I hope you meant that tongue-in-cheek. Unfortunately that isn’t clear.
Let’s please quit kidding about a military invasion by China of Taiwan being a real-world possibility, okay? That’s old Cold War rhetoric, completely at odds with the real status of their close economic relations today. It doesn’t do anybody any good to keep beating that drum.
And the general question should be “What do we need a Navy *for *in the 21st century?” Only then can you discuss what its capabilities need to be.
Put some US firepower in those straits and the U.S. economy collapses in retaliation due to our debt and trade balance with the Chinese, thus no it is not defensible except in conservative hawks’ imaginations.
It would be ruinous for all three countries which is why it doesn’t happen, not because the U.S. is so invincible and ass kicking that the Chinese quiver in fear. The U.S. could dissapear overnight and as long as Taiwan does not declare independence overtly and officially, China will keep on pretending Taiwan is theirs, the U.S. has nothing to do with the status quo and could not defend Taiwan if China set her mind to it.
. . . From?
They don’t, but in conservative land the U.S. is what keeps all free countries free. :rolleyes: Thus, military spending palooza!!!
I said a war with China to defend Taiwan would ruin our economy, and your counter argument is we’d print our money and “deal with the inflation” and just “cancel Chinese debt”?? :dubious: Are you even being serious? This is not to even address what a trade embargo would do to the United States. Hint: 2011 trade imbalance with China was -295 billion dollars
Do you know how much of the computer and tech industry relies on Taiwanese manufacture? Interrupt that and feel the burn as well.
What you said is in the quote box in my post. Are you now claiming not to have said those words? I’ll repeat them again here for clarity:
I am addressing this claim by you.
Okay I misspoke then if I gave you the impression that I meant China could ruin our economy by instantly calling in our debt-that is wrong. They would ruin our economy using a myriad of tools. Happy?
Your claim that we WOULDN’T have our economy ruined is the fantastic one especially since your solutions are the textbook solutions that have lead to financial ruin for so many countries already.
Hell, do you know how much of China’s economy depends on Taiwan’s? And vice versa? Or that neither government is notably suicidal?
Time to end the fantasies. It ain’t the Quemoy-Matsu Crisis no more (and even that was just saber-rattling). The Cold War is over.
Well, that would be pretty stupid, because Obama is not claiming that Obama wants to go back to the foreign policy of the 1980s. Obama is claiming that Romney wants to go back to the foreign policy of the 1980s. If you point out that there is no longer a Soviet Union, that is just making Obama’s case for him that Romney’s plans are stupid.
And Obama did it better.
Actually, it’s the Republicans who started the parsing by trying to argue that Romney’s claim about ship counts actually means something.
Well, it is China. They do seem to be somewhat more casual about things like that.
Thank you for looking that up. Given what the actual article is that the Tribune mangled, that makes Romney’s point even less valid. The plan is already in place and in work to increase the navy size. Romney’s whining about something that’s already been solved.
Yep. Thanks for acknowledging that.
And what you seem to fail to realize is that there is NO way the Chinese could ruin our economy that wouldn’t devastate theirs as well. Possibly even worse than ours. The trade deficit means that they make more off us than we do off them. What are they planning to do to replace that revenue? There’s an apropos old saying (attributed to J Paul Getty:
If you owe the bank $100 that’s your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that’s the bank’s problem.
China is the bank in this case.
There’s also the fact that making Chinese billionaire generals unhappy could be literally fatal for the Party leadership and while they might be willing to risk 250,000 soldiers, they ain’t risking their own asses.
Uhhhh, do you think I don’t know that? Because if you read my posts in this thread it’s pretty apparent that I do.
Here, let me quote myself:
In other words, China will keep on pretending Taiwan is theirs as long as they don’t make a stupid declaration of independence, we would not go to all-out-war with China over Taiwan under any circumstances, and China would not invade Taiwan for financial reasons. This is hardly controversial stuff, the only people who should have a problem with what I say are the deluded conservatives who think the only reason democracy exists anywhere is because 'Merican freedom is spread from a gigantic cancerously bloated military industrial complex. But military spending is their religion and we should only pity them.
This is all well and good but my main point about Taiwan is that it is not defensible and that if the USA floated up and into outerspace, never to return, Taiwan would still be Taiwan. Their independence is not because we are so badass and love freedom fries, and even should China turn suicidal and try to invade Taiwan, we would sit around condemning them while continuing to do business with China.
Your main point is incorrect. Taiwain is perfectly defensible. China doesn’t have enough of a navy or air force to successfully invade Taiwain. No matter how many times you make this silly claim, it’s still false.
China is perfectly content to play the long game on Taiwan (see the famous Chinese statement about the French revolution). As long as they don’t relinquish any claims to the island, they know that eventually it will come back to them. Maybe in 30 years, maybe in 100 years, but eventually.
And in the meantime it’ll keep making money.
Because partisan hacks who love military spending and wrongly believe democracy cannot exist without the US say it, doesn’t make it so.
So basically people who know a lot more about this than anyone on this board, say that China would cause Taiwan to fold, possibly even if the U.S. intervened, which I say is impossible to happen because Taiwan is not worth the U.S. losing 50+ years of economic progress over. You can be a snide little SDMB poster all you want but the Taiwanese do NOT think it’s a settled case that Taiwan is defensible, nor do our own government officials, so I reiterate that I couldn’t care less what the “consensus” is from that other thread which was mainly right wingers who never found a military dollar spent they didn’t like.
Here’s something you won’t see Romney doing.
Depressed turnout favours Republicans.
What’d be the comparison for compassion with the poor and someone with a dilettante fascination with the military? A Christian?
Besides, your household analogy is inept, since there is not a demarcated point for invasion (presumably the analogy for homelessness). Perhaps rent is better: one can adjust rent in accordance to income. Perhaps the neighbourhood will be a bit more dangerous, but it’s better than skipping medical bills or grocery shopping.
Snipped cruft.
Good fight, acolyte.
You think the opposition’s position is ignorant?
Are you aware of how US military actions are viewed around the world?
What do you think of Sam Stone’s characterisation of another post as “idiocy”?
