Would U.S. sacrifice Taiwan?

Would U.S. sacrifice Taiwan?

worldnetdaily.com/news/artic … E_ID=42049

Obviously USA is not willing to get involved if Taidu threatens USA interest.

Obviously the USA wants to help their trade imbalence and needs to placate the hawks in the CCP in order to sell more US goods. If push came to shove and China tried to invade Taiwan whether or not it was because of Taiwan “declaring Independence” (Taiwan is already independent) then the USA would stand by their more important interest of world military domination and lone super power status and business would have to take a temporary backseat while Taiwan rides shotgun.

In the USA we have a saying “it is the economy stupid” however no one would dare doubt that the Security of the USA is subordinate to making a buck. Taiwan figures prominently into the present and future security of USA and a Communist Taiwan would not be good for the USA mo matter how many Boeing jets and automobiles they could sell to China in return for sacrificing Taiwan. The bigger problem is China’s CCP/PLA not Taiwan’s DPP.

I think you’re out of touch with current USA politics and current events.

The War on Terror is USA priority now, and China is the key to USA economic welfare.

I assure you if Taiwan declared independence tomorrow. USA would be very diplomatic and say, “I told you so.”

If Taidu had 100% certainty of USA backing, CSB would have declared independence, changed the flag, name, and anthem of ROC 4 years ago.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]I think you’re out of touch with current USA politics and current events.

The War on Terror is USA priority now, and China is the key to USA economic welfare.

I assure you if Taiwan declared independence tomorrow. USA would be very diplomatic and say, “I told you so.”

If Taidu had 100% certainty of USA backing, CSB would have declared independence, changed the flag, name, and anthem of ROC 4 years ago.[/quote]
And if The PRC had 100% certainty that USA would sacrifice Taiwan, they would invade today.

The War on Terror is of course the priority in the USA, no need to state the obvious, however, everyone knows the USA looks upon China as its long term enemy, not Taiwan. Further, USA interests would not be served by a Communist Taiwan. Military dominance, viz., the security of the USA is above even economics.

By the way, the PRC far more relies on the USA economically than the USA relies on China. Look at the old Spy Plane incident. The PRC didn’t back down until KMart faxed its suppliers saying soon they would have to find new sources outside of China if the standoff did not end, due to at the time an imminent US consumer boycott of Made in China goods. The diplomatic standoff immediately ended.

Hobart,

You over exaggerate the claim.

[quote]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/04/17/ED12838.DTL

According to a vice president for Kmart, the spy plane incident had inspired a deluge of messages at the chain’s Troy, Mich., headquarters from customers demanding that Kmart “quit doing business in China.”

“We don’t want to threaten the trade relationship. Look at the message that was sent by the U.S. Army’s black berets being made in China and Burma. You want another irony? The island where the plane went down? Hainan? A U.S. company, Lockheed Martin, is building a radar system there - for the Chinese government.” [/quote]

If you know anything about corporate history in the USA, 2000-2001 is the year Walmart kicked Kmart out of the retail game. One reason was because Walmart was more entrenched in China than Kmart and managed that relationship better.

So the moral of the lesson, if you want to survive in the USA as a fortune 500, you best have a PRC connection somewhere in your business and manage it well.

Bush wouldn’t want to piss off corporate american and risk the China relation, would he?

[quote=“ac_dropout”]Hobart,

You over exaggerate the claim.

[quote]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/04/17/ED12838.DTL

According to a vice president for Kmart, the spy plane incident had inspired a deluge of messages at the chain’s Troy, Mich., headquarters from customers demanding that Kmart “quit doing business in China.”

“We don’t want to threaten the trade relationship. Look at the message that was sent by the U.S. Army’s black berets being made in China and Burma. You want another irony? The island where the plane went down? Hainan? A U.S. company, Lockheed Martin, is building a radar system there - for the Chinese government.” [/quote]

If you know anything about corporate history in the USA, 2000-2001 is the year Walmart kicked Kmart out of the retail game. One reason was because Walmart was more entrenched in China than Kmart and managed that relationship better.

So the moral of the lesson, if you want to survive in the USA as a fortune 500, you best have a PRC connection somewhere in your business and manage it well.

Bush wouldn’t want to piss off corporate American and risk the China relation, would he?[/quote]Fueling the flames of China fever are we? I guess that is how you survive. However, in the PRC with so much US investment again it is the PRC that relies more on the USA than the USA relies on China. Surely you are not so ignorant to understand that.

KMART going bankrupt has nothing to do with China being more controlled by the USA economically than the other way around. The sooner the USA realizes that the better. If you want to pursue this though, you forgot to bring up KMARTs recent US$11 billion purchase of Sears. Oooo…sounds like China brought them to their knees. Kmart does have PRC connections that is the point as does Walmart and almost every other company in the USA. They invest US dollars and employ millions upon millions of Chinese. What would happen if they suddenly stopped and moved their factories and money somewhere else. Watch out CCP.

You mean like Lenovo Group buying up IBM PC division.

Sears and Kmart were both floundering, which is why their merger occurred.

I think you are mistakening how things work in a free market. The governments can have broad control over international trade. However, war means trade stops completely between the two countries at war with each other.

Hence, it is more productive for USA and PRC not to engage in war at this time. Especially not over ROC.

As I said already, the USA puts the long term security of the United States above hongbao unlike you AC. The State Department knows that its present and future enemy is China and it would never sacrifice Taiwan. However, to make some money in the meantime it makes statements like tricky Dicks (Richard Armitage) recently.

o[quote=“ac_dropout”]
Bush wouldn’t want to piss off corporate American and risk the China relation, would he?[/quote]

While there are a lot of things I think you don’t understand, I think that in this particular case, you show a lack of understanding of Americans and the American public. Americans have a long history of not acting according to business interests when confronted with an “enemy.”

At this particular moment, people are preoccupied with Iraq. Within a few years, Iraq will move to the back pages of the newspaper regardless of the outcome there. In American business, there is already a major distrust of the Chinese…note the maintained pressure on China to reevalue its currency when, as many many many economists have already pointed out, such a reevaluation might not help that much.

In a way, Iraq has eclipsed China for the time being. That is hardly a permanent situation. Now it seems the US and Japan will jointly be declaring next year a statement fingering China as a threat to regional security.

Iraq is a distraction. I don’t doubt for a second that the upper muckety mucks of American defense have lost track of China. And, to cite your example of Lenovo taking over IBM, after a few more major takeovers of American business icons, I don’t doubt the public will not be a bit peeved at China. I remember quite a bit of animosity towards Japanese in the US in the 80s for economic reasons. That was without a military threat. In the case of China, you have a combined military/economic threat looming. Add in a bit of propaganda (not completely false) of democratic Taiwan being menaced by big, bad China that ALSO causes headaches for US exporters, and I would not be surprised to see some economic staying forces discarded.

The flights of fancies espoused in this thread is enough for man to travel to Mars.

I personally think the US would intervene and it has nothing to do with business, democracy or the well-being of anyone here. They would intervene because they do not want a rival (China) to expand their powerbase into the South Pacific by taking Taiwan. Taiwan is important from a strategic and military point of view. The US also has a stake in the status quo. That is why I don’t think we’ll see either reunification (peaceful of otherwise) or formal independence any time in the near future.

I think this really misses the mark. It’s not the 1940’s anymore. Possession of Taiwan by China is not going to make any huge difference in the overall strategic situation. Personally I think that if Taiwan decided tomorrow it wanted reunification no one would be happier than Washington.

It’s a question of commitment. The US commitment to Taiwan is clear and longstanding. The nature of it has been made as clear to China as a line in the sand. We’re not going to let them cross it and get away with it. Where would it end then? It’s just that simple.

Of course if Taiwan declares independence you have the face saving out, which the US is practically falling over itself to make clear these days.

China is a threat to regional security. Ask the Tibetans.

I think the opposite is true. Although there are a few people screaming about the Chinese taking over IBM’s commodity PC business, most people either didn’t notice or don’t care or don’t see it as an issue. I am in the third camp; I don’t see the point in wasting time churning out crappy desktop machines. For innovation, there are companies like Shuttle and Asus. What has IBM done with the PC in the last 20 years? Microchannel architecture, anyone?

What people aren’t going to tolerate is China continuing to prop up North Korea as a way of putting pressure on the U.S. and Japan, as well as of course South Korea. Despite the U.S. media propaganda blaming Bush for Kim Jong Il’s continued nuclear program from 1994-present, it’s fairly obvious to anyone (other than the brainless Dems) who screwed up and when and how; and it’s also pretty obvious to anyone (other than the brainless Dems) what China’s role has been.

People also aren’t going to like China cranking up the propaganda against Taiwan. That will give another focus to anti-China sentiment if China tries to pull anything.

Overall, I see the situation being stable until at least the end of Bush’s term in four years, and assuming the next President isn’t a Kerry knockoff, perhaps even beyond.

Tempo Gain,

I would have agree with you on the commitment to our allies position. However, USA has also shown it is willing to turn away for allies such as Afghanistan and Panama when it suits its interest.

The question then becomes is ROC in line with USA interest at this time, especially rocking the boat with Taidu ambitions. And can CSB wait for USA to pull out Iraq before rocking the boat again. Or is USA going to be in Iraq past 2008?

I mean by 2008 we might have a pan-Blue in the executive office and tension between the Strait might lessen without much USA direct intervention.

ac, it sure is hard to disagree with you when you always have hotties as your avatars. Hubbah hubah

The mind control is working… muhahahah.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]Tempo Gain,

I would have agree with you on the commitment to our allies position. However, USA has also shown it is willing to turn away for allies such as Afghanistan and Panama when it suits its interest.

[/quote]

I don’t think there is any point for comparison with the nations you mention. However the phrase “when it suits its interest” is true enough. It is hard for me to imagine though what interest of the US might outweigh keeping a check on China in East Asia. And after all our hand has held up for 50 years now. Not the US style to lay it down so easy.

The future is fickle, so that is why I don’t have much confidence in the pan-Green suggestion that USA will “always” have PRC as a “strategic competitor” to USA interest.

I don’t see USA giving up Taiwan in 5 years. But in 10, 15, 20 when the prediction based on historical trends are correct and nations in the region realign with PRC, it might become more and more difficult for USA to justify their strategic ambiguous position on Taiwan.

Which is why I find the pan-Blue suggestion of engaging PRC pro-actively on the political front to negotiate ROC peace with PRC more compelling.

No.

This may be difficult for people like you to fathom, but Taiwan - unlike your precious PRC - has imported a concept commonly referred to as democracy. For the president to declare independence, he needs the approval of the voters and legislature first.