Our discussion thus far has been in response to the question “why not” attack Taiwan. But how about asking “why?” What incentive does China now have to attack Taiwan that marks a difference from how things have been for the past six decades?
Years ago, I had a guy stay with me from one of those Washington think tanks. He asked exactly the same question. He also worked for the Federal Reserve. He said that they often talked about just handing Taiwan to China and what would China do. It is a very interesting question. Personally, I think they’d want the museum.
exactly. usa is and always was what is standing the CCP’s way.
its ok, taiwan is a very important issue to china. they are willing to wait as long as it takes, and probably plan to take over from the inside out.
Your conclusion is not supported by the facts or opinions I offered in my post and which you agreed to by saying “exactly”.
“Not wanting to change the balance of power” does not necessarily equal “standing in China’s way”. Let’s be logical here, OK?
And you say the USA “is and always was standing in China’s way”: Was the US standing in China’s way when they offered to trade with China in the 18th century? When they helped China defeat Imperial Japan? When Nixon went to China? When the US supported China’s membership to the WTO? When the US supported having the 2008 Olympics in Beijing?
There may be ways in which the US has stood or is standing in China’s way, but in other ways it has helped China enormously. Let’s be accurate and consistent.
That seems inaccurate. In the 18th century, the US was still trying to figure out things domestically. If you meant the 19th century, I don’t know if I would call any of the unequal treaties “offered.” More like “strongly encouraged. At gunpoint.”
PS, I interpreted the above post to be “the US stands in China’s way” when it comes to Taiwan, which would be a pretty accurate statement at least up until recently.
Regarding US trade with China, were not the unequal treaties only offered after China refused to trade with Western powers? I agree that the later gunboat diplomacy was a stain on the West’s record; but the original contact was quite respectful and fair - and rebuffed.
Regarding interpreting Lros, are you just guessing? How do you know that’s all he wants to say or imply? Maybe he has a lot of general anti-US sentiment behind that remark.
Anyway, the US has never stood in China’s way in terms of negotiating with Taiwan. The US has given military support to Taiwan to protect it from the threat of an armed invasion. So then yes, the US has stood in China’s way in the sense of blocking it from a military takeover of Taiwan. How is that a bad thing?
in a topic about china attacking taiwan i think you can put 2 and 2 together and figure out what ‘standing in the CCP’s way’ was about. i said the CCP i did not say china. the ccp did not exist in the 18th century. see, 2 can play that game. the nit picking game of dicks…
i was actually saying nothing negative about usa? obviously it is good that they are obliged to defend taiwan and keep the ccp in check.
Attacking Taiwan would cause a whole chain of unpredictable events. The government in Chins hates that kind of thing, they are extremely cautious and paranoid about losing power. Much better for them to slowly work on pressuring Taiwan to become closer to China from multiple angles.
The army in China supposedly is more militant.
The current situation still suits Taiwan best.
I agree some type of commonwealth arrangement with China would be the best and most realistic solution. At the same time ASEAN integration is also proceeding apace.
The US has shown more resolve in the pacific now and certainly does not look like it will abandon Taiwan anytime soon which would be counter to its overall strategic objectives.
Why do you use the propagandic term “unequal treaty”? All treaties signed after war are inherently unequal. If the rest of the world acted as China did then no national border would be safe. It would be utter chaos.
Plus Qing era China in the late 19th century was pretty what we would now call a failed state. Yes there was lots of predatory western actions against it. But don’t forget the Qing court refused to align itself with international law, and for example, encouraged inner rebellion, such as the Boxers, as long as they were attacking westerners and western interests. How would you treat such a state? As an equal?
Put quotation marks around “unequal treaty” if it makes you feel better.
The Qing Dynasty was dying largely because it didn’t understand how to integrate into the global world and wanted China to continue going about business as the Rome of Asia. Westerners had been filtering in for centuries trying to claim land that China believed belonged to it or belonged to its tributary states, so their reaction of GTFO we don’t want to trade is pretty understable, fueled further by Western countries’ continued sale of opium.
Let’s not pretend the West was doing China a service by knocking on their door with cannons, even if they weren’t as brutal as Japan.
I’m not pretending anything. I think we should simply stop indulging Chinese nationalists with the mistaken notion that the treaties they didn’t like are illegitimate whereas their own land acquisitions by force mean that territory is and always was an integral part of China.
Putin thought that last week. 
Edit - just checked the date 
2 Likes
no
1 Like
There would need to be a build-up of forces. Has anyone mentioned that? I haven’t read through the thread.
i just answered the 2013 OP, if it had been imminent we would know by now…
1 Like