Remember that "top U.S. general" who unequivocally and with 100% certainty told the U.S. that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - which led to the longest "war", for nothing, in U.S. history?
Yeah... good times.
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
71 points (98.6% liked)
World News
32290 readers
820 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Well that was a whole conspiracy that was never prosecuted and was a special event. I take your point but do think that it was a very unique period in history.
Name checks out.
I think the best course of action for China is lower the tone and try to have some business with Taiwan (I don't know if they have it now) and from there go up until both side become partners.
China and Taiwan are already some of each others' largest trading partners. China is Taiwan's, and Taiwan-China trade is so significant it's almost half the US-China trade volume.
Don't talk about shit you don't understand.
It seems there are not enough businesses to make peace more profitable than war.
Peace is more profitable than war for basics everyone except the US. Only the US' military industrial complex is so geared towards extracting maximum profit.
Well they basically tried that already. They tried to strike up a trade agreement with the then ruling conservative power that would give China significant economic and thus political influence. But the Taiwanese people were smart enough to see through that. There was a popular uprising, the legislative building got occupied by student protestors, the agreement was retracted and the then president lost the next election in a landslide.
The DPP received significant funding from the US National Endowment for Democracy during that time. Coincidence? Probably not...
Same meddling shit that happened in Ukraine with Euromaidan and in China with Tiananmen Square. Even the US PsyOps teams themselves admit that they were responsible for those events.
I'd love to say that the Taiwanese people themselves came to the conclusion, but time and time again the US has showed that the people's choice isn't something they really respect abroad.
load more comments
(8 replies)
LOL
You think you can opine on the best course of action for China but don't even know if they have business with the Island of Taiwan? Talk about arrogantly ignorant!
Read some history. No right to speak without investigation.
China's way of partnering is through domination, and under Xi it is no longer even a matter of opinion or interpretation. The Taiwanese know that well, while the rest of the world is readjusting after a half century of concessions and "trying to be good friends".
China doesn't believe in/wants/cares about a world order with all countries equal under the same international laws, and that's what I personally find to be the scariest for the world's stability in the long term (rather than the naive "democracies are good vs authoritarianisms are bad and hence we should align against CN/RU").
Ah yes, the classic "domination through trade"
China's way of partnering is domination? Why are you projecting the European project onto your political enemies? Domination is how the North Atlantic has "partnered" with the rest of the world for the last 600 years. China is providing an alternative.
You think China doesn't believe in international law when that's essentially the only position it has been expressing and espousing for decades? Again, you're projecting. The USA has no interest in all countries being equal under international law. The USA is the scariest and most dangerous for world stability in the long run. Of the most bombed countries in the world, the US bombed the top 4 and all of them around China (Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam).
The USA has politicians like Condoleeza Rice saying that invading sovereign nations is a war crime when she was a major architect of the US invading Iraq. Many of the countries you're talking about are literally British construction. You think The Phillipines is named after someone who lives in that region? You think the borders of African nations are naturally straight?
It's fucking ridiculous how blind you are to the projection.
Condoleeza Rice is not a politician; she has never run for any political office.
Also, you come off as a huge Chinese shill.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Rice was the US Secretary of State. You think the only politicians are elected officials? She was an active member of the Republican party and she held political power through the executive branch of the US government. Just because the manner of filling the office of Secretary of State is appointment and not election doesn't mean she's not a politician.
And if you think I'm a shill for China, when I have never been there, don't speak or read the language, and don't work in politics, international relations, international business, or journalism, then maybe you're a little too sensitive to anyone holding a position that opposes yours because your position is completely unexamined and is constructed entirely by Western propaganda.
The aggressiveness with which you responded confirms my previous comment.
Sure, because shills for foreign governments get aggressive instead of being trained on how to convince people of their positions ? You're delusional.
Actually yes, they do become aggressive. In fact they become overly aggressive, beyond what the situation calls for. Sort of like you, who goes immediately into ad hominem.
I went to ad hominem? I presented a position that opposed the commenter and the commenter accused me of being a shill for China. That is the literal definition of ad hominem.
Right?
I'm sorry, but this is very obviously a scripted talking point. You are acting as an agent of the Chinese government.
LOL. What it must be like for you to navigate the world. Scripted talking point my ass.
You have nothing except personal attacks, which checks out.
You still haven't responded to my comment except to say I'm a shill using scripted talking points. That is a personal attack, it is literally ad hominem - against the man.
Wrong. I’m afraid that you lack the skill to convince anyone here.
Says the person who's literal response was "wrong". You're fucking ridiculous.
lol if you had a real argument, I’d respond. Disengaging, you’re being tedious.
You have literally spent every comment in this thread saying nothing and you accuse me of tedium? Protect that psyche.
Get yourself checked for brainworms ASAP!
oh man, I've missed your clown takes on here
And I see you're still there too, waving your own takes under a pretence of knowledge and experience that inevitably more and more people can see as absent. Keep it up!
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yet as much as I would wish for this, I don't think it's the way of thinking of those in charge.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Sounds reasonable, even under very generous assumptions regarding the expansion of the Chinese army, there's no way they can take Taiwan within the next few decades (unless big, but unlikely, changes in alliances in the region), according to military strategists. And by that time, those generous assumptions might no longer be tolerable for the Chinese economy.
Taking Taiwan would lose so many lives it's absolutely absurd. It's complete unviable, especially when the US has already clearly demonstrated an alternative solution (just "not blockade" them like Cuba).
Well, there have been a lot of war games that currently show China losing but by a small margin. It's likely that in less than a decade China would win by a small margin. According to many US generals.
So while your wrong, China almost certainly could take Taiwan in less than a decade, I would argue that there's no chance in hell they would do it. Winning by a small margin here means millions if deaths if not nuclear war. This would be massacre that would make both Israel and Russia's violence look down right peaceful.
And it's not like China hasn't shown it's hand in what it would do. War is not China's goal, a blockade is.
Are those games weighing Taiwan's defense capabilities versus China alone? In practice China would be up against the USA, and Korea, and Japan, and the Philippines and a plausible economic and logistics alliance of most countries in the region. I am not a military strategist but the sheer numbers alone are not in favor of China, and that is ignoring the tactical challenges at play.
It includes allies. This is because of the tyranny of distance. US simply cannot power project enough to take on China with Taiwan alone.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/politics/taiwan-invasion-war-game-intl-hnk-ml/index.html
But these war games are actually biased towards USA. Pentagon's own war games have China winning already.
So if we believe the US military, then China can already win. Though many argue US military says this just to get more funding.
I would err on the side of US just barely winning with all allies.
That said, I do not believe China would invade. It makes no sense. Anyone who claims this is could happen should have their credibility questioned. As China as I said already has shown its hand, it will blockade if it comes to it.
With the way the economy is going there, I can't imagine that we can expect that China will remain as it is now in a few decades. The entire thing is ready to come tumbling down at any moment.
There aren't any war games showing China losing. In fact, every war game the Pentagon ran, US lost by a wide margin https://theaviationgeekclub.com/pentagon-war-games-reveal-that-us-would-lose-any-war-fought-in-the-pacific-with-china/
edit: I love how you can just post a link to basic factual information and get mad downvotes from the lost redditors 😂
Turns out that when you're operating aircraft carriers against a country, things don't go well...
load more comments
(1 replies)
"Next few decades" seems way off. I think most analysts have it more at like within in a decade.
I should spend the time to assemble my sources to oppose yours once I get on a computer, but one thing I found telling was that China's current landing capability for infantry is in the low thousands whereas they would need in the high hundred thousands for minimal strategic goals, and this is the easy part in terms of shipbuilding. If they expect to invade opposed, they would need a whole fleet with anti naval and air capabilities which they don't have and does take decades to build.
view more: next ›