China Places Country Dangerously Close To US Warship

[Audie]

Yep...we are going to reclaim that damn island at SOME point.

" we"?

 

[Audie]

I mean...the Chinese have said reunification is their goal, and force hasn't been ruled out.

Who are " the Chinese"?

 

[Audie]

The claim is that the US navy is far away in the China Seas but it is China that is the aggressor. It really shouldn't take a lot of thought to put two and two together.

Then try it ifn it's so easy.

 

[Father Heathen]

" China and Taiwan" is like "Australia and
Tasmania".

Tasmania isn't a sovereign nation so no, it isn't.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

" we"?

Australians!!

It was just a joke in relation to your Tasmanian analogy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Who are " the Chinese"?

It's a fair comment, and I'll agree I was speaking colloquially rather than in depth.
But there have been comments by high-ranking government officials around the importance of reunification, and a general refusal to rule out force.

That can be interpreted in multiple ways, but suggestions that fear of force is simply a western media phantasm is overstated imho.

Neither is it fair to swallow everything said in Western media about the situation uncritically, to be fair.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Tasmania isn't a sovereign nation so no, it isn't.

We're keeping an eye on the cheeky beggars, though. If they so much as have one communist revolution, it's on.

 

[Father Heathen]

Like the US seizing Hawaii?

Whataboutism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Audie]

Point taken and you are right as it applies to Chinese warships near our coast, the US would not be happy, but they would more likely monitor with planes and ships and not play Chicken with them.

Also China has no allies which they are militarily responsible to protect by agreement in or near US waters. US is in agreement with Taiwan, Japan, etc.

Want to know how things would probably go it Chinese warships showed up near US waters...look at the Cuban Missile Crisis

But then the Chinese prefer floating spy balloons over the USA, its cheaper, easier and much more deniable.....not that we don't fly spy satellites over them, we do, it is just less obvious.

And, technically, Chinese Territorial waters do not include the waters around Taiwan and this is the view of most countries on the planet. China cannot arbitrarily start claiming territorial waters, which it is currently doing, and expect everyone else on the planet to agree.

Good post but you are a few points off compass
RE Chinese naval vessels operating near the USA.

America is not trying to claim like the Caribbean as
the South USAican Sea, or in any other way interfere
with freedom of navigation in international waters.

Khadaffi tried to claim a chunk of international
waters.

Here came US navy...kind of like Barbary pirates days.

Libya tried to attack the USA carrier. Splash two miss.

Problem solved.

Let the Iranians drive boats up and down the US coast
in intl waters. Who cares. They'd just be wasting gas.
Oil. Whatever it is boats use.

 

[Audie]

It's a fair comment, and I'll agree I was speaking colloquially rather than in depth.
But there have been comments by high-ranking government officials around the importance of reunification, and a general refusal to rule out force.

That can be interpreted in multiple ways, but suggestions that fear of force is simply a western media phantasm is overstated imho.

Neither is it fair to swallow everything said in Western media about the situation uncritically, to be fair.

In the 1980s the Chinese govt, Republic of China
announced they would no longer fund plans to
retake the mainland hy force.

 

[The Hammer]

" China and Taiwan" is like "Australia and
Tasmania".

Hmmm....

I would disagree.

Proximity doesn't not equate to ownership

 

[Father Heathen]

We're keeping an eye on the cheeky beggars, though. If they so much as have one communist revolution, it's on.

Your cities would be decimated by their spinning devils.

 

[Audie]

Hmmm....

I would disagree.

Proximity doesn't not equate to ownership

You don't disagree, as such. You just don't
know much about the situation.

 

[The Hammer]

You don't disagree, as such. You just don't
know much about the situation.

Optimistic*

I know enough. Such as China hasn't maintained control of taiwan since 1952. And for 100 years prior to that it was Japanese.

 

[The Hammer]

You don't disagree, as such. You just don't
know much about the situation.

This looks accurate to you?

"The island was annexed in 1683 by the Qing dynasty of China and ceded to the Empire of Japan in 1895. The Republic of China, which had overthrown the Qing in 1911, took control of Taiwan following the surrender of Japan in 1945. Japan would renounce sovereignty over Taiwan in 1952. The immediate resumption of the Chinese Civil War resulted in the loss of the Chinese mainland to Communist forces, who established the People's Republic of China and the flight of the ROC central government to Taiwan in 1949. The effective jurisdiction of the ROC has since been limited to Taiwan, Penghu, and smaller islands."

 

[Stevicus]

Optimistic*

I know enough. Such as China hasn't maintained control of taiwan since 1952. And for 100 years prior to that it was Japanese.

Strictly speaking, the People's Republic of China never had control of Taiwan. After WW2, the Japanese island known as "Formosa" was returned to China, but at that time, it was Nationalist China under the rule of Chiang Kai-Shek.

The closest analogous position that the U.S. might have faced was after the American Revolution, the remaining British loyalists fled to Canada, which remained under British control. But there were some Americans who wanted to take Canada, too. We tried that, but it didn't work out.

 

[The Hammer]

Strictly speaking, the People's Republic of China never had control of Taiwan. After WW2, the Japanese island known as "Formosa" was returned to China, but at that time, it was Nationalist China under the rule of Chiang Kai-Shek.

The closest analogous position that the U.S. might have faced was after the American Revolution, the remaining British loyalists fled to Canada, which remained under British control. But there were some Americans who wanted to take Canada, too. We tried that, but it didn't work out.

*Informative

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't think anyone has been saying that, but very often, one can hear similarly silly ideas being put forth by the U.S., such as Americans being "defenders of freedom" and other countries being "evil empires" or "axes of evil." Now that's silly. It would be a lot easier to take Western governments more seriously if they didn't spread it on so thick so often.

I definitely think this is part of what hurts the credibility of the US even when it makes valid points about Taiwan. In so many situations where American interventionism and flexing of force were driven by geopolitical interests and desire for hegemony, American demagogues and talking heads would pass off the disruptive activities and policies as "defending democracy and freedom," "liberating people," "defending human rights," and a medley of other PR-themed slogans that have fallen flat and rung hollow in so many American foreign policies since the 1953 Iranian coup and the Vietnam War, among other instances of self-serving but gilded disruption and aggression.

I think a lot of American politicians over the years have understood that some of their policies would have a lot less popular appeal if not for these catchphrases. There's almost always a self-righteous professed cause at the forefront of the marketing for these foreign policies, such as "Operation Iraqi Freedom," "Operation Enduring Freedom," and the "War on Terror." These efforts to state that noble intentions drive American policies continue even though there are multiple reasons to doubt that the US would spend billions and go to such great lengths to help Ukraine, Taiwan, or any other country if the stated ethical reasons weren't accompanied by crucial geopolitical interests—not to mention that unlike the situations in Ukraine and Taiwan, sometimes the policies of the US don't even include a positive or ethical goal (e.g., allowing Ukraine to fend off Putin's imperialism and war crimes or the CCP's hostility) in the first place.

Part of me wonders whether the policymakers who come up with these PR slogans realize just how flat they fall among so many people in some parts of the world. It might be easy to sell them to a subset of the people who have never borne the brunt of hostile American hegemony and exploitation, but try to sell them to someone in much of the Global South, especially in parts thereof that have struggled and toiled to fend off American disruption, and the reaction is likely to be very different or at least much more polarized at best.

 

[Stevicus]

That article and my question is sarcasm. US navy ships are over there, just think for a moment of the reverse, if China's navy ships were within a hundred miles off the US coast because China decided they were going to defend a breakaway state. Puting the shoe on the other foot should be a means of viewing what is going on. What is the US doing meddling in other countries affairs and repeating that it is China that is the aggressor? If China's ships were off the coast of the US I would say that they are the aggressors, but their ships are in there own waters, how is that aggressive? Who is provoking who?

On the surface, US military policy is more ideological in nature, and one can discern this when looking at the popular slogans used to justify US policies: "Making the world safe for democracy," "Leader of the Free World," "If not us, then who?"

Listening to the US government and other pundits tell it, none of what is done is done for America and that this is merely a sacrifice that Americans are called upon to make. This point is made obvious when one looks at the utterly dismal situation faced by America, where we're on the verge of bankruptcy, economic collapse, and internal dissension.

America is not any kind of recognizable "nation-state" anymore. We're more internationalized and ideologically-driven, disguised as flag-waving and pseudo-patriotism.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In the 1980s the Chinese govt, Republic of China
announced they would no longer fund plans to
retake the mainland hy force.

I can accept that at face value. I'm unsure what conclusion you're drawing from it about current policy.
You're not suggesting Xi Jinping is running the same foreign policy China was in the 80s, are you?