Biden says US does not support Taiwan’s independence

[Sucuk Ekmek]

I don't get it,  What happened to good old democracy? where is the left spirit where is the liberty... This is straight tyranny. 

 

www.bnnbloomberg.ca/biden-says-us-does-not-support-taiwan-s-independence-after-vote-1.2021632.amp.html

[Devin]

US policy has always been neutrality, let them decide, not the U.S.

[Sucuk Ekmek]

11 hours ago, Devin said:

US policy has always been neutrality, let them decide, not the U.S.

Please tell me you are trolling.

[Devin]

6 hours ago, Sucuk Ekmek said:

Please tell me you are trolling.

You don't understand what it means. The U.S. will defend Taiwan from China, but it is U.S. policy to be neutral in terms of Taiwan choosing independence from China or not, many people in Taiwan want to remain part of China.

Edited January 14 by Devin

[Sucuk Ekmek]

5 minutes ago, Devin said:

You don't understand what it means.

Okay.

5 minutes ago, Devin said:

The U.SM will defend Taiwan from China

Military–industrial complex will only defend it's own iterest.

7 minutes ago, Devin said:

but it is U.S. policy to be neutral in terms of Taiwan choosing independence from China or not

Sure, but U.S. didn't ask Germany whether they want to work with Russians or not, somehow nord stream blew up and that was it.

 

12 minutes ago, Devin said:

many people in Taiwan want to remain part of China.

This is understandable.

[Bobby_2021]

I don't think China will attack for the time being. Their military is a paper tiger just like Russia, but now they have to make an amphibious swift attack against a trained enemy.

China will make themselves a joke it they attempt this invasion of Taiwan. Leaked US intelligence says that astronomical levels of corruption has drained the infrastructure of their military and it could be a lot worse than what meets the eye. 

So it is something to be happy about at the moment. 

[Hardkill]

Biden has made it clear that the US will defend Taiwan from China if China tried to invade the country.

[Raze]

On 1/13/2024 at 5:09 PM, Sucuk Ekmek said:

I don't get it,  What happened to good old democracy? where is the left spirit where is the liberty... This is straight tyranny. 

 

www.bnnbloomberg.ca/biden-says-us-does-not-support-taiwan-s-independence-after-vote-1.2021632.amp.html

Because if China feels Taiwan is separating and there is no chance of reunification they’ll invade and potentially millions will die. 

[BlueOak]

America's position towards China vs Taiwan is deterrence. Making the act of sending troops over the ocean towards Taiwan too costly or problematic to be viable.

China's position is gathering strength and trying to suppress Taiwan diplomatically.

My personal opinion is. As the semiconductor industry is moved, Taiwan becomes less critical and more vulnerable. Though it won't matter if relations stay this chilled, nobody in that region wants China to have yet another base to launch its naval efforts from, and full control of the trade routes in the area.

If China just waits for American decline, waits for the semi conductor industry to move elsewhere (or be replicated elsewhere and competitive), and tries to improve relations with countries like Japan so they are not in fear of what China expanding its sphere of influence means, then Taiwan might slowly become Chinese anyway via trade. 

It depends if personal ego overrides common sense, and it has to be now now now, which it often does in men of power.

[Bobby_2021]

The odds of the Chinese invasion succeeding is zero. They are not nearly the superior military you think they are. They are going to make themselves look like a joke in the world's stage.

They should be self aware enough to recognise this. 

[bebotalk]

I don't see why it's the US's problem. 

If anything, it's just a holdover of a petty dispute that ended decades ago. 

Taiwan and the PRC should come to some compromise. Maybe share military resources or be like a mini-Chinese EU where they have a shared trade policy or something. 

 

[BlueOak]

3 hours ago, bebotalk said:

I don't see why it's the US's problem. 

If anything, it's just a holdover of a petty dispute that ended decades ago. 

Taiwan and the PRC should come to some compromise. Maybe share military resources or be like a mini-Chinese EU where they have a shared trade policy or something. 

 

The semiconductor industry is vital to America and every country on this planet. If you want China and BRICS to have a stranglehold over everything from washing machines to fighter jets, then sure. Otherwise, you have to wait until you've set up your country's version of it.

Taiwan is currently a wedge region to stop China from having a launching pad to the rest of the Pacific. So rather than worrying about one region Taiwan, you'll be having to arm and try to defend 5 countries. Unless you are suggesting going full isolationist, giving up control of global trade in that region completely, and pulling back to Hawaii, that didn't work out great last time. A lot of the bases in those countries allow for you to deploy your navy internationally when required.

Global trade through that area is worth trillions. China is trying to take over all the sea lanes throughout the region and everyone else's territorial waters. Including where all your trade goes.

What you are suggesting, going much more isolationist (if that's the gist), is going to take a complete and utter change of how you view the world. That means leaving everyone else to their own business and whatever happens globally, happens. (Currently, that'd be BRICS and Authoritarian dominance) This is where America is headed politically, but it also means you won't have near the influence or get your own way. There will be wars, there will be a reshaping of borders, and your quality of life will take a hit because you will no longer be a trading empire. The dollar won't have the same power if it's not being backed up by America securing the trade routes. If BRICS take over, it'll be whatever currency they end up deciding on that guarantees world trade.

*Oh and the real mud in the eye will be, every country going to war to reshape borders in former colonial regions will lay the blame firmly at your (and our) feet, with no consideration at all for the fact they are shooting the guns. Its like an open ticket to play the victim the world over.

Edited January 18 by BlueOak

[bebotalk]

10 hours ago, BlueOak said:

The semiconductor industry is vital to America and every country on this planet. If you want China and BRICS to have a stranglehold over everything from washing machines to fighter jets, then sure. Otherwise, you have to wait until you've set up your country's version of it.

Taiwan is currently a wedge region to stop China from having a launching pad to the rest of the Pacific. So rather than worrying about one region Taiwan, you'll be having to arm and try to defend 5 countries. Unless you are suggesting going full isolationist, giving up control of global trade in that region completely, and pulling back to Hawaii, that didn't work out great last time. A lot of the bases in those countries allow for you to deploy your navy internationally when required.

Global trade through that area is worth trillions. China is trying to take over all the sea lanes throughout the region and everyone else's territorial waters. Including where all your trade goes.

What you are suggesting, going much more isolationist (if that's the gist), is going to take a complete and utter change of how you view the world. That means leaving everyone else to their own business and whatever happens globally, happens. (Currently, that'd be BRICS and Authoritarian dominance) This is where America is headed politically, but it also means you won't have near the influence or get your own way. There will be wars, there will be a reshaping of borders, and your quality of life will take a hit because you will no longer be a trading empire. The dollar won't have the same power if it's not being backed up by America securing the trade routes. If BRICS take over, it'll be whatever currency they end up deciding on that guarantees world trade.

*Oh and the real mud in the eye will be, every country going to war to reshape borders in former colonial regions will lay the blame firmly at your (and our) feet, with no consideration at all for the fact they are shooting the guns. Its like an open ticket to play the victim the world over.

I'm not American. I don't care what they do. However, it's not just about trade. That's a secondary part of the schism. Since the civil war ended in 1949, they've both wanted to rule each other. It's petty. they should learn to live together. 

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, bebotalk said:

I'm not American. I don't care what they do. However, it's not just about trade. That's a secondary part of the schism. Since the civil war ended in 1949, they've both wanted to rule each other. It's petty. they should learn to live together. 

@bebotalk
tl;dr, Everything you can think of in your life, from the most simple thing you interact with, to the most complicated thing you know, is reliant on global trade functioning reliably and free of pirates, or each country imposing their own conditions, insurance being affordable, people being willing to take the risk, the interconnected nature of our supply chains and industry. Increasing this interconnected nature of the world, is the key to human development, fracturing it leads to all the worst outcomes we can picture.

It's largely about trade. If I can make a suggestion study global trade. Trade is the biggest external force on all countries, and by most people not being aware of or understanding it, they miss the critical piece that defines world politics. I'm no expert I just know the basics, and to look for it when a war breaks out or a conflict is brewing. The reason the American dollar underpins world currency is because they secure global trade. It's not quite that simple but without them doing so, the dollar wouldn't. That trillion-dollar debt they are in, would collapse or begin to roll back their economy.

The Americans moving toward isolation have to accept a completely different worldview, and I still don't know whether that pattern will continue until it hits a point and people realise what I am telling you in some form, or if these meaningless wars and loss of life will hasten the end of its trading empire, currently the pattern is the latter. Being English I hope they reverse their isolationism trend, or else liberalism is done globally, and the world is likely to swing further authoritarian in the short/medium term until we hit the conditions of WW3, or some bleaker future of constant regional wars. I don't see any other liberal powers rising anywhere, I could give a few fledgling examples where it might but people would laugh. - Maybe the Hague will surprise me and act like a global court, rather than a political tool, we'll see. Maybe the UN will get rid of the Security Council, so Russia, America, the UK, China or any of their allies etc, can't just throw their weight around without consequence. Anything is possible I guess, but unlikely.

Let's picture a future 200 years from now, where America is in Russia's position in terms of power. They are not the superpower. They are a regional power. What they say applies to their sphere of influence and nobody else's, probably not even South America as much as it does, as Brazil in this scenario remains in BRICS, and so we have several socialist countries in South America (just an example, could be fascist, anarcho-capitalist, whatever). Trade is much less secure, because each country has to secure their own territorial waters or accept China/BRICS doing so.

So either BRICS replaces America, or we get some unlikely global organization of cooperating countries, or that is the end of globalism, and means every country in its locality needs to find everything for all its supply chains. That means your quality of life is going to take a big hit. Less food variance, fewer luxuries, fewer necessities, less building materials, less resources for industry, and things are more costly. It means technology stops advancing at near the same rate, because we've only got to this point due to having a system where each country can specialize in part of the supply chain. That means farming doesn't advance to fix the food shortages, industry does not advance, and that means the climate is not addressed, it probably gets worse as people go back to using coal or other local fuels. Everything slows or degrades. Global trade underpins everything. Without it Africa starves as an example. 

Edited January 19 by BlueOak

[Raze]

20 hours ago, BlueOak said:

The semiconductor industry is vital to America and every country on this planet. If you want China and BRICS to have a stranglehold over everything from washing machines to fighter jets, then sure. Otherwise, you have to wait until you've set up your country's version of it.

Taiwan is currently a wedge region to stop China from having a launching pad to the rest of the Pacific. So rather than worrying about one region Taiwan, you'll be having to arm and try to defend 5 countries. Unless you are suggesting going full isolationist, giving up control of global trade in that region completely, and pulling back to Hawaii, that didn't work out great last time. A lot of the bases in those countries allow for you to deploy your navy internationally when required.

Global trade through that area is worth trillions. China is trying to take over all the sea lanes throughout the region and everyone else's territorial waters. Including where all your trade goes.

What you are suggesting, going much more isolationist (if that's the gist), is going to take a complete and utter change of how you view the world. That means leaving everyone else to their own business and whatever happens globally, happens. (Currently, that'd be BRICS and Authoritarian dominance) This is where America is headed politically, but it also means you won't have near the influence or get your own way. There will be wars, there will be a reshaping of borders, and your quality of life will take a hit because you will no longer be a trading empire. The dollar won't have the same power if it's not being backed up by America securing the trade routes. If BRICS take over, it'll be whatever currency they end up deciding on that guarantees world trade.

*Oh and the real mud in the eye will be, every country going to war to reshape borders in former colonial regions will lay the blame firmly at your (and our) feet, with no consideration at all for the fact they are shooting the guns. Its like an open ticket to play the victim the world over.

1. Even if China takes over Taiwan’s industry, that doesn’t mean the US can’t access it, china would need to keep selling to the US

2. There is no indication China wants to use Taiwan to launch hostile invasions, historically China has basically never invaded an overseas nation. China is concerned about its borders and internal issues.

 

[BlueOak]

@Raze
1, Let me try a different approach first Raze:

Do you understand why the risk goes up to shipping, and thus the insurance when there is uncertainty in trade? I understand you personally don't feel there is any difference between many countries (or just China/BRICKS) looking after their own international waters, and one country that has for decades guaranteed them, but are you able to consider others do? Especially given world tension? The people making these decisions have to focus on the odds.

So as the insurance goes up, everything in your life is more expensive. That means fewer houses get built, more homeless, food costs more meaning more starvation, jobs are lost because of increased costs and reduced profits meaning more addiction and crime, fuel costs go up (and so everything costs more), there is less money to spend on things, and so the economy goes backward. Trying to give you a broad overview here, in essence, everything about life, from the small to the big is taxed by insurance companies on those routes.

 This is even me taking your perspective that nothing else would change, there would be no piracy, or tariffs, competition for the routes, blockades over international disagreements (as in Yemen we have seen for the first time attempted since Somalia) etc. When that happens, supply chains will buckle, and competition for local resources that don't require shipping across long routes increases. There are so many knock-on effects to trade. Insurance for those routes goes up, if the shipping companies are willing to take the route at all. 

We are at a turning point as to whether we go back to warring nation-states, all trying to build local supply chains and do everything ourselves, or turn into two competing power blocks leading to a larger war, or finally give the UN some real authority and remain a globalized system. That's three outcomes I see here.

2, Now the usual response:

All Nations push their sphere of influence outward until they reach another one. Because all nations are made up of individuals who don't see a line on a map and say I won't act outside of that.  Stage, Red, Blue, Orange, Criminals, Politicians, Businessmen etc have similar characteristics one country to the next. Certainly, China used to be inward-facing culturally, but now it's not. I could list: Tibet, Turkmenistan, BRICS seeking to replace the Dollar, Material Support in Russian wars, Volunteer manpower in Russian wars (alleged), Naval Bases/Ports in places like Sri Lanka, and Australia, China's growing influence over countries in Africa, the Belt and Road initiative abroad, pushing its population/influence into Myanmar, the standoff with Japan over Senkaku Islands, its disputes with Bhutan or India over borders, or importantly taking over the territorial waters of SIX OTHER COUNTRIES in the Pacific and the Spratly Islands. China being the fastest growing fleet, the rise of international nationalism/fascism supported by these individuals, all as to why China is pushing its influence outward and seeking to be a trading empire.

But all I really need to say is: All Nations push their sphere of influence outward until they reach another one.

Edited January 20 by BlueOak

[bebotalk]

On 19/01/2024 at 11:50 AM, BlueOak said:

@bebotalk
tl;dr, Everything you can think of in your life, from the most simple thing you interact with, to the most complicated thing you know, is reliant on global trade functioning reliably and free of pirates, or each country imposing their own conditions, insurance being affordable, people being willing to take the risk, the interconnected nature of our supply chains and industry. Increasing this interconnected nature of the world, is the key to human development, fracturing it leads to all the worst outcomes we can picture.

It's largely about trade. If I can make a suggestion study global trade. Trade is the biggest external force on all countries, and by most people not being aware of or understanding it, they miss the critical piece that defines world politics. I'm no expert I just know the basics, and to look for it when a war breaks out or a conflict is brewing. The reason the American dollar underpins world currency is because they secure global trade. It's not quite that simple but without them doing so, the dollar wouldn't. That trillion-dollar debt they are in, would collapse or begin to roll back their economy.

The Americans moving toward isolation have to accept a completely different worldview, and I still don't know whether that pattern will continue until it hits a point and people realise what I am telling you in some form, or if these meaningless wars and loss of life will hasten the end of its trading empire, currently the pattern is the latter. Being English I hope they reverse their isolationism trend, or else liberalism is done globally, and the world is likely to swing further authoritarian in the short/medium term until we hit the conditions of WW3, or some bleaker future of constant regional wars. I don't see any other liberal powers rising anywhere, I could give a few fledgling examples where it might but people would laugh. - Maybe the Hague will surprise me and act like a global court, rather than a political tool, we'll see. Maybe the UN will get rid of the Security Council, so Russia, America, the UK, China or any of their allies etc, can't just throw their weight around without consequence. Anything is possible I guess, but unlikely.

Let's picture a future 200 years from now, where America is in Russia's position in terms of power. They are not the superpower. They are a regional power. What they say applies to their sphere of influence and nobody else's, probably not even South America as much as it does, as Brazil in this scenario remains in BRICS, and so we have several socialist countries in South America (just an example, could be fascist, anarcho-capitalist, whatever). Trade is much less secure, because each country has to secure their own territorial waters or accept China/BRICS doing so.

So either BRICS replaces America, or we get some unlikely global organization of cooperating countries, or that is the end of globalism, and means every country in its locality needs to find everything for all its supply chains. That means your quality of life is going to take a big hit. Less food variance, fewer luxuries, fewer necessities, less building materials, less resources for industry, and things are more costly. It means technology stops advancing at near the same rate, because we've only got to this point due to having a system where each country can specialize in part of the supply chain. That means farming doesn't advance to fix the food shortages, industry does not advance, and that means the climate is not addressed, it probably gets worse as people go back to using coal or other local fuels. Everything slows or degrades. Global trade underpins everything. Without it Africa starves as an example. 

Globalism has been a thing for centuries. Your analysis is scant. 

[Leo Gura]

Pushing for Taiwan independence would be an inflammatory move.

The wiser course is to not kick a hornet's nest.

Edited January 22 by Leo Gura

[zazen]

6 hours ago, bebotalk said:

Globalism has been a thing for centuries. Your analysis is scant. 

That’s a rude way of dismissing someone who’s poured their thoughts out at some length. 

In geopolitics, we need to consider the degrees and domains of a country's stance. A nation might adopt an isolationist approach in one domain while pursuing expansionism in another - if not driven by necessity it can be driven by greed and conquest.

A country needs to expand in trade and political alliance to the degree it’s self sufficient. The more globalised the world, the more links in the chain exist for vulnerability, which means less sufficient nations need to secure those links whether diplomatically or violently - or through the paradoxical marriage of both ie war on terror being a guise for monopolising resources and inflated war profits.

The problem is that regional wars of the past had less ripple effects in a less connected world of complex supply chains - the stakes are higher today. So you may not care what China or US do but it can definitely affect the things you do care about. When elephants (US/China) fight the ants get crushed.

 

[BlueOak]

9 hours ago, bebotalk said:

Globalism has been a thing for centuries. Your analysis is scant. 

And what's yours then? Is it better? 

I love it when people challenge or add to the analysis of something, because that's how I grow my understanding, but usually, when someone does what you just did, its a knee-jerk emotional reaction because they didn't like what they read or it challenges their values or beliefs.

Edited January 22 by BlueOak