Pelosi landed at Taiwan

Author: Intelligence_06

Posts

Total: 54
Topic's author
#1
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
I am not the only one who disagrees with this decision, right?

From the Chinese perspective: Negotiating with a governor without contacting the Chairman and coming here is definitely NOT something you want to do as a governmental official.

From the American perspective: Triggering the 2nd greatest country as of this point in terms of global importance(when they are already somewhat triggered) is definitely NOT something you want to do as a governmental official. (Also, many Americans protested against this decision)

So, who supports this decision and why?
#2
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
I do.

Taiwan is a sovereign country by every metric, and it's only because of persistent diplomatic/economic bullying by China that the world doesn't formally recognize this simple fact.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, it should be clear that the authoritarian powers won't refrain from invading their neighbors if there's no provocation. Rapprochement has failed and we need a new approach to deterrence, which means signaling that we will stand with free countries should their rights be threatened.
The Taiwan visit doesn't amount to formally recognizing Taiwanese independence. Both Washington and Taipei are too smart for that. But the fact that the US would openly risk the safety of Speaker Pelosi for the sake of showing support for Taiwan sends a strong message that America won't back down if things escalate. This, in turn, will prevent miscalculation on Beijing's part that could escalate to WW3.

I have never respected Speaker Pelosi as much as I do right now.
#3
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Swagnarok
That's cute. It's all sovereign like Texas wanted to be when Abe blackmailed the Confederate States to stay part of the US.

All Sovereign really means is neither a good or a bad thing, what it means is in the past some bullies out bullied the other bullies and claimed it as their land. I'm not trivialising a big issue, I am seeing a big picture rather than a microscope image.
Topic's author
#4
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Swagnarok
for the sake of showing support for Taiwan sends a strong message that America won't back down if things escalate.
Yeah, if we ignore the fact that the US is (in)famous for starting conflicts for decades now for their own gains. America is not going to back down, they are likely the starter of whatever this is.

Taiwan is a sovereign country by every metric, and it's only because of persistent diplomatic/economic bullying by China that the world doesn't formally recognize this simple fact.
Uhh... not even Taiwan openly state this view. Only 1 party agrees with this, which is just discount democrats basically. The reason the Taiwanese people "Disagree" is because of education: They distill separatist messages(in an unregulated or lightly-regulated market of textbooks). In reality, nobody "should" hold this view.

#5
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
Uhh... not even Taiwan openly state this view. 
Yeah. Because they and their children will be murdered by the PLA if they do. Keeping silent from threat of violence (concerning the sovereignty that they already exercise openly) doesn't mean they aren't a sovereign country.

Only 1 party agrees with this
Only 1 party agrees that Taiwan by itself is a sovereign and independent country. The other agrees that the Republic of China (ROC), which encompasses Taiwan, is a sovereign country. Either way, all of Taiwan agrees that they aren't a part of the People's Republic of China (PRC).
And as for the issue of Taiwanese nationalism, even the Kuomintang is starting to come around. It's not inconceivable that the party will undergo a radical platform shift within the next 10-15 years.
Topic's author
#6
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Yeah. Because they and their children will be murdered by the PLA if they do.
You are underestimating strategy here. China's Mainland plots if any occupation by military, the goal is to make Taiwanese separatist politicians(who apparantly controls the province) surrender, not to convert this into a further hell(but some hell might be induced, for the sole purpose of surrendering.

Plus, if Taiwan says nothing, no military occupation there will be.


#7
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
Everyone thinks it's a wonderful thing that America and NATO are not letting Russia and China make threats over nothing anymore. Democracy is non-negotiable.
#8
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
Nice whataboutism, rationalmadman.
#9
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,590
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Intelligence_06
This all started with the Trump administration. For four years, the Trump administration had made confronting China a key pillar of its foreign policy. As part of that effort, particularly in the last year of the administration, Pompeo and senior officials had spoken vigorously in defense of Taiwan, the most sensitive issue in U.S.-China relations.
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,963
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
I agree, Taiwan has nothing to gain from escalating tensions with China, but Democrats desperately need a diversion from the inflation and recession they caused and continue to make worse... at least until November.
#11
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
Yeah, if we ignore the fact that the US is (in)famous for starting conflicts for decades now for their own gains.
Show some evidence here.  All US territorial gains in the 20th century came in Pacific Islands after WW2- I assume you won't claim that the US started that one. The last was the Marshall Islands in 1947.

China has enforced 21 territorial expansions since that time.

Yes, the US has engaged in plenty of conflicts since WW2 -Korea, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria but unlike China, the US enforces no territorial claims to any of these states.

#12
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Ask Hong Kong and Macau whether China keeps her promises to respect local autonomy and fundamental human rights.
#13
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
It's a commonheld view by Americans that Taiwan is a sovereign state, (I think),
No matter the US government's 'current 'spoken word.

In 27 years, it'll be 100 years since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, (I think)
100 years. . . In which the China has claimed Taiwan to be a band of rebels,

China, long attempts, harassing fishing boats, coast guard, air space, building islands and claiming 'new water territory.

. . .

There's more views that this one, and I'm not saying those views are incorrect,
But that's the problem with viewpoints at times I suppose,
More than one can be correct, even when they contrast with one another.

. . .

Hm, 'my view of America and the world,
I'd rather not say, as to my discomfort I've become far more radical in my 'opinions and views, though not actions.

From a view 'not mine,
There's a logic in curbing China's outward ambition,
Both in self interest and interest of those that China would absorb.

Though one 'could argue it's in China's interest to expand.
#14
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
China's Mainland plots if any occupation by military, the goal is to make Taiwanese separatist politicians(who apparantly controls the province) surrender, not to convert this into a further hell(but some hell might be induced, for the sole purpose of surrendering.

How will China do this? 

Consider 2003. Saddam Hussein was utterly screwed. As soon as the American invasion started, the power difference between the US and Baathist Iraq was so great as to make his defeat a foregone conclusion.
And yet, the Iraqi army didn't immediately surrender. They put up a fight as long as they could, and then switched to a permanent insurgency. When the dust settled, a million Iraqis were dead.

In contrast, Taiwan has an actual chance of repelling a Chinese invasion. Seeing especially how Ukraine survived Russia, they are well aware that it's possible to successfully defend the Republic of China. Their terrain is easier to defend than Ukraine's, and given the >81 mile length of the Taiwan Strait, China would have to use expensive weapons every time they attacked (as opposed to cheap artillery like Russia). Which is to say that nobody will even think about surrendering.

But no matter the outcome, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Taiwanese will be dead either way. The only way to avoid this outcome is for China to not invade in the first place.
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,963
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Swagnarok
But no matter the outcome, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Taiwanese will be dead either way. The only way to avoid this outcome is for China to not invade in the first place.
When you have a mix of 2 leaders in a phase of losing power, that is when actual wars tend to start. It's a very dangerous time to have both Democrats and Xi Xin Ping backed into corners where war is the only way to save face and their power.
Topic's author
#16
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
What Pelosi is doing is accelerating conflict.

First, the nationalists and a few other parties agreed to be a part of China mostly, and it is only the democrats, who is currently in power, who is making all this fuss of leaving China.

Second, I think Pelosi’s visit is unauthorized. People from Taiwan, Chinese mainland, and including US(even politicians) criticized her. She only tended to a small non-majority of Taiwan which people across China hates, that is not what you want to do if you are a congresswoman. You want to make conflict less likely, not knowing accelerate conflict.
Topic's author
#17
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Swagnarok
But no matter the outcome, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Taiwanese will be dead either way. The only way to avoid this outcome is for China to not invade in the first place.
Exactly. Pelosi visiting does the opposite of this. She makes it worse.

China would have to use expensive weapons every time they attacked (as opposed to cheap artillery like Russia).
People's Liberation Army is MUCH more well-equipped than military trained in Taiwan. Some experts expected such potential attack to fall in days. If the US is getting into this, this will turn into a much larger warfare(with the US more well-equipped) and could possibly lead to WW3. What Pelosi is doing is escalation.

At this point, what Peace is for the US is to just keep out for all potential wars and definitely don't catalyze the wars to come. The US has turned regional conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East into a larger-scale bloodshed by participating in it. While it is not for territoral gains, it is definitely a message for the world that they are strong and they can do whatever the hell they want.

But what is Chinese expansion in the past few years? Just a few islands in the ocean and a few undisputed areas with India or something. China DEFINITELY would not want to act first in a war. They haven't for like almost a century.

Topic's author
#18
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@oromagi
Ask Hong Kong and Macau whether China keeps her promises to respect local autonomy and fundamental human rights.
They get as much as we do in Chinese Mainland, if not more lax about trade. This contrasts with over a hundred years of colonial authorization where they were being discriminated against by westerners.

You have no right to judge whether we get enough rights or not, we do, and we say we do get enough. It is simple. If we get large-scale outrages of a lack of rights, there would be an unstoppable trend on the internet not even able to be censored. Right now, this does not exist(unless you are talking about in HK, etc, in which they clearly get an equality of rights).

I have asked a few friends living in HK, and they say the trouble caused by the violent protesters(and the group associated with them) is MUCH MORE than the official policies there. Who are we asking? A deliberately-separatist group? Spies? Maybe, just maybe, what the government believes does not represent what the people believe automatically, especially in a so-called "democracy". Massive riots happen at Taiwan(arguably more peaceful than those that were in Hong Kong) against this decision. Does the government even ask the people? I don't think so.
Topic's author
#19
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
【美国白宫重申不支持“台独”-哔哩哔哩】 https://b23.tv/NVwjQNi

Please don’t dismiss this just because it is a Chinese -uploaded clip, it is American footage.

What Pelosi is doing is starting an unauthorized visit. Don’t forget that. 
#20
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
People's Liberation Army is MUCH more well-equipped than military trained in Taiwan. 
Per the Global Firepower Index (a measure of military capabilities), Russia is ranked 2nd while China is 3rd. Taiwan is ranked 21st whereas Ukraine is ranked 22nd.

What this suggests is that the difference in strength between China--Taiwan is about the same as for Russia--Ukraine, if not slightly narrower. If Ukraine can hold on after 150 days of fighting, then there's little reason to think that Taiwan can't do the same.


If the US is getting into this, this will turn into a much larger warfare(with the US more well-equipped) and could possibly lead to WW3. What Pelosi is doing is escalation.
Pelosi's visit requires no response from China whatsoever. This isn't even an official administration visit to Taiwan, but never mind that: if, hypothetically, the US were to officially recognize Taiwanese independence, China would be perfectly free to just ignore it and reiterate the PRC's stance on the issue.

If this unofficial visit is a provocation, then it's an objectively minor one. And in the first place, it's only because of China's unabashed sense of entitlement to somebody else's country that they view this as a "provocation" at all.
Which is to say that China makes its own choices. The US isn't forcing them to do anything.

At this point, what Peace is for the US is to just keep out for all potential wars
"Peace" as defined by the aggressor, not by the peoples and countries being attacked. The UN is still too weak and gridlocked to stop countries from invading, conquering, and forcibly annexing each other, or to stop one government from genociding its own people, so the absence of the United States is almost by definition the absence of peace.

The US has turned regional conflicts in Korea
The United States freed 50 million South Koreans from northern enslavement. This much is self-evident based on what we know about how North Koreans live today, 70 years after the end of the Korean War.

Vietnam
Again, a response to the north invading the south.

the Middle East
You're going to have to be more specific.

into a larger-scale bloodshed
That's only if you take the narrow view of things. If the US ignored Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, it would encourage other countries to invade each other, since they would observe that they could do so with impunity. Before long, the entire international order would break down completely. This would prove much bloodier than how history unfolded the last 70 years in reality.

Just a few islands in the ocean
"The nine-dash line encompasses approximately 90 percent of the three million square kilometre South China Sea."


So assuming 2.7 million square kilometers, this is an area roughly the size of Kazakhstan. And China is taking over this entire area by force.

and a few disputed areas with India or something
China is also trying to steal territory from neighboring Bhutan.


China DEFINITELY would not want to act first in a war.
In that case, they just shouldn't do it. Nobody's making them.

They haven't for like almost a century.
Invasion of Tibet? How about their 1979 invasion of Vietnam?

#21
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
All that testosterone fuelled weaponry kicking about is a recipe for trouble, especially when you can't get it up like you used to.

War is basically about (older) men trying to impress the (younger) ladies.

Come and look at my missile girlies.




#22
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
We don't know when Taiwan doesn't want to stay bondaged on its chair and decides it wants to say out loud its independent. That means America needs to show its support before that time comes. 
#23
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
"The United States freed 50 million South Koreans from northern enslavement. This much is self-evident based on what we know about how North Koreans live today, 70 years after the end of the Korean War."

ALL HAIL TO OUR SERVICEMEN OF DEMOCRACY, THE ANGELS OF FREEDOM.
#24
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Ehyeh
It was actually a very good whataboutism since the other side is full of hypocrisy. US colonised Philippines for many years without China intervening and China easily wins that war that near to itself. 
#25
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Ehyeh
US didnt give a rat's ass about Iraq's sovereignty nor many of its neighbours.
#26
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
who is being a hypocrite here? I see no one being an apologetic for America's wrong doings in the past. Your whataboutism serves to do nothing but distract from the bad China is currently doing. If America is currently doing bad they will be held to the same standards. Its evident people hold America to a higher standard of conduct than the rest of the world anyways. 
#27
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
You seem to think that a small minority of individuals in Taiwan force the public not to join China?
You seem to think a majority of the people of Taiwan 'want to join China, but are prevented?

From a big viewpoint, America did not do enough in Ukraine, (I think)
Enough would have been to insist Russia retreat or face war, and follow through.
Enough would have been to make clear that war would follow an invasion, 'before an invasion.

Damned if one doesn't, damned if one does,
But better to be damned to a war when one is strong,

What did the Europeans do as Hitler kept claiming land?
Nothing, expecting his appetite to fill,

I don't see Pelosi's action as provocation, but warning,
Attempt to prevent war, not incite.
#28
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
They get as much [rights] as we do in Chinese Mainland, if not more lax about trade.
Which is to say far less rights than they had just a few years ago.

With reengineered election rules, Hong Kong’s already limited democratic freedoms have been almost entirely stripped away. The number of overall seats in the city’s legislature was expanded to 90, but the number of directly elected seats was slashed to just 20. (Previously, half of the 70 seats were directly elected.) Other representatives are elected by functional constituencies, which are small, mostly commercial special-interest groups. Under a new policy of “patriots administering Hong Kong,” candidates were vetted by a panel headed by senior government officials and advised by the police. Not that there would have been many candidates to contest the positions even if the rules hadn’t changed; nearly every notable prodemocracy figure has been jailed, fled abroad, or retreated from public life after the passage of a draconian national-security law last year, another facet of a sweeping and unrelenting crackdown on Hong Kong’s liberties.

What is left is “hegemonic authoritarianism,” Lee Morgenbesser, a senior politics lecturer at Griffith University, in Australia, told me. It’s a system, he said, that exists when “de facto opposition parties are banned, basic civil liberties and political rights are overtly violated, the rule of law is arbitrarily breached, and the government has monopolized access to media.” Crucially, this type of governance structure allows places like Hong Kong and other regimes, such as those in Laos and Vietnam, to keep up the veneer of democratic competition but with the preferred results all but guaranteed. “Ultimately, elections may be allowed to exist,” Morgenbesser told me, “but they cease to be an avenue for actual opposition parties to gain power.”

from Why Authoritarian Regimes Bother With Elections
Timothy McLaughlin @ The Atlantic

You have no right to judge whether we get enough rights or not,
False.  In a democracy I have to right to express any judgement I see fit.  

we do, and we say we do get enough. It is simple. If we get large-scale outrages of a lack of rights, there would be an unstoppable trend on the internet not even able to be censored. Right nw, this does not exist(unless you are talking about in HK, etc, in which they clearly get an equality of rights).
But anecdotal reports from within a high censored regime can't be verified or trusted.  Whether you are permitted to have an opinion other than the one you express is, at best, uncertain.

#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,963
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
You have no right to judge whether we get enough rights or not,
What, you mean USA cant just democratically vote to make Taiwan a US trade Colony? You don't want USA to "enforce freedom" on you with military action?

Sheesh!

The only flavor of Democracy the US will allow in Taiwan is one where Chinese sympathizers are not allowed to vote. "Land of the free, home of the brave" my ass.
#30
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,963
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Did you know the USA censors all media from China and Russia? Bet you didn't know that.