NationStates

Though creating a Republic of Taiwan would be very tough, given that the PRC will veto anything that is brought forth to the UN for an admission of Taiwan to the UN or even gaining independence.

Adamede wrote:

Islamic Holy Sites wrote:Well, most americans think those things.

Yes, that’s why the Iraq war was so divisive, because Americans are a hive mind.

By that metric all Muslims, or at least all Arabs are fundamentalists that are okay with flying airplanes into buildings and waging jihad against the nonbelievers.

Well, many americans do think that to be honest. Not all., but many.

Pasong Tirad wrote:

Jolthig wrote:I think you misunderstood me, or I didn't word it right.

Yes, the situation, is definitely 2 Chinas fighting one another legally, and historically. Yet, the circumstances have changed. Now, it's the Taiwanese people wanting independence, which I support.

I definitely might have misunderstood you. Ah well no harm no foul.

All good.

But yeah, I would say, even the ROC would in a sense oppose Taiwanese independence because their stragedy is also a reunification with the mainland, except they want it under their party.

I am not too knowledgeable on the current politics of the Nationalist Party, but I'm sure there's a faction in it that wants independence despite that faction going against the name of the party itself.

Jolthig wrote:

Pasong Tirad wrote:I definitely might have misunderstood you. Ah well no harm no foul.

All good.

But yeah, I would say, even the ROC would in a sense oppose Taiwanese independence because their stragedy is also a reunification with the mainland, except they want it under their party.

I am not too knowledgeable on the current politics of the Nationalist Party, but I'm sure there's a faction in it that wants independence despite that faction going against the name of the party itself.

If you're talking about the Chinese nationalist party, the Kuomintang is center-right (a lot further right actually I would argue) was on the verge of supporting reunification under a One Country, Two Systems agreement until the Hong Kong protests broke out and it became politically unsuitable for the KMT presidential candidate at the time (Han Kuo-yu) to support 1C2S despite previously speaking in favor of it (kind of?). Officially they support maintaining the status quo - no unification, no independence, no war.

If you're talking about the Taiwanese nationalist party, that would be the Democratic Progressive Party which is center left (a bit more centrist than what they officially claim really). The DPP's official position is that Taiwan is already independent under the name of the ROC, and so a formal declaration would only be symbolic and not change anything, so it would be unnecessary.

idk about unofficially though I wouldn't be surprised if they really really really wanna just throw off the name of the ROC and write a new constitution and all that.

Pasong Tirad wrote:

Jolthig wrote:All good.

But yeah, I would say, even the ROC would in a sense oppose Taiwanese independence because their stragedy is also a reunification with the mainland, except they want it under their party.

I am not too knowledgeable on the current politics of the Nationalist Party, but I'm sure there's a faction in it that wants independence despite that faction going against the name of the party itself.

If you're talking about the Chinese nationalist party, the Kuomintang is center-right (a lot further right actually I would argue) was on the verge of supporting reunification under a One Country, Two Systems agreement until the Hong Kong protests broke out and it became politically unsuitable for the KMT presidential candidate at the time (Han Kuo-yu) to support 1C2S despite previously speaking in favor of it (kind of?). Officially they support maintaining the status quo - no unification, no independence, no war.

If you're talking about the Taiwanese nationalist party, that would be the Democratic Progressive Party which is center left (a bit more centrist than what they officially claim really). The DPP's official position is that Taiwan is already independent under the name of the ROC, and so a formal declaration would only be symbolic and not change anything, so it would be unnecessary.

idk about unofficially though I wouldn't be surprised if they really really really wanna just throw off the name of the ROC and write a new constitution and all that.

Yes the Kuomintang is what I meant. I didn't know how to spell the name even though I could've Googled it. So I decided to be lazy and go with Nationalist.

I see. I see why Chinese leadership are upset.

Islamic Holy Sites wrote:

Adamede wrote:Yes, that’s why the Iraq war was so divisive, because Americans are a hive mind.

By that metric all Muslims, or at least all Arabs are fundamentalists that are okay with flying airplanes into buildings and waging jihad against the nonbelievers.

Well, many americans do think that to be honest. Not all., but many.

America is hardly a hive mind. The social and political divide and swelling polarization make that clear.

Jolthig wrote:It's a very complex situation; I agree with you. This whole conflict is really a continuation of the Chinese Civil War as it is legally still happening even if there is no military combat. Interesting enough, unlike the Korean War, not even an armistice was signed but yet fighting practically stopped.

So what we have here is 2 Chinas competing to be the better China. It isn't West or east or north or south, but definitely a similar situation.

Absolutly. Thats something many people here ignore. Taiwan is the last remnant of the Republic of China, the last free chinese terretory.

Taiwanese independence equals surrender to the Xi-clique.

New Jacobland wrote:As an Australian I am worried about China. They've been threatening and sanctioning my country, and to be honest, I don't think the US can do much. The US needs to take action now, or it is never going to work.

This is the problem right here. Much of the world demands/expects the US to do something and act as the world police but when they do the world calls them "racist neocolonialists". Yet almost none of them will step up. Australia has increased defense spending so that is a start I guess.

Kazumazu wrote:

Islamic Holy Sites wrote:Well, many americans do think that to be honest. Not all., but many.

America is hardly a hive mind. The social and political divide and swelling polarization make that clear.

That's the crux of being a polyethnic, multicultural nation of over 300 million: It's quite easy to fracture its citizens with mere opinions. However, if history has shown us one consistency, it's that the Anglo hegemony (and anyone culturally assimilated to Anglocentrism) are responsible for all the bad blood that's been boiling for over the last 550 years.

Looking at you, British Empire.

Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:

New Jacobland wrote:As an Australian I am worried about China. They've been threatening and sanctioning my country, and to be honest, I don't think the US can do much. The US needs to take action now, or it is never going to work.

This is the problem right here. Much of the world demands/expects the US to do something and act as the world police but when they do the world calls them "racist neocolonialists". Yet almost none of them will step up. Australia has increased defense spending so that is a start I guess.

Actually, they curse the US and wish they either intervened in a way that wasn't mainly for stealing oil or wish the US has a second Civil War.

Ayytaly wrote:

Kazumazu wrote:
America is hardly a hive mind. The social and political divide and swelling polarization make that clear.

That's the crux of being a polyethnic, multicultural nation of over 300 million: It's quite easy to fracture its citizens with mere opinions. However, if history has shown us one consistency, it's that the Anglo hegemony (and anyone culturally assimilated to Anglocentrism) are responsible for all the bad blood that's been boiling for over the last 550 years.

Looking at you, British Empire.

Honestly I just think America is doing it wrong. (In loose urban terms.)

Multi-ethnic countries aren’t doomed to total chaos and inevitable collapse. They require a more delicate touch yes but again they aren’t condemned from the start.

As for the rest of what you said, skert.

Kazumazu wrote:

Ayytaly wrote:
That's the crux of being a polyethnic, multicultural nation of over 300 million: It's quite easy to fracture its citizens with mere opinions. However, if history has shown us one consistency, it's that the Anglo hegemony (and anyone culturally assimilated to Anglocentrism) are responsible for all the bad blood that's been boiling for over the last 550 years.

Looking at you, British Empire.

Honestly I just think America is doing it wrong. (In loose urban terms.)

Multi-ethnic countries aren’t doomed to total chaos and inevitable collapse. They require a more delicate touch yes but again they aren’t condemned from the start.

As for the rest of what you said, skert.

Multi-ethnic countries like Singapore are either small and manageable, or not driven by a single hegemony/cultural ideology.

The US is plunging in India-levels of chaos.

Skert?

I hope that China doesn't actually go after Taiwan; it would be a shame for them to be swallowed up like that.

Ayytaly wrote:

Kazumazu wrote:
Honestly I just think America is doing it wrong. (In loose urban terms.)

Multi-ethnic countries aren’t doomed to total chaos and inevitable collapse. They require a more delicate touch yes but again they aren’t condemned from the start.

As for the rest of what you said, skert.

Multi-ethnic countries like Singapore are either small and manageable, or not driven by a single hegemony/cultural ideology.

The US is plunging in India-levels of chaos.

Skert?

You do realize that without a single presiding majority (be they a racial, cultural, or religious demographic) you would be more apt to have chaos? It would be a power grab or vacuum scenario.

Kazumazu wrote:

Ayytaly wrote:
Multi-ethnic countries like Singapore are either small and manageable, or not driven by a single hegemony/cultural ideology.

The US is plunging in India-levels of chaos.

Skert?

You do realize that without a single presiding majority (be they a racial, cultural, or religious demographic) you would be more apt to have chaos? It would be a power grab or vacuum scenario.

I'd rather have Amerindian authority over a "democracy" where two parties dominate. It won't be racist, but it'll certainly crack down on neo-Nazis and black supremacists, both which don't have the best of interests for anyone outside their respective races. It'll also mean that--with the Anglo-Saxon element being fully eradicated from government--the United States can actually establish proper relations with nations it once bombed, such as Iran. Why? Because Iranians are not going to pin the atrocities committed by the Anglosphere on a non-European/non-White hegemony.

Senkaku wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:You are under the mistaken impression that it is militarily feasible to fight both China and Russia. If we try to resist both Russian and Chinese expansionism at once, we'll just lose both.

It’s entirely feasible if we work with our allies and are good little internationalists with a sense of solidarity. You’re under the mistaken impression that it would be morally or politically feasible to surrender to either one (to say nothing of the incredible naïveté of actually believing the Russians would ever be a good ally to us, that’s an even worse joke than the Turks). If that’s the alternative, I’d rather the closest thing the planet has to some semblance of a democratic, freedom-loving power (even if we are usually just as big imperialist shitheads as them) goes down swinging. Again: if you want the world system to just be three equally malevolent actors making alliances of convenience in a struggle for money and power on a dying planet, why shouldn’t a lot of Americans just defect to the Chinese? Even abandoning the Old World for a Fortress America until we can build back our strength or something seems preferable to that. You’re basically saying you can’t even imagine a future worth living in.

Correct, you know enough about my views of ecological collapse to know that

Punished UMN wrote:

Senkaku wrote:It’s entirely feasible if we work with our allies and are good little internationalists with a sense of solidarity. You’re under the mistaken impression that it would be morally or politically feasible to surrender to either one (to say nothing of the incredible naïveté of actually believing the Russians would ever be a good ally to us, that’s an even worse joke than the Turks). If that’s the alternative, I’d rather the closest thing the planet has to some semblance of a democratic, freedom-loving power (even if we are usually just as big imperialist shitheads as them) goes down swinging. Again: if you want the world system to just be three equally malevolent actors making alliances of convenience in a struggle for money and power on a dying planet, why shouldn’t a lot of Americans just defect to the Chinese? Even abandoning the Old World for a Fortress America until we can build back our strength or something seems preferable to that. You’re basically saying you can’t even imagine a future worth living in.

Correct, you know enough about my views of ecological collapse to know that

There’s a difference between being able to accurately assess the state of things and being unable to imagine a different one. I share a strong suspicion that the future isn’t going to be pretty, but I don’t reject the slimmest of possibilities that something could change in a way I don’t anticipate, and I still imagine what a better future would be like.

"Reunification" with Taiwan is no doubt a long-term goal of Beijing's. But it's not going to happen tomorrow, and might not even happen should the PRC find itself the dominant, or even the only, superpower in the world. First, Taiwan is hardly defensless. It won't be even close to Putin sending his little green men to invade the Crimea. Second, an international coalition could organize itself to support Taiwanese independence even in the absence of the US. Third, the PRC seems to be concentrating at least as much if not more on building up its "soft power" as it is on building up militarily, and a bald-faced invasion won't help it with that. I'd predict we'll have Taiwan as an independent entity around for some time to come.

Postauthoritarian America wrote:"Reunification" with Taiwan is no doubt a long-term goal of Beijing's. But it's not going to happen tomorrow, and might not even happen should the PRC find itself the dominant, or even the only, superpower in the world. First, Taiwan is hardly defensless. It won't be even close to Putin sending his little green men to invade the Crimea. Second, an international coalition could organize itself to support Taiwanese independence even in the absence of the US. Third, the PRC seems to be concentrating at least as much if not more on building up its "soft power" as it is on building up militarily, and a bald-faced invasion won't help it with that. I'd predict we'll have Taiwan as an independent entity around for some time to come.

China could make up for its weaknesses militarily against an international coalition by sanctioning those countries, hitting their economies hard. China too will suffer though, but that's one leverage they could have.

Postauthoritarian America wrote:Second, an international coalition could organize itself to support Taiwanese independence even in the absence of the US. Third, the PRC seems to be concentrating at least as much if not more on building up its "soft power" as it is on building up militarily, and a bald-faced invasion won't help it with that.

See, both of those arguments seemed a lot stronger before Hong Kong...

Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote:

Postauthoritarian America wrote:Second, an international coalition could organize itself to support Taiwanese independence even in the absence of the US. Third, the PRC seems to be concentrating at least as much if not more on building up its "soft power" as it is on building up militarily, and a bald-faced invasion won't help it with that.

See, both of those arguments seemed a lot stronger before Hong Kong...

Hong Kong doesn't have an army, nor is Taiwan administered by the PRC. Big difference there.

Give Taiwan and Hong Kong nuclear weapons. Keeping the peace has never once been done without either the application of force, or the threat thereof. Yeah, it's kind of dark and fucked-up, but the world isn't a reactor that runs on love and snuggles. The price of being naive is allowing a 21st century hyper-authoritarian torture-state to invade & overtake neighboring sovereign powers.

The Disorder wrote:Give Taiwan and Hong Kong nuclear weapons. Keeping the peace has never once been done without either the application of force, or the threat thereof. Yeah, it's kind of dark and fucked-up, but the world isn't a reactor that runs on love and snuggles. The price of being naive is allowing a 21st century hyper-authoritarian torture-state to invade & overtake neighboring sovereign powers.

Yes because it's not like the theory of mutually assured destruction almost blew up in our faces many times throughout the Cold War.

Hong Kong is also under the administration of China so giving then nukes is a supremely dumb idea.

Ayytaly wrote:

Kazumazu wrote:
America is hardly a hive mind. The social and political divide and swelling polarization make that clear.

That's the crux of being a polyethnic, multicultural nation of over 300 million: It's quite easy to fracture its citizens with mere opinions. However, if history has shown us one consistency, it's that the Anglo hegemony (and anyone culturally assimilated to Anglocentrism) are responsible for all the bad blood that's been boiling for over the last 550 years.

Looking at you, British Empire.

That is probably the dumbest thing I’ve heard all week.

Ayytaly wrote:

Kazumazu wrote:
You do realize that without a single presiding majority (be they a racial, cultural, or religious demographic) you would be more apt to have chaos? It would be a power grab or vacuum scenario.

I'd rather have Amerindian authority over a "democracy" where two parties dominate. It won't be racist, but it'll certainly crack down on neo-Nazis and black supremacists, both which don't have the best of interests for anyone outside their respective races. It'll also mean that--with the Anglo-Saxon element being fully eradicated from government--the United States can actually establish proper relations with nations it once bombed, such as Iran. Why? Because Iranians are not going to pin the atrocities committed by the Anglosphere on a non-European/non-White hegemony.

No I stand corrected, this is the dumbest thing I’ve heard all week.