O’Brien, your obtuseness has nothing to do with your syntax. I was referring to your attempt to compare your voluntary service – which you consider to have been very rewarding – with conscription – which is normally referred to here as “counting mantou” (counting bread rolls) and is anything but rewarding for the poor saps that can’t get out of doing it.
The air raid drill are to test that the sirens work, that’s all.
quote:
Originally posted by sandman: is anything but rewarding for the poor saps that can't get out of doing it.
Those “poor saps” who have been defending Taiwan, both Taiwanese and American (the guys on those BIG aircraft carriers), are the reason we can sit here in Taipei freely discussing this topic.
If you really can’t understand this and you don’t feel an individual has any obligation to the society to which he belongs, then I guess we have very, VERY different values.
PS: By the way, 99% of the time, being in the military is boring. That’s a GOOD THING. That means the “other guy” feels it’s too risky to make things too “interesting”. I’d much rather “count man-tou” than body bags…but then I doubt many people posting here have experience in doing either…
People will always complain about being forced to do something they don’t want to do. I happen to think that the presence of a large army, conscript or not, is part of why China hesitates to attack Taiwan. There are other factors, of course, like the limited possibility of US intervention, logistics, etc., but you can’t discount the effect of having a large standing army, no matter what kind it is, as a deterrant. I don’t think it would be possible to have such an army using only volunteers. Maybe a few years down the road it will be possible, but not yet. Taiwan isn’t the only country to use conscription.
I also happen to think that there is merit to the idea that serving in the army here is valuable for just learning how to get along with other members of society under trying circumstances. Granted, it’s a very difficult thing to do, but I don’t think it’s as awful as many people make it out to be.
quote[quote] Those "poor saps" who have been defending Taiwan, both Taiwanese and American (the guys on those BIG aircraft carriers), are the reason we can sit here in Taipei freely discussing this topic. [/quote]What Taiwanese are on what BIG aircraft carriers?
I don’t recall the Yanks defending us here anymore than any other country that espouses freedom and democracy. Defending? Tacit approval of our ways, maybe.
I wouldn’t hold your breath for the Yanks to come save the day if the Chicoms come marching…
quote:
Originally posted by CRACKPOT:What Taiwanese are on what BIG aircraft carriers?
I don’t recall the Yanks defending us here anymore than any other country that espouses freedom and democracy. Defending? Tacit approval of our ways, maybe.
I wouldn’t hold your breath for the Yanks to come save the day if the Chicoms come marching…
Sorry, the “(BIG aircraft carriers)” was meant to go along with Americans.
For your information, the US was here from 1945 until roughly 1980. The largest airbase in Asia was built by the US in Taichung. The US Navy had a fleet sailing back and forth on the Taiwan Straits through the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s. During the 1996 Taiwan Presidential Election, the US had a fleet here while China was firing missiles. The US had installations all over the northern part of Taipei.
No other country has EVER supported Taiwan militarily.
Sorry Crackpot, your ignorance of local history is showing.
And I wouldn’t class US military personnel as “poor saps,” either – after all, they wouldn’t get put in jail and discriminated against for the rest of their lives if they chose not to be there – unlike the Taiwanese, they’re not there because they’ve been press-ganged by their government.
quote[quote]During the 1996 Taiwan Presidential Election, the US had a fleet here while China was firing missiles. [/quote]Where do you mean by “here”? The Seventh Fleet was sent in a ‘keep an eye on things’ mission, but I have severe doubts that the Yanks would actually put a soldier today in harms’ way for a Taiwan citizen.
…and yes, I remember the military bases well, like the one next to where the Taipei World Trade Center is now…
…and I know my history fairly well, just trying to “Yank” your chain.
quote:
Originally posted by sandman: And I wouldn't class US military personnel as "poor saps," either -- after all, they wouldn't get put in jail and discriminated against for the rest of their lives if they chose not to be there -- unlike the Taiwanese, they're not there because they've been press-ganged by their government.
The US had conscription until the early 1970’s, as I said, my draft number was 329. And, even now, it is mandatory for all male American citizens have to register with Selective Service when they are 18 years of age.
And BTW, I went to school with several “draft dodgers” who ran off to Canada during the war. They haven’t forgiven themselves and neither has society.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/quemoy_matsu-2.htm
"Second Taiwan Strait Crisis
Quemoy and Matsu Islands
23 August 1958 - 01 January 1959
In the Spring of 1955 President Eisenhower sent a mission to persuade Chiang Kai-shek to withdraw from Quemoy and Matsu because they were exposed. The President was unsuccessful; Chiang Kai-shek would not withdraw. Subsequently Eisenhower provided the Nationalists with air-to-air missiles that enabled them to sweep Mao’s MIGs from the skies over the Taiwan Straits, and sent to Quemoy and Matsu 8-inch howitzers capable of firing nuclear shells. The military situation in the strait began to look more favorable for the Republic of China (ROC) in 1956 and 1957, a result of these improvements in the Nationalist forces due to US military assistance, and of the 1957 agreement between the United States and the Republic of China that placed Matador missiles on Taiwan. These surface-to-surface weapons were capable of carrying conventional or nuclear warheads up to 600 miles. Such developments, when combined with the US reduction of its representation to the US-PRC Geneva talks from ambassador to charge d’affaires in early 1958, may well have led the Chinese to believe that the situation in the strait was menacing.
The renewed threat to the islands came after Beijing had argued that Soviet ICBM developments had changed the world’s balance of forces decisively in favor of the Communist bloc, but it came when the reliability of the Soviet deterrent was being questioned within the Chinese defense establishment. At the Moscow Conference of Communist Parties in November 1957, Mao contradicted Khrushchev’s line that no one could win a nuclear war. He said that such a war would not be the end of the world, because half its population would survive. From other statements by Mao, it is clear he thought that a large part of the Chinese population would survive an atomic war.
In 1958 the Chinese Communist Party launched the Great Leap Forward, aimed at accomplishing the economic and technical development of the country at a vastly faster pace and with greater results. Militancy on the domestic front was echoed in external policies. The “soft” foreign policy based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence to which China had subscribed in the mid-1950s gave way to a “hard” line in 1958.
From 23 August through October of 1958, the Communist government resumed a massive artillery bombardmentof Quemoy and Matsu, and threatened invasion. Chinese patrol boats blockaded Quemoy and Matsu against Chinese Nationalist resupply efforts This was accompanied by an aggressive propaganda assault on the United States, threats against American naval ships, and a declaration of intent to “liberate” Taiwan. Quemoy, which lies about 10 kilometres from the mainland, had been used by the Nationalists to mount raids on mainland China.
It is clear from recently published Chinese documents that Mao launched the attack on purpose to show his independence of the USSR. Khrushchev’s visit to Beijing between 31 July and 3 August 1958 is quite interesting when seen in this context, for the shelling of Quemoy began shortly after Khrushchev left Beijing. Khrushchev’s talks with the Chinese leaders were probably designed to alleviate their concern over the USSR’s failure to prevent US and British intervention in the Mideast crisis of that summer. If the Chinese discussed with Khrushchev their concern over developments in the strait and their objectives regarding the offshore islands, it is likely that he recommended caution (although in his memoirs Khrushchev states that he was in favor of liquidating the islands in preparation for an attack on Taiwan itself). Not until Beijing signaled its intention to limit the level of military commitment to the strait did the USSR make an unambiguous statement in support of China. In a letter to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Khrushchev wrote that an American attack on China would be viewed as an attack on the USSR. On 05 October 1958, Khrushchev reiterated this position in an interview with a Tass reporter. It is clear, however, that Khrushchev’s “nuclear threat” was to serve as a demonstration of his support for China - not of readiness to fight the United States.
Once the shelling began, the United States made it clear that it would support the ROC in the defense of the islands. Responding to public commitments by the US to defend Quemoy and Matsu, the Eisenhower Administration deployed forces to the region. The American response included a large naval contingent in the Taiwan Straits. The defenders of the islands were supplied by ships escorted by US naval vessels. Senior American officials, including President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, publicly affirmed the US commitment to defend Taiwan and to counter naval threats in the Taiwan Straits. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles declared that the U.S. would take “timely and effective action to defend Taiwan”. American naval aircraft also helped the Nationalist air force establish control of the region
quote:
Originally posted by O'Brian: And BTW, I went to school with several "draft dodgers" who ran off to Canada during the war. They haven't forgiven themselves and neither has society.
Oh? Many of them certainly got a warm welcome when they came home after being pardoned.
I’m sure some draft resisters resist because they are cowardly. But there are also many who resist because they answer to a higher moral authority than the Draft Board.
quote:
Originally posted by SCL:Oh? Many of them certainly got a warm welcome when they came home after being pardoned.
I’m sure some draft resisters resist because they are cowardly. But there are also many who resist because they answer to a higher moral authority than the Draft Board.
Uh yeah…right. I remember the massive parades down 5th Avenue. “Welcome Home Scum!” That’s why for 25 years they’ve been trying to bury the results of their actions. They really don’t like talking about the Vietnamese boat people or the millions killed by the Khmer Rouge. So much for your “higher moral authority”.
http://www.yale.edu/cgp/dccam/kr.htm
Out of curiosity, just how old were you in 1975? Did you, anyone in your family or any of your friends actually serve?
What does that have to do with the tea in China?
So if I wasn’t personally involved in a historical event I’m not qualified to have an opinion?
Sorry, I’m not going to be baited into an argument based on such a tired premise. Have a nice day!
quote:
Originally posted by SCL: What does that have to do with the tea in China?So if I wasn’t personally involved in a historical event I’m not qualified to have an opinion?
Thanks for answering the question. Both mine AND yours. Just remember, talk is cheap…whisky costs money.
All this “I served, so your opinion doesn’t count” nonsense is getting way off topic. This thread is about Taiwan being made to look dumb.
Militarists and pacifists are never going to agree, so why not let’s get this thread back on topic?
quote:There is no doubt military presence on Taiwan will discourage a Chinese attack, but to my mind the question is what is the most appropriate type. Is a conscript army the best possible choice?
Originally posted by Poagao: ...There are other factors, of course, like the limited possibility of US intervention, logistics, etc., but you can't discount the effect of having a large standing army, no matter what kind it is, as a deterrant...
Likely scenarios for China’s attack focus on a missile attack, take air supremecy, then fly in troops to quickly take the island before the US could mount a response. The main reason for this is that China lacks a large blue water navy is unlikely to be able to mount a WW2 style sea landing, but has large numbers of passanger airliners. To deter this type of attack you would need: (1) A counterthreat of missiles, or a missle defense system, (2) An air force that could hold off the PLA Air Force, or (3) Ground troops of the type that could defend against well trained SWOT type attack teams.
Options (1) and (2) are both pretty high-tech, need development, money and would certainly be operated by professionals. My understanding of Taiwan conscript training suggests that they would not be very effective against threat type (3).
This tends to suggest that there might be other factors preventing a Chinese attack
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Poagao:
I also happen to think that there is merit to the idea that serving in the army here is valuable for just learning how to get along with other members of society under trying circumstances…
Military training provides a very abstract and arguably inapproprate way to learn these types of talents, focused as it is in teaching the tools, methods and techniques by which people can kill each other. It is also highly probable other less desirable skills would be picked up along the way.
We should look at the social value argument and compare it with the fact that adaquete defense can be provided by a professional army, probably more efficiently (costwise).
Don’t forget when you talk about social value you must consider the massive violation of human rights of those conscripted. The freedoms that are denied to conscripts are the very freedoms that we are supposed to enjoy within a democratic society. You could perhaps argue social values would improve if the state told everyone what to wear, what to say when and to whom, where to live, what to do… but that would start to look at lot like the PRC cultural revolution period and I’m not sure many of us would want that.
Furthermore to quote others:
“Those who have already completed their military service often tend to forget the negative experiences and remember only the good times identifying themselves emotionally with the institution. The time spent in regular army service has become part of their lives and they are angry with those who claim that it is an outdated and old-fashioned system.”
(Henrik Farkas)
quote:
I'm sure some draft resisters resist because they are cowardly. But there are also many who resist because they answer to a higher moral authority than the Draft Board.
Here here, I have total respect for someone who refuses to go and kill people becuase their government tells them to.
Bri
I’m with Bri. How many politicians do you trust? Not many, if you have any sense. If you don’t trust them enough to make sure the roads are fixed, why on earth should you trust them if they tell you to go off and kill people “for your country?”
Look at all you pacifists turning and running from the debate. Chief O’Brian apparently has some experience that all the rest of you lack, and with it a higher perspective. I’m with O’Brian, folks. How can you have any respect for a man that would refuse to come to the aid of a brother? That’s the way I see those draft-dodgers. Americans don’t go to war to kill people. We go to war to STOP people from being killed. We go to war to see that people don’t have their lives taken from them in both the physical and spiritual sense. How many of you have had to live solely under an oppresive government with no place to escape to?
quote:
Originally posted by Mo' Joe: How can you have any respect for a man that would refuse to come to the aid of a brother?
That would be very difficult, almost as difficult as I would find it to respect someone willing to go off and kill someone simply because his government tells him to.