• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Eastern Red Army...

Back during the Clinton years China was making aggressive moves towards Taiwan, wanting to take it over. Clinton sent one of our carrier groups there and had it sit between Taiwan and China.

The Cina/Taiwan thing today is exactly the same thing it was then, it's politicians playing games, making threats, and rattling sabres.

There will be on invasion of Taiwan by the Chinese, and there will be no war. This is part of the international political norm, countries making angry noises seeing what they can get away with.
 
Kodiak said:


Odd.

I would've said the exact same thing to the Chinese about the US...
Click to expand...

You've just defined the guiding principle of diplomacy.
 
Re: I'm not trying...

King of the Americas said:
I just find it interesting that we'll leap forward kick the shitte out of our lessors, but back down when...
Click to expand...

Who's backing down, KOA? Are you higgledy-piggledy again due to the consumption of adult beverages?

King of the Americas said:
Tiawan is...actively fighting for Freedom.
Click to expand...

Who's actively fighting, KOA? Have you gotten into the absinthe again??
 
Re: Re: I'm not trying...

Kodiak said:

Have you gotten into the absinthe again??
Click to expand...


And if you have, can you hook me up? ;)
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not trying...

Grammatron said:


I do believe it is illegal in USA.
Click to expand...

There are ways of getting it by legal means.
 
You wouldn't have to defeat the entire red army to liberate Taiwan. My guess is if China made a sudden grab for Taiwan and gained control, they will just burn the entire island down and leave it before letting the US take it back by force.

A war over Taiwan will be lose-lose-lose.
 
Re: I'm not trying...

King of the Americas said:

I just find it interesting that we'll leap forward kick the shitte out of our lessors, but back down when the 'fight' looks too ugly, even though it is within our principles to do so.
Click to expand...

Yep, those sound like the tactics of the schoolground bully.

Look how bravely the US ran away when things got a bit tricky in Vietnam


You even had to wait for the UK to soften up the enemy berfore you were willing to get involved in WWI and WWII (the last paragraph was, in fact, a joke albeit a poor one)



King of the Americas said:

Tiawan is a struggling democracy, actually WANTING and actively fighting for Freedom.
Click to expand...

It's Taiwan Tee-Ay-Eye-Double yew-Ay-En

A brief, relatively unbiased overview of Taiwan's past is here:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taiwantime1.html

I supect if we wait for a while, China will give up claims to Taiwan


King of the Americas said:

Don't we have a duty to help them???
Click to expand...

the only *duty* a country has is to their own self interest. I suspect that being budies with China will prove more rewarding in the long run than being buddies with Taiwan

cI mean what 'duty' did we have to help Iraqis be Free from Saddam???[/B][/QUOTE]

- An historical grudge
- Fear of unstable Middle East

United States self interest !!!!! the only reason why any sensible country would do anything

---

King of the Americas said:

I think we WILL see War with China, sooner than I'd like.
Click to expand...

For reasons of dazzling self interest:

- China's huge market
- No major beef with China
- China's military relative strength
- China's nuclear (nucular) arsenal
- The US' inability to deliver the kind of conventional army (in pure size terms) to defeat China

I think there isn't a hope in heck that the States will go to war with China.
 
I absolutely, positively, and without reservation disagree with everything The Don has ever said (purely because his "War of Beastly Ungratefulness and War of Rampant Opportunism" are titles I cannot surpass).

That being said, he's right.

The only duty is to self interest. The difficulty is in defining self interest which can arguably be extended to include what appears to be altruism.

In any case, I've no idea if we go to war. I sincerely doubt it as both sides, if at all rational, should see it as too costly.

However, there is no reason to assume that war, if it comes, would be total. It is far more likely that it would not. Think Falkland Islands.

The US cannot win a war on the ground in China, but that is not an aim nor a necessity in the protection of Taiwan.

China has a massive army, but inadequate means to move it across the Straits to Taiwan and an Air Force insufficient to protect those inadequate means from, initially, the Taiwanese and ultimately the US.

Keeping China out of Taiwan is not the same as defeating China in toto.

In twenty or thirty years, though, China may very well change the local military balance. Given the successful application of enough capital from their now thriving markets, they could build a credible navy and sufficiently advanced air force.

I think the US might step in prior to an invasion to protect Taiwan, but if China (in twenty or thirty years) manages to launch a successful invasion prior to any practical response by the US and are able to present to the world a fait accompli, then I doubt we would fight to re-free Taiwan. That sort of power projection against a formidable enemy would be costly indeed.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by King of the Americas
...?

We go to War based on our ability to win, NOT over a worthy cause?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty much... read Sun Tzu's The Art of War. The object of war is to win. That part is covered on the first page.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

To help KOA a little bit: Yes the objective is to win. But if I get my history right... During the last few hundred years MOST of the wars were lost by the party who started it. May they haven't read Sun Tzu. :con2:
More likely they misjudged the balance of forces, the resolve, the economics, whatever. War are started for the weirdest reasons.
 
World War 1

- Austro-Hungary (loser) declared war on Serbia
- Germany (loser) declared war on Russia
- France (winner) declared war on both
- Britain and Empire (winner) declared war on both

Full details here : http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/declarationsofwar.htm

World War 2

- Britain and Empire (winner) declared war on Germany
- France (winner) declared war on Germany
- United States (winner) declared war on Japan


The whole declaration thing is very confusing BUT very few countries start a war believing they're gopng to lose. What often happens is:

- They mis-judge the response (Argentina didn't believe that the UK would care about the Falklands)
- It "gets big" on them. Hitler believed/hoped that Britain would join on his side and that the U.S. wouldn't get involved at all
- They f*** it up right royally (Hitler invading Russia and micromanaging the war)

But they all went in believing they would win
 
Don,
well most of the times wars don't start with a war declaration.

Although the USA declared war to Japan, Japan started the war.

In WW1 it was essentially Austria and Germany which started the war and with all the previously scripted escalations.

In WW2 it was almost the same. When GB and France declared war to Germany, German tanks where already on their way to Warsaw.

Of course people start wars with the expectation to win. But I consider it astonishing that this expectation is so often wrong.

Hitler knew that he would take on Europe from the beginning. And it was IMHO quite obvious that at some point the US would join in. You cannot take on the whole world and win. By the way, when was the last a country was successfully conquered and held for a longer time? The whole idea was crazy from the beginning.
 
ingoa said:
Don,


Of course people start wars with the expectation to win. But I consider it astonishing that this expectation is so often wrong.

Hitler knew that he would take on Europe from the beginning. And it was IMHO quite obvious that at some point the US would join in. You cannot take on the whole world and win. By the way, when was the last a country was successfully conquered and held for a longer time? The whole idea was crazy from the beginning.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the point is that countries generally don't start wars KNOWING that they are likely to lose.

Even in the case of Hitler, he thought they could win it. He was wrong, and many of his military advisors may well have known it. His opinion was the one that counted, though, and his opinion was that they could win.
 
I have been trading with companies in Taiwan, I have even been there ;). I can assure you that the last thing they would want was the USA to come barging in on their little ding-dong with China (People's Republic of China, that is, as you may know, Taiwan is the Republic of China).

While we were corresponding with one company, there was what the media reported as a "major crisis" between China and Taiwan. So we asked them, a bit anxiously, how this might influence our cooperation. They answered, essentially: "Oh, that's just a bit of political display. Business as usual."

Practically all large Taiwanese industries are investing heavily in plants in China. Whatever the politics, China cannot afford going really rough on Taiwan.

No, I am not sure Taiwan is struggling for freedom from China. I rather suspect they are waiting to take it over ;).

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom