Charles Q. Brown Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Chinese leader would 'try to use other ways to do this.”

  • bufalo1973@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • zerfuffle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • bufalo1973@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It seems there are not enough businesses to make peace more profitable than war.

        • zerfuffle@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • fr0g@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      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 There was a popular uprising, the legislative building got occupied by student protestors, the agreement was retracted and the then president lost the next election in a landslide.

      • zerfuffle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • zerfuffle@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Tsai Ing-wen has very close ties to the NED:

            https://www.ned.org/president-tsai-ing-wen-of-taiwan-receives-ned-democracy-service-medal/

            https://english.president.gov.tw/News/6257

            In these statements, it is clear that the NED has given significant support to Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP. Meanwhile, NED funding in East Asia is a fact. It’s blatant intervention into foreign democracies through American state-backed actors.

            The following is a statement by the PRC’s Foreign Ministry, so feel free to ignore the colour commentary, but the details of who and where the NED funds are accurate. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/202205/t20220507_10683090.html

            Meanwhile, the US 4th Psyop’s Division literally has released a public video claiming responsibility for orchestrating events in Euromaidan 2014 and Tiananmen Square 1989: https://youtu.be/VA4e0NqyYMw?si=t8ZSix96y2cTmUVJ

            That video correlates strongly with the statements made by the Foreign Ministry of the PRC.

            • fr0g@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              The DPP wasn’t even a very instrumental actor in the sunflower movement. It was largely student led and of those people that participated in it that went into politics, most went to different smaller parties. I lived in the country during the time that happened and to claim that foreign interference played any meaningful role is just absurd on its face. Maybe don’t try patronizing entire populaces from afar as if they somehow weren’t able to make their own decisions and come to their own conclusions.

              • zerfuffle@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The NED has been funding these types of groups for decades and with millions of dollars. If you’d clicked any of the links, you’d know that.

                • fr0g@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The NED has been funding some NGOs for decades, so these groups, which prior to the sunflower movement mostly didn’t even exist and didn’t have an organizational structure to direct funds to in the first place surely were funded by them as well. Some absolutely impeccable and waterproof logic there.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • u_tamtam@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      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”).

      • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • marietta_man@yall.theatl.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Condoleeza Rice is not a politician; she has never run for any political office.

          Also, you come off as a huge Chinese shill.

          • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure, because shills for foreign governments get aggressive instead of being trained on how to convince people of their positions ? You’re delusional.

                • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

        • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m sorry, but this is very obviously a scripted talking point. You are acting as an agent of the Chinese government.

    • Schorsch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yet as much as I would wish for this, I don’t think it’s the way of thinking of those in charge.

  • HowMany@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • u_tamtam@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • zerfuffle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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).

      • u_tamtam@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Joncash2@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.