China vs Taiwan... Obama caves in?

Since being an obstacle to nuclear sanctions against Iran amongst things obama has provided 6bn in arms to Taiwan to balance against china. My feelings are of course mixed, I wonder if china must be contained in the future.

After increasing troops in Afghanistan, a war speech for his nobel prize, and this action... why do people insist obama 'caves in' or is a weakling. I'm just confused by it.

I have created this thread for you to feel free to slosh through examples of obama being a weakling threat to our state and for the counter-arguments as well.

Nothing in this article specifically, but just to cite what obama has done between China and Taiwan recently
Selling Arms to Taiwan - WSJ.com

Feel free to discuss China and Iran as well.
Also, i made this thread because I cannot find another one on the same subject, if there is one or if this belongs in the int'l forum i dont mind, this is my second thread.

Poo-sling go!

Honestly, we should do more to isolate and disrupt China. From arming and financing Tibetian and Ughur rebelions, to establishing strong tarrifs and sanctions.Because of their full and total disregard for human rights (Always a good excuse).

There is no comparison in imminent dangers, as Iran is willing to support proxies and terrorism unlike the Chinese Communist state. I would not look at the military arms trade between the US and Taiwan as a representation of a military tension between the US and China. I believe that the US and Chinese economies are too tightly held together, and dependent on each other, to be spoiled by a small island off the coast of Asia.

China recently pushed Google a little bit, but I do not foresee the US becoming too involved in the dispute. If necessary, Google could do irreparable damage to Chinese State integrity

There is no comparison in imminent dangers, as Iran is willing to support proxies and terrorism unlike the Chinese Communist state.

Click to expand...

Those proxies are not a threat to us directly, and Iran can always be dealth with. China on the other hand, is a real and direct threat. Most notably and visibly in espionage and sabotage directly targeted at our military and financial power. They are planning, organizing, and building to dominate the world and us.

I would not look at the military arms trade between the US and Taiwan as a representation of a military tension between the US and China. I believe that the US and Chinese economies are too tightly held together, and dependent on each other, to be spoiled by a small island off the coast of Asia.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what they want, they have used our cold war against the Soviets to push Nixon into creating this unholy relationship and create this parasitic relationship.

Taiwan must be armed to the teeth, and so we can force China into aggressive action and thus give us a good reason to use force/regime change.

Taiwan must be armed to the teeth, and so we can force China into aggressive action and thus give us a good reason to use force/regime change.

Click to expand...

Oxy, do you have anything to say that is within the realm of actual US material capability? You know, without turning into a military socialist state ourselves?

They are planning, organizing, and building to dominate the world and us.

Click to expand...

I would want some sort of evidence that doesn't come from people who write for those in tinfoil hats. I'm not saying your wrong, traditionally china may view us as a secondary state to its centrality. But then again you probably have an analogous view to the rest of the planet though you may or may not be willing to admit it.

And as for arming the Uighurs, I don't think the ballsy ones that would be performing the revolution would want to be aligned with us as they may see us as an aggressor against islam.

China may have to be contained with that I can agree with you. But I guess im not quite as 'bombs away' about it.

I believe that the US and Chinese economies are too tightly held together, and dependent on each other, to be spoiled by a small island off the coast of Asia.

Click to expand...

Evidence for interdependence causing peace is quite weak actually.

Oxy, do you have anything to say that is within the realm of actual US material capability? You know, without turning into a military socialist state ourselves?

Click to expand...

We have done such things before quiet effectively. Disrupting China wouldnt be too difficult with all their ethnic conflicts that are already present.

I would want some sort of evidence that doesn't come from people who write for those in tinfoil hats. I'm not saying your wrong, traditionally china may view us as a secondary state to its centrality. But then again you probably have an analogous view to the rest of the planet though you may or may not be willing to admit it.

Click to expand...

I admit that I want the US to be premier for the centuries to come, and China is a real threat to that outcome. So yes I want them as weak as possible without going crazy and fullscale nuclear war.

And as for arming the Uighurs, I don't think the ballsy ones that would be performing the revolution would want to be aligned with us as they may see us as an aggressor against islam.

Click to expand...

Very unlikely, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", the Ughurs have not attacked US interests nor are a majour part of Al Queda. They could work for our mutual interests.

China may have to be contained with that I can agree with you. But I guess im not quite as 'bombs away' about it.

Click to expand...

I am not bombs away, I dont want a hot war. I do want China involved in territorial conflicts and local insurgencies.

Evidence for interdependence causing peace is quite weak actually

Click to expand...

Indeed you are correct, look at WW1.

Oxy's position is interesting. Arming rebel factions and supporting them in their subversion against an aggressive mega-state? So, become a bit like a bigger version of Al-Qaeda? It's a strategy. As is the old "my enemy's enemy is my friend". How did that work out for the West with Iraq?

If you were to have as your principal objective the maintenance of the US's economic and military primacy (I'm sure you wouldn't expect everyone here to share that aim) then there are far subtler ways of doing it. I would suggest a much closer relationship with China, to the exclusion of less important partners such as the EU, Japan, Australia etc, with a view to seeing those economies decline. Militarily you should cooperate with China to combat the reemergence of Russia as a global force.

If you see future world primacy as being a head-to-head between the US and China, eliminate the minnows first and only then show your real intentions in arresting the economic and military might of China. I'd also wind down direct military interventions in the Middle East and replace them with entirely covert operations and economic support of puppet regimes. The only country currently benefitting in the long term from these activities is, guess who? China.

Oxy's position is interesting. Arming rebel factions and supporting them in their subversion against an aggressive mega-state? So, become a bit like a bigger version of Al-Qaeda? It's a strategy. As is the old "my enemy's enemy is my friend". How did that work out for the West with Iraq?

Click to expand...

No a bigger version of the Mujahedin in Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Queda came out of a power void left over. So as long as we maintain interaction they wont become a threat. In any case both the Mujahedin and their spawns are less of a threat then a expanding and strong Soviet Union, and in this case the Ughurs would be less of a threat then the expanding Chinese empire.

If you were to have as your principal objective the maintenance of the US's economic and military primacy (I'm sure you wouldn't expect everyone here to share that aim) then there are far subtler ways of doing it. I would suggest a much closer relationship with China, to the exclusion of less important partners such as the EU, Japan, Australia etc, with a view to seeing those economies decline. Militarily you should cooperate with China to combat the reemergence of Russia as a global force.

Click to expand...

You are joking I wager? There is no benefit of cooperating with China, as it only makes them stronger, and does little to further our interests and our economy. RUssia is no threat, niether politically or militarily nor will it be for the forseeable future at least on Chinas scale. Your suggestion is to burn bridges with our friends, to become buddies with our enemy. What kind of suicidal strategy is this, can you explain this more in detail because I fail to see how that would be in the US interest.

I think we should budget about $100B, hire about 1000 ponytails, and spend the next 5 years cyberwarring the **** out of China, 24/7.

Do you seriously think China is going to be anything but annoyed by funding rebels or playing with the internet? Such actions risk damaging trade relations and our international image with no hope of success. Funding the Ughurs would simply give them a good excuse to clamp down even harder to combat "foreign subversion". A cyberwar would be easily foolish, as we are far more vulnerable to such an attack. The U.S. has considerably more assets to lose in the online world, but the Chinese government has far more centralized control over their nations backbone.

If you want to limit Chinese expansion, don't challenge them where they have the advantage. Demographics are currently China's weak spot. They may have lots of economic growth, but have massive political and economic inequality, plus a soon to be gender imbalance. The have-nots are going to want a piece of the pie, and they are a force that cannot be ignored forever. We should fan the flames so they force the government to share that pie among the populace. That will force the government to focus inwards, and sap resources from military pursuits towards caring for the populace. Its much harder to expand when all your effort is spent on keeping corporate and personal welfare high and taxes low.

SE102 said:

Since being an obstacle to nuclear sanctions against Iran amongst things obama has provided 6bn in arms to Taiwan to balance against china. My feelings are of course mixed, I wonder if china must be contained in the future.

After increasing troops in Afghanistan, a war speech for his nobel prize, and this action... why do people insist obama 'caves in' or is a weakling. I'm just confused by it.

I have created this thread for you to feel free to slosh through examples of obama being a weakling threat to our state and for the counter-arguments as well.

Nothing in this article specifically, but just to cite what obama has done between China and Taiwan recently
Selling Arms to Taiwan - WSJ.com

Feel free to discuss China and Iran as well.
Also, i made this thread because I cannot find another one on the same subject, if there is one or if this belongs in the int'l forum i dont mind, this is my second thread.

Poo-sling go!

Click to expand...

China you say?

Don't worry. The Community Agitator in Chief is on it.

A day later:

American said:

I think we should budget about $100B, hire about 1000 ponytails, and spend the next 5 years cyberwarring the **** out of China, 24/7.

Click to expand...

Apparently the Community Agitator in Chief feels otherwise. And, after all he's from Harvard so surely he must know what he's doing despite not having a scintilla of experience apart from trying to stir up community revolts against the man.