View Full Version : The USA has no right to "protect" Taiwan.
04-26-01, 04:17 PM
I strongly feel we have ABSOLUTELY no right firmly plant our imperialisitic hooves on soil so far from home and not even in our sphere of influence. It's so ridiculous it makes me laugh.
Does the public really buy our "good intentions"? If didn't sell goods to the US at such cheap prices would we still defend them?
I think not.....
Amerika is like the Big Bully around the corner -- something that happens to the rest of the world, whether we like it or not.
It is times like this when my ignorance really disturbs me. For those who find themselves similarly disturbed, here are a couple of links which might be of interest:
04-30-01, 10:42 AM
that the US is seeking a 75 year lease for their "tempory" digs in the Balkins. Interesting, since Dubyah stated a limited role there......
04-30-01, 04:22 PM
I also read that Taiwan is a necessary staging ground for the US if China ever becomes more hostile. hum....
05-02-01, 08:28 AM
Does the public really buy our "good intentions"? If didn't sell goods to the US at such cheap prices would we still defend them?
This is true, the US only defends nations that are of economical value. I am Australian, and Australia has always pledged its support to the US. This has been happening ever since WWII, maybe WWI. However, last year, when the East Timor crises happened, I'm not sure if you heard about it in the US. The US did squat to help the Australian peace keepers. I knew they would not help us, because it is not economically feasable to help a poor nation. Whereas, in Iraq, its not about a rogue state, its about oil reserves. In 1998, Australia sent over 1500 of our most elite troops the SAS. These guys could be considered the most elite in the world. They were going to be situated behind enemy lines, to rescue downed pilots. We've only got a small military, however, technologically advanced (our airforce was still using Windows 3.1 in May '98, I'm not joking, one of my friends did work experience at an air force base :) ).
To you guys this may have been nothing, but we pledged our support, as best we could.
However, when the time came to help us, where were you? Our supposed allies. Our country was actually considering conscription, no joke!
Actually, I'll tell you something interesting that one of our Air Force commanders found out after the Vietnam War after interviews with the Viet Cong leaders.
Did you know that the reason that Australians didn't see much action in Vietnam, was because the Viet Cong was actually afraid of us? They said that when they heard that we were in the area, the call would be given out to get out of their, because they were scared.
Our troops in East Timor were also cited about being too aggessive. Point to the story. DON'T MESS WTH US AUSSIES!!! WE"LL GETCHA!!!
Thats my cheap 2 and a half cents worth...
Originally posted by Deadwood
We've only got a small military, however, technologically advanced (our airforce was still using Windows 3.1 in May '98,
You are definitly right about the Viet Cong, they were terrified of the Australian special forces.
I work for the USAF as a civillian and reservist, and to tell the truth we switched from Win 3.1 to 98 in late 98 or early 99!
But we should defend Taiwan. Yes it is financial, what is really wrong with that? Im sure your country has an impressive amount of trade with them also. Despite all of the May Day demonstrations, capitalism is the best economic system going.
05-02-01, 09:03 AM
A few things I could never understand about the Aussies....
1. Why did they vote against autonomy?
2. Why does the Gov't. agree with almost EVERYTHING the U.S. Gov't. proposes or implements?
"This is true, the US only defends nations that are of economical value."
This is a truth for sure and it sieves into all other parts of U.S. policy and rhetoric, though racially motivated laws and policies are also part of U.S. history. (a given).
The USA is no different from any other nation. All try within their scope to influence the others around them. In WWII there was the Marshall Plan which basically made a pact with all countries in the Western Hemisphere that we would come to their aid should they be invaded by the Axis powers.
Yes, Desert Storm was about oil. Without that oil you and I would really see some price increases. Back in 1975-76 I was in Germany. They do not have oil fields and all must be imported. Their gas prices were in the neighborhood of $2.00 per liter. At a time when we had gas prices for 50 cents or less per gallon. Most other countries think that we have no reason to cry about the price. In fact they think we’re a bunch of crybabies over that subject. However, oil from that area is deemed of strategic interest. And it is. Without that oil our military would get the gas and oil it needed and the rest of us would be left to fight over the remains. At much higher prices!
One of the problems in WWII was that we could not effectively strike Japan because we didn’t have any air bases close enough to allow a bombing run. So we had to retake the islands of the Pacific that Japan had already overrun at great human sacrifice. Many lives were lost in doing so. Without the air support it was estimated that the body count in lost American lives would have been in the millions. We could not sustain that kind of beating without major economic catastrophe. As it was the man power required to fight the war so drained our nation that women had to take the place of men in the factories to keep the war effort alive. At the end when all is said and done, air power wll not take a country. You must put the soldier on the foreign soil or you will not hold it.
This is one of the reasons that we want an ally and beachhead close to China. Sure we now have the planes to reach China and come back, but the supply lines would be so stretched out as to give us major headaches in the logistics side of supplying a war. No doubt China is aware of this as they fuss with great verbiage whenever we get involved with Taiwanese affairs. China is the most populous nation on earth. The main thing we would have going for us would be the technology driving our war machine. Cut the supply line long enough and we’re right down to their level, which leaves us no advantage. It is to Taiwan’s inrest as they get access to military hardware and get a ready market to sell their goods. A market the rest of the world fights to get in the door because we consume goods at a level no other country in the world matches. In supporting Taiwan we play with fire. Chinese leaders will push it to the brink and if it looks like they are going to lose face, that is a deadly insult worth going to war over. With those considerations in mind I would say that we still should support Taiwan. I would rather have a democracy than a dictatorship to deal with. The only way to ensure this is to support Taiwan. And that’s my story and I’m sticking with it….
I was born in America, and fortunately I had the opportunity and the good sense to leave a couple of years ago. America's media gives little (if any) credit to allies who sacrifice the lives of their young (how biblical!) for the priviledge. America just promotes itself as the saviour of the rest of the world, with the promise a happy ending and patriotic music playing in the background. Any minute now, Bruce Willis or Wesley Snipes will come busting through the brick wall like a Sherman tank, guns a'blazin' and sweat a'glissenin', and singlehandedly save all the hostages, just as the evil terrorists from ____ (where is it this week?) press the trigger device... what a hero! And they all cheer (more patriotic music)! America promotes Big Corporate American Profits, whether it's oil from the Middle East, cocaine from Central America, or heroin from the Golden Triangle. If there aren't enough enemies to go around, just invent some. Dare I "predict" that in the next big American blockbuster movie masquerading as entertainment the bad guys will be the Chinese Mafia? Ya think?
Some random and not-so-random thoughts on the Taiwan situation:
* China is the most compelling interest presented to the public for any military action our CiC chooses to send Americans to Taiwan for.
* In that sense, I think back to the Clinton administration and wonder why we bothered baring our teeth when the Chinese drilled near Taiwan during the latter's election. It seemed as good and pointless a time to rumble with China as any. Instead, Clinton's presidency suffers an "intelligence" meltdown and the Chinese walk away with some important nuclear stuff. As part of our effort in the Balkans, our planes "accidentally" bomb a Chinese embassy .... I'm of the opinion that if we're determined to go to war with China, now would be a better time than in five years when the "stolen" nuke technology is online.
* American military: It seems a Republican president can send troops anywhere he wants to. The conservative faction hailed Poppy Bush for his takedown in Panama and his failed campaign in Iraq. Nobody seems to care that this was just ol' George taking care of business. Both dictators benefitted from George HW Bush; Noriega when Poppy was CIA director, and Saddam Hussein during the Iraqi buildup of the 1980's during their war with Iran. Strangely, however, a Democrat is generally accused of all sorts of low motives when deploying troops. Clinton caught flak for Somalia, which was Poppy Bush's mess left unfinished, and for Haiti--for which I raise a toast to the, uh, Peanut Farmer, as such--which was also Poppy's mess. (It is worth noting that, at the same time that our troops were repatriating Hatian refugees, Senator Ted Kennedy signed his name to a bill that was passed and eventually signed into law by Poppy that allowed the entry of up to 40,000 Irish "war refugees".) And the Balkans? People screaming for action, people screaming for nonintervention; and all of them want "peace". How many presidents ignored that mess? Two, at least? Notwithstanding that we find Aldous Huxley, in 1926 (Jesting Pilate), musing on conquerors and the conquered, and even then he refers to what we now call ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. In the modern day, if Hitler's ghost stoked the fires once more, we would find ourselves amid a public debate whether this or that president had the moral right to send troops. This is a far cry from our World War II era, when the desire for peace equalled sympathy for the enemy. (See the collection, Dr Seuss Goes to War, or read periodicals of the day.)
* Human rights are not exclusive rights of Americans. Of course, a number of things can be said here: That Americans do not enjoy the, uh ... "privilege" ... of human rights at all. This I believe is the practical truth of the present. Look at our Drug War; look at how our Bureau of Indian Affairs looted the tribes for over a half-trillion dollars over the years; speak nothing of the failed Equal Rights Amendment--for what reason did we need the Amendment in the first place if human rights were respected? To the other, and over the plethora of objections against the American idea of human rights, I assert that it is as much our duty as a nation to respect and demand human rights internationally as it is my duty to stop a violation of those same rights taking place in front of me. (I might remind all that tickling a person is a violation of their human rights according to some international agreement or another--honestly, I think it's part of the Geneva Accords--but that one I let go unless the ticklee is restrained and under the lights and truncheons.)
* Commercial concerns will continue to motivate warfare and human destruction as long as we, the people of the human race--and of the United States of America, especially--consider money more important than human life. What the hell is so important that people have to kill one another? (This includes the aggressors, so self-defense is exempted from that question.)
My well is running dry for the time being ... but it should be noted that one is allowed to shoot a person to death in this country if they ask you for directions. I'm well aware that Americans behave badly, but as the world grows closer and closer together, what reason do we have for carrying out the same farce over and over because we "respect" diversity to the point that it doesn't get addressed until people cannot function properly. After all, Muslim fundamentalists, for instance, are going to have to stop blowing things up every time they don't get their way before the world will give them what they want. I know that sucks, but Israel will never apologize to the Palestinians; the British will never apologize to the Irish; Americans will never apologize to anyone unless it's so far down the road that a former hippie turned president decides it's the right thing to do. On the same note, we Americans need to stop assuming a couple of things as well; above all else, that a penny saved in this world is not an American's right to extort, swindle, or seize; and also that it would be nice if more than our economic concerns were addressed in warfare. Talk of human rights is cheap, in the American case; I don't see those rights seeding and rooting anywhere we've been with our guns.
Taiwan is a pawn in this game; the real focus here is China, whose people have, in my opinion, forfeited any notion of Americans fighting to "liberate" them. They had their chance to make a stand over a decade ago, and let their troops massacre the people who believed they were standing for freedom. I take my hat off to an old man with his grocery bags ... few things leave me speechless, but a still-shot of the most absurdly beautiful stand of dignity still does the trick. (It's a heavy enough image to me that I've never downloaded it.) But the bottom line is that the people seemed to take it as a weeding out, and the international community rushed for the money instead of what we all seem to proclaim is right. That the people have not and will not take their mass stand gives the appearance of endorsement. And any nation that threatens another nation's sovereignty also threatens human rights by the simple spectre of warfare. My take on Taiwan here is that it's eventually going to eat it, from one direction or another, and I'd rather make a stand against such a usurpation than not. If it comes to blood, give them fire. But warfare is merely a signal of surrender: it is too difficult to figure out how to treat people right, thus we give over to the ease of treating them horribly.
When the world wants to do away with national borders, I'm generally for it. Until then, the American "right" to use Taiwan as a stepping stone is limited only by American will, and an international response to Taiwanese objection. I do not proclaim this last as a concept I endorse, but rather as a fact I have observed and extrapolated.
Okay, for real ... I'm finished now. Is that my faithful soapbox I see beneath me?
Well said! An excellent responce that appears well thought out.
Aside from the trouble Taiwan caused in the 50's and 60's they have been on the defensive. I hope no one would disagee that Taiwans people should be free from China.
There are two simple reasons China wants Taiwan.
1st- Pride. Taiwan has been a irratation and sore point for them since they broke away. Granted Kai-Shek was a bit crazy for provoking the Chinese (under the umbrella of US nuclear forces!). But it is a matter that they view them as a rebel providence, and they want it back!
2nd- $$$$. As the old saying goes , follow the money trail. It is the same reason the Chinese had such enthusiasm to get thier hands on Hong Kong.
The big diffrence between Hong Kong and Taiwan is Hong Kong wasnt a military threat.
On a side note, I am a reservists, and if this does turn into a shooting war, we could go. But I still support Taiwan.
One last note about Tiassa's post. Speaking first hand, My units has deployed more with Clinton , than under Bush and Reagan combined! The world is more dangerous now, but the Us Military was sent to places like East Timor! We had never even heard of East Timor. It is not the fault of the military, we dont like these deployments any more than you do!
Well, we should just go ahead and declare war on the World. We want to be an empire, much like the Romans. Let's be honest and just go for what we really desire, absolute rule. We could make Taiwan the provincial capital of China.
05-04-01, 04:13 PM
Well, I know nobody is accusing the military for WANTING to deploy but I'll always remember one thing....."an inactive is an army that's not truly prepared", isn't that a basic concept? So the military might in fact want to have steady confrontation around the world but of course from the "higher-ups" and not necessarily the men and women on the field and in the trenches.
The united states has comitted itself to be the defenders (and offenders) of Democracy....a word used more often than implemented, if implemented AT ALL!!
Let us hope.....
I think alot of the messages being posted hear are very valid and honest, also realistic "opinions." However, I noticed a message from Deadwood... woah, dude, you gotta be careful sayin stuff like that... I understand your frustration, even being American, but speaking for an entire country, you really have to be responsible with your choice of words. I noticed you said something to the effect of "WE have always been loyal" and "WE we're thinking about consciption." The historical accuracy, and present diplomatic relationship between the U.S. and our Aussie allies has been proven time and time again. Granted I serve in the U.S. Air Force, and I work with training Aussie, British, Philipino, etc. aircrew. Take into account WWII the Americans and Australians fought side by side in battles for Italy, North Africa, and participated in numerous peace keeping operations world-wide, on a "mutual basis" not an autoritarian one. I would agree, alot of the U.S. foriegn policy is based on global economics, but face it, what countries isn't? It's time the world realize there's more than one way to fight a battle, you don't have to die for money you make, you just have to be willing to (or atleast look like it.) I think when more countries decide to participate in the global market, and democritize the way of doing business, war will be saved for the truly dangerous, because changing from a peace-time to war-time economy can be very expensive, all out war would try to be avoided at all cost, and would only be declared if all diplomatic channels have been exhausted. To tell you the truth, I don't know if I like alot of he things we do hear, but the good thing is, is that the freedom our country and yours enjoys is being able to say that, without getting our tongue cutout or something horrible done to our family.