Sorry seems to be the hardest word.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

...when another nation wants to shake loose from its "parent" country, we're morally obligated to support them, if our freedom means anything to us.

The fundamental reason that China wants to keep Taiwan under its control is because it's a strategic island right off their coast, which could be used against them very nicely in a large-scale war.

What if Puerto Rico suddenly decided it wanted to be independent? And more importantly, that it wanted to ally with, say, North Korea? I guarantee you our government would not be supporting that "freedom and democracy." Taiwan as a landmass is a liability for China, Taiwan is very friendly with the US, and I honestly find it somewhat unreasonable for us to expect them to just give it up willingly.

[OnyxCougar]

Speaking of, I found this funny, don't know if it's true or not....
sent to me by Bruce, I believe....

You are going to appreciate this one:

Remember when Puerto Rico was raising hell about the US Navy using that nothing little island just Off the coast of Puerto Rico for bombing practices, which they had used for the past 75 years?
Demonstrations were held, Hollywood left wingers, Al Sharpton, and his fellow demagogues went down there to demonstrate to get the Navy out? I am sure it infuriated you just as it did me at the time.

Well, here is our revenge. Always be careful what you ask for, you just may get it!
One of the many headaches that the U. S. has had was the Puerto Rican Island of Vieques In the waning years of the Clinton Administration, Protesters demanded that the US Navy abandon bombing and naval gun fire exercises that had taken place on the largely uninhabited island for nearly seventy years. Liberal icons bumped into one another to fly to Puerto Rico, boat over to the island, trespass (but never on a day that there was an exercise scheduled) and get arrested for the benefit of the New York Times or Newsweek.

They included (but were not limited to): Reverend Al Sharpton, Mrs. Jesse Jackson, Joan Baez, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Edward Olmos, Michael Moore, Ramsey Clark, just to name a few.
In 2002, the bombing exercises were transferred to an Air Force bombing range in central Florida, not far from the Jacksonville and Pensacola Naval Air Stations. In January, many of the protesters were back in Puerto Rico, celebrating the final bombing exercise on Vieques and waved Puerto Rican flags and placards that read : "US. Navy, get out of Puerto Rico."
The following February, Rumsfeld announced that the U.S. Navy will close the Roosevelt Roads Naval Air Station in Puerto Rico in 2004, eliminating 1200 civilian jobs as well as 700 military positions. This naval facility is estimated to have put nearly $300 million annually into the local economy.

The next day a stunned Governor Sila Calderon, held a news conference in San Juan, protesting the base closure as a serious blow to the Commonwealth's fragile economy. The governor stated that "The people of Puerto Rico don't now or never did have an interest in closing the Vieques bombing range or the Roosevelt Roads naval base. We are interested in both staying in Puerto Rico."
When asked, the Commander-in Chief, Western Atlantic Command, said, "Without Vieques, I see no further need for the facility at Roosevelt Roads. None."

So, Yanqui go home? Fine. But we'll take our dollars with us. Hasta la vista, baby!

On February 21, the Secretary of Defense also announced that starting this year, the U.S. European Command would begin moving most if not all of its active combat and support units from bases in Germany to others being established in Poland, The Czech Republic, Hungary and Turkey to "better position them for rapid deployment to likely hot spots in those parts of the world." Immediately the business and government leaders in the German states of Hesse, Rhineland and Wurttemburg, protested the loss of nearly $6 billion in revenue each year from the bases and manpower to be displaced.

A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry speculated that the move may be "what the Americans call 'payback' for the actions of this government in opposing Military action in Iraq." Does anyone know the German translation for "Hasta la vista, baby?"

Oh, ain't it nice to finally see a government with guts and a good memory?

[Happy Monkey]

IIRC, the US gave Puerto Rico a chance at independence. They opted to maintain the status quo of US citizenship with no taxes, for some reason.

[xoxoxoBruce]

To touch on the beginning of this thread, I've been aware of the Rape of Nanking for decades. I've seen it at least refered to, often in detail, in dozens of other readings.

Just ask Bayer aspirin people...

And every other company in Germany. They had no choice.

A real enemy? with an army? and planes? and uniforms? not vague muslim tribes? where do we sign up?

Walmart.

There needn't be any relationship between the reality of the threat and the reality of the blood and treasure spent to rise up against it. Do not suggest such a thing, please.

Avoid talking about the possible scenarios and people will make decisions without considering them. That's not a good idea.

First, China would turn Hawai'i into a smoldering peice of charcoal. Next up? San Diego then Seattle. There wouldn't be a port on the west coast left.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Taiwan isn't ours.
Japan isn't ours.
China isn't ours.
Now, in light of that, justify invading ANYONE ... ?

Treaties. We've been promising to defend Taiwan for almost 60 years. We also have deals with Japan and S. Korea.

I think it would be pretty stupid to go to war over taiwan but that might not stop BushCo. If we were to go against China it probably wouldn't be for Taiwan but some incident further down a chain of events that starts with Taiwan and escalates to a point of fight or flight. Something like a carrier sunk or one of our Pacific Islands obliterated.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by jaguar

I'd like to think if you told the US army, instilled as they are with the geneva convention to kill tens of thousands of POWs in cold blood they'd rebel.

If you kill them before you capture them, they aren't POWs.

[lookout123]

If you kill them before you capture them, they aren't POWs.

ding ding ding - "lessons from WWII for $800, please Alex."

[wolf]

As far as China goes ... I think that the best approach to a country that has unlimited manpower resources is to find ways to use that to our advantage. Admittedly, patience in fostering governmental change isn't something that we're good at. Not only are we a young country, we're one whose economy is at least partly driven by the impulse purchase.

Despite governmental restrictions on information exchange, there's enough knowledge of what we have in terms of economic advantage, as well as that sometimes undefinable quality known as "freedom" that it becomes attractive to the common man. If 1.3+ Billion people want something, they'll get it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Beestie

As I understand it, the rioters are using Japan's interest in possibly gaining a seat on the UN Security Council as an opportunity to express their displeasure with Japan's unwillingness to acknowledge its past transgressions. The Japanese textbooks are the just latest insult to the Chinese.

This is far closer to the reality of those demonstrations. You can be sure that if those demonstrators were campaigning for democracy, the police would have stopped them cold.

The Chinese do have a point about how Japanese history is taught in Japan. I was rather surprised to learn the USS Arizona is a most popular tourist attraction for Japanese. In Japan, Pearl Harbor is not taught as a surprise attack and is a rather curious popular destination for Japanese tourists. The Rape of Nanking is also not taught.

But China does have an agenda here. A realigned Security Council should include the world's #2 and #3 economies - Japan and Germany. The current six permanent Security Council members are not keen to share power. Again, China remains suspicious of Japanese motives.

Yes there are other factors in these demonstrations. And lets not forget where more than 50% of the world's known plutonium is currently housed.

However there are too many posts here that portray China as a monolithic and evil power. Same reasoning used to claim Saddam was a threat to anyone. China, like so many other nations, is a congruence of forces. Some are very sympathetic to US interests. Others more suspicious. Was it an accident that US warplanes hit the China embassy exactly in the room where all Chinese intelligence would be collected? The same people are asking why US planes accidentally hit Al Jesera offices in both Baghdad and Kabul when such attacks would be most beneficial to US propaganda. Chinese have good reason to both be suspicious of and want to be close friends of America. There is no monolithic 'good' or 'evil' power in China - as some have posted here.

And lets not forget how dependent the US is now on China. The George Jr administration is so wildly spending away the 'fiscal responsible' gains of both the George Sr and Clinton administrations. China now controls a mountain of US cash to the benefit of America. It would take very little for China to massively undermine the US economy by dumping dollars. China has that many dollars, and is one of the largest reasons why the US dollar remains so strong and stable.

Those who monolithically promote China as an enemy should first learn how much China has been doing to maintain good US relations.

[BrianR]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The fundamental reason that China wants to keep Taiwan under its control is because it's a strategic island right off their coast, which could be used against them very nicely in a large-scale war.

What if Puerto Rico suddenly decided it wanted to be independent? And more importantly, that it wanted to ally with, say, North Korea? I guarantee you our government would not be supporting that "freedom and democracy." Taiwan as a landmass is a liability for China, Taiwan is very friendly with the US, and I honestly find it somewhat unreasonable for us to expect them to just give it up willingly.

*imitation of Fred Rogers*

Can you say Cuba? Sure, I knew you could!

/Fred Rogers

I seem to recall Cuba being only 90 miles off OUR coast, allying itself with the then-Soviet Union, our mortal enemy. We didn't invade or even attack. Of course, it's still communist and under the control of a defiant Fidel Castro but so what? If Taiwan is taken back by China, all the computer manufacturers will go elsewhere and China will be stuck with another Hong Kong. Big Yip. I won't lose sleep over it.

I think the US will rattle it's saber some, impose sanctions and supply Taiwan with weapons similar to what we're doing with Israel but will stop short of committing troops in battle. But what do I know?

Brian

[jaguar]

If you kill them before you capture them, they aren't POWs.

You're dealing with a million+ army. To take that out you're looking at a total death-toll that'd make the holocaust look like a schoolyard spat.

There is very little thirst for change in China these days, sure, unrestricted internet access is nice but noone is going to die for it, China is following the Singapore model - give them wealth and they'll forget about freedom.

We didn't invade or even attack.

Er......have you been checked for early-stage alzheimer's?

But what do I know?

not much.

[wolf]

If you're gonna quote multiple folks in one post, please use attributions.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Bah. The whole "supporting freedom and democracy" thing was worn to death with we illegally invaded Iraq. Let someone else support it for a change, and stop sending my brothers and sisters to die defending a country that isn't their own.

From Fox:

At least 1,568 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

[lookout123]

OC - 1 US military casualty is too much... but too be fair, when you are looking at statistics like that, make sure they are backing out non-combat related deaths. training and normal duty related deaths are an everyday event in the military.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by lookout123

OC - 1 US military casualty is too much... but too be fair, when you are looking at statistics like that, make sure they are backing out non-combat related deaths. training and normal duty related deaths are an everyday event in the military.

Agreed, and I don't know how the AP is counting them. But this snippet was pulled from a news story about the co-ordinated attacks in Tikrit and Baghdad yesterday.

I just posted it here to underline the post I had written earlier.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

OC - 1 US military casualty is too much... but too be fair, when you are looking at statistics like that, make sure they are backing out non-combat related deaths. training and normal duty related deaths are an everyday event in the military.

Well, you can be certain they are talking deaths, and not casualties.