Indian Soldiers Die Following Standoff with Chinese Forces

[Rightonrighton]

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — according to a U.S. intelligence source.
I think it's a direct indication that news sources are unreliable.
Whatever you say.But when America decide what to do something,I hope US will not violate China's warning.The US did not do in North Korea at that time, but it did good in Vietnam later.Hope the present American leaders still remember this.

Here is another source:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehin ... 8.ece/amp/

This is the doing of the deranged madman Xi.
Unless you can provide an alternative source proving India attacked the PRC it is moot.
Also the fact the PRC constantly threatens to attack Taiwan shows the PRC is trying to aggressively expand its territory by force and threat of force.

As to what “warning” you are referring to I am not sure, but it changes nothing in the fact India has turned against the PRC. The PRC is not helping its cause by issuing threats.

And answer this! How did this fight with India help the PRC?

It only pushed India closer to the US, made Indians angry with the PRC and got PRC tech companies shut out of the the worlds largest market of young people. For what exactly?
What did this accomplish?

Taiwan is PRC territory.

[Heloin]

Here is another source:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehin ... 8.ece/amp/

This is the doing of the deranged madman Xi.
Unless you can provide an alternative source proving India attacked the PRC it is moot.
Also the fact the PRC constantly threatens to attack Taiwan shows the PRC is trying to aggressively expand its territory by force and threat of force.

As to what “warning” you are referring to I am not sure, but it changes nothing in the fact India has turned against the PRC. The PRC is not helping its cause by issuing threats.

And answer this! How did this fight with India help the PRC?

It only pushed India closer to the US, made Indians angry with the PRC and got PRC tech companies shut out of the the worlds largest market of young people. For what exactly?
What did this accomplish?

Taiwan is PRC territory.

If the PRC has never held Taiwan then how is it PRC territory?

[Novus America]

This really answers nothing, you keep dodging the fundamental point. This hurt, not helped the PRC’s economy and political standing, thus it was stupid.
You have not addressed that.

Many of Xi’s policies are irrational and one many rule is an irrational concept. Although more collective leadership can still be irrational checks and balances do lead to checks on the most irrational decisions.

Xi made a very bad and irrational decision here that hurt the PRC economically and politically.
Why not just admit it? No man is perfect, which is why checks and balances are required.
I am not afraid to admit Trump and Modi have made mistakes, but they have checks on their power. Just admit Xi is making a big mistake here.

None of your attempts at deflection change that.

China's actions have dealt a blow to American hegemonism, so they are beneficial to China.Because the United States has challenged after 2016, we have to fight back.Peace in the world needs a force to contain what the US does.Otherwise, the US and the international capitalism behind it will lead the world into chaos.American neoliberalism, voice, financial and trade protection measures, as well as its vassals and partners in the Indian Pacific region pose a threat to China's interests.In particular, its propaganda of "democracy" in the 21st century has caused many countries of turmoil and tens of millions of refugees.It is the US that harms China's economy. If the United States accepts China's demands, China's interests will not be damaged.Why not just admit it? The situation is irretrievable.Trump's trade war is the declaration of war.We have no illusions about western society and their vassals.
Are you satisfied?What you say is good for China is that you want China to accept your request?Then I suggest that you accept China's request, which is better for us.

As incoherent as much of this is, I can get this from it. You think the US is the evil hegemon, yet this attack on India made the US STRONGER! Thus it was self defeating. PRC social media is shut out of India while they turn to American and Indian alternatives instead. India is now closer to the US than ever. The PRC cannot make the US weaker while making the US stronger.
India and the US combined would crush the PRC.

But I appreciate you are honest that the PRC is a hostile rogue regime bent on destroying us, too many people are in denial. We have been far too accommodating of the PRC, time to take of the gloves. Increase the tariffs and sanctions on the PRC through the roof. Right now they are too little. The US and India together build up a containment force. This is a new Cold War, and together the US and India will win. If we stay together. And Xi is driving us closer together thus ensuring the PRC cannot win.

The PRC might be able to beat us separately. But it cannot beat us together.

[Novus America]

Here is another source:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehin ... 8.ece/amp/

This is the doing of the deranged madman Xi.
Unless you can provide an alternative source proving India attacked the PRC it is moot.
Also the fact the PRC constantly threatens to attack Taiwan shows the PRC is trying to aggressively expand its territory by force and threat of force.

As to what “warning” you are referring to I am not sure, but it changes nothing in the fact India has turned against the PRC. The PRC is not helping its cause by issuing threats.

And answer this! How did this fight with India help the PRC?

It only pushed India closer to the US, made Indians angry with the PRC and got PRC tech companies shut out of the the worlds largest market of young people. For what exactly?
What did this accomplish?

Taiwan is PRC territory.

As much as Canada is US territory. Given it was never controlled by the PRC, never under PRC rule, Taiwan never has been PRC territory. It has always been ruled separately, had full refs to independence from the PRC.

[Novus America]

Russia could not retake those territories either.
Look at the Russo Japanese war.

Beijing is far closer to Vladivostok than Moscow is, and the PRC has far better infrastructure in the region.
Russia cannot defend the region.
Russia’s (not very large, its land forces including the Airborne Troops (which oddly are a separate branch from the other ground forces)) are only 350,000 men and almost all concentrated in Europe. Russia’s Pacific Fleet is very small.

Russia does not have the logistics to fight in the Far East.
It cannot get large numbers there, and then supply or support them. Actually invading Russia works quite well historically IF you merely take out the peripheral regions. Russia being a logistics nightmare can work against an invader IF the invader goes too far into Russia, but Russia being a logistics nightmare also leaves Russia weak to an attacker who avoids going on deep.

The PRC merely needs to overrun Outer Manchuria and then they can easily defend it against an Russian counterattack.
Obviously the PRC cannot march to Moscow but does not need too.

Loss of strength gradient means you get weaker the farther you go from your logistics base.
Russia’s logistics base is in Europe. The PRC’s is in East China.
East China is much closer to Outer Manchuria than Europe.

Besides the Russian economy is surprisingly small, (Texas has a bigger economy than all Russia) too small for a prolonged war against the PRC and the PRC has ten times the population. The PRC can fight to the last Russian and still have plenty of men to spare.

Russia is in bad shape. Sure the PRC would have no real allies, BUT neither would Russia.
By alienating the West Russia has no where left to turn. Russia would need the US and Japan to save it.

In the end Russia would at best merely sit the thing out.
Russia cannot beat the PRC in the Far East on its own, has few allies, and India would be little help, because India cannot really get supplies or troops to Russia, India can tie down large numbers of PRC troops in the south but the PRC does not need many to beat Russia in the Far East, where Russia has only a minimal screening force. The largely defensive Indian Navy cannot fight the PRC in the Pacific (without US and Japanese help that is).

Russia (incorrectly) fears NATO more than the PRC (fighting the PRC would require Russia pulling nearly all its troops from Europe, as including Ukraine) leaving it defenseless in the west.
Russia cannot fight a two front war. Although NATO would not attack, Russia fears it would.
Would Russia really leave Europe undefended to try to move its entire military thousands of miles across horrible terrain with limited roads and railroads to try to counterattack? And how are the Russians going to successfully counter attack far larger PRC forces?

In WWII the Soviets were fighting in Europe and had a numerical advantage (not as large as some make it out to be but it still had one).
Half the Soviet Union (Russia was only half of it) against a far larger enemy in Asia would be a completely different game.

Why wouldn’t NATO attack?

Because it realistically cannot for one. NATO works on consensus, any one member can veto a decision, and most members have no interest in doing so. Public and government opinions being strongly against attacking. NATO is a collective of mostly democratic countries, not a single dictatorship.

And how would it? NATO does not have sufficient forces in Europe for such and operation. And what would NATO’s motive be?

[Rightonrighton]

Taiwan is PRC territory.

If the PRC has never held Taiwan then how is it PRC territory?

Because Taiwan is part of China and the PRC is the legitimate government of China. The occupation of that island by a radical puppet regime doesn’t change that.

[Salus Maior]

If the PRC has never held Taiwan then how is it PRC territory?

Because Taiwan is part of China and the PRC is the legitimate government of China. The occupation of that island by a radical puppet regime doesn’t change that.

lol

[Rusozak]

If the PRC has never held Taiwan then how is it PRC territory?

Because Taiwan is part of China and the PRC is the legitimate government of China. The occupation of that island by a radical puppet regime doesn’t change that.

How can it be an occupation if the PRC never had the island to begin with?

[Adamede]

If the PRC has never held Taiwan then how is it PRC territory?

Because Taiwan is part of China and the PRC is the legitimate government of China. The occupation of that island by a radical puppet regime doesn’t change that.

>Radical puppet regime
>Actually a functioning democracy, unlike the PRC.

You might have had some form of legitimacy back in when the ROC was still effectively a military dictatorship but the fact is it's not anymore.

[Vetalia]

I don't know about anyone else but I think the United States needs to support India as much as humanly possible in every way, particularly in the face of Chicom aggression and the hell they would inflict on mankind. The world's largest constitutional republic needs to be supported by all of us who embrace democracy and republican government.

[Novus America]

If the PRC has never held Taiwan then how is it PRC territory?

Because Taiwan is part of China and the PRC is the legitimate government of China. The occupation of that island by a radical puppet regime doesn’t change that.

The PRC never ruled Taiwan. Which has not always been part of China.
Revanchism is insane. Does the Poland have a right to invade Belarus because Belarus was part of Poland over a century ago?

And “radical puppet regime”? Taiwan has a center left government elected by the large majority of the population.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Ta ... l_election

How is it “occupied” anyway when there is not foreign military forces stationed there anyways?

[Plzen]

Unless something changed in the last few years that I have not heard about, the Republic of China does maintain nominal territorial claims on mainland China and environs, which implies that the view that Taiwan is a part of China is not a view held only by the sitting government in Beijing.

[Adamede]

Unless something changed in the last few years that I have not heard about, the Republic of China does maintain nominal territorial claims on mainland China and environs, which implies that the view that Taiwan is a part of China is not a view held only by the sitting government in Beijing.

It's not. The ROC still holds the position that it is the legitimate government of China, being the successor of the Qing Empire it overthrew. A handful of nations actually still recognize them as the legitimate Chinese government actually.

[Novus America]

Unless something changed in the last few years that I have not heard about, the Republic of China does maintain nominal territorial claims on mainland China and environs, which implies that the view that Taiwan is a part of China is not a view held only by the sitting government in Beijing.

Nominal yes, but mainly because Beijing threatens to kill them if the change that.
Nominal being the operative word here.

The simple fact is that Taiwan does not threaten to attack the mainland anymore.
This have change, the fact is that Taiwan and the mainland have developed very different identities and governments over the years, neither rules the other.

But this has very limited tie in with India beyond the fact that India is improving its ties with Taiwan in response to PRC aggression against both. It is only logical they stand together against the common threat.

[Rightonrighton]

Because Taiwan is part of China and the PRC is the legitimate government of China. The occupation of that island by a radical puppet regime doesn’t change that.

The PRC never ruled Taiwan. Which has not always been part of China.
Revanchism is insane. Does the Poland have a right to invade Belarus because Belarus was part of Poland over a century ago?

And “radical puppet regime”? Taiwan has a center left government elected by the large majority of the population.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Ta ... l_election

How is it “occupied” anyway when there is not foreign military forces stationed there anyways?

Because the PRC did not succeed in liberating Taiwan does not make the ROC legitimate. They were overthrown in the Chinese revolution and continue to control Taiwan only due to American imperialist intervention to protect them.

[Genivaria]

The PRC never ruled Taiwan. Which has not always been part of China.
Revanchism is insane. Does the Poland have a right to invade Belarus because Belarus was part of Poland over a century ago?

And “radical puppet regime”? Taiwan has a center left government elected by the large majority of the population.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Ta ... l_election

How is it “occupied” anyway when there is not foreign military forces stationed there anyways?

Because the PRC did not succeed in liberating Taiwan does not make the ROC legitimate. They were overthrown in the Chinese revolution and continue to control Taiwan only due to American imperialist intervention to protect them.

By that logic just because the criminal regime of the CCP controls most of the mainland doesn't make them legitimate.

[Adamede]

The PRC never ruled Taiwan. Which has not always been part of China.
Revanchism is insane. Does the Poland have a right to invade Belarus because Belarus was part of Poland over a century ago?

And “radical puppet regime”? Taiwan has a center left government elected by the large majority of the population.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Ta ... l_election

How is it “occupied” anyway when there is not foreign military forces stationed there anyways?

Because the PRC did not succeed in liberating Taiwan does not make the ROC legitimate. They were overthrown in the Chinese revolution and continue to control Taiwan only due to American imperialist intervention to protect them.

I don't think the PRC succeeded in liberating anyone.

[Genivaria]

Because the PRC did not succeed in liberating Taiwan does not make the ROC legitimate. They were overthrown in the Chinese revolution and continue to control Taiwan only due to American imperialist intervention to protect them.

I don't think the PRC succeeded in liberating anyone.

They certainly didn't 'liberate' the Tibetan Buddhists who they arrest for thought crime, or the Muslim Uighurs who are being murdered by their government.

Or is this the Daenerys Targaryen idea of 'liberation'? Liberating them from life?

[Plzen]

They certainly didn't 'liberate' the Tibetan Buddhists who they arrest for thought crime, or the Muslim Uighurs who are being murdered by their government.

Or is this the Daenerys Targaryen idea of 'liberation'? Liberating them from life?

Had the Republic of China not been a corrupt, kleptocratic, incompetent, and generally all-round exploitative morass in the 1945-1948 period they would have handily defeated the Chinese Communists with their far superior military, population, and industrial base. But they were, so they didn't.

Much like the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, it's kind of hard to say that the Communists winning the Chinese Civil War was a bad thing when you consider what it was replacing.

[Adamede]

I don't think the PRC succeeded in liberating anyone.

They certainly didn't 'liberate' the Tibetan Buddhists who they arrest for thought crime, or the Muslim Uighurs who are being murdered by their government.

Or is this the Daenerys Targaryen idea of 'liberation'? Liberating them from life?

Doens't the PRC also have a policy of requiring that those who believe in reincarnation have to get government permission before hand to do so?

[Novus America]

They certainly didn't 'liberate' the Tibetan Buddhists who they arrest for thought crime, or the Muslim Uighurs who are being murdered by their government.

Or is this the Daenerys Targaryen idea of 'liberation'? Liberating them from life?

Had the Republic of China not been a corrupt, kleptocratic, incompetent, and generally all-round exploitative morass in the 1945-1948 period they would have handily defeated the Chinese Communists with their far superior military, population, and industrial base. But they were, so they didn't.

Much like the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, it's kind of hard to say that the Communists winning the Chinese Civil War was a bad thing when you consider what it was replacing.

The Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward were even worse than the (admittedly very fucked up) KMT messes.

But that is simply academic. We cannot go back to the 40s.

The point is that now the PRC is engaging in imperialist aggression against neighbors who do not want to be under PRC rule.

[Adamede]

They certainly didn't 'liberate' the Tibetan Buddhists who they arrest for thought crime, or the Muslim Uighurs who are being murdered by their government.

Or is this the Daenerys Targaryen idea of 'liberation'? Liberating them from life?

Had the Republic of China not been a corrupt, kleptocratic, incompetent, and generally all-round exploitative morass in the 1945-1948 period they would have handily defeated the Chinese Communists with their far superior military, population, and industrial base. But they were, so they didn't.

Much like the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, it's kind of hard to say that the Communists winning the Chinese Civil War was a bad thing when you consider what it was replacing.

Considering what followed in Russia and China following the take over by the communists I think they can be described as bad outcomes.

[Plzen]

Considering what followed in Russia and China following the take over by the communists I think they can be described as bad outcomes.

I mean, since you're a self-described libertarian, I'm sure from your perspective a brutal autocracy being replaced by a brutal autocracy represents a deterioration of the status quo if the second autocracy happens to be socialist and the first one non-socialist.

I'm afraid that this isn't a perspective that I share, however.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

The PRC never ruled Taiwan. Which has not always been part of China.
Revanchism is insane. Does the Poland have a right to invade Belarus because Belarus was part of Poland over a century ago?

And “radical puppet regime”? Taiwan has a center left government elected by the large majority of the population.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Ta ... l_election

How is it “occupied” anyway when there is not foreign military forces stationed there anyways?

Because the PRC did not succeed in liberating Taiwan does not make the ROC legitimate. They were overthrown in the Chinese revolution and continue to control Taiwan only due to American imperialist intervention to protect them.

To be frank, it’s less of American military intervention, and more of “if the PRC makes a move in the area, they are threatening key allies in the Pacific”.

[Novus America]

The PRC never ruled Taiwan. Which has not always been part of China.
Revanchism is insane. Does the Poland have a right to invade Belarus because Belarus was part of Poland over a century ago?

And “radical puppet regime”? Taiwan has a center left government elected by the large majority of the population.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Ta ... l_election

How is it “occupied” anyway when there is not foreign military forces stationed there anyways?

Because the PRC did not succeed in liberating Taiwan does not make the ROC legitimate. They were overthrown in the Chinese revolution and continue to control Taiwan only due to American imperialist intervention to protect them.

“Liberating” is silly but the simple fact is a lot has changed.
I could turn around and say “just because the US did not succeed in liberating Canada dies not make Canada legitimate” but that is silly. Canada is now a legitimate independent state, regardless of the fact it was part of the same imperial entity as us at one time. And the fact we failed take it in part thanks to British involvement.

And to say Canada is occupied is silly because British troops do not control it against the will of the people.

The fact is Taiwan cannot be said to be occupied. It is controlled by a popular government of its own people, not foreign troops ruling over it.
You simply are throwing around words like occupy completely contrary to their meanings.

“1. What is occupation?

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a "territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. "

According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance.

The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as jus ad bellum. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.

Therefore, for the applicability of the law of occupation, it makes no difference whether an occupation has received Security Council approval, what its aim is, or indeed whether it is called an “invasion”, “liberation”, “administration” or “occupation”. As the law of occupation is primarily motivated by humanitarian considerations, it is solely the facts on the ground that determine its application.”

https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/d ... 634kfc.htm

Clearly Taiwan is not occupied according to international law.

But anyways take this to the Taiwan thread.