Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PanH]

It's more than a territorial dispute to them. To the Chinese, Taiwan is a breakaway province.

Exactly. If you look at a Chinese map, it's part of China, no mention of Taiwan (same for Tibet tbh). It was a sore spot for the UN security council spot too.

[Strife26]

It's more than a territorial dispute to them. To the Chinese, Taiwan is a breakaway province.

Exactly. If you look at a Chinese map, it's part of China, no mention of Taiwan (same for Tibet tbh). It was a sore spot for the UN security council spot too.

It's a de facto independent country that China's been preventing recognition of forever. We already park a battle group near to protect it. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and we treat it like a duck, it ain't part of China.

[Baffler]

I know I am being stupid but my opinion of this is kind of... Screw China...

Mind you... Trump is doing it more out of ignorance and more not wanting to bend over backwards for someone who ultimately isn't even a strong ally with the USA...

Then him basically doing a "Take that" to China because of their numerous... >_> Well... China isn't exactly a "Good" country... We will put it at that.

I think it's funny to see how far backwards you're bending so you can continue to not give Trump any credit for anything. Chinese belligerence was rising as far back as Obama's first term, and our allies in the region are under very real threat of having their fish stocks pillaged and shipping disrupted in the very best case scenario. There's a reason opinions of the USA are as high as they are in places like South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Phillipines despite our imperial history there.

Trump isn't some mouthbreathing idiot. He views China as a serious rival and is 100% correct to do so.

[Lord Shonus]

It's more than a territorial dispute to them. To the Chinese, Taiwan is a breakaway province.

Exactly. If you look at a Chinese map, it's part of China, no mention of Taiwan (same for Tibet tbh). It was a sore spot for the UN security council spot too.

It's a de facto independent country that China's been preventing recognition of forever. We already park a battle group near to protect it. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and we treat it like a duck, it ain't part of China.

The one-China policy has never been anything but a diplomatic fiction. The US policy toward the ROC is, and always has been, that attempts by the PRC to sieze the country would be considered a war of aggression, and US forces are regularly stationed there so that there is no possible way for the PRC to annex the country without causing US military casualties and giving the US a gold-plated casus belli.

The one-China policy is, however, a very useful diplomatic fiction that has allowed the US to maintain peaceful relations with an emergent superpower. Abandoning it, or even threatening to do so, is a really, really bad idea. If the PRC is forced to either stop trading with the US or abandon a policy position that dates back to the very founding of the PRC, there's no telling which way they will go - and however bad the loss of cheap goods and important resources lost in a trade war with the PRC would be for the US, the loss of markets would be much worse for the PRC. This would be an extremely dangerous international situation.

[PTTG??]

So when Hillary hints that she won't actively serve Russian interests, she's a warmonger who's going to start WWIII, but when Trump ignores his advisors and provokes China, he's just "viewing China as a rival?"

[Baffler]

So when Hillary hints that she won't actively serve Russian interests, she's a warmonger who's going to start WWIII, but when Trump ignores his advisors and provokes China, he's just "viewing China as a rival?"

I'd hardly call saying outright that she'll impose a no-fly zone over Syria, or flailing around about fake news and muh FSB influencing the election "hinting that she won't actively serve Russian interests." Do you think Trump will just let them annex the Baltic states or something?

[smjjames]

@Lord Shonus: As I said earlier, China just set itself up for a trade war, whether it devolves into a hot one remains to be seen.

Also, on the whole Rex Tillerson thing, I remember the transition team saying that Tillerson wasn't vetted yet or had barely been vetted when he first met with Trump and that was, what, less than two weeks ago?

[Lord Shonus]

@Lord Shonus: As I said earlier, China just set itself up for a trade war, whether it devolves into a hot one remains to be seen.

I was not disagreeing, merely pointing out that while it isn't clear if they will pull the trigger on the trade war if they're pushed (it is possible that they are threatening one to make Trump back down), that there is a lot of pressure for them to do so given the strength of the policy in question. I was also trying to make the point that doing so will hurt them a lot worse than it will hurt us (very little of what China produces is truly vital, and most of it can be obtained from other sources at least in the short term; losing one of their biggest markets will be a disaster for their economy) and coupling an already aggressive major power with a catastrophic economic hit is a very, very bad situation. All of this was to get across exactly why acknowledging the PRC's de jure ownership of Taiwan is good diplomacy when it is de facto an independent nation defended by the US military.

[Sheb]

So when Hillary hints that she won't actively serve Russian interests, she's a warmonger who's going to start WWIII, but when Trump ignores his advisors and provokes China, he's just "viewing China as a rival?"

I'd hardly call saying outright that she'll impose a no-fly zone over Syria, or flailing around about fake news and muh FSB influencing the election "hinting that she won't actively serve Russian interests." Do you think Trump will just let them annex the Baltic states or something?

As I matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised. I totally see Trump dumping Taiwan to China in exchange for trade deal and dumping the Baltics to Russia in exchange of a second term cheap oil or something.

[ChairmanPoo]

@Lord Shonus: As I said earlier, China just set itself up for a trade war, whether it devolves into a hot one remains to be seen.

Are you willing to lay your life down for that?

[smjjames]

@Lord Shonus: As I said earlier, China just set itself up for a trade war, whether it devolves into a hot one remains to be seen.

Are you willing to lay your life down for that?

For a shooting war? No. I don't want a trade war that devastates the world economy, along with Americas and Chinas, either.

[martinuzz]

Trade war with China won't be that bad. US folks will just have to go a few years without new cars, computers or iPhones, until the infrastructure is built to produce all parts that are now imported from China locally, and enough Mexican immigrants have been attracted to work there.

Article on Russian interference in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/11/donald-trump-republicans-russia-putin

In an 1838 speech in Illinois, a young Abraham Lincoln considered how the United States might fall, asking: “Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never!”
Instead, he warned, “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.”
Today, Russia may be a transatlantic giant, but the author and finisher of America’s destruction is weeks away from the White House, with Lincoln’s party firmly behind him.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

Yes, definitely, we should replace China's sweathouses with our own.

I'm not even kidding. Keep them here, where they can at least be regulated (slightly less awful for human rights), and contribute more to our economy. And look! We have our own source of cheap labor, just south of the border!

You'd think that Trump would love this plan, but noooooo, he had to go all "build the wall"...

[smjjames]

Pretty sure that was tongue-in-cheek from martinuzz and not entirely serious about the Mexican immigrants bit.

Anyways, hopefully Congress can get started on the investigation, hopefully get some initial findings before the Electoral College meets. 10 electors have already asked for an intelligence briefing before the EC vote., so, it's getting intensely serious here.

I wonder if it's possible (or politically viable) to delay the EC vote?

[Lord Shonus]

I wonder if it's possible (or politically viable) to delay the EC vote?

Legally, maybe.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

However, it is a general principle of law that such changes apply to the next time the subject comes up instead of the current one. Changing the rules of this election in midstream, particularly since it would be because of dissatisfaction at who won it, would be legally iffy.