US Arms Sales to Taiwan

[Tigerman]

[quote=“Jasper”]Well, you have just gone back on yourself.
earlier in this thread you said it was bullshit that the US sold Taiwan airframes in variuos states of repair. Now you are admitting that LM did infact sell dodgy F16’s. Getting to the truth now? Obviously you have been doing some background reading.[/quote]

No, I am not “going back on myself”. I have made it quite clear that I have very limited knowledge re this issue. In fact, I admitted that I didn’t know what condition the planes were in when I asked whether the aircraft had exceeded the maximum safe flight hours. You are the one claiming to be in the know here, not I. Sure, I have done some searches and I rely on what I can remember from previous conversations with other people. But I have no way of verifying the same.

@Jasper

The fact is even if LM did give Taiwan a rebate on the aircraft, (which they did) it still isn’t enough. And they still “tried it on.”

First, that is an opinion, not a fact. Second, it wasn’t just a “rebate” that Taiwan received. Taiwan received a technology transfer in the form of contracts to build parts and components here. That transfer has value. A lot of value.

@Jasper

Sure, if Taiwan went to war with China (or vice versa) the US would lose billions. Which is erm…why we are here and…why we are trying to control the balance of power and…erm…making wonga out of arms sales. Hang on, didn’t you just repeat what I have just said, but in a different way?

No. You have claimed that the US protects Taiwan merely and solely for the profit that the US gains from selling weapons to Taiwan. I think that is a ridiculous assertion, considering the fact that the real money is in China and good or at least much better relations with china could be had simply by dropping Taiwan or at least by discontinuing arms sales to Taiwan. So, no, we are not saying the same thing.

@Jasper

Buying French ships and French aircraft and Dutch subs…I’m sure our government wasn’t very pleased. Remember that it was frowned upon?

Pleased or not doesn’t mean anything. You stated that the US prohibits Taiwan from purchasing weapons from other nations. That is wrong. And there is nothing wrong with the US hoping that Taiwan would make its weapons purchases (and all of its other purchases) from US companies.

[quote=“Jasper”]Oh…and news just in. The US may buy four deisel powered subs from America…which we will buy from Russia…? Well, talk about mark-ups?
Whats going on here then? Why can’t Taiwan just buy the damn things from Russia? ahhh…I forgot. Taiwan is obliged to buy arms from the US.[/quote]

No, Taiwan is NOT obligated to buy arms only from the US. As per the above, Taiwan has bought arms from France and from the Danes.

@Jasper

And the excuse? It is too far to transfer subs all the way from the US. What?? They are submarines for god sake.

Do you know also about submarines? Have these subs already been tested? I know from conversations with people here who sell arms to Taiwan that submarines are difficult to transport if they have not been tested.

In any event, there are many possible explanations for why the deal is being made that way, but, the fact that Taiwan DOES purchase weapons from other nations makes your assertion false.

But flipper already explained the real reason… The Germans and Dutch governments will not approve any sale of weapons to taiwan, for fear of angering… CHINA.

[quote=“Jasper”]I suppose we are heading now to the ultimate question. If the US is really interested in Taiwans future as a nation and democracy, then why doesn’t it transfer recognition to Taipei from Beijing?
It wont start world war three. [/quote]

First, who ever said that the US is concerned with Taiwan’s development as a nation? Nobody in the US Government has made such a statement, per my knowledge. The US is concerned with the peaceful settlement of the Taiwan issue, whether that means reunification or independence.

Second, the US transferring recognition to Taipei might start a war.

@Jasper

Ahh…but then I forgot. No Chinese investment. Oh well, at least we get our continued arms sales to Taiwan.

Which makes very little sense, considering that the real money is in China, not Taiwan. You haven’t addressed this issue well.

@Jasper

Korea? Vietnam? just like Iraq we left them in a bigger mess than when we went in. Yeah, China had a hand in it but so what. Peace and stability?

SK was invaded by NK. The US stopped that and forced a cease fire. Perfect? No. But preferrable to war? Yes, I think.

Vietnam? They should have adopted our system from the start rather than insisting on going communist and putting the people thru decades of grief.

[quote=“Jasper”]Malaysia/Borneo/Indonesia. whats going on at the moment? the good old US is trying to muscle in on their teritory now by insisting that thier waters are patrolled by US ships to “prevent” terrorism.
In Malaysia, the US navy has also insisted and is currently putting into action a little bribe:
“We need to put US navy personell in all of your major ports to make sure it conforms to US standards of safety and operation. Failiure to agree to this will mean that US ships of commercial nature will be banned from entering your ports and harbors”[/quote]

How is that bribery? The US is stating simply that if you cannot guarantee the safety of US vessels, US vessels shall be prohibitted from entering your ports. I don’t see that as terribly unreasonable.

@Jasper

Don’t tell me the US isn’t up to it’s same old tricks again. The above information endorses what I have said all along. Remamber what I said at the beginning of this thread? I didn’t realise the US was so wrong until I left and started to travel around the world…

You haven’t made your case to me. You still havent addressed the issue of why the US stands by Taiwan when dropping taiwan would be so much more commercially rewarding.

Until you explain that, I’m afraid your argument is quite weak.

[fred_smith]

Why is communist aggression always acceptable but US involvement is always interference or imperialism?

Remember that there were NO mass refugee flows during the US “occupation” of South Vietnam, yet millions fled from the communist regime. Remember the boat people?

Allende has 36 percent of the vote and tried to take Chile communist. There has been absolutely no proof that the US was instrumental in the coup that followed three years of his rule. So if the US supported the opposition which made up 64 percent of the population, how is that undemocratic?

Korea is worse off? Really? How? Vietnam was not worse when we left it but after the communists took over. Compare it and its noncommunist neighbors and wonder where those 30 lost years went. I understand this type of thinking though. I went to college where every course taught the same leftist cant. Face it you have been brainwashed. The facts and realities on the ground do not match the “theories” that are being taught. If this was a nationalist struggle, why did so many South Vietnamese choose to flee it? Why were they happy and content to remain under the American “occupation?”

Also, look at who we sell weapons to? Are we selling to North Korea? Libya? Iran? Syria? etc.?

And I have posted info to show that Iraq was armed not by the US like so many ignorant lefties believe but by the following countries:

Conventional:

Russia 59%
France 13%
China 12%
Poland 8%
Czechoslavakia 7%
Germany 4%

US and UK less than 1 percent each

For wmds, it is guess who?

Germany at 64.5%
Switzerland 8%
France 5%
Italy 5%
Brazil 4%

US and UK 3.5% and most of this for the US was computers that were considered “dual use” because of their computational abilities in that they COULD be used for military purposes. For the actual wmds that everyone is so busy whining about the US contribution minus these computers would be vastly lower than 1%. So?

And now who’s arming China? or at least wants to? Europe and Russia as always selling to anyone who will buy. At least the US tries to sell to responsible nations and avoids selling to anyone who can pay. Admittedly, sometimes, it has sold weapons to gain influence but without taking the context into situation, any criticisms would be grossly unfair.

[butcher_boy]

A bit of a rant there fred.

We already discussed the allende thing time and time again, and though there is no definitive ‘proof’ that the US was involved I think you would be quite proud if they had been. Your argument that it allowed Chile to develope the economy that it has today is similar to the Chinese justification for Tiananmen and its continued abuse of human rights. You have never explained why allende couldn’t have been voted out at the appropriate time if the Chilean people were so pissed of at him. Democracy is about expressing your opinion at the ballot box. Remember that more than 50% of the popular voted was against Bush last time round. Would you have supported a ‘democratic’ coup in the US to put Al Gore in? I doubt it.

Regarding arms sales, yes we all know the figures. I think that the european attitude on selling arms is disgusting.I also get increasingly pissed off with the lack of movement on issues such as Darfur and Taiwan. I have said before that it is only the US that is trying to do anything at all in Darfur. However I get the feeling that you would be able to justify any US action whatever it was though. You always have an excuse, and employ your own version of moral relitivity.

Your understanding of the vietnam issue also seems a little scewed. The US was supporting a hated corrupt government, which led many to support the opposing force. In someways the US effort might be considered to have aided the long term communist rule.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t had time these past few days to properly reply to this thread because I’m in Hong Kong…this is not an excuse. However, I will sit down and form the catagoric argument that I am trying to put across in the next couple of days when i get back from HK.

Just for the record, i don’t have a deep resentment or hatred for the US.
as I said before, I love my country. i just think we are wrong.
Also, communist rule - it works in some countries, it’s oppressive in others.

I find your (whoevers) comments on the fact that several ports in asia will have to have a permanant US presence. i’m assuming Malaysia can send a couple of their warships across to sit in some of our ports and verything will be fine?? We won’t disagree?

We do a pretty poor job of trying to be the worlds police force and it really reflects badly on us.

Also, just quickly, I didn’t state thet the US does not allow other countries to sell arms to Taiwan; just that it prevents, in a round about way, and put’s alot of pressure on, Taiwan not to buy arms from countries other than the US.

I don’t think that France and Germany are scared to sell arms to Taiwan. I think it’s more to do with the fact that China is a far bigger market for them for defence sales. How much money are they going to make from Taiwan compared to what they could make from China?
Yep, Europe is only interested in it’s own “interests” as per the above statement. But what we are getting at here is the fact that they are more “honest” if I can use such a word with regards to thier intentions, than the US is. At least they admit to the world that they may be about to start a few defence contracts here and there with China, possibly in the near future.

As I said, though. the US has got it’s “niche” market with arms to taiwan and it’s nice little business and corporate earnings form China.

And Flipper. So far I have refrained from insulting you and your personal life even if I disagree with what you say. I have never owned a business and what ever has happened to me in my past has nothing to do with you.
Insulting other people is not the way forward, so if you don’t mind, could we stick to a nice, friendly banter about our opinions and facts instead of insulting people when you don’t like what they have top say?
Thanks.

[Anonymous]

.[quote]How is that bribery? The US is stating simply that if you cannot guarantee the safety of US vessels, US vessels shall be prohibitted from entering your ports. I don’t see that as terribly unreasonable.[/quote]

What the hell is dangerous about Malaysia anyway. What? What? What?

???

Do they habor terrorists? No. do they produce nuclear arms? No.
are they a “rogue” state? No. Do they belong to the so called "axis of evil?’ No. do they aid these “rogue” states? No.

So what is the deal here?? What possible reason could the US have?
No justification whatsoever. Just another example of US attitude to countries that don’t have as many McDonalds outlets as it has. Or has no US westernised culture. Or does something that the Us doesn’t agree with. Or want’s to be communist.
so what? As long as it doesn’t interfere with us on our home ground or our friends across the pond then why bother???

Why???
Why???

[MaPoSquid]

@Jasper

Some of the things we do are good, but we seldom do something if we don’t get some kind of financial reward form it.

@Jasper

I don’t think that France and Germany are scared to sell arms to Taiwan. I think it’s more to do with the fact that China is a far bigger market for them for defence sales. How much money are they going to make from Taiwan compared to what they could make from China?

:loco:

@Jasper

Also, communist rule - it works in some countries, it’s oppressive in others.

Name one where it works.

[cmdjing]

Its worked decently in Cuba don’t let those refugee bourgeois landowners in Florida tell you different. Just a case of sour grapes. Exiles = not to be trusted.

In Nicaragua, the communist government did managed to complete several laudible goals during its tenure. Increased literacy, better health care, etc etc. They even left power democratically.

[MaPoSquid]

@cmdjing

Its worked decently in Cuba don’t let those refugee bourgeois landowners in Florida tell you different. Just a case of sour grapes. Exiles = not to be trusted.

So the imprisonment of political dissidents for even the mildest acts of “free speech” is a measure of how successful the country is?

@cmjdingie

In Nicaragua, the communist government did managed to complete several laudible goals during its tenure. Increased literacy, better health care, etc etc. They even left power democratically.

Your an idiot.

[Flipper]

[quote=“Jasper”]And Flipper. So far I have refrained from insulting you and your personal life even if I disagree with what you say. I have never owned a business and what ever has happened to me in my past has nothing to do with you.
Insulting other people is not the way forward, so if you don’t mind, could we stick to a nice, friendly banter about our opinions and facts instead of insulting people when you don’t like what they have top say?
Thanks.[/quote]

huh? what are you talking about? when did i say anything about your business or what happened to you in your past? i said you have a lot of resentment towards american foreign policy(to the point of defending communism) and it shows in the skewed reasoning you use in your posts.

let’s get back to the point, shall we? first you say that america prohibits taiwan from buying weapons from other countries, now you say other countries don’t want to sell weapons to taiwan because they want chinese business. is that not a complete repudiation of your original outrageous lie?

[Tigerman]

@Jasper

Also, communist rule - it works in some countries, it’s oppressive in others.

Examples? Define “works”.

@Jasper

I find your (whoevers) comments on the fact that several ports in Asia will have to have a permanant US presence. I’m assuming Malaysia can send a couple of their warships across to sit in some of our ports and verything will be fine?? We won’t disagree?

There is no such thing as “permanent”. Malaysia does not have the capability to ensure safety in US ports. However, I’m fairly certain that if the Malay Navy desired to make a port call in the US we would accomodate them.

@Jasper

We do a pretty poor job of trying to be the worlds police force and it really reflects badly on us.

That’s your opinion.

@Jasper

Also, just quickly, I didn’t state thet the US does not allow other countries to sell arms to Taiwan; just that it prevents, in a round about way, and put’s alot of pressure on, Taiwan not to buy arms from countries other than the US.

Now who’s “going back” on himself? You most certainly did, several times, state that the US does not allow other countries to sell arms to Taiwan. And the US does not apply any undue pressure on Taiwan re arms purchases from other nations. But, even if we do apply pressure, so what? We apply pressure on Taiwan in many regards. We pressure Taiwan to enforce its intellectual property laws. We pressure Taiwan to lower tarriffs. So what? Everyone applies pressure on everyone else.

@Jasper

I don’t think that France and Germany are scared to sell arms to Taiwan. I think it’s more to do with the fact that China is a far bigger market for them for defence sales. How much money are they going to make from Taiwan compared to what they could make from China?

Would you read what you post!!! You accuse the US of maintaining a relationship with Taiwan merely so that the US can sell weapons to Taiwan. I have stated that such assertion is absurd, because the US relationship with Taiwan is its biggest obstacle to immediately better relations with China, which, as you admit above, is where the real money is. Do you not see the contradiction in your argument?

The Europeans most definitely are scared to sell weapons to Taiwan. They are, as you admit, scared that they will lose out on a slice of the China market if they sell weapons to Taiwan. Yet, the US not only sells weapons to Taiwan in spite of Chinese anger at the same, the US also is committed to defend Taiwan from any unilateral act of agression from China. And yet, you still believe that the big bad US is in this only for the money… which you admit really is in China, not Taiwan…

@Jasper

Yep, Europe is only interested in it’s own “interests” as per the above statement. But what we are getting at here is the fact that they are more “honest” if I can use such a word with regards to thier intentions, than the US is. At least they admit to the world that they may be about to start a few defence contracts here and there with China, possibly in the near future.

How in God’s name are the Europeans more honnest in their policy re Taiwan and China? The US policy is written down in the three communiques with China and in the TRA. The US Government constantly issues statements confirming its policy. Honestly, I don’t see how you can possibly conclude that the Europeans are more honest than the US in this regard.

@Jasper

As I said, though. the US has got it’s “niche” market with arms to Taiwan and it’s nice little business and corporate earnings form China.

Not only could the US immediately improve its market situation in China by dumping Taiwan (and the arms sales), but the major hot-point and possible point of conflict between China and the US would be eliminated. How much do you think it costs the US to have to worry about an militarily ascendant China and its designs on a piece of land that the US is committed to defend? Do you completely ignore this factor?

[Flipper]

[quote=“cmdjing”]Its worked decently in Cuba don’t let those refugee bourgeois landowners in Florida tell you different. Just a case of sour grapes. Exiles = not to be trusted.
[/quote]

so why should we trust you? please tell us what qualifies you to make observations on life in cuba.

In Nicaragua, the communist government did managed to complete several laudible goals during its tenure. Increased literacy, better health care, etc etc. They even left power democratically.

and mussolini made the trains run on time(yes, i know it’s an urban legend).

[Tigerman]

@Jasper

.[quote]How is that bribery? The US is stating simply that if you cannot guarantee the safety of US vessels, US vessels shall be prohibitted from entering your ports. I don’t see that as terribly unreasonable.

What the hell is dangerous about Malaysia anyway. What? What? What?

???

Do they habor terrorists? No. do they produce nuclear arms? No.
are they a “rogue” state? No. Do they belong to the so called "axis of evil?’ No. do they aid these “rogue” states? No.

So what is the deal here?? What possible reason could the US have?
No justification whatsoever. Just another example of US attitude to countries that don’t have as many McDonalds outlets as it has. Or has no US westernised culture. Or does something that the Us doesn’t agree with. Or want’s to be communist.
so what? As long as it doesn’t interfere with us on our home ground or our friends across the pond then why bother???

Why???
Why???[/quote]

There is a real significant piracy problem in that part of the world. Surely you’ve heard about it. I think one-third of all the traded goods on the planet is shipped through the Strait of Malacca (sp?). There is a concern that terrorists will take to pirating/terrorizing those waters… It isn’t an unreasonable concern.

[Anonymous]

Here’s some black and white information about arms sales policy to Taiwan from the US and why I have come to the conclusion that the US is after control and influence in the region and hard cash. It is also why i have come to the conclusion why Taiwans security is, in the long term, irrelevant.

US policy over arms to Taiwan…

“…that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution. China acknowledged that US arms sales to Taiwan would continue, and the US agreed to cap the quality of those arms sales and to reduce them step by step, leading over time to a final resolution of the dispute
The US is the major supplier of weapons to Taiwan. While the US allows Taiwan to purchase arms from countries other than the US, the US strongly dicourages Taipei from the procurement of such arms.”

So am I right in saying, using the above informaton that the US is:

a). Selling sub standard arms to Taiwan. Remember the F16’s and Black Hawks we talked about earlier? And discouraging Taipei from gaining arms from other nations. Why? What other reason could there possibly be
other than revenue from arms sales. The US is purposefully dominating the arms market for financial interests. If the primary concern of the US was Taiwans safety and security, would I be right in saying that the US wouldn’t really care who Taiwan bought arms from, as long as Taiwan was capable of defending itself?

b). Selling arms “step by step” therefore preventing Taiwan from ever maitaining the full capability of self defence. This is good for the US as it now has an excuse to remain in the region under the pretence of protecting Taiwan from a military invasion from China whilst utilising the time spent in the region to enhance US control and influence in the area.
(The steady flow of arms sales to Taiwan in this situation is a steady earner for the US under the present situation, too).

“…China continued to look to the US for dual-use technology and weapon systems while accepting trade terms that were essentially neo-semi-colonial, exploiting China’s excessively low labor costs and non-policies of environmental neglect. By 1985, after the Reagan administration, at the urging of the US military-industrial complex, relaxed control of high-tech exports to China, US arms sales to China reached $5 billion, albeit all in obsolete systems.”

Oh, right. And I was under the impression that it was just Europe with a history of selling arms and arms technology to China.

"As Taiwan’s biggest arms supplier, the United States has urged the island to beef up its defence against the mainland, citing Beijing’s growing military power. - (Therefore gaining billions of dollars because, as stated before in an above quote, the US discourages Taiwan to accept arms sales from countries other than the US. Why would the US employ this standard. Surely Taiwan has the right to buy weapons from whoever it wants)??

So. Let me get this right. The US has urged Taiwan to “beef up” it’s defence capabilities. However, the US (as the largest supplier) will choose which weapons to sell to Taiwan (so as not to ruin any relationship with China and lose any possible economic progress and investment) and sell a quantity of weapons of which the US will determine. Therefore, Taiwan will never be able to defend itself fully against an attack from China.
The truth is, Taiwan, even with all the advanced weapons it could hope to buy from the US, could never ward off an attack from China. The US knows this, but because of arms sales and trade, Taiwan is a “US interest” on a purely economical plane. China is also a “US interest.” If China were to take Taiwan, then the US would lose, possibly, investment and trade from Taiwan, but it would still have China. So under the present situation, the US has the best of both worlds: Arms sales to Taiwan and trade with Taiwan while at the same time huge trade with China. Excellent.

The US has shown what the world would be like with it as the sole superpower. It is not bound by any treaty it has committed itself to. It can unilaterally mete out punishments without the UN Security Council’s approval. It alone will decide whether millions of children will live or die with the economic sanctions it imposes, and it decides which country can arm itself and to what extent. Bush is not trying to strike a balance between Taiwan and China. He is showing that the rest of the world is under the USA thumb. The world will not be a safe place for you if you are not American, unless you are prepared to suck up to the US

People seem to have this misconception that China is a very dangerous anti-western state like Iraq and Libya. This certainly isn’t the case, just look at the amount of Western influence in the streets of Beijing. Co-operation between the US and China through intensive trade links (which already exists) would surely break down the barriers. It’s highly unlikely for the Chinese to invade Taiwan because they are not foolish enough to not realise the consequences.

Who in their right mind thinks the US has any will to launch an attack on China if Taiwan were to be threatened? Do we really still live in an age where people still think China is still a pushover? The facts are these: China is the superpower of Asia and its economy is amongst the fastest growing anywhere in the world for the past decade. Both sides have a great deal to lose in any conflict, both militarily and economically. After the Vietnam and Korean wars the US learnt a very valuable and costly lesson, which is that to get anything done in Asia requires the consent of the Chinese. Why else do you think that so many successive US administrations have taken a diplomatic stance towards Beijing? Bush’s hawkish comments just show his arrogance and lack of experience in international affairs.

Like oil in Iraq, Taiwan is a major US trade interest.
This thread originated from US attitude versus UK attitude. If the US was to say:
“We are here for money reasons only and are enjoying a period of excellent trade relations between both Taiwan and China as long a the “Satus Quo” between the two countries lasts. We are also enjoying arms sales to Taiwan and wish to enhance our influence and control in Asia…” then perhaps I wouldn’t have such a big problem.
However, the US has to try to disguise it’s real motives by petending it is looking after Taiwans interests when it is clearly only looking after its own.
The longer this conflict lasts, there more money the US will make. Period.

Will we be seeing any arms sales to Tibet, which doesn’t manufacture cheap computer components for the West? I think not.

[Anonymous]

Sorry about posting the above topic twice!!

As for Malaysia. The US insists that the US navy is stationed in all of it’s ports “to ensure the safety of US vessels in the Malaysian ports and to ensure that Malaysian ports are compatible with US safety standards.” although the safety standards were not defined.

It seems to me that the reason is nothing to do with piracy (which incidently Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore have proved that they are more than capable of addressing) It is to do with safety of ports.

So why not just send inspectors? Surely Malaysia will agree to this.

Ahhh…I know why. Our government is adamant about having a permanant influece in the Pacific region.
If the reason was to combat terrorism (which hasn’t happened yet) then surely a US presence at ports in Malaysia is asking for trouble as US vessels would be a viable target for terrorists.
It’s just another example of the US trying to force it’s rules, standards and reasoning on other countries.

[Tigerman]

[quote=“Jasper”]US policy over arms to Taiwan…

“…that it intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution. China acknowledged that US arms sales to Taiwan would continue, and the US agreed to cap the quality of those arms sales and to reduce them step by step, leading over time to a final resolution of the dispute
The US is the major supplier of weapons to Taiwan. While the US allows Taiwan to purchase arms from countries other than the US, the US strongly dicourages Taipei from the procurement of such arms.”[/quote]

No… that is not the “black and white” info re US arms sales to Taiwan. That is from the US-China 1986 Communique re arms sales… but you left out the part that explains that the above US intention is predicated upon China’s stated intent to resolve the Taiwan issue in a peaceful manner. As of this date, China continues to state that force is an acceptable means of settling the issue and China continues to increase its military strength aimed primarily at Taiwan.

[quote=“Jasper”]So am I right in saying, using the above informaton that the US is:

a). Selling sub standard arms to Taiwan.[/quote]

How does the above, half stated US policy, support your statement?

@Jasper

Remember the F16’s and Black Hawks we talked about earlier? And discouraging Taipei from gaining arms from other nations. Why? What other reason could there possibly be other than revenue from arms sales. The US is purposefully dominating the arms market for financial interests.

Peace. The other reason is peace. Taiwan has sought in the past to obtain not only defensive weapons, but also offensive weapons. The US is walking a tightrope trying to keep China happy and Taiwan safe. If China were to drop its belligerent stance re Taiwan, the US would cease arms sales to Taiwan and certainly Taiwan would have no need for offensive weapons.

@Jasper

If the primary concern of the US was Taiwans safety and security, would I be right in saying that the US wouldn’t really care who Taiwan bought arms from, as long as Taiwan was capable of defending itself?

Discouraging and prohibiting are two very, very different things. Just about every nation uses encouragement and discouragement in its foreign policy. You shouldn’t give the same too much weight.

@Jasper

b). Selling arms “step by step” therefore preventing Taiwan from ever maitaining the full capability of self defence. This is good for the US as it now has an excuse to remain in the region under the pretence of protecting Taiwan from a military invasion from China whilst utilising the time spent in the region to enhance US control and influence in the area.

Is that why the US left the Philippines?

@Jasper

(The steady flow of arms sales to Taiwan in this situation is a steady earner for the US under the present situation, too).

You have already admitted that the real money is in China. Thus, your continued assertion that the US profits from the current situation isn’t very plausible.

@Jasper

[quote]“…China continued to look to the US for dual-use technology and weapon systems while accepting trade terms that were essentially neo-semi-colonial, exploiting China’s excessively low labor costs and non-policies of environmental neglect. By 1985, after the Reagan administration, at the urging of the US military-industrial complex, relaxed control of high-tech exports to China, US arms sales to China reached $5 billion, albeit all in obsolete systems.”

Oh, right. And I was under the impression that it was just Europe with a history of selling arms and arms technology to China.[/quote]

@Jasper

"As Taiwan’s biggest arms supplier, the United States has urged the island to beef up its defence against the mainland, citing Beijing’s growing military power. - (Therefore gaining billions of dollars because, as stated before in an above quote, the US discourages Taiwan to accept arms sales from countries other than the US. Why would the US employ this standard. Surely Taiwan has the right to buy weapons from whoever it wants)??

Yes, Taiwan does have the right to purchase arms from wherever it desires, and Taiwan does just that.

Again, “discourages” does not equal “prevent”. The US also encourages China to do some things and discourages it from doing others. So what?

@Jasper

So. Let me get this right. The US has urged Taiwan to “beef up” it’s defence capabilities. However, the US (as the largest supplier) will choose which weapons to sell to Taiwan (so as not to ruin any relationship with China and lose any possible economic progress and investment)

Wrong. Completely wrong. The fact that the US sells any weapons to Taiwan is an obstacle to better relations between China and the US. Of course the US will not sell offensive weapons to Taiwan. What would Taiwan need with offensive weapons?

@Jasper

… and sell a quantity of weapons of which the US will determine. Therefore, Taiwan will never be able to defend itself fully against an attack from China.

The US is committed to the defense of Taiwan by the TRA. Taiwan doesn’t need to be capable of defending itself alone. It need only present a difficult target sufficient to cause the Chinese to realize that an attempt to use force will be exceedingly costly.

@Jasper

The truth is

Let’s not make statements about the “truth”. Let’s agree that none of us knows the “truth”.

@Jasper

… Taiwan, even with all the advanced weapons it could hope to buy from the US, could never ward off an attack from China.

It can, however, make such an attack too costly to consider. That is sufficient.

@Jasper

The US knows this, but because of arms sales and trade, Taiwan is a “US interest” on a purely economical plane.

I have already explained that if the US were interested solely in economics, it would not maintain its current Taiwan policy. Heck, if the US were interested solely in economics and commercial interests, the US would drop all support of Israel too. What economic and commercial benefit does the US receive from support of Israel?

@Jasper

China is also a “US interest.” If China were to take Taiwan, then the US would lose, possibly, investment and trade from Taiwan, but it would still have China. So under the present situation, the US has the best of both worlds: Arms sales to Taiwan and trade with Taiwan while at the same time huge trade with China. Excellent.

No… under the present situation, the US is the most disadvantaged. The US is committed to defending Taiwan and to selling defensive weapons to Taiwan. This causes enormous tension between the US and China (where the real money is). Meanwhile, the rest of the world is free to trade with both Taiwan and China, with no concern regarding the Taiwan issue.

@Jasper

Who in their right mind thinks the US has any will to launch an attack on China if Taiwan were to be threatened?

Read the TRA.

@Jasper

Do we really still live in an age where people still think China is still a pushover?

Who thinks that?

@Jasper

Like oil in Iraq, Taiwan is a major US trade interest.

China is a bigger trade interest. You have said so repeatedly. Thus, if the US were interested purely in economic gain, it would drop Taiwan like a hot potato. You have not reconciled this obvious contradiction in your argument.

@Jasper

Will we be seeing any arms sales to Tibet, which doesn’t manufacture cheap computer components for the West? I think not.

I ask you again… what benefit does the US receive from its support of Israel?

[Flipper]

@Jasper

However, may I put to you that it is a free market out there. Why is Taiwan only allowed to buy weapons from the US? Because the US say’s so, that’s why.

jasper, have you conceded that you were completely and utterly wrong on this point yet?