It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


China tells US Pacific Command chief military contact with Taiwan must stop

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 01:22 AM

Originally posted by zcheng

Originally posted by jazzmaster
Please do not plagiarize what i said without my permission, it's really disrespectful.

I just used your hand to slap your face.

You managed to slap the wrong face, buddy. Eventhough cultural differences, it is still disrespectful slapping stranger's face. You said: (notice i quoted what you said that was taken from me) "US ships dare to attack PLA will rest in the bottom of Pacific. It would be either by missiles, which US has no defense over, or water mines, which will happen, or by subs, in which China has no defense either. "

If i didn't read it wrong, you meant China has no defense over subs, water mines? Of course your country has no defense over any of them!

Whose face are you trying to slap again? Either way, it's really disrespectful., plagiarizing and slapping people's face.

[edit on 25-7-2004 by jazzmaster]

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 02:19 AM
each time a thread on china & the us crops up, very often all thats being discussed is whose military is better or who reigns supreme over sea and air, wht they would go to war and who would lose out more.

its great that everyone is patriotic but i believe that before anything gets underway, Taiwan would have to Declare Independance First. So wouldnt it be better if we discussed whether this is ever gonna happen?

why would china care if taiwan bought arms from the us if they dont declare indepandance. it would be chinas one day and the us makes some money too.

if taiwan feels ballsy enough to declare independance when theyve acquired us arms and support then so be it. itd be a nice change in the news headlines and itd be really great to see what china and the us would actually do instead of reading wht folks think how the conflict would end up

i say taiwan shld go for it. screw world peace.

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Indy
A war between the US and China would be... well.... terrible.

Thats not what this disscussion is about, it's about Tiawain vs. China and the US helping the Tiawainese people defend themselves from big bad china.

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 04:19 AM
ZCHENG "US is for peace, is the biggest joke in the planet."

Are you trying to say china is for peace.

I wouldn't really say that the US is for peace, were for freedom.

BTW, to all the people who reply to Zcheng after every post your wasting your time, He will obliviously defend china relentlessly till the very end. Talking to him is like trying to explain nuclear physics to a 3 year old.

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 08:22 AM

Originally posted by TACHYON
Room for the everexpanding population?

No. Perserving Territorial Integrity of China.

Taiwan already has 23 million on that small island. If it were for the expanding population, Siberia or Mongol would be a better place.

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 08:25 AM

Originally posted by zcheng
Taiwan already has 23 million on that small island. If it were for the expanding population, Siberia or Mongol would be a better place.

Are you indicating were your territorial ambitions are next ZCheng?

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Murcielago
ZCHENG "US is for peace, is the biggest joke in the planet."

Yes, as long as US is continuing current foreign policy. US is now occupying Iraq, and threatening to attack Iran, and North Korea. Unless US is mending its foreign policy, I will view US as the biggest threat to world peace.

Are you trying to say china is for peace.

China do not want war with US, do not want war in Taiwan strait.

If there is no Taiwan Independence, China will very much like the people in mainland and people in Taiwan to resolve the issues in the future.

That is why China giving great benefits for business from Taiwan. China has almost 30 billion US dollar deficit in trading with Taiwan. It seems Taiwan is using this surplus to buy weapons and prop up Independence movement. That is why the tensions now.

If Taiwan renounces the intention of Independence, China will renounce the use of force. In my view, it is biggest tragedy for China when Chinese in Mainland have to use force against Chinese in Taiwan. That is why force is the last resort to prevent Taiwan from going Independence.

BTW, to all the people who reply to Zcheng after every post your wasting your time.

If you find my argument unreasonable, you can just ignore whatever I say. Currently, FredT and WestPoint23 are in my ignore list.

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Majic
I am familiar with the history of Taiwan and the Communist Revolution

Majic, I have great respect for you, although I have serious difference toward current Chinese government, etc.

I also plea to all American friends to familiarize the history of Taiwan problem. Current problem is a continuation of history.

It is clear that Taiwan will not peaceably rejoin China unless there are some fundamental changes. Legitimate and serious differences exist, and must be resolved.I do not, never have and never will support a forced reunification of Taiwan with China. However, I can understand why China might see things differently. There is a difference between understanding and agreement.

It is also in the interest of China to resolve the issues through peaceful means. But we also have recognize that Territorial Integrity and Sovereignty are not negotiable. It is the principle, also followed in the negotiation for handover of Hong Kong. Other than that, almost everything is possible.

To offer an objective observation, you have to put yourself into the others position, and then think what you will do as well.

As Majic suggested, if we switch the role of US and China, and replace Taiwan with Hawaii, how will US respond? how will you respond?

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 11:36 AM
My responce to the article is an arrogant - or what!

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 02:01 PM
oh snap im part of us marine forces pacific. time to pack my bags i geuss. j/k i always got my bags packed. lets hope this doesnt escalate. have any of you ever been to tiwan or korea or japan or the phillipines. they SUCK id rather go back to iraq (oif2 vet!) then have to spend just one more month in any of the above named places. the pacific is the worst. much love to the WW2 and vietnam vets who faught there and sufferd there. mad props. anyway im outta here. gotta take the wife to work PEACE!

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 07:19 PM
The comparison of Taiwan to Hawaii is fundamentally flawed, as the two situations result from two very different histories. A stronger comparison would be to recall the secession of the southern states (the Confederacy) circa 1860. The northern (Union) states re-integrated the Confederate states by force. With this precedent, you might be tempted to think that the US should understand how mainland China feels about Taiwan.

The reason it doesn't is that there is a far more powerful historical precedent at work in the US. First and foremost, the US was created to create a free and democratic state through secession from Britain. This is what the US national anthem and its primary national symbols are about. And its this precedent that Americans identify with and keep in mind as they survey various struggles of peoples against oppressors in various parts of the world. Its this precedent that causes them to aid the oppressed against the oppressor.

But this alone isn't enough to explain why the US wants to support Taiwan. After all, there have been other, similar situations as we've gone through recent decades, and the US hasn't gotten involved in all of them.

The other reasons are, I believe, economic and regional stability.

Warfare over Taiwan would have a significant economic impact due to Taiwan's place in the world economy. Much of the world's computer chip production is in Taiwan. Its also a significant market in its own right and a source of capital. Its no exaggeration to worry about a resulting worldwide recession, with unknown secondary effects.

Secondly, a China that is seen as aggressive and domineering is to be feared by all of its neighbours. A regional arms race, replete with nuclear proliferation, would be likely. Also, a China successful over Taiwan could decide that it has other opportunities for domination, if not outright conquest.

There you have it. I believe that the US will support China because it must, in order to protect the current economic order and to prevent long-term instability in the region. And I beleive that US allies will support them, for the same reasons. It would be wrong to suppose that because some Western countries opposed the invasion of Iraq, that they would not support the US over Taiwan. I believe there would be much more unanimity than you'd expect, because the threat to the US in this case is the same threat we'd all face, and the issue would be much more clear-cut (besides, I think they were wrong about Iraq, too).

You can argue, if you like, that there is no reason that a different economic order shouldn't come about, or that China itself could be the guarantor of stability, and, by the way, who says that there can't be another configuration of economic, military and social order, that the world doesn't have to necessarily have to follow the US model.

Valid points, except for this: all of us in the West remember Tian-a-min square. No-one wants to open the door for a domineering, oppressive power. I'm open to a different order in the Far East - but first I want to see long term freedom and democracy, and an end to top-down centralized planning. I want to see progress measured by the freedom and prosperity of people instead of the correction of imagined historical wrongs.

Above all, I want to see China voluntarily reunited by pursuasion and reason, not by force of arms.

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 11:01 PM

It is also in the interest of China to resolve the issues through peaceful means. But we also have recognize that Territorial Integrity and Sovereignty are not negotiable. It is the principle, also followed in the negotiation for handover of Hong Kong. Other than that, almost everything is possible.

Yeah right china wants to make the American military think that they want to resolve thing peacefully while they train 18.000 troops to invade Taiwan. China is just doing what Japan did remember Japan invited the US to peace talks and gave us peace medals then they attacked us its on old trick what china is trying to do.

[edit on 26-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 11:05 PM

It is also in the interest of China to resolve the issues through peaceful means. But we also have recognize that Territorial Integrity and Sovereignty are not negotiable. It is the principle, also followed in the negotiation for handover of Hong Kong. Other than that, almost everything is possible.

Hmmm you do have quite track record of resolving issues through peacefull means. lets see Tienniman Square, Tibet, Cultural Revolution, etc.

Therer was very little negotiation for Honk Kong. UK had to turn her over based on treaties. If they had any choice, it would still be part of the UK.

posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 01:28 PM
This Summer Pulse Naval training excersize must be a not so subtle message to China that the USA does indeed have the capacity, and the will to engage them over the continuing Taiwanese crisis.

The US government must assure Taiwan that though our military is encumbered with the current Afghan and Iraqi battlezones, that we still are capable of fighting a multiple front battle plan. Rumsfeld declared shortly after 911 that the USA must be capable and willing to fight simultaenous large scale battle fronts. He also stated that the US might must be overwhelming, and decisive as failure on either front is not an option.

Considering that the entire world governments spent 900odd billion on defense in 2003 and the USA making up over 1/2 of that total investment. I would consider our chances of destroying China at over 70%.


posted on Jul, 26 2004 @ 02:47 PM
i disagree with most of your views but i do respect the fact you stick to your guns in spewing the Chinese way of thinking....
you gotta stop using the Hawaii thing. Any credibility you have goes out the window every time you bring that up. It's not the same thing. It WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
And the other thing you people gotta stop bringin up is the Cilvil War. Do you think MOST red blooded, god loving Americans really give a crap about what happened 140 years ago? It was a different era. A different time. A different way of thinking. Don't start being like those messed up fanatic muslims who are still pissed about getting their butts kicked HUNDREDS of years ago.

posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 12:03 AM
Those failed to study mistakes from history deem to repeat it. Don't be so sure, history is very important. But the comparisions about Haiwaii calling for independence and the Civil War are just rediculous. There is no connections between those events and the situation between Taiwan and China now.

posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 12:46 AM
Can you please explain the different for me?
The core point is:

"One group of people or land want to have independence from their Motherland."

Should it be allowed or not? What are the distinctions?

[edit on 31-7-2004 by zcheng]

posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 02:13 PM
Yes when the land that wants to separate is free and democratic and the mother land is a dictatorship with very poor conditions for its people. Taiwan should be able to be independent.

posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 02:39 PM
I vote we put zcheng and WestPoint23 on one of the Paracel Islands for a decisive and final proxy battle.

The Stakes

If zcheng wins, Taiwan must surrender unconditionally to China and accept China's soveriegnty.

If WestPoint23 wins, China must unconditionally declare Taiwan to be an independent nation.

The Terms of Battle

The battle will take the form of an essay contest. The winner will be determined by a panel of three judges from Merriam-Webster who will rate the essays on the basis of English spelling, grammar, punctuation and composition.

I think we can all agree that the contestants are about evenly matched.

May the best nation win.

Edit: In all fairness, I actually think both of you have been improving, even over the course of this thread. So please don't take my friendly ribbing the wrong way.

[edit on 7/31/2004 by Majic]

posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 03:09 PM
Well I think that is the way how most situation is resolved in the US. One side tries to pursuade the public that their view should be recognized as the solution, and the other side does the same thing. It is very democratic
. I say those two should head to the table and do it. How about all of us from this thread be the judges, along with Meriam-Webster judges? I say that it's pretty fair.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in