CCP spent so much money and effort trying to export their influence, it caused the deaths of even more Chinese people due to starvation in the latter half of the 1900's.

Communism can't exist on a national level. The fact that the Chinese has military, and a whole lot of "Social" programs says they might be a socialist country. But when you add in the fact that China also has only a few government owned national businesses then your stupidity shines through.l

Socialism is not at all like Capitalism. Socialism is an all-encompasing, all consuming falsehood. It has gone by many names throughout history. The current edition even incorporates "Social" in it's very name: it indicates that it is a system of social hierarchy in which only elite members are entitled to power and control.

Like most Western Countries, we use Capitalism to make money and get the assistance of Socialism to make it possible to have that capitalism. When y ou have a Corporation make the products and the government coming in a installing things like roads, bridges, banks and more to support the people that are working for the corporation then you have a modern free country.

Capitalism is simply a description of an economic system, it has nothing to do with social bounds. Here in the greatest nation the world has ever known, we prefer a Representational Democratic system of society, which includes the allowance for whatever economic system the people see fit to implement. Personally, I prefer free market capitalism as it is the most equitable system ever: those who produce get rewarded. The only problem with it is that those who fail require support, and without a functioning community and church, people will fall through the cracks and become destitute. The Christian way was to help those people, but now that doctrine of socialism has taken root and made religion and community a "bad" thing, there is a problem. Socialism cannot allow for religion or worship of anything outside it's all-encompassing grasp: socialism IS the religion.

You leave out the fact, in order for the workers to just get to work they require roads, bridges, and a host of other Social programs. Since you claim to your version of a Capitalist, let's get you to live by that. You can no longer drive on the roads (but you don't have to be licensed to drive anymore because you can't drive on the roads) You can only drive on your own personal property. Your lights no longer work so you have better get used to sleeping when it gets dark and stay awake when it's light. Sorry, but you are going to have to shut down your Natural Gas as that's supplemented by a Social Program. I really don't know how you are even going to walk to go shopping because the sidewalks are another social program. Give up the Social Programs means that you can't access the Capitalism jobs. And you get fired or arrested for illegally using the social programs without paying for them. Without these social programs, capitalism cannot operate past a handful of employees and one single owner. Sorry, but they shut the "company store" down almost 100 years ago.

 

[JoeB131]

Any time naked aggression is used in place of democracy is a good place for War. Taiwan has been an independent country, backed by treaties signed by the USA for their defense due to their democratic and people centered governance, for more than 70 years. Israel has a shorter history than Taiwan.

Except we don't recognize Taiwan as an independent country. We recognize is as a province of China. Also, Taiwain has only been a "Democracy" since 1996. Before that it was a fascist dictatorship under "Cash-my-Check", aka "Peanut".

I'd also have no problem if Israel were wiped off the map, but that's neither here nor there.

Except Taiwan has demonstrated good will toward civilization and toward peace and prosperity for mankind for over 70 years. China has been a hopeful candidate of the people, but is currently falling FAR SHORT of good will and desire for peace.

Uh, guy, we've thrown in with countries that are far worse than China is, when it suited our purpose. We even threw in with China when it was a lot worse when we wanted to play them off against the Soviets.

No country has the "right" to invade another sovereign country. The UN is run by socialists like Russia, US (under Biden) and China, itself. If you believe the CCP is a good thing, then That's all I need to know about you, personally.

Taiwan isn't a sovereign country, it's a rogue province of China. Actually, China has shown remarkable restraint in NOT invading it.

 

[Samofvt]

Except we don't recognize Taiwan as an independent country. We recognize is as a province of China. Also, Taiwain has only been a "Democracy" since 1996. Before that it was a fascist dictatorship under "Cash-my-Check", aka "Peanut".

I'd also have no problem if Israel were wiped off the map, but that's neither here nor there.



Uh, guy, we've thrown in with countries that are far worse than China is, when it suited our purpose. We even threw in with China when it was a lot worse when we wanted to play them off against the Soviets.

View attachment 679236





Taiwan isn't a sovereign country, it's a rogue province of China. Actually, China has shown remarkable restraint in NOT invading it.

You would be much better off if you stop making shit up and twisting facts to suit a narrative that was given to you by a propaganda machine.

That picture you found is one taken after the Nixon administration (Kissinger) negotiated with the Chinese to establish an American liasion mission in Beijing as a first step toward ultimate recognition. The only thing holding up talks until that point was the fact that USA recognized Taiwan as an independent nation, while China, up until then, refused.

The picture was about Taiwan being established as a protected state under the US's umbrella, but celebrating that the USA and China could still conduct business and talks.

You should read up some more about Détente era politics.

Any other non-sense you care to spout out of your imagination?

 

[Samofvt]

You aren't even trying to stay on mark. You are just stringing works at a attempt for you to sound brilliant. Most Morons do that.

What you called the USA isn't anything remotely accurate about the country or it's political structure.

Communism can't exist on a national level. The fact that the Chinese has military, and a whole lot of "Social" programs says they might be a socialist country. But when you add in the fact that China also has only a few government owned national businesses then your stupidity shines through.l

All businesses in China are owned and ultimately controlled by the CCP. In recent years, they've tried to make many of them "look" independent on paper in order to take advantage of free markets (stock exchanges). Many investors have had great hope that investing in those companies would help spread free market capitalism and along with it more freedom to the people and better relations. The recent return of hard line CCP actions seem to indicate otherwise. Also, the fact that many of those investment companies met with less than scrupulous demises (take the Chinese real estate fiasco) contributes to the suspicion that the CCP is really pulling the strings, as always. Socialism and Communism require either free market capitalism to prey upon, or they require a slave population.

Like most Western Countries, we use Capitalism to make money and get the assistance of Socialism to make it possible to have that capitalism. When y ou have a Corporation make the products and the government coming in a installing things like roads, bridges, banks and more to support the people that are working for the corporation then you have a modern free country.

You've got it backwards. Socialism is not possible without capitalism or slavery. In most cases, the roads, bridges and other infrastructure are paid for by the business that requires them, and the people who use them. There is no doubt that the civil works projects you are talking about belong under the control of the people, and we do that by electing representatives that will hire the best engineers and construction companies for the job. Government doesn't GIVE anything without first taking it from the people and the businesses it serves.

You leave out the fact, in order for the workers to just get to work they require roads, bridges, and a host of other Social programs.

Social programs are not a requirement. The proper place for people to get support from is their community.

Since you claim to your version of a Capitalist, let's get you to live by that. You can no longer drive on the roads (but you don't have to be licensed to drive anymore because you can't drive on the roads)

The people will get together, raise necessary funds, and hire contractors to build the roads. This is how it works.

You can only drive on your own personal property.

Who enacted that law? The people should simply get together in a democratic way and decide if they want to continue this, or if it would be beneficial to have commonly owned property for the purpose of travel.

Your lights no longer work so you have better get used to sleeping when it gets dark and stay awake when it's light. Sorry, but you are going to have to shut down your Natural Gas as that's supplemented by a Social Program.

Why is it supplemented by a Social Program? If I can't afford to pay the gas bill, I should seek help from the local community. Or perhaps I should hire another gas company that has better prices to install a connection to my home.

I really don't know how you are even going to walk to go shopping because the sidewalks are another social program.

Sidewalks are not a social program. They are an agreed upon improvement, a civil works project. In my neighborhood, not all roads have sidewalks because the people have voted not to spend their tax money installing them. If enough people decide they want them, the vote will change, and we will allocate our tax money toward that purpose.

Give up the Social Programs means that you can't access the Capitalism jobs. And you get fired or arrested for illegally using the social programs without paying for them. Without these social programs, capitalism cannot operate past a handful of employees and one single owner. Sorry, but they shut the "company store" down almost 100 years ago.

You can't have Social Programs (I think you mean civil works) without a way to pay for them or a way to have the work done: you either need capitalism that generates revenue that gets shared among workers and to pay for necessary improvements, or you need a slave population that works for free.

Socialism and Social Programs are two very different things. Under socialism, everything belongs to the government, and the government elite decide what gets doled out to the individual: there is little or no freedom for an individual to decide their course. Under a Representational Democracy with a free-market capitalist economy, the people own everything and decide what fraction of their resources should be doled out to the government so that the government can perform civil works projects on their behalf.

 

[Quasar44]

The only true enemy is the SA Demonrat party

 

[JoeB131]

You would be much better off if you stop making shit up and twisting facts to suit a narrative that was given to you by a propaganda machine.

That picture you found is one taken after the Nixon administration (Kissinger) negotiated with the Chinese to establish an American liasion mission in Beijing as a first step toward ultimate recognition. The only thing holding up talks until that point was the fact that USA recognized Taiwan as an independent nation, while China, up until then, refused.

I think you are a little confused, dimwit.

The USA didn't recognize Taiwan as an independent Nation, they kept up with the fantasy that Taiwan was still the legitimate government of China and was entitled to China's seat on the Security Council and it's Veto. The UN realized REALITY in 1971, over the objections of the US, when even our allies voted for Resolution #2758

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nixon's visit to China came after that, where he was more interested in driving a wedge between the PRC and the USSR. However, Nixon STILL maintained the fantasy that Taiwan was the "Republic of China". That didn't change until Jimmy Carter in 1979.

 

[Vrenn]

What you called the USA isn't anything remotely accurate about the country or it's political structure.

All businesses in China are owned and ultimately controlled by the CCP. In recent years, they've tried to make many of them "look" independent on paper in order to take advantage of free markets (stock exchanges). Many investors have had great hope that investing in those companies would help spread free market capitalism and along with it more freedom to the people and better relations. The recent return of hard line CCP actions seem to indicate otherwise. Also, the fact that many of those investment companies met with less than scrupulous demises (take the Chinese real estate fiasco) contributes to the suspicion that the CCP is really pulling the strings, as always. Socialism and Communism require either free market capitalism to prey upon, or they require a slave population.

I can see you haven't traveled that much outside of your basement. Most of the large businesses are privately owned. Yes, the Government does have some say in it but they don't own it. The last time I did business with a Chinese company, I paid for the product. Then I had to pay the Government a series of fees. Some were for the right to deal directly with the Chinese Company and the rest was to ......never did figure out what it all was. The most I can figure out is there are some money going into various peoples pockets. But everyone doing business with China's Companies learns to live with it. Sometimes we also make deals with Government owned ones a well. We still pay that extra money to line those pockets.

China is home to 109 corporations listed on the Fortune Global 500 - but only 15% of those are privately owned. China’s SOEs are enormously bulky and therefore lack flexibility when responding to market demands. Image: The Economist

You've got it backwards. Socialism is not possible without capitalism or slavery. In most cases, the roads, bridges and other infrastructure are paid for by the business that requires them, and the people who use them. There is no doubt that the civil works projects you are talking about belong under the control of the people, and we do that by electing representatives that will hire the best engineers and construction companies for the job. Government doesn't GIVE anything without first taking it from the people and the businesses it serves.

Some of the roads and bridges were paid for by the Corporations. Meanwhile, the bulk of the interstate roads and bridges were paid through taxing the rich but that stopped sometime in the 1970s when the rich taxes were chopped hard. By the time Reagan got through with it, if we need to build it we would have to have the middle class pay for it. We have lost the ability to build great things. We were GREAT at another time but not anymore.

Social programs are not a requirement. The proper place for people to get support from is their community.

Think about what you just said. Communism was created from the word community. And if you do use your community to build something then that is a social program. You keep dancing around this but Socialism enables for large Capitalism to exist and vice versa.

The people will get together, raise necessary funds, and hire contractors to build the roads. This is how it works.

Oh, so you just created a social program.

Who enacted that law? The people should simply get together in a democratic way and decide if they want to continue this, or if it would be beneficial to have commonly owned property for the purpose of travel.

Welcome to socio programs for the masses.

Why is it supplemented by a Social Program? If I can't afford to pay the gas bill, I should seek help from the local community. Or perhaps I should hire another gas company that has better prices to install a connection to my home.

In order for you to be able to afford your natural gas, you unwittingly benefit from a social program. There is no way in hell that you can afford to bring that gas in by yourself. Are you aware that the local governments own the gaslines, electrical lines, Ma Bell lines and Cable lines? They are built by the various corporations like Comcast but after they are completed, they are owned by the community. The various corporations build them and maintain them. This is why a "Public" provider can be replaced by another . Yes, it's paid for by the corporation but the "State" owns them after they are completed. They are nothing more than Social Programs.

Sidewalks are not a social program. They are an agreed upon improvement, a civil works project. In my neighborhood, not all roads have sidewalks because the people have voted not to spend their tax money installing them. If enough people decide they want them, the vote will change, and we will allocate our tax money toward that purpose.

"Civil Works Project". Another name for a social beneficial program.

You can't have Social Programs (I think you mean civil works) without a way to pay for them or a way to have the work done: you either need capitalism that generates revenue that gets shared among workers and to pay for necessary improvements, or you need a slave population that works for free.

Social Programs ARE civil works. They mean the same thing.

Socialism and Social Programs are two very different things. Under socialism, everything belongs to the government, and the government elite decide what gets doled out to the individual: there is little or no freedom for an individual to decide their course. Under a Representational Democracy with a free-market capitalist economy, the people own everything and decide what fraction of their resources should be doled out to the government so that the government can perform civil works projects on their behalf.

Socialism, by definition, cannot exist in a large group. You can also the word Communism for Socialism. And Communism only exists in Kiosks in Israel and in literature. The terms of Civil Works and Social Programs go back thousands of years. Every successful country that has ever existed required to use social programs to keep the population as happy as they could.

 

[Samofvt]

I think you are a little confused, dimwit.

The USA didn't recognize Taiwan as an independent Nation, they kept up with the fantasy that Taiwan was still the legitimate government of China and was entitled to China's seat on the Security Council and it's Veto. The UN realized REALITY in 1971, over the objections of the US, when even our allies voted for Resolution #2758

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nixon's visit to China came after that, where he was more interested in driving a wedge between the PRC and the USSR. However, Nixon STILL maintained the fantasy that Taiwan was the "Republic of China". That didn't change until Jimmy Carter in 1979.

Can't keep up, hu?

No, Nixon's visit to China signified a victory for western diplomacy. We maintained Taiwan was independent as it had been decided in 1945 accords (by international observers), the same as Japan was liberated but still needing to reform after Nagasaki and Hiroshima (God bless their souls). Taiwan did reform, as did Japan. Both nations, to this day, are exemplary participants in peaceful and democratic (ruled by the people) affairs.

Your narrative lacks the backdrop of history.

This is a more accurate picture of history than the dribble you proclaim:

https://taiwan.gov.tw/content_3.php

 

[Samofvt]

I can see you haven't traveled that much outside of your basement. Most of the large businesses are privately owned. Yes, the Government does have some say in it but they don't own it. The last time I did business with a Chinese company, I paid for the product. Then I had to pay the Government a series of fees. Some were for the right to deal directly with the Chinese Company and the rest was to ......never did figure out what it all was. The most I can figure out is there are some money going into various peoples pockets. But everyone doing business with China's Companies learns to live with it. Sometimes we also make deals with Government owned ones a well. We still pay that extra money to line those pockets.

China is home to 109 corporations listed on the Fortune Global 500 - but only 15% of those are privately owned. China’s SOEs are enormously bulky and therefore lack flexibility when responding to market demands. Image: The Economist

AKA: owned by the CCP.

Some of the roads and bridges were paid for by the Corporations. Meanwhile, the bulk of the interstate roads and bridges were paid through taxing the rich but that stopped sometime in the 1970s when the rich taxes were chopped hard. By the time Reagan got through with it, if we need to build it we would have to have the middle class pay for it. We have lost the ability to build great things. We were GREAT at another time but not anymore.

Not anymore...hahaha. That's because of socialism. It stifles all. Restoring free market economies is the only sensible answer...not giving *more* power to elites who pocket the excess they create.

Think about what you just said. Communism was created from the word community. And if you do use your community to build something then that is a social program. You keep dancing around this but Socialism enables for large Capitalism to exist and vice versa.

You are seriously advocating for communism? The same form of religion that has destroyed half of humanity in the last century?

Oh, so you just created a social program.

Creating a "social program" (civil works project) is not a problem, as long as the people are in charge. It's when elite socialists control the people is when there is a problem. Have you ever had a course in history? You should try one sometime.

Welcome to socio programs for the masses.

??? "socio"? You seem confused. Maybe you are "sociopathic" yourself? My guess is that you have never gotten out and talked to people because you are afraid. Cowardice is the hallmark of good socialists.

In order for you to be able to afford your natural gas, you unwittingly benefit from a social program. There is no way in hell that you can afford to bring that gas in by yourself. Are you aware that the local governments own the gaslines, electrical lines, Ma Bell lines and Cable lines? They are built by the various corporations like Comcast but after they are completed, they are owned by the community. The various corporations build them and maintain them. This is why a "Public" provider can be replaced by another . Yes, it's paid for by the corporation but the "State" owns them after they are completed. They are nothing more than Social Programs.



"Civil Works Project". Another name for a social beneficial program.

Not a problem, as long as the power comes from the people (and businesses) who are paying for it. "Social Beneficial" == "Civil Works Project". If it is managed by people who are not accountable, then it becomes a problem.

Social Programs ARE civil works. They mean the same thing.

I'm glad we can agree on some terminology, but "Social Programs" does NOT equal "civil works" unless they are controlled by the people and not some detached, elite singularities.

Socialism, by definition, cannot exist in a large group. You can also the word Communism for Socialism. And Communism only exists in Kiosks in Israel and in literature. The terms of Civil Works and Social Programs go back thousands of years. Every successful country that has ever existed required to use social programs to keep the population as happy as they could.

Every socialist country that has ever existed failed. Socialism does NOT equal social programs. Socialism is where tyrants are born. Capitalism, with a true Representational Democracy where the people retain the power, have flourished.

The problem is that people seem to be susceptible to being fooled into thinking they can get more rewards from the government. The truth is, big government is always corrupt, and if the people give their power to the government in hopes of getting more rewards, they will be sorely disappointed, because those higher up will always keep more than their fair share for themselves. This is a matter of human nature. "True power corrupts all, and it corrupts completely"

The power must be reserved to the people as individuals, not given to a singular government. Unless that singularity is God himself, who is separate from any government, and is immune to the corruption of power. Among the affairs of men, true power must remain with the people.

 

[Samofvt]

I won't even go into how the "internet" has been scrubbed of all links pertaining to the treaty between Taiwan and the USA. That treaty obliges the USA to protection of Taiwan against threats from the CCP. In exchange, the USA got nearly exclusive rights to the product of that country, which we enjoyed for decades. How many people don't remember the "Made In Taiwan" label? It included inexpensive textiles, but also semi-conductors (chips...oh now I'm connecting the dots for the new socialist spending program). But the Progressives and Democrats in this country want to throw the people of Taiwan under the bus. Not surprising, since those groups were responsible for the slave culture of the South before the civil war in America.

I will always bring my hammer and fight for the side of the people.

 

[Vrenn]

AKA: owned by the CCP.

Not anymore...hahaha. That's because of socialism. It stifles all. Restoring free market economies is the only sensible answer...not giving *more* power to elites who pocket the excess they create.

Free market doesn't work. There is always someone that will cheat and that destroys free market. You should be talking about Fair Market.

You are seriously advocating for communism? The same form of religion that has destroyed half of humanity in the last century?

Now why would I advocate communism when communism is just a theory that has never been successful.

Creating a "social program" (civil works project) is not a problem, as long as the people are in charge. It's when elite socialists control the people is when there is a problem. Have you ever had a course in history? You should try one sometime.

Have you ever had a Civics Lesson? You keep trying to use insults to make false points.

??? "socio"? You seem confused. Maybe you are "sociopathic" yourself? My guess is that you have never gotten out and talked to people because you are afraid. Cowardice is the hallmark of good socialists.

I can tell that you have lost this debate. You are resorting to insults and profanity.

Not a problem, as long as the power comes from the people (and businesses) who are paying for it. "Social Beneficial" == "Civil Works Project". If it is managed by people who are not accountable, then it becomes a problem.

You claim that I am the one advocating Communism when in reality you are expressing Communist views.

I'm glad we can agree on some terminology, but "Social Programs" does NOT equal "civil works" unless they are controlled by the people and not some detached, elite singularities.

I'll give you a half right on this one. And a Communism point for the rest.

Every socialist country that has ever existed failed. Socialism does NOT equal social programs. Socialism is where tyrants are born. Capitalism, with a true Representational Democracy where the people retain the power, have flourished.

Countries cannot be governed by Socialism and never could be anymore than a country can be governed by Capitalism. Neither is a government. When you talk about Tyrants, the Capitalist probably had a leg up on that one for origin. Tyrants use both of these programs as a tool to make everyone else believe they are harmless and only want to make things better.

The problem is that people seem to be susceptible to being fooled into thinking they can get more rewards from the government. The truth is, big government is always corrupt, and if the people give their power to the government in hopes of getting more rewards, they will be sorely disappointed, because those higher up will always keep more than their fair share for themselves. This is a matter of human nature. "True power corrupts all, and it corrupts completely"

The power must be reserved to the people as individuals, not given to a singular government. Unless that singularity is God himself, who is separate from any government, and is immune to the corruption of power. Among the affairs of men, true power must remain with the people.

You are now showing that it's YOU that is a born and bred Communist.

I think I have had enough of your communistic Lenin views and it's time to move on. Say hello to Gracie.

 

[Samofvt]

Free market doesn't work. There is always someone that will cheat and that destroys free market. You should be talking about Fair Market.

Free market is what made America Great. This is an undeniable fact. You are correct: there is always someone that will cheat, but always that "someone" is a bureaucratic appointee (or mob member). Once in a while it is an appointee of a large corporation, sure. But most of the time, it is a big government socialist that steals from the people and profits from something they did not contribute to.

Now why would I advocate communism when communism is just a theory that has never been successful.

Your statement endorsed communism. I'm glad you agree communism has never been successful. But please remember that socialism (I'm not talking about social programs, but SOCIALISM) is the forerunner to communism. The only real difference is that under socialism, all trade and economic opportunity is controlled by the elite; communism is the very next step where not only your occupation, trade, and economy are controlled by the elite, but also your property is owned and controlled by the elite.

Have you ever had a Civics Lesson? You keep trying to use insults to make false points.

I've had some "Civic Lessons" where the instructor insisted that unless I espoused the same reverence and enthusiasm for SOCIALISM as he had, then I would receive a failing grade. Yes, I may use insults to get your attention. Looks like it worked.

I can tell that you have lost this debate. You are resorting to insults and profanity.

Profanity? What the H$&* are you F&$%&* sayin'?

You claim that I am the one advocating Communism when in reality you are expressing Communist views.

My views that well-functioning businesses are a good thing does not mean my view is toward communism. Or, I'm guessing, you are thinking fascism, which is a state where business controls everything including the government. There is definitely a limit to what big business should be able to do, and that is why we need a functioning Representational Democracy, controlled by the people, where big businesses that have overstepped their "rights" as an entity should be dealt with through the laws of the land. This includes cases where they step on people's rights or cause harm to the common good, like when a business causes excessive pollution or enslaves people. Basically, the same laws that apply to individual people, only applied to business entities. Otherwise, well run and functional businesses are crucial to the welfare of the people. They provide capital and their revenue supports common infrastructure used by all the people. They usually operate naturally when free market economy is at play and stay within the moral limits of a society. Unfortunately, in a socialistic system where trade is controlled by the government, those businesses are forced to obey the whim of the socially elite, and those same elite make the laws and administer the laws. Power of control in the hands of the few is the devil's work. People suffer under those conditions.

I'll give you a half right on this one. And a Communism point for the rest.




Countries cannot be governed by Socialism and never could be anymore than a country can be governed by Capitalism. Neither is a government. When you talk about Tyrants, the Capitalist probably had a leg up on that one for origin. Tyrants use both of these programs as a tool to make everyone else believe they are harmless and only want to make things better.





You are now showing that it's YOU that is a born and bred Communist.

I don't think so

I think I have had enough of your communistic Lenin views and it's time to move on. Say hello to Gracie.

Gracie?

Gracias

 

[JoeB131]

Can't keep up, hu?

No, Nixon's visit to China signified a victory for western diplomacy. We maintained Taiwan was independent as it had been decided in 1945 accords (by international observers), the same as Japan was liberated but still needing to reform after Nagasaki and Hiroshima (God bless their souls). Taiwan did reform, as did Japan. Both nations, to this day, are exemplary participants in peaceful and democratic (ruled by the people) affairs.

Are you some kind of fucking retard? Chiang Kai-shek considered Nixon's visit to China as a massive betrayal.

Op-Ed: How Nixon's fabled trip to China, 50 years ago this week, led to today's Taiwan crisis

Nixon and Kissinger gave away more than they needed to in pursuit of China's help ending the Vietnam War.

www.latimes.com

Kissinger, meanwhile, during late-night negotiations over what a final communique would say, agreed to this language: “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.”

When they were shown the draft, senior State Department officials, who had been cut out of Kissinger’s negotiations, furiously posed last-minute objections. They pointed out that many people born on Taiwan did not agree that Taiwan was part of China. They wanted the phrase “all Chinese” taken out and replaced by just “Chinese.”

 

[Samofvt]

Are you some kind of fucking retard? Chiang Kai-shek considered Nixon's visit to China as a massive betrayal.

Op-Ed: How Nixon's fabled trip to China, 50 years ago this week, led to today's Taiwan crisis

Nixon and Kissinger gave away more than they needed to in pursuit of China's help ending the Vietnam War.

www.latimes.com

Kissinger, meanwhile, during late-night negotiations over what a final communique would say, agreed to this language: “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.”

When they were shown the draft, senior State Department officials, who had been cut out of Kissinger’s negotiations, furiously posed last-minute objections. They pointed out that many people born on Taiwan did not agree that Taiwan was part of China. They wanted the phrase “all Chinese” taken out and replaced by just “Chinese.”

Politics. Gotta love it. or hate it. That wasn't a treaty or act of congress, it was just words from one administration to a foreign administration. a communique.

The Taiwan Relations Act approved by congress in 1979 was the first of several very important declarations of intent to defend, or at least provide the means of defense, to Taiwan:

"The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act states “the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.” U.S. arms sales—under both Democratic and Republican administrations—to Taiwan have included advanced fighter jets, air defense missiles, naval frigates and anti-ship missiles, attack helicopters, anti-tank weapons, tanks, and other weapons and equipment."

Link: Heritage.org

There is another congressional act passed sometime in the late 1980's which I remember clearly. Unfortunately, I can't find an active link to it (probably scrubbed because of the censorship going around). People seem to be changing the narrative of history on many things, and it's a shame. It could be the "Asia Reasurance Act of 2018" mentioned below, but I recall there was a much stronger treaty passed earlier.

At any rate, Taiwan was most definitely recognized as an independent nation with international diplomatic ties with at least 15 countries including the USA. This is reinforced in the "Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative" Act passed by Congress in 2019:

(9) The Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018 (Public Law
115-409) states that--

(A) it is United States policy ``to support the
close economic, political, and security relationship
between Taiwan and the United States''; and
(B) the President should--
(i) ``conduct regular transfers of defense
articles to Taiwan that are tailored to meet the
existing and likely future threats from the
People's Republic of China, including supporting
the efforts of Taiwan to develop and integrate
asymmetric capabilities, as appropriate, including
mobile, survivable, and cost-effective
capabilities, into its military forces''; and
(ii) ``encourage the travel of high-level
United States officials to Taiwan, in accordance
with the Taiwan Travel Act''.

Unfortunately, bud, "transfer of defense articles" includes battle groups and all manner of aircraft so that they can maintain air superiority. These acts of congress make a guarantee with Taiwan that they will get whatever they need to maintain their freedom.

This is not open for debate. If the USA fails to honor its commitments, what country will ever honor an agreement or do business with us again?

 

[JoeB131]

Politics. Gotta love it. or hate it. That wasn't a treaty or act of congress, it was just words from one administration to a foreign administration. a communique.

The Taiwan Relations Act approved by congress in 1979 was the first of several very important declarations of intent to defend, or at least provide the means of defense, to Taiwan:

"The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act states “the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.” U.S. arms sales—under both Democratic and Republican administrations—to Taiwan have included advanced fighter jets, air defense missiles, naval frigates and anti-ship missiles, attack helicopters, anti-tank weapons, tanks, and other weapons and equipment."

Just because we HAVE a policy doesn't make it a SMART policy.

We don't recognize Taiwan as an independent state. Selling them weapons is an interference in the internal affairs of China.

 

[Vrenn]

Just because we HAVE a policy doesn't make it a SMART policy.

We don't recognize Taiwan as an independent state. Selling them weapons is an interference in the internal affairs of China.

Questionable at best. Since Chang was never really defeated by Moa then that leaves errors in the argument.

 

[JoeB131]

Questionable at best. Since Chang was never really defeated by Moa then that leaves errors in the argument.

Not questionable at all. The Taiwan conflict is an internal matter of China, and we need to butt the fuck out. Certainly not risk WWIII over an internal matter.

Again, the REAL PROBLEM HERE Is how fucking ignorant Americans are of Chinese history and how the Chinese see this issue.

 

[Vrenn]

Not questionable at all. The Taiwan conflict is an internal matter of China, and we need to butt the fuck out. Certainly not risk WWIII over an internal matter.

Again, the REAL PROBLEM HERE Is how fucking ignorant Americans are of Chinese history and how the Chinese see this issue.

Not all Chinese sees things like you demand everyone else to think.

 

[JoeB131]

Not all Chinese sees things like you demand everyone else to think.

All, no. But it is a general national attitude.

 

[Vrenn]

All, no. But it is a general national attitude.

When was the last time you were in Taiwan and asked questions like that? Never. And I am sure that you didn't go to mainland China and field the same questions because you aren't in a Mainland Chinese Prison.