taiwan...

[bishop]

any reactions to this?


http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/2004...51527-5944r.htm

China blasts Taiwan's weapons purchase.... An article posted on Xinhua's Web site listed the planned purchases as 388 Patriot fly-bombs, eight submarines, and 12 P3C anti-submarine aircraft, costing around $18.4 billion, to be funded through the sale of land and the issuance of public bonds.

i can't make my mind up over this.. on one hand, taiwan's aspirations are purely focused on defense (not offense). and china has clearly shown the willingness to wage war against fellow chinese people. is it wrong for us to sell defensive capabilities to a democratic country under threat of attack?

the item in that story about the sale of land is quite interesting.. what would happen if we were to build a military base on this piece of land?


on the other hand, how does it affect us if taiwan falls to china? and is taiwan something that we should risk lives and money fighting over?

[dotcoma]

If we're gonna "save" Kuwait and Israel, we should at least support our real allies...

[Compugasm]

I think they were selling their investments in the USA and dumping bonds. I wonder how that affected the dollar? Where is that dave guy? He has an MBA, ask him what it means.

[bishop]

buying usd typically increases the value of the dollar.

china and japan have been engaged in market activities where they'll flood the markets with usd and continually buy it back. the goal is to inflate the value of our currency, at benefit to their economies.

Originally posted by Compugasm, I think they were selling their investments in the USA and dumping bonds. I wonder how that affected the dollar? Where is that dave guy? He has an MBA, ask him what it means.

Who was selling investment vehicles and dumping bonds in the US?
I've wondered about Taiwan myself. Sure the Island has been a staunch ally since WWII and the US has committed itself it's defense. The question is HOW concerted an effort China is willing to mount to take the Island? I'm hoping that increased economic activity will cause the populace to gain more control over their lives, and government, and reduce the chances of potential hostilities between China and anyone else.

[Mr.Vicchio]

China currenlty lacks the military to take Taiwan, they don't have the airlift/amphibious capabilites against the Taiwan defense.

We should be 100% behind Taiwan, hell we should park a few Cruisers in the straights, open an Embassay and declare them what they are, a country.

Its all about China saving face... sad really.

[bishop]

china took hong kong by launching missiles.. they've increased spending for such weapons big time. these aren't missiles that can reach our shores mind you, but most certainly can reach taiwan's.

are you willing to go to war to protect taiwan?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Originally posted by bishop, china took hong kong by launching missiles.. they've increased spending for such weapons big time. these aren't missiles that can reach our shores mind you, but most certainly can reach taiwan's. are you willing to go to war to protect taiwan?

Yes.

If we aren't willing to come to the defense of those seeking the freedoms we enjoy, why should we have a right to them?

[bishop]

well, to each his own.. curious george once said, while campaigning, that "the united states can not be all things to all people".

oh how the times conveniently change.

I thought China regained Hong Kong because Britain's lease ran out in 1997? I don't remember any threatening missiles causing Britain to cow and hand over the city.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Originally posted by bishop, well, to each his own.. curious george once said, while campaigning, that "the united states can not be all things to all people". oh how the times conveniently change.

Yeah 9/11 was real conveint.

What convienint is the number of people, namely on here, that ignore the 9/11 factor on American Politics.

[bishop]

dave... i guess i was wrong about what i said about a missile attack on hong kong.. i swear that i remembered seeing it on the news several years ago.. i must've been mistaken. relavent to what we're talking about though, the chinese did say that they would attack taiwan "if necessary".


vicchio.. what does 9/11 have to do with taiwan? is the chinese government in bed with al qaeda? you all love to paint EVERYTHING as being relavent to 9/11. just the simple fact that you mentioned 9/11 in a thread about taiwan is proof enough.

Bishop I want to commend your retraction. So many posters on this forum refuse to admit when they err by ignoring contrary evidence and/or trying to divert attention elsewhere. Your admission exhibits character. Kudos.

[castille]

Um, Hong Kong was handed back lawfully to China in 1997 (Britain's "lease" ran out in 97). No missiles were hurt in the return of Hong Kong.


Also what most people don't realise is that Taiwan actually has a claim on ALL China. Taiwan's KMT party was the original government of China from 1912-1949, and when they fled to Taiwan, they still held their claims to China.

Taiwan is divided between pro-independence seperatists (ie. "We're Taiwanese") and the pro-KMT reunifications ("We're the REAL China"). Nobody really knows what the numbers are, but judging by the huge election reactions its about 50% for each side.

Taiwan wasn't a real democracy until about 1995-1997. Before then it was a KMT dictatorship.


Currently China doesn't benefit from an attack on Taiwan. At the same time, if China recognised Taiwan as an independent non-China nation, there would be rebellion (on both China/Taiwan).

Frankly I would prefer it if China will simply disown Taiwan and let the Republic of Taiwan get formed or whatever. However the problem of course is that 50% of Taiwanese people CLAIM they are the true China (although realistically those Taiwanese are the Chinese who fled to Taiwan in 49).

Militarily, China's capabilities lie in missile strike. Naval invasion is extremely costly; Taiwan has the world's highest concentration of anti-air guns, anti-shipping missiles, and troops.


Of course, I'm only considering the Taiwan equation from a materialistic perspective. In reality, the situation is about saving face - who is the real China, who claims to be Chinese, and what Chinese territory should be. The concept of "saving face" is very important aspects of Asian culture (something I've sadly not inherited, after running naked through the school pub on a dare).

After all, saving face is the very reason why Japan refuses to accept responsibility for WW2. This isn't some samurai honour shit, its simply about culture - something most Americans refuse to understand.

[Paavo]

I never that about Taiwan (Re: Castille's recent post) and its' "roots". I do now! [insert cheesy thumbs-up + white smile here]
EDIT:
Like this:


(Yes, I had nothing better to do just now)

How many are the "we are the real China"? I mean, if China let Taiwan become independent, would the uprising be a worrying one?
But then again, as you said, it's about pride and stuff.

And I laughed at "some samurai honour shit" in "This isn't some samurai honour shit, its simply about culture - something most Americans refuse to understand."

[Young]

Monday GM said it was doubling Business in China, and today Ford said it was Tripling Business with China, so as to keep pace with GM. On the Grand Chessboard you can't move out of turn, China's turn is next and Taiwan is almost in Checkmate...while Greedy Men like Bush would be willing to sacrifice Taiwan for lucrative Business deals with China. Remember the Chinese leader met with Bush in Crawford a few months before we dropped the "Decapitation strike" and I bet this is just what was discussed.


Young

[bishop]

heh.. i got that same samurai notion myself paavo.

[castille]

Man Paavo, your photo reminds me of a Russian car salesman. Don't know if thats a compliment or a curse


And yes, its also about $$$. China's rising middle class market (which at the moment is about to go over the US's middle and upper class in quantity), means more $$$ for any companies that want to sell their products.

On the other side, it also means there is a less chance of a war over Taiwan. Because of the fact China and America profit from peace, both nations will probably talk it over before making any rash moves (unless China becomes democracy and one of those ultra-nationalist parties become elected to power).


Ironic isn't it? Money, capitalism, and corporate profits are keeping two global powers from killing each other.

[Nono]

Another reading of the same tea-leaves is that an emerging middle class in China might want a piece of the political cake that isn't necessarily carved and served up by the Party.
And/or that the wealthier regions increasingly ignore the dictates of Peking.

Either or both of these centrifugal forces might prompt the mainland government to try to unite the people by whipping them into a nationalistic frenzy over the project to retake Taiwan. Shades of the Spanish Sahara and the Falklands.

At some point the bizboys running the West will certainly cut the Taiwanese adrift.

As for Hong Kong, I wonder what force of law the British lease ever had, what "China" Hong Kong proper had ever been "part" of.

There's no way, of course, that the Brits could ever have held on to HK against Peking's will, but that was as true in Mao's day as it was later.
Apart from Chris Patten's belated gestures, the Brits (who are willing to shed blood to bring democracy to Iraq, right?) have consistently disgraced themselves ever since they started "negotiating" the agreement over HK.
Britain's silence now that Peking is letting the mask drop is a scandal.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by castille, two global powers

You mean the US and PRC?Global...That's a good one