Chinese Taiwan Policy

[Dirk Gently]

As far as I can see Article The Chinese seem as sure as ever that they want that small island. My question is 'Why?' I cannot understand why it is China needs this island or why it would risk the demand, let alone war with the US.

China is increasingly a growing economy gaining increasingly from its relationship of the US -- you'd think that they'd be taking it easy on Taiwan right now. The independence movement lost the last elections, but for some reason they've pushed this law that borders on provocation. It's assumed that if Taiwan ever actually declared independence, the west would "reevaluate our relationship" with them, but why risk it, and why would the Chinese officials mention 'major events' possible in the future?

[fallingstar]

Sorry for off topic, but I think China and Japan also fighting over a small island, don't no what for?

My theory to your question Dirk Gently my friend is that probably small islands can also provide military bases?

[Dirk Gently]

Well, Taiwan isn't really 'small' by any means, and it's densely populated and highly developed. But why would you put the moves on it when it's turf cared for by the US when there's no strategic advantage to the base?

[rububula]

Because if China takes Taiwan, and we don't do anything about it, it's a powerful symbol of China's emergance as the new world leader.

And we won't do anything about it. At this point, fighting China means WWIII, and it's just not worth it.

My school is about 40-60% Chinese, and talking to these kids about Taiwan is very scary. Most of them are very nationalistic, and really do view Taiwan as part of China.

[fallingstar]

where are you rububula my friend are you in taiwan teaching?

yes Dirk Gently my friend, i was about to change the post, because is big and dendesly populated (pardon my spelling)

I thought America was saying about supporting one China? Howcome they also say because if China takes Taiwan, and we don't do anything about it, it's a powerful symbol of China's emergance as the new world leader.

sounds confusing to which sentence to believe.

As a matter of fact I don't want any more wars not even a world, not because I am lazy to run around underground, because I am not fit enough to do that, I am too skinny.

just hope these two brothers get on nicely, and every world issue is solved with peace(WHICH IS NOT THE CASE, THAT'S MY IMAGINATION)

[mib]

Originally posted by fallingstar@Apr 12 2005, 05:24 PM
where are you rububula my friend are you in taiwan teaching?

yes Dirk Gently my friend, i was about to change the post, because is big and dendesly populated (pardon my spelling)



As a matter of fact I don't want any more wars not even a world, not because I am lazy to run around underground, because I am not fit enough to do that, I am too skinny.

I thought America was saying about supporting one China? Howcome they also say because if China takes Taiwan, and we don't do anything about it, it's a powerful symbol of China's emergance as the new world leader.

sounds confusing to which sentence to believe.

It is called... doublethink.

just hope these two brothers get on nicely, and every world issue is solved with peace(WHICH IS NOT THE CASE, THAT'S MY IMAGINATION)

Brothers indeed. While one brother says: 'Yo my brother!' the other replies: 'F-ck off, I ain't your brother.''

[fallingstar]

Brothers indeed. While one brother says: 'Yo my brother!' the other replies: 'F-ck off, I ain't your brother.'' Good example of representing the real world, how does it end no idea, violence.

It is called... doublethink. think that's the phrase I looking for thanks mib my friend.

[rububula]

where are you rububula my friend are you in taiwan teaching?

Heh no I go to public school in America. Just happens to be a very asian school :grin

Currently, the US has a commitment to secure Taiwan's independence. This is a promise we will most likely break, if the ****** ever hits the fan (which it may not, who knows).

[Gray24]

Something that is odd, unless Bush has changed his policy, he has said that if Formosa was attacked by China, that the US would stand with her in her defense.

[dangerdog]

Originally posted by Gray24@Apr 12 2005, 11:29 PM
Something that is odd, unless Bush has changed his policy, he has said that if Formosa was attacked by China, that the US would stand with her in her defense.

he's refering the Taiwan relations act.

That law requires us to sell Taiwan arms so they can defend themselves. The law does not actually require us to send troops. What the law does say is that we will view a war in the taiwan strait as a grave national concern, and the president has the duty to bring the issue to the congress. This is of course is in accordance to the constitution that only the congress can make war. So I guess whether we actually fight or not is up to a vote in the congress -- unless we got another nutcase unilateral president in the office at that time.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Around the period of WWII the government of China was displaced by Mao Tse Tung's forces and fled to Taiwan. America and many other nations recognise Taiwan as the government of China, and not Beijing, so Taiwan is a very important idealogical thorn in China's side.

[RexRomulus]

Originally posted by dangerdog@Apr 13 2005, 12:20 AM
he's refering the Taiwan relations act.

That law requires us to sell Taiwan arms so they can defend themselves. The law does not actually require us to send troops. What the law does say is that we will view a war in the taiwan strait as a grave national concern, and the president has the duty to bring the issue to the congress. This is of course is in accordance to the constitution that only the congress can make war. So I guess whether we actually fight or not is up to a vote in the congress -- unless we got another nutcase unilateral president in the office at that time.

Given the Bush administration's stated commitment to "defending and spreading democracy around the world", Bush and a Republican Congress likely would not back down from sending the US Navy to the Taiwan Strait.

And since Taiwan is an island where the main concern is fighting off an amphibious assault, a naval response is all that's really required - which means the current overextension of the US Army and Marines is not a particular problem in the initial phase of any such confrontation.


~RR

[OTZ]

Originally posted by RexRomulus+Apr 13 2005, 02:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (RexRomulus @ Apr 13 2005, 02:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-dangerdog@Apr 13 2005, 12:20 AM
he&#39;s refering the Taiwan relations act.

That law requires us to sell Taiwan arms so they can defend themselves.* The law does not actually require us to send troops.* What the law does say is that we will view a war in the taiwan strait as a grave national concern, and the president has the duty to bring the issue to the congress.* This is of course is in accordance to the constitution that only the congress can make war.* So I guess whether we actually fight or not is up to a vote in the congress -- unless we got another nutcase unilateral president in the office at that time.

Given the Bush administration&#39;s stated commitment to "defending and spreading democracy around the world", Bush and a Republican Congress likely would not back down from sending the US Navy to the Taiwan Strait.

And since Taiwan is an island where the main concern is fighting off an amphibious assault, a naval response is all that&#39;s really required - which means the current overextension of the US Army and Marines is not a particular problem in the initial phase of any such confrontation.


~RR [/b][/quote]
considering china&#39;s amphibious assault capability is shoddy, and both her navy and airforce antiquated, repulsing a chinise assault would not be impossible by tawain alone. as it is now, china does not have the ability to land with enough force, not maintain a logisical support chain to supply such an operation - if it were successful.

[cunobelin]

China is just a bully, who sees Taiwan as lucritive investment economically, the same as Hong Kong which was only leased to Britain.

[fallingstar]

I agree with you cunobelin my friend,

on the other hand I think the big problem with us human beings is not wanting parts of their country to be split, that&#39;s probably why all the aggression comes out. So I think its possibly hard to understand why china is aggresive :wack

[cunobelin]

Originally posted by fallingstar@Apr 13 2005, 01:41 PM
I agree with you cunobelin my friend,

on the other hand I think the big problem with us human beings is not wanting parts of their country to be split, that&#39;s probably why all the aggression comes out. So I think its possibly hard to understand why china is aggresive :wack

But Taiwan isnt politically part of China as it has its own democracy and elects its own representitives, doesnt it ?

[Perkele]

Originally posted by cunobelin+Apr 13 2005, 03:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (cunobelin @ Apr 13 2005, 03:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-fallingstar@Apr 13 2005, 01:41 PM
I agree with you cunobelin my friend,

on the other hand I think the big problem with us human beings is not wanting parts of their country to be split, that&#39;s probably why all the aggression comes out. So I think its possibly hard to understand why china is aggresive :wack

But Taiwan isnt politically part of China as it has its own democracy and elects its own representitives, doesnt it ? [/b][/quote]
It&#39;s still chinese land.

[RexRomulus]

Originally posted by Perkele@Apr 13 2005, 08:18 AM
It&#39;s still chinese land.

Well, if we wanted to get historically technical about it then Taiwan would be considered... "China", or whatever the island decides to call itself. There&#39;s no international law that decrees there may be only one China, only the PRC&#39;s insistence.

After all if you exclude Japan&#39;s interregnum as illegal by reason of international aggression, then officially the island has been under the jurisdiction of the "Republic of China" since 1945, before the Communists&#39; regime was recognized by anyone.


~RR

[dangerdog]

I don&#39;t know why some of you still think that when the push comes to shove, the chinese is going to try an old school amphibious assult on taiwan.

They are buying subs, they are buying fighters, they are building missiles, but they aren&#39;t building landing crafts. So what does that tell you all?

[RexRomulus]

Originally posted by dangerdog@Apr 13 2005, 08:45 AM
I don&#39;t know why some of you still think that when the push comes to shove, the chinese is going to try an old school amphibious assult on taiwan.

They are buying subs, they are buying fighters, they are building missiles, but they aren&#39;t building landing crafts.* So what does that tell you all?

The subs and fighters are all an attempted deterrent to the US Navy. The missiles are an attempt to intimidate Taiwan, but if China learns anything from the US in Iraq, they&#39;ll realize there&#39;s no replacement for boots on the ground.

As quoted straight from the PRC&#39;s foreign ministry rep over the weekend re Japan:

"Only a country that respects history, takes responsibility for past history and wins over the trust of the people in Asia and the world at large can take greater responsibility in the international community"

So if they use their brand spanking new missles only on military targets in hopes of "subjugating" Taiwan, the PRC will fail miserably as a military laughingstock. And if they flatten Taipei and Kaoshiung with them, well, how "responsible" and "trustworthy" will they look to the rest of Asia and the world at large?



~RR