As a US citizen I am happy to pay taxes to allow small democratic nations to defend themselves from large bully neighbors.
All the better when the large bully neighbors would happily do away with USA if they could.
If small nations bolstering self defense and making treaties is viewed as threatening to much larger neighbors, then I'm very curious about what those large nations had planned for the smaller ones.
I don't understand how you think that building up defensive capabilities is provoking war. Making the cost of invading higher makes it less likely the PRC will try to invade. The US's long standing goal has been to preserve peace in the Taiwan strait by making the cost of attempting to invade sufficiently high to deter PRC from making the attempt at invading https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/35...
Russia did the same thing to Cuba. Just like one or two missiles.
Did you see how the US reacted to that?
Honestly what do you think the Chinese are thinking? We whine at even one missile in Cuba while China and every other country has to accept the fact that the US has military weapons and outposts around the world. Seriously this is a hugely provocative move.
Also as a Taiwanese person I agree with the US about how the lives of Taiwanese people are more important then those in Gaza (sarcasm). Weaponize Taiwan but let Israel slaughter its enemies. In reality the US could give a shit about either people. This is a story about patriotism and power.
China is becoming an economic and technological peer to the US and in order to stop it the US needs to stop china from controlling the Pacific and tsmc. This is what's going on. Not some preservation of peace, that's garbage.
The attitude of the American public largely echoes your point of view. Basically at the back of your mind you know it's a power play coming out of jealousy and fear, but we lie to ourselves and pretend it's some sort of move to defend the innocent people of Taiwan. Well as I stated earlier that's a lie we Americans tell ourselves. I have a realistic view of this because my heritage straddles both worlds and I can tell you the US side is the delusional one. To clarify the US is making logical and rational military maneuvers in terms of power projection at the greatest threat but their justification for such maneuvers is delusional. Your post is one example of the delusion.
The hypocrisy of what's going on in the middleeast and Ukraine is proof of that. Unless you actually believe that the lives of Taiwanese people are worth more than those in Ukraine and the middleeast. Think about why military intervention is justified for Taiwan and not Ukraine.
> Honestly what do you think the Chinese are thinking? We whine at even one missile in Cuba
To my knowledge we have not equipped Taiwan with nuclear missiles, which is what the Cuban Missile Crisis was about. Big difference.
> while China and every other country has to accept the fact that the US has military weapons and outposts around the world. Seriously this is a hugely provocative move.
provocative seems like a questionable choice of words, given that the US military has time and time again been used to resist militarists & authoritarians exploiting populations. We have enormous military capability that we don't use, that is not for making war, but defending the world against warlike powers.
> China is becoming an economic and technological peer to the US and in order to stop it the US needs to stop china from controlling the Pacific and tsmc. This is what's going on.
Can't it become an economic and technological power without pushing around & pushing out so many neighbors? Here's to Chinas rise, I hope it does great, but it keeps acting so zero sum, keeps creating conflict, and it gives everyone great unease to see such military buildup from a country that keeps acting hard & ardent to those around it.
> The attitude of the American public largely echoes your point of view. Basically at the back of your mind you know it's a power play coming out of jealousy and fear,
Absolutely on fear. We are scared of an authoritarian country so ready to go to war with it's neighbors, so willing to push people around. We have projected power so far for so long, but so rarely begun conflict, in hopes of preventing destabilization in the world, in hopes of preventing authoritarian overreach.
As for the whataboutism of other situations, the US has greatly helped Ukraine & our direct involvement would make it World War scale, so let's not if we can. We have both given Israel Patriot and Iron Dome missile-defense systems, while trying to get neighbors & Israel moving towards peaceful resolution. We are trying. Although you lambast us in these situations, we seem to be doing all we can in both situations to re-stabilize the world & in spite of your sharp words it's unclear what we could be doing better.
>To my knowledge we have not equipped Taiwan with nuclear missiles, which is what the Cuban Missile Crisis was about. Big difference.
It's big but nowhere near as big as you imply. Think about it from a chinese citizens perspective. How big of a difference is air raids, bombings and missiles vs. nuclear missiles? Would the chinese citizen be calm and nonchalant if it was just non-nuclear weapons and suddenly be thrown into hysteria by nuclear weapons? Let's be real here. It's a physical threat.
>provocative seems like a questionable choice of words, given that the US military has time and time again been used to resist militarists & authoritarians exploiting populations. We have enormous military capability that we don't use, that is not for making war, but defending the world against warlike powers.
Our military power is used for maintaining our own power. Just look at gaza. Again we aren't doing shit because it's not a threat to american power. Taiwan Is. Hence the difference in response. It's unrealistic to characterize the US as some international white knight. Clearly we aren't.
>Can't it become an economic and technological power without pushing around & pushing out so many neighbors? Here's to Chinas rise, I hope it does great, but it keeps acting so zero sum, keeps creating conflict, and it gives everyone great unease to see such military buildup from a country that keeps acting hard & ardent to those around it.
Unlikely. The US did a ton of pushing around. A ton. and it largely gets it's way on the international front. China is pushing it's way to become an equal player and that's unacceptable for the US. This is normal. It wouldn't be acceptable for China either if it's the other way around. Both countries are human. I think you're placing the US on a bit of pedestal.
You remember how the Bush administration basically lied and made up a bunch of shit about WMDs just to go to war in Iraq right? That whole fiasco basically puts a hole in your "white knight" view point.
>Absolutely on fear. We are scared of an authoritarian country so ready to go to war with it's neighbors, so willing to push people around. We have projected power so far for so long, but so rarely begun conflict, in hopes of preventing destabilization in the world, in hopes of preventing authoritarian overreach.
Largely disagree with this. The US is not some White Knight projecting power to keep stability. It chooses it's conflicts based on it's own interests.
>As for the whataboutism of other situations, the US has greatly helped Ukraine & our direct involvement would make it World War scale, so let's not if we can.
Direct involvement in war with China will be world war scale and the US doesn't hesitate in this matter. Russia is the greater threat for war because Russia is just less stable.
China is less of a threat for war but the US steps up military power here because China is more of a peer and competitor on the world stage. Let's be real here.
>Although you lambast us in these situations, we seem to be doing all we can in both situations to re-stabilize the world
We are doing our best to maintain an edge over China. That's what we're doing. That's the entire point of why there's so much military projection in Asia and none towards say Gaza. Does Gaza have a threat for world war? No.. so your theory doesn't apply here.
Nuclear missiles are so obviously different in scope. It's not even worth debating. And it's not like the US has been turning Taiwan into a medium/long range cruise missile battery. It's so obviously incredibly a defensive mission, and coloring it any other way is embarassing. China has nothing to fear from Taiwan, if China doesn't aggress: trying to say otherwise is laughable.
We are doing things in Gaza to try to help our ally defend itself while trying to get them to de-escallate; it's just not super visible or obvious & it's unclear what you'd have us do in spite of your ongoing super-critical view. We absolutely are super involved, and scared of this growing worse, and trying to improve it, and trying to prevent a broader conflagration from growing in the area. It's unclear why you think this means anything about the US maintaining power versus trying to keep world stability.
You amazingly fully give license China to push around & use military might against local countries for whatever cause suits them, while again using whataboutism to deflect onto the US rather than face the real issue at hand. The US has done bad things, but often it's less clear cut bad than many lay at it's feet (the 1953 Iranian coup was hardly US instrumented, in spite of that common portrayal, for example). Even though the US went into Iraq, we spent enormous money (ineffectively, alas) trying to create a stable democracy, rather than colonizing & imperializing, with for example a huge number of development contracts going to other nations. These slights on the US, these whataboutisms, are not as bad, and just a whataboutism against China acting incredibly poorly in it's neighborhood & not bothering to keep any friends in the region.
The US does pick and choose conflicts, indeed, and doesn't attend well enough to some. But it does get involved in a huge number of conflicts and is by far the worlds biggest peacekeeping operation, is responsible largely for worldwide shipping being as feasible as it has been (deterring piracy). And we are very keep to combat instability anywhere.
Russia is less of a threat than China because Russia is losing huge amounts of forces to a lone neighbor they have aggressed, and cannot rebuild that force quickly. China is by far the fastest militarizing nation on the planet, radically outproducing everyone else, and have shown time and time again willingness to ride rough over neighbors & claim internationally agreed waters and land as their own. Nothing about your "real" talk convinces me that we should more worried about Russia than China.
You phrase this again and again as some kind of all-out competition against China, about the US keeping their lead. That just seems so facile, and to come from such a horrificly singular view of the world as competitive, as being zero-sum. I don't think the US thinks of China like that at all. We would love to see a good prosperous healthy China, flourishing at home and around the world. But we keep seeing a nasty bitter nation that is driven by it's own sense of insecurity at not clearly being #1, that thinks it must use force & power & might to bully other people into submission. That's why China is the problem, that's why this conflict exists: because China has lost touch with the spirit of heaven, because it begets havoc on earth.
China is not only trying to be #1 by military force but also trying to string poorer nations into loans they can't really afford, buying mines and harbours etc.
It worries me because their entire direction depends on the whims of essentially one man who is there for life.
I also found it really worrying how the CCP made their own population suffer during the pandemic. Can you imagine what they'd do with the rest of us if they were the leading world power?
This is true. It is scary that it all depends on one man.
The pandemic thing was more of a mistake then it was an act of evil.
China was successful in basically completely eliminating the spread of covid in a way the US was completely incapable of doing. I don't know if you recall people in the US dying of covid like flies in the US while China remaining relatively covid free due to it's ability to use centralized control to basically stop the spread of the disease in its tracks.
What China wanted to do was to essentially use those same methods to stop a secondary resurgence but this obviously was not as successful. The second wave was different from the first and China misjudged that. The extreme methods applied on the first wave were no longer applicable to the second wave and that was a mistake on Chinas part.
If China lead the world then there would be significantly less deaths from the first wave of covid and significantly more deaths on the second wave of covid. The opposite is true for the US, significantly more deaths on the first wave of covid and less deaths on the second wave. You worry, but the world is too complex to give you a clear topic to actually be worried about. It's easier to simplify China as the one that's wrong and stay worried about the simple thing.
>Nuclear missiles are so obviously different in scope. It's not even worth debating. And it's not like the US has been turning Taiwan into a medium/long range cruise missile battery. It's so obviously incredibly a defensive mission, and coloring it any other way is embarassing. China has nothing to fear from Taiwan, if China doesn't aggress: trying to say otherwise is laughable.
The scope I'm trying to convey is called "crossing the line". It's like you're in a shouting match with your friend and suddenly you pull out a gun. You crossed the line.
If you pull out a nuclear weapon that's ALSO crossing the line. Obviously different scope. But you failed to miss my point. By forming a blockade around China the US is pulling out a gun and putting against China's forehead. The US has crossed the line. Typically when one person crosses the line it's an act of desperation. It's to surprise the other party and scare the other person into submission. Maybe it works. It runs the risk of the other party ALSO deciding to escalate the situation by pointing artillery at san francisco.
None of this has to involve nuclear weapons but nuclear weapons but the cuban missile crisis is 100% examples of the US and Russia crossing the line. China is holding back here, whether out of fear or wisdom they are choosing NOT to escalate which is the mature decision. When a country chooses to play games of escalation they run the risk of hurting everyone.
>You amazingly fully give license China to push around & use military might against local countries for whatever cause suits them, while again using whataboutism to deflect onto the US rather than face the real issue at hand. The US has done bad things, but often it's less clear cut bad than many lay at it's feet (the 1953 Iranian coup was hardly US instrumented, in spite of that common portrayal, for example). Even though the US went into Iraq, we spent enormous money (ineffectively, alas) trying to create a stable democracy, rather than colonizing & imperializing, with for example a huge number of development contracts going to other nations. These slights on the US, these whataboutisms, are not as bad, and just a whataboutism against China acting incredibly poorly in it's neighborhood & not bothering to keep any friends in the region.
Wrong. I NEVER gave full license to China to use military might anywhere. I am simply saying China and the US are two sides to the same coin. Neither fits the idealistic narrative of the white knight you try to paint the US as. What you don't realize is that US propaganda and patriotism has effected you, despite your knowledge of US evils you still argue for this country and you still support it. Bro, China and the US are the same.
What whole point of the whataboutism is to point out the error in your analysis. You're framing the US as way to idealistic when obviously it's just as corrupt as China. It's one and the same. I mean the lies about Iraq which you decided to gloss over are just the tip of the ice berg. Nord stream 1? Come on man. Wake up.
>But it does get involved in a huge number of conflicts and is by far the worlds biggest peacekeeping operation, is responsible largely for worldwide shipping being as feasible as it has been (deterring piracy). And we are very keep to combat instability anywhere.
This is a joke. It gets involved to make itself look like it cares. But ultimately it doesn't care until it affects their own interests. People getting slaughtered in Gaza? The US doesn't really care, they just pretend to care. China about to annex Taiwan but never actually doing it? Oh shit huge issue. Launch the carrier!
>Russia is less of a threat than China because Russia is losing huge amounts of forces to a lone neighbor they have aggressed, and cannot rebuild that force quickly. China is by far the fastest militarizing nation on the planet, radically outproducing everyone else, and have shown time a...
Unless I am misremembering the history, the missiles on Cuba were nuclear missiles. These are purely offensive weapons that have very little defensive capabilities.
Based on that alone I'd say the situations are pretty different. I'd be strongly opposed to arming Taiwan with nuclear capabilities, and feel China would indeed be justified in that case. But that's academic talk because no such thing is happening.
As for the rest: sometimes geopolitics and morality aligns. This is one of those cases, IMHO.
>As for the rest: sometimes geopolitics and morality aligns. This is one of those cases, IMHO.
It always aligns for the US because that's how the US and it's people spin it. When has it not aligned? Never. WMDs in iraq were totally real.
>Unless I am misremembering the history, the missiles on Cuba were nuclear missiles. These are purely offensive weapons that have very little defensive capabilities.
So if china had a carrier off the coast of california with artillery pointed towards SF it wouldn't be a big deal because artillery is not nuclear? It's a physical threat and both justify extreme reactions.
I would also note that the US had missiles pointing at Russia during the crisis and the Russian reaction was nowhere as extreme or public. So really what occurred here it the US was the provocateur and the Cuban missile crisis was what Russia did to alleviate the crisis. Both the cuban and the missiles pointing at Russia were removed as part of the deal. In this case Russia took steps towards peace.
The US is not attempting to base nuclear weapons on Taiwan, so the comparison with Cuba does not stand up.
US moves can be both logical and rational in terms of power projection, and defend the innocent people of Taiwan. As a trading power, wanting to trade fairly and securely around the world with independent nations (ok so that is a bit of a stretch), it should be no surprise, and indeed quite gratifying that those two aims coincide.
US foriegn policy is not to create an empire, but to prevent others from doing so (USSR, and now China). Don't try to create empires, don't get the foot!
>The US is not attempting to base nuclear weapons on Taiwan, so the comparison with Cuba does not stand up.
As I stated in other threads if china had a carrier off the coast of CA with artillery pointed at san francisco would the situation be more mild because artillery is non-nuclear? No it's a extreme physical threat. The point is, China is reacting to this situation in a way that is not provocative even though the US is being deliberately provocative.
>and defend the innocent people of Taiwan.
This is the story and a side effect. The reality is the US does not care for the people of Taiwan. They only care for TSMC and power in the pacific. This is made obvious by how the US repeatedly fails to use military might to protect people in Ukrain or people in gaza. There is no military or economic advantage towards protecting those places but their is for Taiwan. Hence the imbalance of military force. People are getting slaughtered in Gaza but more military force is being built up around Taiwan? Why?? Because of self interest.
>As a trading power, wanting to trade fairly and securely around the world with independent nations (ok so that is a bit of a stretch), it should be no surprise, and indeed quite gratifying that those two aims coincide.
It is a stretch. They want unfair terms in favor of the US and they want to maintain that unfair advantage as long as possible.
>US foriegn policy is not to create an empire, but to prevent others from doing so (USSR, and now China). Don't try to create empires, don't get the foot!
Another more accurate way of putting it is that US policy is to maintain their own current Empire. Prevent China or the USSR from setting up similar positions of power. Obviously China is't going to use the old ways of pillaging countries to expand their borders. It's going to be through patrols and military bases and alliances... etc.
Yes. Literally the US is the one building a military wall around China and we say China is the aggressor? China is largely reacting to this in ways that can be considered mature and will prevent war. I don't like a lot of what china does but in this specific situation the country is making the right choice.
Imagine if China did the same thing and tried to build a blockade around the US. Something minor like maybe putting some missiles in Cuba... how would the US react? Oh wait.
Honestly the real thing going on here is the economic and technological rise of china to surpass or become a peer to the US. It's a story about patriotism, power and refusal to to become 2nd place.
There’s a difference between a missile and a nuclear missile. I would note that advanced nuclear submarines somewhat make the issue moot.
You keep saying a single missile in your comments. I’m not sure if you’re mistaken or being hyperbolic. But the Soviet’s actually deployed 24 R-12 medium range missiles and 16 R-14 intermediate range missiles as well as a large number of long range bombers. At this time the soviets had several hundred nuclear warheads, so deploying 40 to Cuba was something like 10% of their entire nuclear arsenal.
The entire point of such a move at the time was first strike capability, which is entirely offensive in nature. This is not comparable to establishing defensive capability in nations surrounding a geopolitical rival who has been expansionist and nationalistic. The Soviet move established their desire to destroy us without provocation (after all first strike requires surprise), while establishing defensive positions is meant to stabilize a status quo.
> The entire point of such a move at the time was first strike capability, which is entirely offensive in nature.
You know one of the reasons for Soviet missile deployment on Cuba was to counterbalance US missile deployment in Turkey, right? And that the resolution of Cuban missile crisis was basically "withdrawing US nukes from Turkey in exchange for withdrawing Soviet nukes from Cuba"?
Was the US missile deployment in Turkey "desire to destroy us [Soviets] without provocation", by your own words?
Right so weapons of war, air raids and bombs, the threat of death is not a big deal but if the US moved nukes to taiwan then China will go into hysteria?
If there was a Chinese carrier off the coast of california (but no nuclear weapons) you're saying that's not a big deal?
Of course it's a big deal. It's provocative either way. You're argument is like saying threatening someone with a knife to their throat is not as big of a deal as threatening someone with a gun to their throat.
Btw, for the cuban missile crisis, the US already had weapons pointing at Russia from adjacent countries long before Russia made a move.
I’m not sure any of your points counter any of what I said. The carriers near China are near China because Taiwan is near China, a carrier or even a carrier group isn’t an offensive posture against a nation, it’s too small a force. It’s provocative because there’s a provocative situation between Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, et al, and China all of whom are U.S. allies. However I don’t see any evidence the U.S. is preparing to attack China.
On the rest re: Soviet and U.S. deployments, I’m not taking a side. I’m taking issue with you repeatedly saying “a missile” in the threads, when it was much more than that. Absolutely the Cold War was a two sided war. There were no clean hands. But in the Cuban missile crisis it was much different than the situation in and around Taiwan.
>I’m not sure any of your points counter any of what I said. The carriers near China are near China because Taiwan is near China, a carrier or even a carrier group isn’t an offensive posture against a nation, it’s too small a force. It’s provocative because there’s a provocative situation between Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, et al, and China all of whom are U.S. allies. However I don’t see any evidence the U.S. is preparing to attack China.
What exactly are you saying then?
Taiwan is not an official ally of the US. It's an unofficial relationship. Probably going to be made official soon because it's advantageous to the US.
US is not preparing to attack China. The US just wants to keep Taiwan and TSMC out of China to slow down it's economic progress.
Additionally the US wants to maintain military power in the pacific and Taiwan is a key strategic point here.
China on the other hand sees Taiwan as a rogue state seceding from the Union. Similar to what the southern states tried to do during the US civil war.
>On the rest re: Soviet and U.S. deployments, I’m not taking a side. I’m taking issue with you repeatedly saying “a missile” in the threads, when it was much more than that. Absolutely the Cold War was a two sided war. There were no clean hands. But in the Cuban missile crisis it was much different than the situation in and around Taiwan.
No i disagree. The US reaction to it was obviously uncharacteristic. Other countries have to accept neighboring threats calmly when they have missiles at their door step but for the US it's unacceptable by their reaction to the missile crisis. I bring it up because it's hypocritical. Of course the US is self aware that what they're doing to other countries is a known physical threat. We know this by their own reaction to weapons on their doorstep during the cuban missile crisis.
China has claimed the island of Taiwan despite having no control over it for several decades now. Is it any surprise that Taiwanese allies are building bases to prevent that happening.
> Imagine if China did the same thing and tried to build a blockade around the US.
If the United States threatened to annex Hong Kong over and over and over again, I think this would be an appropritae response.
Let me ask you, which lives are more important? Ukrainian people? The people in Gaza? Or Taiwanese people?
Obviously the Taiwanese people. As someone who is Taiwanese myself, I know the US is making the right choice here for using military intervention exclusively for the Taiwanese people. We are just that much better.
It obviously has nothing to do with the fact that China is becoming a military and economic peer to the US. And of course nothing to do with the fact that Taiwan is a key point for control of the Pacific and cutting edge semiconductor technology. Nothing to do with those things at all because the US is a country that cares.
Sarcasm aside, I really am Taiwanese and a US citizen. This duality allows me to have the least biased view of the situation as it isn't clouded with just the typical patriotic attitude you see from your average US citizen.
The entire pacific is of strategic importance to the United States. China does not just claim Taiwan but exclusive jurisdiction over the South China Sea, a major international shipping corridor. There is no way the United States will let that happen, and it has nothing to do with determining whose lives are more important (although you can be sure the defense department has a ranking of which fronts are most important for American interests).
As for your dual citizenship. This does not reduce your bias. In fact your dual allegiances seem to cloud your ability to analyze things from an American interests perspective
>As for your dual citizenship. This does not reduce your bias. In fact your dual allegiances seem to cloud your ability to analyze things from an American interests perspective
I'm the least biased one here. Look at your post. It's actually in complete agreement with my points. You are supporting and agreeing with my point. But you can't see it.
> single reason for all wars since at least the year 2000.
You are conflating reason with participant. The main reason for wars since 2000 is middle east terror groups. Regardless of your thoughts on Afghanistan or Iraq, it is clear that the US would not have invaded anyone were it not for the fact that it suffered a pretty major attack on its own soil. I would suggest those that don't want war stop attacking other countries.
But at the end of the day, when you are the only military power in the world (the US military is in a class of its own) and the only one responsible for the current state of world peace (the world is more peaceful than it's ever been), you're going to be involved in the battles that crop up here and there. Luckily, we can assure the outcomes.
Yes. We funded the mujahideen while their countries were being invaded by the USSR. Would your solution be to let Russia colonize other countries at their leisure? Once again, taking money to defend your country and then, when you're done, coming to wreak havoc in the US is going to lead to war... duh
Next time be grateful that Uncle Sam helped you keep your God-forsaken land
Yes, it would actually. I’d take socialism over religious extremism. I mean, look at how they responded, as you said. But I don’t blame them, it makes perfect sense why they did that. I blame the US officials who thought it was a good idea to back up those mujahideen. The US officials who sabotaged peace talks to keep the war going. The anti communist ideologues who damaged this country in ways we are still seeing play out today.
And let’s not skirt the fact that the US was in it to secure natural resource rights. We weren’t saving their country as much as saving our access to it. The mujahideen knew this as well, so not sure why they’d be grateful.
People with this worldview don't see the people of countries like Taiwan or Ukraine as having any agency. They're either subservient to China or Russia or the USA - there are no other options, so any alignment against one country can only be interpreted as interference by another.
They also frequently describe themselves as against imperialism, weirdly.
The only realistic way for Taiwan to retain any independence from Beijing is to ask the US government for military assistance. Do you disagree?
("Realistic": a coalition of Japan, South Korea, Australia and Great Britain would have the means to help Taiwan effectively, but it is very unlikely they would have the will.)
I am fully in favor of the US reducing its military. Sadly, fascists, racist and religious fundamentalists won't stop violating the rights of other people, fueling the American military industrial complex.
As a European I lament some of the oil wars America has dragged us into. The second gulf war, Afghanistan.. They were a bunch of BS and accomplished nothing (Afghanistan is worse off now).
On the other hand, defending Taiwan and Ukraine and Kuwait (the first gulf war, while motivated by oil interests there was a clear humanitarian principle too) are pretty honourable IMO.
I would definitely not want to see China or Russia as the major world power. The US is not perfect but it's not the worst either.
> Can the USA please stop orchestrating large international conflicts? It's getting really annoying that almost every major conflict is fuelled by the states.
Seeing how morally confused the rest of the world is, I am thankful that my country has the biggest army, navy , and air force. I mean you can't even properly assign moral blame for who is the aggressor here (China... the state that continuously threatens a violent invasion of a territory that is not theirs).
Given the moral depravity of many non-Americans, I think it's reasonable to enforce basic ethical standards by force.
This is hilarious. America is one of the most morally confused countries in the world right now. We literally popularized the idea of moral relativism. Talk to a college student they can’t even say that rape, cannibalism, etc are absolutely wrong. Why step into any conflict if you can’t state with 100% absolute confidence that something is immoral or evil?
> This is hilarious. America is one of the most morally confused countries in the world right now. We literally popularized the idea of moral relativism.
Yet, we're one of the few that can say that if your country was brutally attacked you are allowed to respond with force.
> Talk to a college student they can’t even say that rape, cannibalism, etc are
absolutely wrong. Why step into any conflict if you can’t state with 100% absolute confidence that something is immoral or evil?
Talk to an American to find out what they think of what's coming out of Academia
I don't think anyone but Russia is against Ukraine defending itself.
And I think Americans are plenty aligned with academia, except the small fraction of ultra-conservative republicans who are against everything that's not in their 2000 year old handbook.
It's just that that fraction seems to have much more power than they should have based on their demography.
> And I think Americans are plenty aligned with academia, except the small fraction of ultra-conservative republicans who are against everything that's not in their 2000 year old handbook.
The average American completely ignored academia during the COVID pandemic. America's rates of compliance were way lower than other similar countries.
Unfortunately for China, they successfully pissed off every single neighbor in the pacific, making it exponentially harder for them to attack Taiwan since all those neighbors went to the US for protection.
The US basically has a barrier of military bases along the entire Chinese coast. The US also besties with Singapore, sharing a navel base there, where it could easily cut off China from middle eastern oil via The Straight of Malacca.
China should just take the L on Taiwan. In a war they wouldn't get any of the chip fabs or tech. Everything would be destroyed. It would be purely to fulfill their ego at an extreme cost.
I’ve been wondering the same but maybe we only have these examples because the only successful attempts to forcefully take power away from the capitalists has been by authoritarians.
Cuba isn't doing too badly even though it's authoritarian. It's no soviet union, DDR or North Korea. The biggest problems they have are due to US sanctions.
But I think extremes never work. Neither strict communism nor all-out capitalism.
It's pretty simple - communism is "real communism" when it works, and it's not when it doesn't. It's similar to how it's not "real capitalism" when things go wrong in a capitalist system.
> making it exponentially harder for them to attack Taiwan
I fail to see how the sentiments of Vietnam or the Philippines have any bearing on the capacity of China to capture Taiwan. Talk is cheap, and neither country has taken any substantive steps toward a deterrence capability, let alone an improved one.
> The US basically has a barrier of military bases along the entire Chinese coast.
This sounds like something a PRC defense pundit would claim as justification for China's belligerency in the South China Sea. The few US bases in the region are north of the South China Sea, in Japan and North Korea. Take a quick glance at a map.
> The US also besties with Singapore, sharing a navel base there, where it could easily cut off China from middle eastern oil via The Straight of Malacca.
The "bases" the US has in Singapore are merely for logistics and training. India also has similar agreements for use of Singapore's naval bases, and India is not a defense ally of the U.S. Singapore has a few bases in the U.S., but they're likewise for training and nobody would claim they're a potential military staging ground.
Singapore isn't a defense ally of the U.S., notwithstanding their defense ties. As a vulnerable city-state Singapore desires to be besties with everybody, especially those who can exert pressure on Malaysia and Indonesia.
India has a pretty strict neutrality policy. But you can bet if China waged an expansionist war they would be on the same side as those fighting China.
You can see the US has bases in South korea, Japan, Philipines, and Singapore. As well as outer laying bases in Guam and Northern Australia.
China doesn't have any breathing room in the pacific. But when you shit all over your neighbors, that's what happens. They back North Korea. Have centuries long conflict with Japan. And ignore the Philippines South China Sea territory.
The U.S. doesn't have any bases in the Philippines. Under EDCA the U.S. has been able to place logistics personnel at some Philippine bases. There's no U.S. war fighting capability there, at least not yet--rehabilitation of some old U.S. naval and air facilities for future use has only recently begun, AFAIU.
The U.S. also has signals facilities in many places. Some might count these as military bases, but that's a stretch.
Also, "Singapore has the second largest permanent foreign military training presence in the continental United States, with almost 1,000 Singapore Armed Forces personnel training at any one time." https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-singapor...
Something that didn't occur to me until reading this is that the Russia-Ukraine war is giving Western allies an opportunity to test weapons and strategies on a real battlefield. That must surely be anxiety inducing for China that has no such opportunity.
I'm surprised Russia and China are allies, considering Russia kicked the hornet's nest and will make annexation of Taiwan harder.
It’s also depleting western stocks and distracting forces, as is Gaza. If Iran, China, and North Korea were to simultaneously iron out their grievances, the west could not stop them.
The west could not stop all of them. They probably could stop whoever moved first.
As Iran, China, and North Korea are not really allies, nobody wants to be the one who goes first. (And if the one who went first wasn't China, they would probably be not only stopped but stomped.)
The artillery being sent to Ukraine isn’t very relevant for Taiwan. And much of what is sent to Ukraine is old stock that was about to expire anyway. If anything, this has given western countries an excuse to ramp up production of new modern stocks that wouldn’t otherwise have been accepted by its citizens.
Not sure how Iran and Koreas is relevant.
If Iran latched out at its neighbours and that region is plunged into chaos, it’ll hurt China more than USA. China is desperately dependent on oil from that region. USA is a net exporter.
There’s not much we could do for South Korea regardless. Seoul will be flattened by artillery before we have time to react. And in the medium term I think what’s left of South Korea could wipe out the North on their own. Not good for China either. Would open a land bridge from a US ally to Chinas mainland.
The drone boats Ukraine is developing is a disaster for Chinas invasion plans as well I think. Chinas plan depends on overwhelming Taiwan with thousands of ships, many of which will not have advanced anti ship weapons. If Taiwan can take out most of them with cheap drone boats or even small drone submarines, Chinas plans aren’t viable. I’m sure Taiwan is studying Ukraines solutions closely.
Alternative headline: "US is helping Taiwan protect from an unprovoked and unwarranted invasion by an unhinged dictatorial regime"
Of course it would be naïve to think there aren't also some more self-serving geo-political interests at play here, but this is really what it comes down to.
This situation is really sad.
In my opinion, Taiwan is one of the last really nice and democratic place on earth.
The population is incredibly wonderful with foreign tourists, compared to the Chinese population that is either hostile or trying to abuse or defraud of occasional travelers.
All this stress and money wasted on military stuff just because of megalomaniac old fart dictators in China. Nothing to advance the world and nothing to be won from going on with such a conflict.
No matter how much stuff the US ships to Taiwan, the Chinese have much more. The only result is that Taiwan's chip manufacturing will be destroyed and that will be more destructive to the West than to China.
Anyway, China won't go to war with the Republic of China unless the Republic of China declares its independence. Just like the US went to war with the Confederacy in the 1860s when they declared independence.
78 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadAll the better when the large bully neighbors would happily do away with USA if they could.
If small nations bolstering self defense and making treaties is viewed as threatening to much larger neighbors, then I'm very curious about what those large nations had planned for the smaller ones.
Did you see how the US reacted to that?
Honestly what do you think the Chinese are thinking? We whine at even one missile in Cuba while China and every other country has to accept the fact that the US has military weapons and outposts around the world. Seriously this is a hugely provocative move.
Also as a Taiwanese person I agree with the US about how the lives of Taiwanese people are more important then those in Gaza (sarcasm). Weaponize Taiwan but let Israel slaughter its enemies. In reality the US could give a shit about either people. This is a story about patriotism and power.
China is becoming an economic and technological peer to the US and in order to stop it the US needs to stop china from controlling the Pacific and tsmc. This is what's going on. Not some preservation of peace, that's garbage.
The attitude of the American public largely echoes your point of view. Basically at the back of your mind you know it's a power play coming out of jealousy and fear, but we lie to ourselves and pretend it's some sort of move to defend the innocent people of Taiwan. Well as I stated earlier that's a lie we Americans tell ourselves. I have a realistic view of this because my heritage straddles both worlds and I can tell you the US side is the delusional one. To clarify the US is making logical and rational military maneuvers in terms of power projection at the greatest threat but their justification for such maneuvers is delusional. Your post is one example of the delusion.
The hypocrisy of what's going on in the middleeast and Ukraine is proof of that. Unless you actually believe that the lives of Taiwanese people are worth more than those in Ukraine and the middleeast. Think about why military intervention is justified for Taiwan and not Ukraine.
To my knowledge we have not equipped Taiwan with nuclear missiles, which is what the Cuban Missile Crisis was about. Big difference.
> while China and every other country has to accept the fact that the US has military weapons and outposts around the world. Seriously this is a hugely provocative move.
provocative seems like a questionable choice of words, given that the US military has time and time again been used to resist militarists & authoritarians exploiting populations. We have enormous military capability that we don't use, that is not for making war, but defending the world against warlike powers.
> China is becoming an economic and technological peer to the US and in order to stop it the US needs to stop china from controlling the Pacific and tsmc. This is what's going on.
Can't it become an economic and technological power without pushing around & pushing out so many neighbors? Here's to Chinas rise, I hope it does great, but it keeps acting so zero sum, keeps creating conflict, and it gives everyone great unease to see such military buildup from a country that keeps acting hard & ardent to those around it.
> The attitude of the American public largely echoes your point of view. Basically at the back of your mind you know it's a power play coming out of jealousy and fear,
Absolutely on fear. We are scared of an authoritarian country so ready to go to war with it's neighbors, so willing to push people around. We have projected power so far for so long, but so rarely begun conflict, in hopes of preventing destabilization in the world, in hopes of preventing authoritarian overreach.
As for the whataboutism of other situations, the US has greatly helped Ukraine & our direct involvement would make it World War scale, so let's not if we can. We have both given Israel Patriot and Iron Dome missile-defense systems, while trying to get neighbors & Israel moving towards peaceful resolution. We are trying. Although you lambast us in these situations, we seem to be doing all we can in both situations to re-stabilize the world & in spite of your sharp words it's unclear what we could be doing better.
It's big but nowhere near as big as you imply. Think about it from a chinese citizens perspective. How big of a difference is air raids, bombings and missiles vs. nuclear missiles? Would the chinese citizen be calm and nonchalant if it was just non-nuclear weapons and suddenly be thrown into hysteria by nuclear weapons? Let's be real here. It's a physical threat.
>provocative seems like a questionable choice of words, given that the US military has time and time again been used to resist militarists & authoritarians exploiting populations. We have enormous military capability that we don't use, that is not for making war, but defending the world against warlike powers.
Our military power is used for maintaining our own power. Just look at gaza. Again we aren't doing shit because it's not a threat to american power. Taiwan Is. Hence the difference in response. It's unrealistic to characterize the US as some international white knight. Clearly we aren't.
>Can't it become an economic and technological power without pushing around & pushing out so many neighbors? Here's to Chinas rise, I hope it does great, but it keeps acting so zero sum, keeps creating conflict, and it gives everyone great unease to see such military buildup from a country that keeps acting hard & ardent to those around it.
Unlikely. The US did a ton of pushing around. A ton. and it largely gets it's way on the international front. China is pushing it's way to become an equal player and that's unacceptable for the US. This is normal. It wouldn't be acceptable for China either if it's the other way around. Both countries are human. I think you're placing the US on a bit of pedestal.
You remember how the Bush administration basically lied and made up a bunch of shit about WMDs just to go to war in Iraq right? That whole fiasco basically puts a hole in your "white knight" view point.
>Absolutely on fear. We are scared of an authoritarian country so ready to go to war with it's neighbors, so willing to push people around. We have projected power so far for so long, but so rarely begun conflict, in hopes of preventing destabilization in the world, in hopes of preventing authoritarian overreach.
Largely disagree with this. The US is not some White Knight projecting power to keep stability. It chooses it's conflicts based on it's own interests.
>As for the whataboutism of other situations, the US has greatly helped Ukraine & our direct involvement would make it World War scale, so let's not if we can.
Direct involvement in war with China will be world war scale and the US doesn't hesitate in this matter. Russia is the greater threat for war because Russia is just less stable.
China is less of a threat for war but the US steps up military power here because China is more of a peer and competitor on the world stage. Let's be real here.
>Although you lambast us in these situations, we seem to be doing all we can in both situations to re-stabilize the world
We are doing our best to maintain an edge over China. That's what we're doing. That's the entire point of why there's so much military projection in Asia and none towards say Gaza. Does Gaza have a threat for world war? No.. so your theory doesn't apply here.
We are doing things in Gaza to try to help our ally defend itself while trying to get them to de-escallate; it's just not super visible or obvious & it's unclear what you'd have us do in spite of your ongoing super-critical view. We absolutely are super involved, and scared of this growing worse, and trying to improve it, and trying to prevent a broader conflagration from growing in the area. It's unclear why you think this means anything about the US maintaining power versus trying to keep world stability.
You amazingly fully give license China to push around & use military might against local countries for whatever cause suits them, while again using whataboutism to deflect onto the US rather than face the real issue at hand. The US has done bad things, but often it's less clear cut bad than many lay at it's feet (the 1953 Iranian coup was hardly US instrumented, in spite of that common portrayal, for example). Even though the US went into Iraq, we spent enormous money (ineffectively, alas) trying to create a stable democracy, rather than colonizing & imperializing, with for example a huge number of development contracts going to other nations. These slights on the US, these whataboutisms, are not as bad, and just a whataboutism against China acting incredibly poorly in it's neighborhood & not bothering to keep any friends in the region.
The US does pick and choose conflicts, indeed, and doesn't attend well enough to some. But it does get involved in a huge number of conflicts and is by far the worlds biggest peacekeeping operation, is responsible largely for worldwide shipping being as feasible as it has been (deterring piracy). And we are very keep to combat instability anywhere.
Russia is less of a threat than China because Russia is losing huge amounts of forces to a lone neighbor they have aggressed, and cannot rebuild that force quickly. China is by far the fastest militarizing nation on the planet, radically outproducing everyone else, and have shown time and time again willingness to ride rough over neighbors & claim internationally agreed waters and land as their own. Nothing about your "real" talk convinces me that we should more worried about Russia than China.
You phrase this again and again as some kind of all-out competition against China, about the US keeping their lead. That just seems so facile, and to come from such a horrificly singular view of the world as competitive, as being zero-sum. I don't think the US thinks of China like that at all. We would love to see a good prosperous healthy China, flourishing at home and around the world. But we keep seeing a nasty bitter nation that is driven by it's own sense of insecurity at not clearly being #1, that thinks it must use force & power & might to bully other people into submission. That's why China is the problem, that's why this conflict exists: because China has lost touch with the spirit of heaven, because it begets havoc on earth.
It worries me because their entire direction depends on the whims of essentially one man who is there for life.
I also found it really worrying how the CCP made their own population suffer during the pandemic. Can you imagine what they'd do with the rest of us if they were the leading world power?
The pandemic thing was more of a mistake then it was an act of evil.
China was successful in basically completely eliminating the spread of covid in a way the US was completely incapable of doing. I don't know if you recall people in the US dying of covid like flies in the US while China remaining relatively covid free due to it's ability to use centralized control to basically stop the spread of the disease in its tracks.
What China wanted to do was to essentially use those same methods to stop a secondary resurgence but this obviously was not as successful. The second wave was different from the first and China misjudged that. The extreme methods applied on the first wave were no longer applicable to the second wave and that was a mistake on Chinas part.
If China lead the world then there would be significantly less deaths from the first wave of covid and significantly more deaths on the second wave of covid. The opposite is true for the US, significantly more deaths on the first wave of covid and less deaths on the second wave. You worry, but the world is too complex to give you a clear topic to actually be worried about. It's easier to simplify China as the one that's wrong and stay worried about the simple thing.
The scope I'm trying to convey is called "crossing the line". It's like you're in a shouting match with your friend and suddenly you pull out a gun. You crossed the line.
If you pull out a nuclear weapon that's ALSO crossing the line. Obviously different scope. But you failed to miss my point. By forming a blockade around China the US is pulling out a gun and putting against China's forehead. The US has crossed the line. Typically when one person crosses the line it's an act of desperation. It's to surprise the other party and scare the other person into submission. Maybe it works. It runs the risk of the other party ALSO deciding to escalate the situation by pointing artillery at san francisco.
None of this has to involve nuclear weapons but nuclear weapons but the cuban missile crisis is 100% examples of the US and Russia crossing the line. China is holding back here, whether out of fear or wisdom they are choosing NOT to escalate which is the mature decision. When a country chooses to play games of escalation they run the risk of hurting everyone.
>You amazingly fully give license China to push around & use military might against local countries for whatever cause suits them, while again using whataboutism to deflect onto the US rather than face the real issue at hand. The US has done bad things, but often it's less clear cut bad than many lay at it's feet (the 1953 Iranian coup was hardly US instrumented, in spite of that common portrayal, for example). Even though the US went into Iraq, we spent enormous money (ineffectively, alas) trying to create a stable democracy, rather than colonizing & imperializing, with for example a huge number of development contracts going to other nations. These slights on the US, these whataboutisms, are not as bad, and just a whataboutism against China acting incredibly poorly in it's neighborhood & not bothering to keep any friends in the region.
Wrong. I NEVER gave full license to China to use military might anywhere. I am simply saying China and the US are two sides to the same coin. Neither fits the idealistic narrative of the white knight you try to paint the US as. What you don't realize is that US propaganda and patriotism has effected you, despite your knowledge of US evils you still argue for this country and you still support it. Bro, China and the US are the same.
What whole point of the whataboutism is to point out the error in your analysis. You're framing the US as way to idealistic when obviously it's just as corrupt as China. It's one and the same. I mean the lies about Iraq which you decided to gloss over are just the tip of the ice berg. Nord stream 1? Come on man. Wake up.
>But it does get involved in a huge number of conflicts and is by far the worlds biggest peacekeeping operation, is responsible largely for worldwide shipping being as feasible as it has been (deterring piracy). And we are very keep to combat instability anywhere.
This is a joke. It gets involved to make itself look like it cares. But ultimately it doesn't care until it affects their own interests. People getting slaughtered in Gaza? The US doesn't really care, they just pretend to care. China about to annex Taiwan but never actually doing it? Oh shit huge issue. Launch the carrier!
>Russia is less of a threat than China because Russia is losing huge amounts of forces to a lone neighbor they have aggressed, and cannot rebuild that force quickly. China is by far the fastest militarizing nation on the planet, radically outproducing everyone else, and have shown time a...
Based on that alone I'd say the situations are pretty different. I'd be strongly opposed to arming Taiwan with nuclear capabilities, and feel China would indeed be justified in that case. But that's academic talk because no such thing is happening.
As for the rest: sometimes geopolitics and morality aligns. This is one of those cases, IMHO.
It always aligns for the US because that's how the US and it's people spin it. When has it not aligned? Never. WMDs in iraq were totally real.
>Unless I am misremembering the history, the missiles on Cuba were nuclear missiles. These are purely offensive weapons that have very little defensive capabilities.
So if china had a carrier off the coast of california with artillery pointed towards SF it wouldn't be a big deal because artillery is not nuclear? It's a physical threat and both justify extreme reactions.
I would also note that the US had missiles pointing at Russia during the crisis and the Russian reaction was nowhere as extreme or public. So really what occurred here it the US was the provocateur and the Cuban missile crisis was what Russia did to alleviate the crisis. Both the cuban and the missiles pointing at Russia were removed as part of the deal. In this case Russia took steps towards peace.
US moves can be both logical and rational in terms of power projection, and defend the innocent people of Taiwan. As a trading power, wanting to trade fairly and securely around the world with independent nations (ok so that is a bit of a stretch), it should be no surprise, and indeed quite gratifying that those two aims coincide.
US foriegn policy is not to create an empire, but to prevent others from doing so (USSR, and now China). Don't try to create empires, don't get the foot!
As I stated in other threads if china had a carrier off the coast of CA with artillery pointed at san francisco would the situation be more mild because artillery is non-nuclear? No it's a extreme physical threat. The point is, China is reacting to this situation in a way that is not provocative even though the US is being deliberately provocative.
>and defend the innocent people of Taiwan.
This is the story and a side effect. The reality is the US does not care for the people of Taiwan. They only care for TSMC and power in the pacific. This is made obvious by how the US repeatedly fails to use military might to protect people in Ukrain or people in gaza. There is no military or economic advantage towards protecting those places but their is for Taiwan. Hence the imbalance of military force. People are getting slaughtered in Gaza but more military force is being built up around Taiwan? Why?? Because of self interest.
>As a trading power, wanting to trade fairly and securely around the world with independent nations (ok so that is a bit of a stretch), it should be no surprise, and indeed quite gratifying that those two aims coincide.
It is a stretch. They want unfair terms in favor of the US and they want to maintain that unfair advantage as long as possible.
>US foriegn policy is not to create an empire, but to prevent others from doing so (USSR, and now China). Don't try to create empires, don't get the foot!
Another more accurate way of putting it is that US policy is to maintain their own current Empire. Prevent China or the USSR from setting up similar positions of power. Obviously China is't going to use the old ways of pillaging countries to expand their borders. It's going to be through patrols and military bases and alliances... etc.
Imagine if China did the same thing and tried to build a blockade around the US. Something minor like maybe putting some missiles in Cuba... how would the US react? Oh wait.
Honestly the real thing going on here is the economic and technological rise of china to surpass or become a peer to the US. It's a story about patriotism, power and refusal to to become 2nd place.
You keep saying a single missile in your comments. I’m not sure if you’re mistaken or being hyperbolic. But the Soviet’s actually deployed 24 R-12 medium range missiles and 16 R-14 intermediate range missiles as well as a large number of long range bombers. At this time the soviets had several hundred nuclear warheads, so deploying 40 to Cuba was something like 10% of their entire nuclear arsenal.
The entire point of such a move at the time was first strike capability, which is entirely offensive in nature. This is not comparable to establishing defensive capability in nations surrounding a geopolitical rival who has been expansionist and nationalistic. The Soviet move established their desire to destroy us without provocation (after all first strike requires surprise), while establishing defensive positions is meant to stabilize a status quo.
You know one of the reasons for Soviet missile deployment on Cuba was to counterbalance US missile deployment in Turkey, right? And that the resolution of Cuban missile crisis was basically "withdrawing US nukes from Turkey in exchange for withdrawing Soviet nukes from Cuba"?
Was the US missile deployment in Turkey "desire to destroy us [Soviets] without provocation", by your own words?
If there was a Chinese carrier off the coast of california (but no nuclear weapons) you're saying that's not a big deal?
Of course it's a big deal. It's provocative either way. You're argument is like saying threatening someone with a knife to their throat is not as big of a deal as threatening someone with a gun to their throat.
Btw, for the cuban missile crisis, the US already had weapons pointing at Russia from adjacent countries long before Russia made a move.
On the rest re: Soviet and U.S. deployments, I’m not taking a side. I’m taking issue with you repeatedly saying “a missile” in the threads, when it was much more than that. Absolutely the Cold War was a two sided war. There were no clean hands. But in the Cuban missile crisis it was much different than the situation in and around Taiwan.
What exactly are you saying then?
Taiwan is not an official ally of the US. It's an unofficial relationship. Probably going to be made official soon because it's advantageous to the US.
US is not preparing to attack China. The US just wants to keep Taiwan and TSMC out of China to slow down it's economic progress.
Additionally the US wants to maintain military power in the pacific and Taiwan is a key strategic point here.
China on the other hand sees Taiwan as a rogue state seceding from the Union. Similar to what the southern states tried to do during the US civil war.
>On the rest re: Soviet and U.S. deployments, I’m not taking a side. I’m taking issue with you repeatedly saying “a missile” in the threads, when it was much more than that. Absolutely the Cold War was a two sided war. There were no clean hands. But in the Cuban missile crisis it was much different than the situation in and around Taiwan.
No i disagree. The US reaction to it was obviously uncharacteristic. Other countries have to accept neighboring threats calmly when they have missiles at their door step but for the US it's unacceptable by their reaction to the missile crisis. I bring it up because it's hypocritical. Of course the US is self aware that what they're doing to other countries is a known physical threat. We know this by their own reaction to weapons on their doorstep during the cuban missile crisis.
> Imagine if China did the same thing and tried to build a blockade around the US.
If the United States threatened to annex Hong Kong over and over and over again, I think this would be an appropritae response.
Let me ask you, which lives are more important? Ukrainian people? The people in Gaza? Or Taiwanese people?
Obviously the Taiwanese people. As someone who is Taiwanese myself, I know the US is making the right choice here for using military intervention exclusively for the Taiwanese people. We are just that much better.
It obviously has nothing to do with the fact that China is becoming a military and economic peer to the US. And of course nothing to do with the fact that Taiwan is a key point for control of the Pacific and cutting edge semiconductor technology. Nothing to do with those things at all because the US is a country that cares.
Sarcasm aside, I really am Taiwanese and a US citizen. This duality allows me to have the least biased view of the situation as it isn't clouded with just the typical patriotic attitude you see from your average US citizen.
As for your dual citizenship. This does not reduce your bias. In fact your dual allegiances seem to cloud your ability to analyze things from an American interests perspective
I'm the least biased one here. Look at your post. It's actually in complete agreement with my points. You are supporting and agreeing with my point. But you can't see it.
You are conflating reason with participant. The main reason for wars since 2000 is middle east terror groups. Regardless of your thoughts on Afghanistan or Iraq, it is clear that the US would not have invaded anyone were it not for the fact that it suffered a pretty major attack on its own soil. I would suggest those that don't want war stop attacking other countries.
But at the end of the day, when you are the only military power in the world (the US military is in a class of its own) and the only one responsible for the current state of world peace (the world is more peaceful than it's ever been), you're going to be involved in the battles that crop up here and there. Luckily, we can assure the outcomes.
Next time be grateful that Uncle Sam helped you keep your God-forsaken land
And let’s not skirt the fact that the US was in it to secure natural resource rights. We weren’t saving their country as much as saving our access to it. The mujahideen knew this as well, so not sure why they’d be grateful.
(To another comment: the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis was that Kennedy negotiated a compromise with the Soviet Union…not a war)
They also frequently describe themselves as against imperialism, weirdly.
("Realistic": a coalition of Japan, South Korea, Australia and Great Britain would have the means to help Taiwan effectively, but it is very unlikely they would have the will.)
On the other hand, defending Taiwan and Ukraine and Kuwait (the first gulf war, while motivated by oil interests there was a clear humanitarian principle too) are pretty honourable IMO.
I would definitely not want to see China or Russia as the major world power. The US is not perfect but it's not the worst either.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/xi-jinping-says...
Not our fault that the Taiwanese people don't want to end up in forced labor camps.
Seeing how morally confused the rest of the world is, I am thankful that my country has the biggest army, navy , and air force. I mean you can't even properly assign moral blame for who is the aggressor here (China... the state that continuously threatens a violent invasion of a territory that is not theirs).
Given the moral depravity of many non-Americans, I think it's reasonable to enforce basic ethical standards by force.
Yet, we're one of the few that can say that if your country was brutally attacked you are allowed to respond with force.
> Talk to a college student they can’t even say that rape, cannibalism, etc are absolutely wrong. Why step into any conflict if you can’t state with 100% absolute confidence that something is immoral or evil?
Talk to an American to find out what they think of what's coming out of Academia
And I think Americans are plenty aligned with academia, except the small fraction of ultra-conservative republicans who are against everything that's not in their 2000 year old handbook.
It's just that that fraction seems to have much more power than they should have based on their demography.
The average American completely ignored academia during the COVID pandemic. America's rates of compliance were way lower than other similar countries.
The US basically has a barrier of military bases along the entire Chinese coast. The US also besties with Singapore, sharing a navel base there, where it could easily cut off China from middle eastern oil via The Straight of Malacca.
China should just take the L on Taiwan. In a war they wouldn't get any of the chip fabs or tech. Everything would be destroyed. It would be purely to fulfill their ego at an extreme cost.
But I think extremes never work. Neither strict communism nor all-out capitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
I fail to see how the sentiments of Vietnam or the Philippines have any bearing on the capacity of China to capture Taiwan. Talk is cheap, and neither country has taken any substantive steps toward a deterrence capability, let alone an improved one.
> The US basically has a barrier of military bases along the entire Chinese coast.
This sounds like something a PRC defense pundit would claim as justification for China's belligerency in the South China Sea. The few US bases in the region are north of the South China Sea, in Japan and North Korea. Take a quick glance at a map.
> The US also besties with Singapore, sharing a navel base there, where it could easily cut off China from middle eastern oil via The Straight of Malacca.
Singapore also has close ties with China, including joint military training: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-says-will-c...
The "bases" the US has in Singapore are merely for logistics and training. India also has similar agreements for use of Singapore's naval bases, and India is not a defense ally of the U.S. Singapore has a few bases in the U.S., but they're likewise for training and nobody would claim they're a potential military staging ground.
Singapore isn't a defense ally of the U.S., notwithstanding their defense ties. As a vulnerable city-state Singapore desires to be besties with everybody, especially those who can exert pressure on Malaysia and Indonesia.
India is not a defense ally of any country. However, at this time, India is the only country that is in a state of active war with China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changi_Naval_Base
Here is a map of US military bases:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:American_bases_worldwide....
You can see the US has bases in South korea, Japan, Philipines, and Singapore. As well as outer laying bases in Guam and Northern Australia.
China doesn't have any breathing room in the pacific. But when you shit all over your neighbors, that's what happens. They back North Korea. Have centuries long conflict with Japan. And ignore the Philippines South China Sea territory.
The U.S. also has signals facilities in many places. Some might count these as military bases, but that's a stretch.
Also, "Singapore has the second largest permanent foreign military training presence in the continental United States, with almost 1,000 Singapore Armed Forces personnel training at any one time." https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-singapor...
Yes, that's right! It's called the "Island chain strategy".
I'm surprised Russia and China are allies, considering Russia kicked the hornet's nest and will make annexation of Taiwan harder.
As Iran, China, and North Korea are not really allies, nobody wants to be the one who goes first. (And if the one who went first wasn't China, they would probably be not only stopped but stomped.)
Not sure how Iran and Koreas is relevant.
If Iran latched out at its neighbours and that region is plunged into chaos, it’ll hurt China more than USA. China is desperately dependent on oil from that region. USA is a net exporter.
There’s not much we could do for South Korea regardless. Seoul will be flattened by artillery before we have time to react. And in the medium term I think what’s left of South Korea could wipe out the North on their own. Not good for China either. Would open a land bridge from a US ally to Chinas mainland.
The drone boats Ukraine is developing is a disaster for Chinas invasion plans as well I think. Chinas plan depends on overwhelming Taiwan with thousands of ships, many of which will not have advanced anti ship weapons. If Taiwan can take out most of them with cheap drone boats or even small drone submarines, Chinas plans aren’t viable. I’m sure Taiwan is studying Ukraines solutions closely.
Of course it would be naïve to think there aren't also some more self-serving geo-political interests at play here, but this is really what it comes down to.
No matter how much stuff the US ships to Taiwan, the Chinese have much more. The only result is that Taiwan's chip manufacturing will be destroyed and that will be more destructive to the West than to China.
Anyway, China won't go to war with the Republic of China unless the Republic of China declares its independence. Just like the US went to war with the Confederacy in the 1860s when they declared independence.