tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post95853142038758513..comments2023-10-22T18:25:39.688+08:00Comments on The View from Taiwan: Will China Attack Taiwan? Yes, of course, if it wants toMichael Turtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-24485971519355867722014-08-31T01:34:08.932+08:002014-08-31T01:34:08.932+08:00dumbfuck china wont attack taiwan
you fucking taiw...dumbfuck china wont attack taiwan<br />you fucking taiwanwibo.<br /><br />if China attacked Taiwan, US will surely help. AND China knows about this. So China won't attack. And if Taiwan started the attack, US won't help. It's a win-win situation for both. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-52953895490118826542014-07-22T16:00:24.052+08:002014-07-22T16:00:24.052+08:00At this point in time there's no need for Chin...At this point in time there's no need for China to attack unless there is an outright declaration of independence very unlikely but possible if supported by the US.<br />Taiwan has been protected by the US since 1950. The thing is all good things must come to an end,inevitably.As China gets more powerful in the coming years,the US will have to decide whether it's worth its prestige and treasure to have a war with China over the island.The US will prevail but at great cost unless China attacks the US mainland.<br />The problem is the US think China must defer to them. Maybe when China was weak and had no nw.<br />You hardly see the Pentagon announce they will use nw to defend Taiwan like they did in the 50s up to 1996.<br />IF the US were that dumb to use nw to prevail over China,it will be at great cost which aint worth it.That's why a face saving way has to be found for the US to fade away from Taiwan scenario. It could take some 20 years or more or when China has amassed so much military to destroy 50% of the US .That will clinch it.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-83324180431489646822014-01-09T14:25:12.261+08:002014-01-09T14:25:12.261+08:00n any case, as an American are you more concerned ...<b>n any case, as an American are you more concerned about laws made by a democratically elected government or about laws made by a conglomeration of the world's most successful criminal organizations?</b><br /><br />The basic law of the democratic government of the US is that its signed treaties are the law of the land. Again, if Congress wishes to violate that law, it doesn't make them right.<br /><br />MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-26544269931185640482014-01-09T14:24:22.399+08:002014-01-09T14:24:22.399+08:00If that is a good argument for the invasion being ...<b>If that is a good argument for the invasion being illegal, then what of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's comment that Taiwan is part of China? He may have stopped saying it, but did he ever retract it?</b><br /><br />Annan was right, based on international law, Ban was wrong, based on international law.<br /><br />If the UN doesn't obey its own rules, it's not my fault. But it doesn't change Taiwan's status under international law.<br /><br />Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-33280294351764602332014-01-09T12:33:24.288+08:002014-01-09T12:33:24.288+08:00In any case, as an American are you more concerned...In any case, as an American are you more concerned about laws made by a democratically elected government or about laws made by a conglomeration of the world's most successful criminal organizations?Readinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-24432793190279191192014-01-09T12:28:36.614+08:002014-01-09T12:28:36.614+08:00The arguments in the Wikipedia article you mention...The arguments in the Wikipedia article you mentioned do strongly support the idea that Taiwan is not sovereign and that Taiwan belongs to China. I'll toss you a couple good examples. "The United Nations Charter is the foundation of modern international law". The UN Charter's principle purpose was to found the UN. The UN is set up to run the international courts established under the UN and to make UN rules. The UN has refused to admit Taiwan to any of its parts as anything other than a possession of China. <br /><br />On the other hand, the UN has not taken any action against Bush the Younger or America as a result of the invasion of Iraq. <br /><br />The second sentence in the Wikipedia article has:<br /> The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.<br /><br />If that is a good argument for the invasion being illegal, then what of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's comment that Taiwan is part of China? He may have stopped saying it, but did he ever retract it?<br /><br />Readinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-19423949210787020092014-01-09T12:07:42.885+08:002014-01-09T12:07:42.885+08:00I've been meaning to get back to this for a wh...I've been meaning to get back to this for a while.<br /><br />Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that you had been persuaded by any PRC arguments, I was noting that you were making an argument that sounds a lot like a PRC argument. "History has decided..." Really?Readinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-64237313150722456252014-01-07T17:40:12.056+08:002014-01-07T17:40:12.056+08:00Bruce Shapiro said...
"The people are concer...Bruce Shapiro said...<br /><br />"The people are concerned more or less with survival and tradition rather than change, not the pursuit of happiness." <br /><br />I can assure you that the pursuit of happiness is quite an important part of my life. If not, the most important.<br /><br />"Taiwanese society is corrupt in precisely the same way as Chinese society. Their attitudes to humanistic issues are the same."<br /><br />In the news, An 8 year old girl in a street in China gets ran over 3 times and nobody helps her. Is on Youtube, you can look for the footage. That will rarely happen in Taiwan. <br /><br />Oh! I forgot to I mention that Youtube is censored in China but not in my country (yep, Taiwan).<br /><br />"The majority of young people in Taiwan have no sense of world history and no sense of contemporary history. "<br /><br />Well, history... not my favorite subject. But, I know that Chiang Kai-Shek killed many Taiwanese to establish the Republic Of China in Taiwan. Many of the classmates of my grandad were killed.<br /><br />And I am still surprised that citizens in China will still think of Mao Zedong as a hero considering he killed more people than Hitler and Stalin together.<br /><br />"They are not fond of the foreigners they meet, most of whom are English teachers."<br /><br />Many of my friends who are not Taiwanese but live in Taipei say they are very comfortable here. I am Taiwanese and I don't make fun or derogatory comments on people who are not Taiwanese.<br /><br />Still generalizing a whole society based on your experience (or lack of) will not create an accurate depiction of the Taiwanese people or its society.Zi Shuinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-3047508834218253842014-01-03T14:25:33.899+08:002014-01-03T14:25:33.899+08:00Under the UN and postwar agreements, as well as in...<b>Under the UN and postwar agreements, as well as international law prior to WWII, decolonized territories are supposed to get a vote of the people to determine their status.</b><br /><br />That's basically correct. However 'the people' needs to be better defined. I think only people that were born in Taiwan and Penghu have the right to vote in sovereign decision. Sharing sovereignty is part of birth right. Immigrants (including refuges, occupation force,...etc) don't have such right. Immigrants can obtain the citizenship of a nation after it is created but not before.Shauminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03402384559721776739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-17521491598386874902014-01-03T07:31:20.744+08:002014-01-03T07:31:20.744+08:00Nanotizen, under the SF Peace Treaty Japan gave up...Nanotizen, under the SF Peace Treaty Japan gave up its sovereignty over Taiwan. Sovereignty recipient was not named, because the Powers did not want either corrupt authoritarian Chinese government to take over Taiwan. Under the UN and postwar agreements, as well as international law prior to WWII, decolonized territories are supposed to get a vote of the people to determine their status.<br /><br />MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-49112321133025760972014-01-03T00:15:22.674+08:002014-01-03T00:15:22.674+08:00"Under international law Taiwan is a territor..."Under international law Taiwan is a territory whose final status has yet to be determined, and should be via vote of the populace "<br /><br />I have no idea until I read this, any reading about this predicament?A nanotizenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13262655169000289682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-4145879238392709532013-12-30T16:07:33.820+08:002013-12-30T16:07:33.820+08:00And as such not only is China perfectly ok under i...<b>And as such not only is China perfectly ok under international law, any American president sending aid to defend Taiwan would be just as guilty of breaking international law as you claim Bush is.</b><br /><br />Under international law Taiwan is a territory whose final status has yet to be determined, and should be via vote of the populace <br /><br />MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-84657574886285563532013-12-30T16:05:58.748+08:002013-12-30T16:05:58.748+08:00Funny. It seems the PRC government statements you ...<b>Funny. It seems the PRC government statements you read to stay informed of enemy thinking are starting to takes its toll on you.</b><br /><br />Dont assert when you haven't a leg to stand on, and I won't respond that way. The US admitted its attack was illegal when it sought a specific resolution. No one but US officials and a few supporters claims the invasion was legal. Kofi Annan said it was illegal, as does the UN charter.<br /><br />Wiki has a good review.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War<br /><br />As I said, the only disputants on this one are a bunch of in-the-tank Americans. The rest of the world understands perfectly well how wrong we were, as does/will history.<br /><br />Michael Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-74995358121301366552013-12-30T13:09:42.975+08:002013-12-30T13:09:42.975+08:00"You are entitled to your opinion. "
Th..."You are entitled to your opinion. "<br /><br />That much is obvious to most Americans. Thank you for sharing my opinion on your blog since I'm not entitled to that.<br /><br />"History has already decided and won't support you. "<br /><br />Funny. It seems the PRC government statements you read to stay informed of enemy thinking are starting to takes its toll on you.Readinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-30244873627866626092013-12-30T11:22:24.126+08:002013-12-30T11:22:24.126+08:00Again, you didn't refer to any of the other in...<b>Again, you didn't refer to any of the other invasions (the Falklands, Tibet, Poland, etc.) as illegal, so your statement that you mean the American invasion of Iraq "under international law" doesn't fit with your failure to describe any of those other invasions as illegal. </b><br /><br />Oh please. I shouldn't have to. Those are obvious. There is a minority of Americans who imagine that Bush's fossil fuel- and defense manufacturer-driven invasion of Iraq was legal, but few in other countries do.<br /><br /><b>In the absence of international government and international law, in the primitive state of international relations, Bush II did what he thought was best for the community to protect both us and the community from a rogue nation. You can disagree with his decision. You can think it was stupid and even immoral (I think it was at least stupid in the way it was done). But calling it "illegal" is nonsense.</b><br /><br />You are entitled to your opinion. History has already decided and won't support you. <br /><br />Michael Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-27445606022862125652013-12-30T10:38:34.464+08:002013-12-30T10:38:34.464+08:00As an American, surely you are familiar with the w...As an American, surely you are familiar with the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."<br /><br />Do we have an international government from which law springs? The closest we have is the UN. Can it be said to have legitimacy based on the "just consent of the governed". Yet most nations that comprise the UN are not representative democracies! How can they claim to be legitimate? And if they are not legitimate, how can the international laws they claim to be making be legitimate?<br /><br />On the other hand, if there is no government, how can there be law?<br /><br />Or, to get to the heart of the matter, how can their be law without law enforcement? People agree to laws because they believe the laws will provide justice. If the police won't protect people from the thieves and murderers, people will ignore the law and do what it takes to protect themselves. In fact how can you say that, in the absence of law enforcement, one is obligated to follow laws when others are breaking those same laws?<br /><br />Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease-fire that ended the first gulf war because they weren't allowing verification that they had rid themselves of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had also committed an act of war against American when Iraq attempted to assassinate President Bush I. So even by the terms of international so-called "law", the invasions was not clearly illegal. <br /><br />But more importantly, the concept of "international law" is weak indeed when there is no law enforcement. What international police could America go to to complain about Iraq's behavior. Could America get a restraining order and expect it to be enforced? <br /><br />In the absence of international government and international law, in the primitive state of international relations, Bush II did what he thought was best for the community to protect both us and the community from a rogue nation. You can disagree with his decision. You can think it was stupid and even immoral (I think it was at least stupid in the way it was done). But calling it "illegal" is nonsense.Readinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-1702434739433352972013-12-30T10:21:56.883+08:002013-12-30T10:21:56.883+08:00Again, you didn't refer to any of the other in...Again, you didn't refer to any of the other invasions (the Falklands, Tibet, Poland, etc.) as illegal, so your statement that you mean the American invasion of Iraq "under international law" doesn't fit with your failure to describe any of those other invasions as illegal. Do you think the invasion of Poland was on more solid international legal ground? Do you simply dislike Bush more than you dislike Hitler, Mao and the Argentine junta?<br /><br />In any case, it is surprising to here someone so devoted to Taiwan's sovereignty appealing to "international law". Taiwan isn't allowed to join the UN. It it excluded from most international organizations that require sovereignty for membership (American policy supports that exclusion). Hardly anyone recognizes Taiwan's sovereignty. Indeed a good international lawyer could credibly argue that NO STATE recognizes Taiwan's sovereignty - the closest they come to doing so is recognizing that the government of China, but not the PRC, has sovereignty over Taiwan because Taiwan is part of China.<br /><br />Given that the standard international law criterion for sovereignty these days is international recognition, or even UN membership, Taiwan isn't a nation. And as such not only is China perfectly ok under international law, any American president sending aid to defend Taiwan would be just as guilty of breaking international law as you claim Bush is.<br /><br />Readinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-61650632031402617512013-12-29T23:51:41.098+08:002013-12-29T23:51:41.098+08:00Bruce, well said....
I couldn't agree more, ...Bruce, well said.... <br /><br />I couldn't agree more, however, I don't believe PLA needs to assimilated ROC military into their arm force.<br /><br />as ROC military is slowly disintergrating away.... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-67610419780460560572013-12-29T13:51:22.526+08:002013-12-29T13:51:22.526+08:00Rebuttal to Shapiro from Elie Wiesel:
“We must no...Rebuttal to Shapiro from Elie Wiesel:<br /><br />“We must not see any person as an abstraction. Instead, we must see in every person a universe with its own secrets, with its own treasures, with its own sources of anguish, and with some measure of triumph.”Marcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-76527572514814684132013-12-28T17:42:33.015+08:002013-12-28T17:42:33.015+08:00France could have apologized and withdrawn from Vi...<b>France could have apologized and withdrawn from Vietnam.</b><br /><br />Sure. But wouldn't have helped the Japanese oil situation much. :)Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-28393397531130200612013-12-28T14:54:17.708+08:002013-12-28T14:54:17.708+08:00Taiwan is a democracy in name only. The people of ...Taiwan is a democracy in name only. The people of Taiwan are not democratic and the differences between the Taiwanese and Chinese are by-and-large superficial. Taiwanese society is corrupt in precisely the same way as Chinese society. Their attitudes to humanistic issues are the same. Their mechanisms of government are different, but the results are largely the same in that the personalities of their leaders are more alike than different, particularly with respect to how the government treats the people, the Land Expropriation Act being but one example. The majority of young people in Taiwan have no sense of world history and no sense of contemporary history. They do not regard artistry as political and regard political activism as boring. They are uneducated about democratic principles and are far more likely to go with the flow than to make political waves. Taiwan has the same environmental attitude as China and is, therefore, albeit on a smaller scale, just as polluted. Taiwan does not have a more permissive society than China and the prevailing affects in both societies are depression and disgust. The people are concerned more or less with survival and tradition rather than change, not the pursuit of happiness. They are not fond of the foreigners they meet, most of whom are English teachers. If they feel reasonably sure a foreigner does not speak Chinese or Taiwanese, they will entertain one another with derogatory comments, things about on par with racist jokes in the US. In short, there is no reason for China to attack Taiwan for the purpose of making it a part of China; speaking metaphorically, Taiwan's software is different but it operates on the same firmware; that is, it is just a different program running on the same computer. China's real goal and most difficult task is to incorporate the divisions of the ROC military into the PRC military as soon as it can. That will be the last really important step in the annexation process. Ultimately, everything else is beside the point. United States business interests view China now as many international industrialists viewed Germany before WWII. The prospects for war are largely the same, but the outcome may very well be different if the hostilities cross the Pacific. Thus, China probably won't attack Taiwan before the United States does....Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13140019947966363283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-14767577469656684992013-12-28T14:33:10.112+08:002013-12-28T14:33:10.112+08:00combination of medium-sized factors such as domest...<b>combination of medium-sized factors such as domestic unrest, economic uncertainty, and sudden billowing nationalism, the arrival of a hard-liner in a position of real power, the ascendancy of the PLA over domestic politics, and/or the appearance of a communicator who can argue internally and credibly that Taiwan is ripe for the plucking and the US won't move.</b><br /><br />It seems that China already got every ingredient you mentioned. Perhaps Chinese leaders already made the decision to attack. Okinawa might be the first target, Clark Air Base the second, and Taiwan the third in line. The activities of PLA's air carrier fleet in East and South China seas are very likely the exercises for the future attacks. Shauminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03402384559721776739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-68348341333900081042013-12-28T05:37:19.331+08:002013-12-28T05:37:19.331+08:00"Japan could have apologized and withdrawn fr..."Japan could have apologized and withdrawn from French Vietnam."<br /><br />France could have apologized and withdrawn from Vietnam.yankdownundernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-40435150839084746632013-12-27T22:50:29.973+08:002013-12-27T22:50:29.973+08:00Will China invade Taiwan? I suspect it's quite...Will China invade Taiwan? I suspect it's quite unlikely, because it is already by Taiwan piece-by-piece, either through friends in the Taiwan government (with some of the trade pacts that give a bit too much to China), through Chinese citizens buying up property as a result of the relaxation of the Taiwese government's policies, etc. They don't need to invade Taiwan, unless a very stupid Secretary General (which the current guy is NOT, I think) were to do so, despite all good reasons not to.<br /><br />It is more advantageous to trade with Taiwan, and to see Taiwan have a trade deficit with China, so that Taiwanese people will feel compelled to "unite" with the "mainland," so to speak. And I see this happening very soon. It might reap short term benefits for rich and poor alike (or not). But, ultimately, in the end, it will be disastrous. Has China done many great things for its trade-based allies, South Korea, North Korea, Vietnam, etc.? I wonder.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15907060405795620941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-59462314339183435372013-12-27T22:34:21.423+08:002013-12-27T22:34:21.423+08:00Russia?
- acted in violation of the still valid So...<b>Russia?<br />- acted in violation of the still valid Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact signed on April 13, 1941.<br />- was a scavenger picking off pieces<br />of America's kill</b><br /><br />Yes, but the policies Japan was pursuing with the Army pushing the Russian War and the Navy pushing a drive south, were bringing it into conflict all the powers that had colonies in the Pacific. <br /><br />MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.com