China has hissy fit about US arms sales to Taiwan

[RPGmasterBoo]

I don't see what's peculiar about Chinese policy on Taiwan. They consider it a part of their state and will not change their opinion. Basically no one wants to or can, for that matter offer something to China to change its mind, which it has no reason to do so in the first place.

 

That's all there is to it.

 

That's not all there is to it. There's the aspect that Taiwan has been independent (de facto) from China for more than 50 years, has a completely different political system, government, and has also evolved because of this a distinct cultural attitude (similar as they are on other matters culturally).

 

Then again, I'm guessing you think Kosovo 'belongs' to the Serbs, right? Pfft.

 

It does. Your ignorance is unsurprising. Your persistence in it however, is.

[RPGmasterBoo]

That analogy would only work if the mainland chinese would consider Taiwan as the birthplace of the chinese people and culture. Kosovo reminds me more about the Israel/Palestine-conflict.

 

Even that is not wholly correct. There is nothing particularly holy in Kosovo for Albanians. The core of their historical territory is modern day Albania.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm guessing you think Perth belongs to Australia and not to the Aborigines.

 

No, actually I full support Native Title, and you just made one of your more idiotic post just then with that pathetic attempt at analogy.

 

The issues of Kosovo or Taiwan's independence are not related to Native Title. At all.

 

Edit: And indeed, it is ironic that you should bring it up, because I would be surprised to see China enact anything near as progressive as Native Title for its indigenous populations. C.f. Uyghurs, Tibetans. All I see is oppression and population displacement/replacement, and China doesn't have the excuse of history.

Isn't that kind of weasel phrasing? Would you support the aborigines kicking the Australians out of Perth?

[Gorgon]

I met a taxi driver who was Albanian on my way home from work the other day. He was listening to an Albanian radio station. They are very worried that their language and culture are going to disappear and be replaced with Macedonian or Bosnian, and like everyone down there they fiercely want independence. (the minorities in Macedonia that is) I asked him if he thought things could get out of hand again, like in the war, he didn't think so.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Gorgon

[HoonDing]

I think China should now deliver some arms to Cuba.

 

New Cold War FTW.

[Meshugger]

I think China should now deliver some arms to Cuba.

 

New Cold War FTW.

 

!!!!

 

 

hahaha

[Walsingham]

I went out with an Albanian girl once. She was foot taller than me, had a face like a cat's and drank pure grain alcohol. She dumped me when I got domesticated. Happy days.

 

Anyway, all this rubbish about who a country belongs to. Countries have always belonged to whoever had the strength to take and control them. We can certainly be interested internationally in whether those people are supported by popular vote, and SHOULD be in my opinion, but there is no law on the subject because *fanfare* there's no policemen.

 

If China invades there would probably be a rattling of sabers, a short and totally ineffective embargo, followed by the usual debate of engagement, and back to normal.

[213374U]

but there is no law on the subject because *fanfare* there's no policemen.

Well, and when somebody tries and assumes the role, they either a) fail miserably (hello, UN troops) or b) raise hell and get everybody else howling about self-appointed "world policemen" ****ing with their interests.

 

Fortunately, you can trust that superpowers will always work to protect their interests. There's a certain sense of predictability and security in that.

 

 

If China invades there would probably be a rattling of sabers, a short and totally ineffective embargo, followed by the usual debate of engagement, and back to normal.

Yeah, we'd have to wait until they invaded Finland, annexed the Baltics and remilitarized the Rhineland before the people actually started realizing that autocracies are only deterred by overwhelming force... Edited February 2, 2010 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

 

I know it must seem strange me being so realpolitik, but there it is.

 

Actually, I just emailed a couple of lawyer friends of mine about this. Given the official status of Taiwan, I was wondering if any military action after an ninvasion would be 'technically' illegal. Just recalling the Tony Blair witch trial.

[Brdavs]

Somebody remind me how many times a year the Chinese government throws these tantrums? I've lost count. I know it's threw tantrums at India, Australia, America, Canada, and the EU (as well as specific EU nations) last year, with the usual multitude of thinly-veiled threats.

 

Not as ofthen as the US does about China or Russia selling stuff to say Iran.

 

Cos I mean, how will WE be able to invade THEM if THEY keep arming them?

 

lol

Edited February 2, 2010 by Brdavs

[Wrath of Dagon]

Taiwan is not a threat to China, it's the other way around.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Anyway, all this rubbish about who a country belongs to. Countries have always belonged to whoever had the strength to take and control them.

 

Of course.

[Brdavs]

Taiwan is not a threat to China, it's the other way around.

 

Disputable given the nature of the two and their past. You can almost look at them as north v south in the US frozen just before the last blow of the south to the north.

 

And lets not even get started on how big a threat Iran is heh...

Edited February 3, 2010 by Brdavs

[RPGmasterBoo]

Taiwan is a threat in the sense that its backed by the US. Several US authors have elaborated on the idea of conflict between the US and China over Taiwan, most notably Samuel Huntington.

[213374U]

Which helps keep alive the fantasy that the US would be willing to act as they did back in '50. If the PRC doesn't invade it's because they don't stand to gain too much. They have enough in their plate as it is.

Edited February 3, 2010 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

I think Brdavs is right to adopt his stance. Because Iran, a significant military power with huge oil reserves, sitting athwart the greatest concentration of oil in the world, soon to be armed with a nuclear bomb, and official sponsors of terrorism in at least four countries, and run by people who think God is talking to them is CLEARLY as dangerous as Taiwan.

[RPGmasterBoo]

I think Brdavs is right to adopt his stance. Because Iran, a significant military power (US) with huge oil reserves (US has its own), sitting athwart the greatest concentration of oil in the world, soon to be armed with a nuclear bomb (US has several thousand warheads), and official sponsors of terrorism in at least four countries (US did create/help Osama bin Laden in the war with the Soviets, the Contras in Nicaragua, orchestrated the Bay of Pigs invasion etc), and run by people who think God is talking to them (Bush - well that one's gone anyway).

 

No offense but you must realize the rest of the world fails to see the difference most of the time.

 

It does have oil, but then again it is their oil. If they want to sit on it and starve (because they have little else to sell) its their choice. Iran will get nukes, but then Israel has its own, as do most of Iran's neighbours. It does use terrorism to advance its interests, but then the US uses unchecked brute force. Both countries use means appropriate to their power.

 

How is Iran a threat more than any other large country? More than say Israel, Russia, China, France, Great Britain...

 

What can they do to the US in the near future that's so terrible?

Edited February 3, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Walsingham]

I'm being rather simplistic, but Iran is a greater threat because they are a theist autocracy. A theist autocracy with some rather peculiar notions, and some very volatile power structures. It's teh difference between seeing a policeman with a pistol, and a junkie with a pistol.

 

EDIT: I'm not replying to the usual suspects about Bay of Pigs etc. We can post-analyse as much as we like, but the fact is that the USA is the single reason we aren't either speaking German or Russian. I'm sick of people trying to make me ashamed of our alliance with them to satisfy abstract intellectual perfection in an imperfect world. The USA is not Iran because it has nukes and invades places any more than a surgeon is a mugger because he cuts people open and takes their money.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Walsingham

[RPGmasterBoo]

You're presuming the other side irrational. That's the first step to justifying preemptive action.

 

I can't trust Jack > I'll whack Jack on the head to be sure.

 

No one can afford much irrationality in politics Walsingham. Iran's leaders are well aware of their position. They're not chasing nukes to obliterate Israel (which is what they want their populace to believe), they are chasing them as deterrent to possible US attack. All they want is what leaders everywhere want - tp stay in power.

 

EDIT: I'm not replying to the usual suspects about Bay of Pigs etc. We can post-analyse as much as we like, but the fact is that the USA is the single reason we aren't either speaking German or Russian. I'm sick of people trying to make me ashamed of our alliance with them to satisfy abstract intellectual perfection in an imperfect world. The USA is not Iran because it has nukes and invades places any more than a surgeon is a mugger because he cuts people open and takes their money.

 

That's the crux of the matter. The US believes its somehow better than everyone else. Its not. Its a country whose policy is pure realpolitik. Just like everyone else. Accepting that would do a world of good to US self perception.

 

No one wants to make you feel ashamed, just because the US does what every country in its position does. The primary motivator of politics isn't an abstract common good, its power. As such US has done everything to enlarge and keep its power, no matter who had to die in the process. If you study history, that's the natural way of things.

 

I just wish they'd drop the pax romana propaganda and admit like most other countries - that its all about staying on top.

 

 

All this talk about Iran. What is that if not seeing a potential rival and planning to destroy him before his power can increase? Pure realpolitik. Nothing more.

 

Note: Personally I have no love for the muslim world. We have a long, bloody history with them. I couln't care less if all that's left of Iran is a crater.

Edited February 3, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Wrath of Dagon]

No one can afford much irrationality in politics Walsingham. Iran's leaders are well aware of their position. They're not chasing nukes to obliterate Israel (which is what they want their populace to believe), they are chasing them as deterrent to possible US attack. All they want is what leaders everywhere want - tp stay in power.

Well, I'm glad you have a personal connection to the Iranian government, so you know what they want the nukes for. And Iran wouldn't have to worry about any action from the US if they weren't developing nukes and supporting terrorism. Also a couple of nukes wouldn't deter a US attack, they would only make it more likely. Ahmadinejad is known to believe that the Mahdi won't come until he causes an apocalypse.

[RPGmasterBoo]

No one can afford much irrationality in politics Walsingham. Iran's leaders are well aware of their position. They're not chasing nukes to obliterate Israel (which is what they want their populace to believe), they are chasing them as deterrent to possible US attack. All they want is what leaders everywhere want - tp stay in power.

Well, I'm glad you have a personal connection to the Iranian government, so you know what they want the nukes for. And Iran wouldn't have to worry about any action from the US if they weren't developing nukes and supporting terrorism. Also a couple of nukes wouldn't deter a US attack, they would only make it more likely. Ahmadinejad is known to believe that the Mahdi won't come until he causes an apocalypse.

 

What I wrote was based on the work of US political theorists that I've read, not on my fancy. Nukes are a weapon of deterrence, actually using them is disastrous. If Iran has nuclear weapons that can hit and damage the US principal ally Israel (or US bases in the region)- then US won't attack. That's the basic logic of it. And its correct, because the political cost for the US would be too high. Its a race, because Iran fears a conventional attack and the only way to make sure it doesn't happen is to have an ace up their sleeve.

The closer they get to nukes the likelyhood of a conventional attack goes up, but if they can beat the US to it - their future is secure. If they don't build nukes the US will attack anyway, and force a change of regime.

 

Its what I would do, if I was in their position. Stall the UN and other major powers, buy time - and get nukes in sufficient quantities.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Nukes are a weapon of deterrence, actually using them is disastrous.

Khomeini said let Iran burn, we don't care about Iran so long as it benefits Islam. Others of his ilk have said that it would be worth whatever damage the Islamic world would take if Israel were to be destroyed, since Islamic world would still exist. Religious fanatics are not rational, so it's useless to assign rational motives to them. There's no benefit to the US in attacking a nation of 75 million, especially after the Iraq experience.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Nukes are a weapon of deterrence, actually using them is disastrous.

Khomeini said let Iran burn, we don't care about Iran so long as it benefits Islam. Others of his ilk have said that it would be worth whatever damage the Islamic world would take if Israel were to be destroyed, since Islamic world would still exist. Religious fanatics are not rational, so it's useless to assign rational motives to them. There's no benefit to the US in attacking a nation of 75 million, especially after the Iraq experience.

 

Religious fanaticism is a tool for impressing the population. Such statements serve to raise the recognition of Iran in the Islam world, but they can hardly be taken seriously. The decadent, spoilt elite tends to value its lives more than abstract religious goals. They're perfectly rational I assure you.

 

As I understand it, the US was and is contemplating air strikes against Iranian nuke facilities, not a full on invasion.

[cronicler]

Walsingham: I'm sorry but if you are not living in Europe or America or Australia, and have some basic knowledge of semi recent history (poast WW2); there is no way you can symphatise with the English (Churchill and his babylonian fetish for the middle east to start with), Western European Mainland Countries (Africa) Soviets, Americans and Chinese. A lot of countries including mine got pretty messed up thanks to the us or them mentality.

 

When you see this or that sick regime being still alive thanks to US support or this or that regime fallen into sick bastards during multi faceted revolts against US supported (the rest of the facets get killed during the chaos somehow. You can substitute Soviets oc Chinese to the US parts. As far as I know there isn't any country that got decent regime out of cold war except South Korea. Didn't US do good things? Of course they did but for every Positive influence there are 10 messed up places and 10 abandoned groups.

 

 

Then we come to today. What do we have? We have European pharmatecual company depots and Oil cartels in every "humanitarian" intervention.

 

People are also completely skipping the Shi'ite vs Sunni part about the middle east. Yes Iran hates US but Iran is Shi'ite (in a way, don't ask too long to tell that mess). Extermist Shi'ites hate Sunnis more than they hate US and vice versa becouse its a personal Feud. Most of the Islamic idiots that you see around the world come from Sunni Extermists bankrolled with oil money. (Shi'ite extermists are focused on Iraq, the only other Shi'ite country in thew world. It was also under the US supported and installed Sunni regime of Saddam.)

 

Besides, Sunnis don't accept Shi'ite fatvas and vice versa. Hell even sub sects don't even accept other sub-sect's fatvas, which have become nothing more than some cheap tabloid screaming for death instead of wise old man explaining obscure or new questions that arise about religion...

 

Currently there are 3 main reasions that make Iran evil (in International arena);

1- It's regime was created as a direct opposition to western menddling in the country (unfortunately it's full of power hungry, worst selfish specimens of Islam)

2- It's people are fiercely independent and resist outside meddling. This even goes as far as being independent in most manufactring sectors. Sure their Tvs or Tanks may suck but it's their own Tv's and Tanks. Maybe not good as made in China assembled in X Tv's or Tanks but thet are really independent.

3- They have oil and a lot of arable farmland.

 

If this whole charade had been about Terrorism, US would have hit Saudis instead of Oil digs and poppy fields.

 

(And no I actually despise the godless selfish dregs of humanity that lie hiding behind the seraph of real religion but this doesn't change the what Persians have accomplished in the current global sinkonomy)

[213374U]

Religious fanaticism is a tool for impressing the population. Such statements serve to raise the recognition of Iran in the Islam world, but they can hardly be taken seriously. The decadent, spoilt elite tends to value its lives more than abstract religious goals. They're perfectly rational I assure you.

Oh, wow. "You assure us"? And how, pray tell, did you come across this piece of knowledge? Are you Ahmadinejad's therapist? Does Khamenei call you regularly to ask for advice on geopolitical matters?

 

The problem with autocracies is that there's only one way of knowing how far they're willing to go about their propaganda. And by then it's too late.