No I’m not willing to appease them, and part of what gets tiresome is the idea that ANY non-military solution or form of conflict resolution is capitulation. I don’t believe you ‘appease’ China. But the idea that diplomacy = appeasement is floated out there by the pro-Taiwan talking heads in a very irresponsible manner. I’m not suggesting you’re a part of that but it’s prevalent in the rah rah rhetoric you hear.
Rhetoric that just happens to be in the interests of financial elites benefitting from weapons sales, but surely that’s coincidental.
I have relatives that work at both science parks in Tainan and Hsinchu and they always tell me there’s no China will attack simply because there’s too much info/tech there and they want to preserve it. I’m not sure I agree but they make compelling cases for that.
We’ve been hearing how China is gonna go bankrupt and their economy is gonna collapse for decades now and there are no signs of that. That’s another one of the myths I think the pro independence zealot types buy into.
Do you WANT China to collapse? This is the question I have for everyone. China collapsing is NOT a good thing for world economy, and their reaction to a massive recession etc would not only lead to massive humanitarian crises but inevitably military action exactly they type the Top Gun types think TW is gonna win.
China collapsing is the last thing the world needs. The point is to engage them and uplift them not lead to a catastrophic collapse of their society. War is the outcome of that.
Here’s the thing, how long can China pump up the economy this way? A lot of it is artificial, and I know all countries engages in some of that. But China is on another level of gov involvement with every aspect of business.
Maybe a collapse and rebuild is better in a long run? It’s hard to say, but I think the current way is going to have bigger issues the longer it goes on.
I never once said China collapsing. I only ever referred to the CCP. Yes the CCP is a cancer on the world and the CCP should collapse. The CCP is NOT China. It is a foreign occupying force.
I did mention recession. China still has a LOT of room to grow and I’m certainly not making predictions but there’s still a lot of steam because China still has a lot of what we’d call poor people to move into the cities and do the factory jobs China is so famous for. A recession is not a collapse. But the Chinese economy cannot grow at this rate forever, it certainy cannot deal with a lot of the unsustainable things it does because the CCP keeps its power by making sure the country grows rapidly and people attain wealth, but the CCP’s plan is growth at all costs, borrowing, frivolous spending, building/producing for no reason, THESE are not sustainable. Nobody knows when, but this artificial growth is not sustainable.
To me, I wonder how that housing bubble can keep going. How long can the gov hide that and keep pumping money into it. People absolutely take advantage of it in china building and building.
I saw a lot of what youre talking about the last time I was in China. Entire cities of empty skyscrapers. Totally bizarre and creeped out.
Saying the CCP should collapse is like saying the US version of them, the GOP should start actually governing, stop gerrymandering elections, and appoint judges that respect the framework of the US constitution. It’s a nice idea, but it aint happening.
Well, the US has a mechanism for handing power to someone else. The elections. China does not have any mechanism for any form of change. But you’re absolutely right. And Yes, I do think the gerrymandering is a huge problem from both parties and hurts fairness and competition. That’s a story for another time.
I also agree that the economic potential of China is not even closed to being reached, and they will only reach it without the CCP. You stunt real growth potential but proping up fake growth. Money is going into what the CCP is proping up and not where the market forces is pushing for.
Yeah. Not learning on this website, color me shocked.
You’re wrong if you think a naval invasion of a defended, prepared island like Taiwan is as easy as you seem to think. Clueless.
Nukes only count if CCP do not fear retaliation by the same conservatives you idiotically contemn in the USA. And Taiwanese are neck-and-neck with CCP when it comes to cyber-warfare or any level of tactical cleverness you would ever think of dreaming up.
Defending an island like Taiwan from China is not even close to the losing proposition you seem to think it would be. If you think the US military is staging a dog and pony show and somehow only propping up Taiwan with mere barking, then you are buying bullshit wholesale. If you think the KMT chose Taiwan only because it was geographically nearby then you are wrong.
In my opinion the idea that defending the island against China is impossible only weakens Taiwan and Taiwanese people.
Although Taiwan makes an easy target for missiles initially since it’s a small and population dense, it’s also a problem once an actual invasion comes. There are only 3 spots for a possible landing, 3 very bad spots. One around Hsinchu, one in the south, and the east if they risk going around and risking more causality before landing. After they get through fortified mine fields of course. Turns our, the shitty beaches and lack of beaches is really great for defense.
It will be difficult and high in loss, china can do it if they really really want to do this for months losing so many men. But that is assuming Japan and US doesn’t also step in.
Oh, and those mountains lol. It it’s nightmare of invasion. And cities full of small allys. We can also look at D day landings to get a clue, i think the allies suffered a 10% loss before anyone every landed. It will probably more since Taiwan would have smaller areas and locations to cover with more troops than Germany.
I think people forget the role of geography these days with all the high tech stuff and huge number of troops. Why do they think the US troops got fucked up in Afghanistan and Vietnam?
I’ll stay out of this thread now as I (as an American) have no real dog in the hunt, but it really grinds my gears to hear somebody argue that the best defense, in all cases, is to raise your hands and surrender. As if.
Not going to dwell on this, but you hear it when others say that carrying a gun is silly since it will only be taken away and used against you, or defending your home is silly since the other guy is so much bigger, etc. …
Self defense is a virtue imo, I just can’t bear people who insist that giving up is somehow a better first solution.
Diplomacy isn’t giving up. It’s being grown up enough to understand that military force is not the only solution to problems, and sometimes not a wise one. If you see the world only in terms of binary conflicts between one side or the other, you cannot solve problems.
Diplomacy does not equal surrender. Are you only able to solve problems with threats of force and violence?
Nobody said self defense is bad. Arming all civilians at all times doesn’t make people safer. There’s a big difference there, one that people not in jingoistic angry mode will pick up on.
Reality based thinking. Give it a shot. And try it without ad hominem attacks that should be beneath grown ups.
It’s sometimes the only solution though. Sometimes your enemy doesn’t give you a choice, and you need to be ready. We saw this in Europe where countries tried to be diplomatic with Hitler, they tried to appease him and even looked the other way when he took poland. Did not work, and the british finally had enough and declared war. The rest would follow.
If anything, CCPs obsession with reunification with the idea of completing the Chinese empire is a lot like the Nazis. Their aggression is increasing. Hitler also was not allowed the Rhinelands and he ignored that like today’s island building. German wanted Austria and some in Austria wanted to be unified with Germany. This will happen over and over again with other places with Germanic roots. Countries appease China in similar ways like giving HK back and ignore island building.
It’s a little bit of a stretch, I know. But you can see some similarities to be worried.
I hear you. But just for perspective sake remember how the Iraq war was presented as inevitable and they were presented as an imminent threat in the same way. It was a complete lie.
I don’t think China is that same situation, they are clearly expansionist and they have to be contained. But presenting the issue as one that diplomacy = capitulation is disingenuous. Sometimes soft power resolves conflicts as well.
Any time warmongers want war they dust off the idea that the war is NECESSARY and that anyone suggesting otherwise is unrealistic etc. We are in the middle east quagmire today because of thinking like that.
Oh, did we forget that perpetual war also makes money for a lot of people?
I am not saying it’s necessary, but to prepare for that moment when it is and do everything possible to avoid that. I do not think diplomacy is capitulation, there are obviously more than a few ways diplomacy can be extremely aggressive and offensive. This a war we should avoid if possible, since it will likely be more than Taiwan vs China. More like the start of a world war. I do think a strong defense is at least a part of that diplomatic package though, you don’t have many cards to play when the other side can just roll you over in a few days with their military. There must at least be a mutual avoidance of using the military for any diplomacy to work with China at least. And you get that with a capable defense.
Of course defending TW is vital. Defending TW is important and necessary.
There’s a difference between making up lies to justify wars versus actually defending yourself against real existential threats. I know you have the ability to see the difference, probably because your life would be on the line in any conflict. I have the utmost respect for the fact you walk the walk.
Not my argument. I have no clue who you’re arguing against here.
Try harder not to move the goalposts in an argument (like for the thousandth time here) and maybe people here will be more willing to engage you and your ideas.
