It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China quietly "threatens" Austrailia

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
(seriously) - What is the downside of freedom?


Plenty. Take the purest form of freedom: anarchism. If anything politically defines freedom, it's anarchy. No rules, no system, no hierarchy, total ability to do whatever one wants. However, what is the result of anarchy? Unless everyone gets along, anarchy is rampant death, killing, disease, warring, everything bad you can concieve from people.

It's all about achieving balance. Why do you think America is a federal republic? Why do you think America has to "give" and limit freedom? Because without limits, there would all of the above (death, killing, etc.).




posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Sometimes you gotta earn the right to have your question answered.


The thing is, I dunno. The friendship between two people is very different from the "friendship" between nations, which probably cannot be called a friendship at all. When it comes to international politics, it's all about economics and what side they present, nothing else. Should circumstances change, "friends" can easily become enemies. So it's kind of hard to relate the two

To give you a real answer, though, I wouldn't be against the U.S. responding to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, simply because China is the 2nd most powerful country on Earth and it's survival of the fittest in the world. Also, the simplicity of the situation is rather "appealing." Win, or lose to the world's rising superpower. Unfortuntaely, besides the survival of Taiwan and the defeat of China, the U.S. really has nothing to gain from fighting China.

Ok I think I am in somewhat of agreeance with you now. I dont believe the US has anything to gain by fighting China except respect of all who will know we always have and always will stand by our allies. But thats not what its about. Its not about respect but it is about doing what is right and supporting a people who need and want us to defend them in the face of tyranny. We did promise. Its truly a tough decision but ultimately it comes down to what is right and how this would effect the future for all.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by csulli456
Ok I think I am in somewhat of agreeance with you now. I dont believe the US has anything to gain by fighting China except respect of all who will know we always have and always will stand by our allies. But thats not what its about. Its not about respect but it is about doing what is right and supporting a people who need and want us to defend them in the face of tyranny. We did promise. Its truly a tough decision but ultimately it comes down to what is right and how this would effect the future for all.


But in the real world, "the right thing" plays a very little role, if any. There have been very few times in history where any nation or civilization has done the right thing and even fewer times where doing the right thing has paid off. The last time it paid off was in World War II, but I'd say nobody really had a choice. It was either fight or watch the Third Reich rule the world for the next 1,000 years.

There was something my dad said to me once and while I disagree (these are also different circumstances, but just as an example), he was right to an extent. I expressed my discontent with the U.S. government and the U.N. and how I would never work for them because it was not the "right thing" to do. In his usual fashion, he talked some trash to me, but he had a point. When it comes to getting things done, morals all go out the window. Ultimately, it's what you want, what you think you can gain, and it's all about achieving that goal. It's all about YOU. By heeding to my morals and the "right thing," I am pretty much missing out on career opportunities that may earn me plenty of prestige and money in my life, despite the fact I am proud of my decision to stay true to what I believe in. And if a guy tries to physically harm you for not driving fast enough, do you think about the "right thing?" No. You just go up to him, cause him some major physical pain, throw his keys into the sewer, and get on with your life. Sure, you'd be a poor example to the kids who witnessed the incident, and you'd probably be called a threat to society, all the "wrong things" in life, but he tried to attack you, and you had to make him pay for that.

Now, a neo-con like yourself would say that America is different and will buck the trend, but as a proud American myself, I will say that America did not become the world's lone superpower by "doing the right thing." The U.S. will probably indeed do the "right thing" and defend Taiwan, but this may have some very adverse effects on America, even though America will gain respect and whatever else you said. Sometimes the winner is the biggest loser.

Ideology and morals may create a nation, but it will not hold a nation together. Just like a marriage.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros

Really? So, let me get this straight..........

It's perfectly OK for Australians to sit by and not lift a finger to help those people who helped keep Australia from getting invaded by Japan during WWII? I mean, who was it that kept the Japanese Imperial Army from knocking on your door? It was the Americans and the nationalist Chinese, friend.

And our battles for freedom and democracy are delusional, eh? Well, if thats the way you really feel about it, I wish you folks would have spoken up about 65 years ago so we didn't have to loose tens of thousands of Americans remving the Japanese from the SW Pacific. After all, if freedom and democracy aren't worth fighting for, well, why should the Allies have wasted so much blood, time, and effort keeping you free?


Maybe you need a history lesson. You did not enter the war to defend Australia or anyone else. You entered the war because YOU were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Your involvment had nothing to do with fighting for our freedom and if the Japanese didn't attack you it's very possible you would have continued to stay neutral. Australia on the other hand entered the war long before we were under threat - when Germany invaded Poland in 1939 which had nothing to do with our security, and declared war on Japan after the USA was attacked at Pearl Harbor.

Anyway back to the topic, of course we would help we fight wars that aren't even in our back yard so i doubt we would turn a blind eye to one that was.

[edit on 8-3-2005 by Trent]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trent
Maybe you need a history lesson. You did not enter the war to defend Australia or anyone else. You entered the war because YOU were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Your involvment had nothing to do with fighting for our freedom and if the japanese didn't attack you it's very possible you would have continued to stay neutral. Australia on the other hand entered the war long before we were under threat - went Germany invaded poland in 1939 which had nothing to do with our security, and declared war on Japan after the USA was attacked at Pearl Harbor.


That's somewhat connected to what I was telling csulli546 in my last post. It's about how that one party in question was affected or will be affected, what it can gain, what it can lose. Rarely, if ever, is anything about morals or "the right thing."

Again, America could be the first nation to change that, but we didn't get to this tremendous political, military, economic, and social stage by being Mr. Nice Guy.

[edit on 8-3-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
drfunk, are the entire government and leadership of China democratically elected by the whole people of China? Do the people of China enjoys more freedoms than ever before? Are human rights improving in China? Is there an excellent free press going on around China? Am I just seeing something's wrong here about the current reality of China now?


Your country and Taiwan enjoy all the things and opportunities that China doesn't have. If China invades, subdue and annex Taiwan forcefully, the people of Taiwan would no longer enjoy the same benefits that your country have now. One less country with the opportunities of liberty and prosperity disappear in a blink of eye because you don't wanted to lift a finger to aid or worry about your buddies sending off to fight in a war to keep the Taiwanese people from becoming subservient to Red China.

Perhaps you have a racial bias against the people of Taiwan and secretly wish the demise of Taiwan?

Bear in mind, drfunk, China have a global agenda to be a hegemonic superpower of all Asia and your country is on its list of future subservience due to the economic relationship between China and Australia. If you believe that relationship is good, you're just deluding yourself. China seeks nothing but a complete leverage of your country's economy and resources in the long run.



LOL i've never heard more paranoia in one post ever
Taiwan and China is of no concern to me , and the way the whole Taiwanese situation has been brought about is the result of this. International politics is a dirty and complex game IMO, and the whole situation we see today is a result of that.

China have no intention of us being subservient to them. The only country we are subservient to is the United States, which a lot of evidence is here, we're not given much of a choice not to fight.

Once again China won't invade Australia for the forseeable future, the only thing China will invade us with is cheap goods. Seriously, you gotta do better than that to convince an apathetic nation like australia


thanks,
drfunk



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Okay this topic has gotten a bit far for me and some of the justifications for a nation at war aren't enough.

I would like to simplify things :

Is China a direct threat to the Australian nation??? Does China ever openly challenge Australia military on issues not concerned with Taiwan?

My opinion is that a defence force's role is only the defence of your nation (which means repelling an invasion, not an offensive role etc). I don't think Australians or the Australian government feel strongly enough about Taiwan to risk a war with China.

I don't think so, but I would like to see if there is anyone that can prove that China has an agenda to take over Australia instead of only wanting to be trading partners.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   
My feelings of Taiwan & China, would be more leaning to help Taiwan, rather then turn a blind eye.

If they want to be free, let em be. The majority of the population in Taiwan does not want a war...but at the same time wants to be independant...aka: no China involvement or influence.

I do believe that China will try and take back Taiwan with force, and Taiwan will fight back making them hate China even more. and the US will have to intervene, and hit China with a reality check. The US wont let Taiwan go communism.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Murcielago you are mistaken. The overwhelming majority of people in Taiwan do not hate China the nation. They hate chinese communists

The amount of people who actually hate China the nation is very few.

The issues is very complicated and there's a LOT of history to it.

It's hard to understand the entire situation unless you are from China or Taiwan.
I think a good analogy would be that China and Taiwan are two siblings from the same family fighting over some family matters. Everybody else are outsiders. This is probably true to all except the very few extreme people who hate China the nation or want to be Japanese.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
The only reason - the one reason US is interested in Taiwan is :
Taiwan is being used as a pebble in the chinese shoe and uncle sam can sell some more arms to Taiwan.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   
This thread is hilarious. So much controversy that some points brought up can be topics in themselves
.

First of all, I would like to start off by stating that freedom is a PRIVELAGE, not a right. Contrary to Jefferson's belief that we are "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights," we are, in reality, responsible for our own freedom. We endow ourselves with freedom - the Lord bestows us with free will, and freedom is therefore ultimately a choice. Taiwan does not have a right to freedom, and if they believe otherwise they will fight for themselves. Ultimately, we're responsible for securing our own privelages.


Originally posted by csulli456
Ok I think I am in somewhat of agreeance with you now. I dont believe the US has anything to gain by fighting China except respect of all who will know we always have and always will stand by our allies. But thats not what its about. Its not about respect but it is about doing what is right and supporting a people who need and want us to defend them in the face of tyranny. We did promise. Its truly a tough decision but ultimately it comes down to what is right and how this would effect the future for all.


War is not about "the right thing to do." Technically, war is essentially an extension of politics. If you choose to be chivalrous and heroic, that is your choice - not your duty.

Also, whoever mentioned that the US and Nationalist Chinese fought for Australian freedom during WWII, I would like to remind you that the Nationalist Chinese were more focused on battling the Communists than they were with the Japanese.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackout
This thread is hilarious. So much controversy that some points brought up can be topics in themselves
.


yeh man not wrong, i'm a bit sick of this thread now IMO.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros

Really? So, let me get this straight..........

It's perfectly OK for Australians to sit by and not lift a finger to help those people who helped keep Australia from getting invaded by Japan during WWII? I mean, who was it that kept the Japanese Imperial Army from knocking on your door? It was the Americans and the nationalist Chinese, friend.


Is this the same Australians that were man to man better then the yanks in Vietnam? The same diggers that served in Korea, gulf war, gulf war 2, and other operations. Do us a favour if you know nothing dont post.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Political reality of Taiwan

20% independence
20% rejoin Mainland

60% We don't give a #@#@$#$@!!!!

Please people, the situation is hardly dire.

----------------

LOL, as for the Nationalists helping to fight the Japanese, you obviousely dunno anything about history at all.

The Nationalists were far more busy using US weapons against the Communists then the Japanese.

It was only when the two banded together, that they fought the Japanese.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
The Nationalist and Communist forces never "banded together".

As for the defense of the Australian continent, American involvement was direct. Chinese involvement can be described as indirect. This is because the constant harrassment of the Japanese Imperial Army by Chinese forces cause Japan to retain between 600,000 and 800,000 front-line combat troops in the Chinese theater of operations for the vast majority of the war. Had Japan been able to release even as few as half of these forces, most historians agree that the Japanese Imperial Army had plans to invade Australia as early as 1942.

In February 1942, Admiral Yamamoto proposed an immediate invasion of Australia. After observing the relative ease at which his bombing attacks against Darwin went, he asked the Japanese General Staff to land two Japanese Army Divisions on the northern coastline of Australia, which was very poorly defended. These forces would then drive south following the north-south railway line to Adelaide, dividing Australia into two fronts. Once Adelaide had been secured, an amphibious landing on the south east coast of Australia would be initiated. This force would then drive northwards to Sydney and southwards to Melbourne.

The Japanese General Staff agreed with Yamamoto's assessment of the situation. They new that the Japanese expansion into the South Pacific had overstreched their suplly lines, and that this region was vulnerable to an American counterattack. However, fortunately for Australia, the plan was rejected by Prime Minister Tojo. Emperor Hirohito decided to postpone the Invasion Plan until Japanese forces had taken Burma and joined forces with the rebel Indian Nationalists. Because of the unexpected and complete American victories at the Battle of the Coral Sea and at Midway, the Japanese plans for Australia vanished.

So, although the Nationalist Chinese never actually directly helped the Australians, they certainly indirectly helped Australia. American Army forces in China worked hand-in-hand with Generalissimo Chiang for the most part. Chaing had the added problem of having to deal with the Communists, who were more interested in attacking and destablizing Generalissimo Chiang than dealing with the Japanese themselves. Although Generalissimo Chiang can be accused of the same actions against the communists, his direct support of the Allies (including allowing American Generals control his forces) had a more direct bearing on the outcome of the Chinese theater of operations. Australia was never invaded because the Japanese had to deploy too many men in a conquered China to deal with American and British backed Chinese forces, who were most directly lead by Chiang Kai-shek.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   
No ship sherlock, most of our troops/navy ships were fighting in Egypt/Mediterranean sea and if they weren't our defenses would have been much better. Anyway this doesn't change the fact that America only joined the war because it was attacked, not to fight for our freedom or anyone else as you claim. You are a bloody hypocrite for using a war that you only joined because you were attacked to prove that Australia should join a war before it is even threatened or attacked. America entered the war to prevent further attacks against it, the Japanese gave you no choice. If you weren't attacked i have little doubt in my mind that Australia would have had to fight the Japanese alone, yet you think this is a reason why Australia should go to war before it is attacked? You didn't then so why should you use this as a reason why we should now? Also one of the reasons Australia was targeted is we declared war on Japan, kind of similar to how they declared war on you and if we didn't then it's very possible that Japan would have focused on America in the pacific and the oil they wanted in the Dutch East Indies rather than trying to take out Australia. Which had no strategic value until we became both an enemy by declaring war on them and the biggest base for American armed forces in SE Asia. That said, it was a much safer gamble to side with the US to make sure the Japanese didn't win because after their immediate objective we would have been next. Hey if China bombs our fleet I'm sure we will join in any future war against them too, then years later we will tell the Taiwanese we entered the war to save them and not because we got our fleet sunk


[edit on 9-3-2005 by Trent]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
The Nationalist and Communist forces never "banded together".


WTF are you talking about.

Do you even know anything about Chinese History?

The Communists formed a army called the New-four army which supplented the Whole Kuomintang army. If thats not "banded together" then what is?

Chang Kai-shek was ONLY interested in attacking the Communists.
Do you even know about what changed his mind?????
If you don't know anything about chinese history, don't talk.

He changed his mind when one of his generals rebelled and took him house arrest. (he later impresoned the general under house arrest for the rest of his life)
Chang was forced to sign a treaty with Zhou Enlai.

The nationalists were not successful at all agaisnt the Japanese, thats why they conqured half the god damn country. It wasn't there fault, in a stand up fight, China did not stand a chance.

China only started winning when the 2 banded together and they started using the Guerrilla tactics of Mao,

Retreat when the enemy advances,
harrass when the enemy stops,
attack when the enemy retreats.

The US did help China alot through air drops. In most cases however, unfortunetly most of the airplanes were ambushed by Japanese on the way to China.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Frankly, you Americans think you know everything.

We don't ever presume to understand the complexities involved in the American Civil war or independence movement.

Don't assume you know everything about the complexities of wars in other countries.

[edit on 9-3-2005 by rapier28]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
You all have this magical view of the Nationalists just because there not Communists.

The fact of the matter was, the Nationalists were far worse governors at the time then the Communists, that is why they lost the civil war.

The Communists got help from every single village in China. The Nationalists got help from the Big cities such as Nanjing, Shanghai etc.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Taiwan wants to become its own country, but knows that if it declares its independence that China would probably attack.

China now has over 700 missiles pointed at Taiwan, and that number will surpass 800 by next year. There military build up is unpressidented. Which is an obvious offensive build up, China is buying missiles that can hit Taiwan, while Taiwan buys Patriot missiles for defence against China's massive barrage that will hit them once they declare their independence.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join