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.

 

NEWS: China Warns Condoleezza Rice About Taiwan

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeMagnifique
just one thing don't get the french involved!


Peace LeMagnifique


As long as you ( I mean french people) will avoid your government to sell weapon to China or help to lift the embargo, there will be no problem.


But, can French government be trusted? It seems that Chirac put his country interests before helping a republic and a democracy like Taiwan.


So strange when you think that french is the country of "Droits de l'homme" that they made a revolution to have a republic and a democracy and that some of the best philosopher and writers were french.( Rousseau, Voltaire, Hugo, Proudhon
, Descartes, Pascal, Beaudelaire, Patrick Timsit, Coluche
...)

But it seems that the new generation is more interested in the score of "PSG/OM" or smoke some "beuh" and burn their neighbors cars than taking care of countries so far away...


Most of them don't even make the difference between New Caledonia and Guadeloupe or Reunion, so how to get angry when they confuse between Thailand and Taiwan.


Anyway... " C'est l'histoire d'un type qui tombe du dixieme etage d'un immeuble, a chaque fois qu'il passe un etage, on l'entend murmurer " jusqu'ici ca va..." mais l'important c'est pas la chute, c'est l'atterrissage...


A plus ... Peace (mais marche pas dedans)


( sorry for non french speakers, I can't translate the joke because it's a play on word with "chute" meaning "fall" and "punch line")




[edit on 21-3-2006 by hsia]




posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by hsia


you should say Taiwanese don't want a war

They don't want a war, they dont want to be chinese: staus quo


What are you talking about? Please speak for yourself if you are self-hating. You are an extremist and definately, the way you think is against public opinion in Taiwan.



Why do you even post about Tibet? What does that have to do with this debate?

Honestly, again, you disagree with the KMT and you do want "independence" for Taiwan, BUT you have to acknowledge that what you believe in is NOT what the majority of Taiwanese believe in or want.

You have completely ignored my arguments, and in turn posted irrelevant "info."

In the recent elections, the DPP party lost in a CRUSIHNG DEFEAT against the KMT in the parliamental elections with 17 of the 23 seats GOING TO THE KMT PARTY. People are sick and tired of President Chen and his party for trying to seek independence. So sick, in fact, that a RECALL has been issued for President Chen.


Cheng said U.S. promises to protect Taiwan from an unprovoked attack from China were not a "blank check." Washington had said many times that Taiwan could not provoke changes to the status quo, she said.

"President Chen and his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government must shoulder the full blame for.. these serious irresponsible actions," she said.
"President Chen... goes against the mainstream of public opinion," she said.

Honestly, have you read the polls lately? Whats Chen's approval rating at? 20 something percent? How can you honestly EVEN THINK that what you believe in is mainstream public opinion. Are you that blinded by your own beliefs that you ignore the things you dont want to hear?



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
The conflict between the US and China over Taiwan is hugely overexaggerated. China would never run the risk of losing it's biggest trade partner.

Secondly, althought Taiwan may be a large issue, other issues such as our constant criticizing of thier human rights policies is going to anger them more.

Lastly, even if China did go to war to attempt to "invade" Taiwan, the US would throw them right back into the sea. The fact is, the US has the technological might to overcome any Chinese invasion, barring the use of nucelar weapson.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by lucasman
Lastly, even if China did go to war to attempt to "invade" Taiwan, the US would throw them right back into the sea. The fact is, the US has the technological might to overcome any Chinese invasion, barring the use of nucelar weapson.


Are you kiddin me?

First of all... The U.S. WILL NOT back Taiwan if it ALTERS the status quo, and China will NOT invade Taiwan as long as the status quo is remained untouched.

Second of all... You honestly believe that the US would throw the Chinese invasion "right back into the sea?" Are you serious? Thousands on both sides would die the first few days of battle. But you have overlooked something VERY VERY important. The American public have NO WILL to fight against China. Look at Iraq... Not many casualties there (compared to a theoretical war against China), but DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY Americans actually support the Iraq warj now? Do you know how many Americans want to impeach Bush over his decision of invading Iraq? The American public right now is VERY WARY of war and WILL NOT support a war against China. Without the support of the American public, do you honestly think the U.S. can hold back against the Chinese force? Remember the Vietnam War sir, and rethink about how "easy" it is to just "throw the Chinese invasion right back into the sea."




[edit on 21-3-2006 by k4rupt]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Don't confuse, vietnam was under invasion. The hell is for invaders.
Same for Iraq, they protect their country ( according to them) it's harder for the intruder. If china wants to invade Taiwan they should take lessons from Normandy were Nazi snipped americans as they tried to get off the boat.
Not so easy, even if you are a lot to invade an island, england was not in the ww2



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   
wow, where was your "technology" in north korea war?
Thought China is still like 10 years after U.S in mility, don't forget the war will happend(if it will) in an area only 50-100km to China mainland. That means China doesn't need to use the nuclear weapons at all.
China's submarine groups(093b, 094) and long distance accurate missiles have the ability to destroy the whole U.S carrier groups if they come too closed to China mainland.

Originally posted by lucasman
The conflict between the US and China over Taiwan is hugely overexaggerated. China would never run the risk of losing it's biggest trade partner.

Secondly, althought Taiwan may be a large issue, other issues such as our constant criticizing of thier human rights policies is going to anger them more.

Lastly, even if China did go to war to attempt to "invade" Taiwan, the US would throw them right back into the sea. The fact is, the US has the technological might to overcome any Chinese invasion, barring the use of nucelar weapson.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
The thing is, and this is in response to both posts, first China has to successfully land enough troops to hold Taiwan. That in itself could be problemlatic because first the US isn't just gonna sit by andnot do anything if we see that China is preparing to invade, we will help Taiwan by putting trips in Taiwan. Secondly, as was stated before, invasions are much harder for the invaders than the defenders, especially if China is as was stated 10 years behind the United States in technology. And, I mean come on, if you have US forces stationed in Taiwan, and China doesn't have the ability to mass transport people constantly, the chance of the US being able to fend off these attacks is high.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

posted by UM_Gazz: “ . . a forgotten threat again shows its face. China is very unhappy about the current issues between itself, the U.S.A. and Tiawan. A former Chinese President told [Sec of St] Condoleezza Rice just how serious this situation is . . Tiawan sovereignty will never be tolerated . . China is unhappy about U.S. plans to sell advanced weapons to Taiwan . . Jiang told Rice that Tiawan remains the "most vital and most sensitive issue in Sino-U.S. relations . . " Tiawan sovereignty will never be tolerated," he said . . "and if foreign forces step in, we will never sit by and watch . . " The challenges for the next President of the United States of America are growing . . and none can be bigger at the moment than a potential conflict with China. [Edited by Don W]


Formosa had been a semi-independent province of China for a very long time. In 1910, a strong Japan took Formosa from a very weak China. In 1945, in contravention of the nascent United Nations guarantee of self-determination, Formosa was handed back to China. In 1949, Mao Zedong defeated the Nationalist Forces led by Chiang Kai Chek. Chiang and 400,000 soldiers fled to Formosa. I am of the opinion the Nationalist changed the name to Tiawan, but I do not know. There wee 3 million people living there in 1949, but they are casualties of the Cold War. Formosans, like Native Americans, forgotten but not gone.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Obviously you forget one thing: Before US forces/carrier groups arrive at Taiwan, they have been already destroied by China's submarines and short/long term missiles.

As for submarine and missile technology China is at almost 2-3 years behind U.S so China can also do whatever U.S plan to do to China.
Acutually Taiwan is so close to China mainland even the new invented long distance cannon can cover the whole Taiwan area.

Also with the current infrastructure, logistics and economic, China is able to turn the whole country and 1.5 billion people into weapon factory which means we can build 5 planes/tanks if we lose 1 in the war and ship them to the provinces near Taiwan in a very short time. How can U.S do that?

If the war happens in the third party country like Iraq, 95% U.S wins China
If the war happens in Taiwan strait/South China sea, 90% China wins U.S


Originally posted by lucasman
The thing is, and this is in response to both posts, first China has to successfully land enough troops to hold Taiwan. That in itself could be problemlatic because first the US isn't just gonna sit by andnot do anything if we see that China is preparing to invade, we will help Taiwan by putting trips in Taiwan. Secondly, as was stated before, invasions are much harder for the invaders than the defenders, especially if China is as was stated 10 years behind the United States in technology. And, I mean come on, if you have US forces stationed in Taiwan, and China doesn't have the ability to mass transport people constantly, the chance of the US being able to fend off these attacks is high.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

posted by google_abcd: “Obviously you forget one thing: Before US carrier battle groups arrive at Taiwan, they have been destroyed by China's submarines and short/long range missiles. Taiwan is so close to the China mainland even the new invented long distance cannon can cover the whole Taiwan area.”[Edited by Don W]


I have not forgotten that, G/abcd. I do not want to see the United States engage any other country in an ARMS RACE. The world survived a very nasty cold war lasting until 1991. In the meantime, literally bullions of people - including a large number in interior China - are poorly fed, ill housed, under served in all the amenities of life in the 20th century, in large part due to the money wasted on WAR equipment.

There should be no need for the PRC to begin building or buying submarines. The US and the new government on Taiwan should find some way to satisfy all parties short of an arms race or out and out war over this issue left over from the 1940s-1950s. We simply MUST find a way to resolve this short of violence.



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
About stupid propaganda
888.rockin.net...

The KMT leader is trying, with the help of Bush, to sell Taiwan to china.
Can Taiwanese trust USA (and all their technology) to protect them?


[edit on 23-3-2006 by hsia]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   

posted by google_abcd: “Wow, where was your "technology" in North Korea war? China is still 10 years behind the U.S. in military, but don't forget the war will happen in an area only 30-60 miles off the Chinese mainland. That means China doesn't need to use the nuclear weapons at all.
[Edited by Don W]


OK, G/abcd, you make 2 valid points. 1) The U.S. was not able to defeat the Peoples Volunteer Army in Korea. I’m of the opinion Gen. of the Army MacArthur - an American icon - intentionally provoked China at the Yalu River. He was willing to violate the American West Point dictum, “Never fight a land war in Asia.” Mac wanted to re-write the book. However, he regarded nuclear weapons as just another weapon to be used when circumstances dictated. Pres. Truman fired Mac over this issue. [This by the way, is what COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF means. OVERSIGHT. Not 6 stars.] As a war objective, Truman was satisfied to turn back the NK invasion of SK at the border - 38th parallel. Truman did not want to play the nuclear card at the LOW threat level posed on the Korean peninsula. December, 1950.

2) Whether the PLA could cross the straits and successfully land on the island is highly problematical. China could not assemble a 500,000 man invasion army and all the boats needed to carry it in secret. China lacks bombardment aircraft to “soften” up the target before landing forces. The same is true of China’s long range artillery, G/abcd. In World War One the Germans did some long range artillery bombardment. Big Bertha. A 120 mm cannon with a 70 miles range, bombarded Paris. It proved annoying but not significant. A “terror” weapon but not a “military” weapon. Nowadays, computer controlled radar can back track artillery rounds to their point of origin and support counter battery fire. Or direct F-16s to attack such sites.

Face it, G/abcd, the PLA is for INTERNAL control and security of the regime, NOT for foreign expeditions. If China ever regains Taiwan, it will be by TALKING and not by SHOOTING. And we are back where we started vis a vis Taiwan. Now that the KMT has been replaced by the DPP, I can see Taiwan becoming a second Hong Kong. Like every ethnicity - I can’t say “race” anymore - there is a pride in your motherland or if German, in your fatherland. I can see the day when everyone will be DUAL citizens of both the country of his birth or residence, and the country of his ancestral origins.

[edit on 3/23/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   

posted by lucasman: “The conflict between the US and China over Taiwan is hugely over exaggerated. 1) China would never run the risk of losing it's biggest trade partner. 2) although Taiwan may be a large issue, other issues such as our constant criticizing of their human rights policies is going to anger them more. 3) if China did go to war to "invade" Taiwan, the US would throw them right back into the sea. Invasions are much harder for the invaders than the defenders. [Reflect on Inchon, October, 1950.] especially if China is ‘10 years behind’ the United States in technology. [MORE LIKE 25 YEARS BEHIND] The fact is, the US has the technological might to overcome any Chinese invasion, barring the use of nuclear weapons. [Edited by Don W, comments in brackets.]


Lucasman, add to Item 1) that China holds many BILLIONS of US T-paper. Creditors rarely slap their debtors. ALSO, don’t overlook the adverse impact the loss of $200 billion a year in QUALITY and CHEAP imports that would fall on any US Administration that BUNGLED foreign affairs enough to stop the flow of Chinese goods to Wal-Mart. China and the US are like the famous Siamese - still PC? - twins. Or should I say “co-joined?” One cannot live without the other.

Add to Item 3) that the BEST kept ‘secret’ of US military prowess is its incessant training. Our Armed Forces are the BEST trained in the world and training cost MONEY and lots of it. We have opted to go with FEWER soldiers but more TRAINING. It is great for conquering but lousy for occupying, as the Oberfuhrer is learning. Slowly. At the expense of 2,415 dead Gis. Now that Geo W says we’ll be in Iraq until 2009, our total KIA will likely run to 4,830. So Geo W’s WALL will be smaller than the Johnson/Nixon Wall?

Hey, it’s all about the Geo W L - E - G - A - C - Y! Another monument built in blood to a WRONG foreign policy decision. I assign blame to BOTH Congress 80%, and on the respective Administrations, 20%. Not to mention the 1 million DEAD Vietnamese or the 200,000 DEAD Iraqis. Collateral damage. Hmm?


[edit on 3/23/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by google_abcd
Also with the current infrastructure, logistics and economic, China is able to turn the whole country and 1.5 billion people into weapon factory which means we can build 5 planes/tanks if we lose 1 in the war and ship them to the provinces near Taiwan in a very short time. How can U.S do that?


Originally posted by lucasman

That is real nice for China, but how do you replace an experienced fighter / bomber pilot / flight or tank crew?


Your argument would only stand if you had trained personnel ligned up for the new toys. The newbies would fall to quickly and you'd be sending critical ressources to the bottom of the strait.




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join