Indian Soldiers Die Following Standoff with Chinese Forces

[Adamede]

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.

No, more just a replacement of the last system of power with a new one that's pretty similar, just with a new coat of paint.

Fact is there are some situations where all outcomes where just generally "bad".

[Rightonrighton]

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.

What makes them legitimate ... to a point ... is the popular fight that put them in power. What makes them illegitimate is the popular fight against the dictatorship.

[Rightonrighton]

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?

They did liberate the Tibetan serfs though ... and the women who were saved from foot binding ... and the tenant farmers freed from exorbitant rents and personal labor and sexual exploitation by landlords ...

[Rightonrighton]

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”.

“Key allies” like Taiwan and South Korea, which were made in Washington to be “Allies” because they were a threat to China.

[Rightonrighton]

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.

What would happen if Taiwan were to defy the American empire?

[Novus America]

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

What makes them legitimate ... to a point ... is the popular fight that put them in power. What makes them illegitimate is the popular fight against the dictatorship.

Erm the PRC is a dictatorship, so Taiwan’s popular fight against the PRC dictatorship would make the ROC legitimate, at least in Taiwan where it has overwhelmingly popular support

[Genivaria]

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

What makes them legitimate ... to a point ... is the popular fight that put them in power. What makes them illegitimate is the popular fight against the dictatorship.

Yes the ROC is legitimate because it comes from the Consent of the Governed, the PRC is illegitimate because it derives its existence from force.
The former's government can be voted out of office, the latter cannot. In fact in the PRC attempts to form pro-democracy parties ends in arrests.

[Novus America]

“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.

What would happen if Taiwan were to defy the American empire?

First of all moving the goal posts.
Second making memes rather that substantive points.

I assume you mean “disagree with the US on a major point of foreign policy”.
If Taiwan did probably nothing happens, US allies have major disagreements with the US all the time.

Given the people of Taiwan do not want to be part of the PRC, that particular point would still remain consistent though.

[Genivaria]

“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.

What would happen if Taiwan were to defy the American empire?

Not sure what you mean by 'defy' as it isn't a vassal state, but I do lol at your phrasing of 'the American empire', oooh so ominous.

[Genivaria]

What would happen if Taiwan were to defy the American empire?

First of all moving the goal posts.
Second making memes rather that substantive points.

I assume you mean “disagree with the US on a major point of foreign policy”.
If Taiwan did probably nothing happens, US allies have major disagreements with the US all the time.

Given the people of Taiwan do not want to be part of the PRC, that particular point would still remain consistent though.

I mean if the government of Taiwan declared they no longer wished for American troops to be on the island then American troops would start packing up, but they never will because that would be strategic suicide.
The PRC would absolutely LOVE if they could invade Taiwan without bringing the US into the conflict.

[Novus America]

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”.

“Key allies” like Taiwan and South Korea, which were made in Washington to be “Allies” because they were a threat to China.

Not sure what you are eve saying, but time to stop the thread jacking.
Yes allies happen to have common interests, and are created against a common threat.
That is the point of allies!

See to get back on topic, if the PRC is a threat to India, Japan, the US and Taiwan, it makes sense for all 4 to work together to combat the common threat.
Obviously.

[Novus America]

First of all moving the goal posts.
Second making memes rather that substantive points.

I assume you mean “disagree with the US on a major point of foreign policy”.
If Taiwan did probably nothing happens, US allies have major disagreements with the US all the time.

Given the people of Taiwan do not want to be part of the PRC, that particular point would still remain consistent though.

I mean if the government of Taiwan declared they no longer wished for American troops to be on the island then American troops would start packing up, but they never will because that would be strategic suicide.
The PRC would absolutely LOVE if they could invade Taiwan without bringing the US into the conflict.

Although the US pulled our troops out of Taiwan in 1979. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... se_Command
We already did leave.

But sure if Taiwan declared they no longer wanted US support or protection the US would do nothing. But of course Taiwan would be suicidal to do so. Because the PRC would then attack it.

But I think this is getting away from the India issue, except inasmuch as India should obviously increase its ties to Taiwan to both punish the PRC for this attack, as well as future security.

If Taiwan falls, India is put in a much worse strategic position.

[Rightonrighton]

I mean if the government of Taiwan declared they no longer wished for American troops to be on the island then American troops would start packing up, but they never will because that would be strategic suicide.
The PRC would absolutely LOVE if they could invade Taiwan without bringing the US into the conflict.

Although the US pulled our troops out of Taiwan in 1979. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... se_Command
We already did leave.

But sure if Taiwan declared they no longer wanted US support or protection the US would do nothing. But of course Taiwan would be suicidal to do so. Because the PRC would then attack it.

But I think this is getting away from the India issue, except inasmuch as India should obviously increase its ties to Taiwan to both punish the PRC for this attack, as well as future security.

If Taiwan falls, India is put in a much worse strategic position.

The U.S. has 19,000 (iirc) forces in the Taiwan Strait (Chinese territory). Meaning Taiwan is very much a vassal state that represents less the consent of the governed than the will of the metropolitan power.

[Novus America]

Although the US pulled our troops out of Taiwan in 1979. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... se_Command
We already did leave.

But sure if Taiwan declared they no longer wanted US support or protection the US would do nothing. But of course Taiwan would be suicidal to do so. Because the PRC would then attack it.

But I think this is getting away from the India issue, except inasmuch as India should obviously increase its ties to Taiwan to both punish the PRC for this attack, as well as future security.

If Taiwan falls, India is put in a much worse strategic position.

The U.S. has 19,000 (iirc) forces in the Taiwan Strait (Chinese territory). Meaning Taiwan is very much a vassal state that represents less the consent of the governed than the will of the metropolitan power.

First of all citation? The US sometimes sends ships through the straits, but of course cannot permanently station them there.

Also the Taiwan Strait is 81 miles wide. Territorial waters cannot exceed 12NM (with rare exceptions that do not apply there. So the Taiwan Strait cannot be anyone’s territory as at least 57 miles of its width is international waters, regardless of who controls the land on each side.

So this is absolutely silly. US ships in international waters nearby do not make a “vassal state”.
Would that not mean the PRC is a US vassal state too?

And Taiwan has a democratically elected government that absolutely represents the will of the majority.

But again, topic is India.
India and Taiwan have a common interest here, regardless of what you think about the specifics of Taiwanese sovereignty.

[Genivaria]

Although the US pulled our troops out of Taiwan in 1979. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... se_Command
We already did leave.

But sure if Taiwan declared they no longer wanted US support or protection the US would do nothing. But of course Taiwan would be suicidal to do so. Because the PRC would then attack it.

But I think this is getting away from the India issue, except inasmuch as India should obviously increase its ties to Taiwan to both punish the PRC for this attack, as well as future security.

If Taiwan falls, India is put in a much worse strategic position.

The U.S. has 19,000 (iirc) forces in the Taiwan Strait (Chinese territory). Meaning Taiwan is very much a vassal state that represents less the consent of the governed than the will of the metropolitan power.

So not in Taiwan itself you mean? Hey get back here with that goalpost!

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

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”.

“Key allies” like Taiwan and South Korea, which were made in Washington to be “Allies” because they were a threat to China.

That’s the whole point of being allies... because they share common interests.

[Rightonrighton]

“Key allies” like Taiwan and South Korea, which were made in Washington to be “Allies” because they were a threat to China.

That’s the whole point of being allies... because they share common interests.

They didn’t first become countries and then become allies. They were created, on the sovereign territory of other countries against the will of the people of those countries, so that parts of those countries would be ruled by allied governments.

As for China/India, I think both sides are using belligerence to address internal concerns but I mostly blame China ... and I am pleased to see cooler heads prevailing.

[Organized States]

Although the US pulled our troops out of Taiwan in 1979. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... se_Command
We already did leave.

But sure if Taiwan declared they no longer wanted US support or protection the US would do nothing. But of course Taiwan would be suicidal to do so. Because the PRC would then attack it.

But I think this is getting away from the India issue, except inasmuch as India should obviously increase its ties to Taiwan to both punish the PRC for this attack, as well as future security.

If Taiwan falls, India is put in a much worse strategic position.

The U.S. has 19,000 (iirc) forces in the Taiwan Strait (Chinese territory). Meaning Taiwan is very much a vassal state that represents less the consent of the governed than the will of the metropolitan power.

That is completely incorrect.

First off, the United States maintains no forces on a permanent basis in the Taiwan Strait. Secondly, the Taiwan Strait are international waters regularly traversed by US Forces and Aircraft operating in accordance with international law. Thirdly, Taiwan is not a vassal state and is a functioning, vibrant democracy.

The INDOPACOM AOR would be a good time if it wasn't for all the Luyang IIIs running around.

[Plzen]

They didn’t first become countries and then become allies. They were created, on the sovereign territory of other countries against the will of the people of those countries, so that parts of those countries would be ruled by allied governments.

South Korea, for one, was created on the sovereign territory of... Japan.

The history of the US occupation of South Korea, 1945-48, is full of errors both accidental and maliciously intended, but leaving a nominally independent South Korean state at the end of it was not one such mistake. Having lived in the country for many years I can assure you that the local inhabitants are quite happy about their independence from the country out of which their state was carved.

[Organized States]

That’s the whole point of being allies... because they share common interests.

They didn’t first become countries and then become allies. They were created, on the sovereign territory of other countries against the will of the people of those countries, so that parts of those countries would be ruled by allied governments.

Daily reminder that North Korea was an artificial creation of China and the Soviet Union.

[Rio Cana]

Like I pointed out in another post, the former PM of Australia thinks a US vs. China war will be in the making in three months. Last year, he did not believe such a thing could happen. The current PM of Australia also thinks it could happen even though he is not that sure has the former PM.

[FutureAmerica]

So much for a peaceful China. They are not peaceful.