Taiwan: Chinese Sending Military Planes "Almost Daily"

[Novus America]

Not really surprising. This sort of thing has been going on ever since integrated air defence was invented. We used to do it to the USSR constantly in the cold war, sending planes directly towards their territory and then peeling off at the last second; and they did it right back too. Hell, they are still doing it.

True, although the number of times the PRC has been doing it is higher than normal, and we have not had a PRC leader as unstable and reckless as Xi since Mao.

Although I do not think he will pull the trigger here (although I never though he would fuck up like he did with India) we still need to be wary. Xi is very different than the evil but mostly careful and smart Deng and Hu Jintao.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

As a Filipino, the implications that it may have on my country alone is already terrifying. If the Chinese can do this to Taiwan, they can make more overt shows to force the Philippines into its Sphere of Influence. It also poses a large security threat to the wider SEA region.

I always dislike it when people point to China's actions with Taiwan as some sort of imperialism. It's as much imperialism as South Korea is imperialist for claiming the entire Korean Peninsula. It's just a frozen civil war. You cannot deny that they have a legitimate claim to Taiwan, at least more legitimate than its claims in the South China Sea. You may be able to point to other Chinese actions to further accusations of imperialism, but you cannot reasonably extrapolate anything from its actions with Taiwan.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

How many countries has China destroyed in the past ten years? Certainly not as many as the USA.

The 1979 invasion of Vietnam and 1974 occupation of the Paracel Islands, the Taiwan Strait Crises, border clashes with India, contesting islands with Japan and South Korea, debt trap diplomacy with African nations... Yep, in the last several decades China has been busy with its neighbors.

That is a gross oversimplification. The Third Indochina War was primarily driven because Deng Xiaoping wanted a short war to bolster his political strength in the party, and also because China needed to do something about the Vietnamese invasion of their ally Cambodia. The Chinese took a couple villages, then declared their punitive goal complete and withdrew. It was not driven by any imperialist ambitions.

Another thing to point out is that Taiwan/ROC shares all of the PRC's claims, and a lot of claims stem from even the Qing Dynasty. The PRC's claims aren't just based on it deciding it wants some territory randomly but more it continuing to hold onto a bunch of old claims.

[Post War America]

The 1979 invasion of Vietnam and 1974 occupation of the Paracel Islands, the Taiwan Strait Crises, border clashes with India, contesting islands with Japan and South Korea, debt trap diplomacy with African nations... Yep, in the last several decades China has been busy with its neighbors.

That is a gross oversimplification. The Third Indochina War was primarily driven because Deng Xiaoping wanted a short war to bolster his political strength in the party, and also because China needed to do something about the Vietnamese invasion of their ally Cambodia. The Chinese took a couple villages, then declared their punitive goal complete and withdrew. It was not driven by any imperialist ambitions.

Another thing to point out is that Taiwan/ROC shares all of the PRC's claims, and a lot of claims stem from even the Qing Dynasty. The PRC's claims aren't just based on it deciding it wants some territory randomly but more it continuing to hold onto a bunch of old claims.

Point of order, I'm fairly certain the ROC had at least until fairly recently, even more extensive territorial claims than the PRC does.

[Sundiata]

To those critical of American influence in the Middle East...

Overall, the United States has acted justly in the past 20 years and we must not abandon the region at this time.

[Post War America]

All of this "But America!" whataboutism pulled straight from r/Sino makes my brain hurt. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Furthermore, for all the faults and war crimes America committed, at least it allows a semblance of autonomous freedom and regional stability for the countries of the world (aside from the Middle East, of course). Who here wants to return to multi-polar post-WW1 order, full of violence and tension between empires?

How many countries has China destroyed in the past ten years? Certainly not as many as the USA.

The United States acted justly in the Middle East in the past 20 years and we must not abandon the region at this time.[/quote]

I would hardly call toppling Iraq, and turning it into a battleground in the Iranian-Saudi power struggle a good idea, nor would I generally call supporting Saudi Arabia (who it should be remarked are the chief exporters of the exact toxic ultraorthodox Islamic school of thought that backs the ideology of groups like ISIL and Boko Haram), up to and including giving them weapons with which they engage in a genocidal war against the people of Yemen just actions.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

That is a gross oversimplification. The Third Indochina War was primarily driven because Deng Xiaoping wanted a short war to bolster his political strength in the party, and also because China needed to do something about the Vietnamese invasion of their ally Cambodia. The Chinese took a couple villages, then declared their punitive goal complete and withdrew. It was not driven by any imperialist ambitions.

Another thing to point out is that Taiwan/ROC shares all of the PRC's claims, and a lot of claims stem from even the Qing Dynasty. The PRC's claims aren't just based on it deciding it wants some territory randomly but more it continuing to hold onto a bunch of old claims.

Point of order, I'm fairly certain the ROC had at least until fairly recently, even more extensive territorial claims than the PRC does.

Yeah, they finally formally dropped their Mongolian claims a couple years back.

[Sundiata]

I would hardly call toppling Iraq, and turning it into a battleground in the Iranian-Saudi power struggle a good idea, nor would I generally call supporting Saudi Arabia (who it should be remarked are the chief exporters of the exact toxic ultraorthodox Islamic school of thought that backs the ideology of groups like ISIL and Boko Haram), up to and including giving them weapons with which they engage in a genocidal war against the people of Yemen just actions.

Removing Saddam Hussein was a just strategic move. However, our greatest mistake in Iraq was not delivering immediate economic support to the nation's people as well. Had we done that immediately, we would have won hearts and minds in the face of extremist aggression. That said, Iraq is a far more free place than it was 20 years ago and that is thanks to the intervention of the American government. As for Saudi Arabia, they're a far more difficult regime to topple but we're going to need their power in the region to tilt it towards democracy.

[Post War America]

I would hardly call toppling Iraq, and turning it into a battleground in the Iranian-Saudi power struggle a good idea, nor would I generally call supporting Saudi Arabia (who it should be remarked are the chief exporters of the exact toxic ultraorthodox Islamic school of thought that backs the ideology of groups like ISIL and Boko Haram), up to and including giving them weapons with which they engage in a genocidal war against the people of Yemen just actions.

Removing Saddam Hussein was a just strategic move. However, our greatest mistake in Iraq was not delivering immediate economic support to the nation's people as well. Had we done that immediately, we would have won hearts and minds in the face of extremist aggression. That said, Iraq is a far more free place than it was 20 years ago and that is thanks to the intervention of the American government. As for Saudi Arabia, they're a far more difficult regime to topple but we're going to need their power in the region to tilt it towards democracy.

If you think the Saudis are a key tool to bringing democracy to the Middle East, I have two questions.

What are you smoking and can I have some?

[Sundiata]

Removing Saddam Hussein was a just strategic move. However, our greatest mistake in Iraq was not delivering immediate economic support to the nation's people as well. Had we done that immediately, we would have won hearts and minds in the face of extremist aggression. That said, Iraq is a far more free place than it was 20 years ago and that is thanks to the intervention of the American government. As for Saudi Arabia, they're a far more difficult regime to topple but we're going to need their power in the region to tilt it towards democracy.

If you think the Saudis are a key tool to bringing democracy to the Middle East, I have two questions.

What are you smoking and can I have some?

Changing the structure of the Saudi government is key to securing sufficient democracy in the Middle East, albeit a slow change.

[Post War America]

If you think the Saudis are a key tool to bringing democracy to the Middle East, I have two questions.

What are you smoking and can I have some?

Changing the structure of the Saudi government is key to securing sufficient democracy in the Middle East, albeit a slow change.

Ah yes, because if I were to pick a place to exercise soft power to democratize a region, I would definitely choose the most entrenched, and highly reactionary monarchy I can find.

[Sundiata]

Changing the structure of the Saudi government is key to securing sufficient democracy in the Middle East, albeit a slow change.

Ah yes, because if I were to pick a place to exercise soft power to democratize a region, I would definitely choose the most entrenched, and highly reactionary monarchy I can find.

It is home to Mecca and holds an opportune position for the maintenance of democracy. It's the perfect target for active American intervention. It's in the interest of the world for the United States to shape the country's future.

[Post War America]

Ah yes, because if I were to pick a place to exercise soft power to democratize a region, I would definitely choose the most entrenched, and highly reactionary monarchy I can find.

It is home to Mecca and holds an opportune position for the maintenance of democracy. It's the perfect target for active American intervention. It's in the interest of the world for the United States to shape the country's future.

And yet, over the course of, at this point almost 80 years, the United States has propped up the reactionary Saudi Royal family, including providing armaments that not only help them engage in genocidal wars overseas, but have been used to suppress movements that would seek to democratize the country. If the United States' role is to safeguard democracy, or indeed to spread it, in the Middle East it has failed spectacularly, propping up perhaps the most authoritarian regime in the world, and almost certainly one of them, as well as inadvertently providing a path to power for the Mullahs in Iran, by overthrowing a democratically elected government for yet another reactionary monarchy.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Ah yes, because if I were to pick a place to exercise soft power to democratize a region, I would definitely choose the most entrenched, and highly reactionary monarchy I can find.

It is home to Mecca and holds an opportune position for the maintenance of democracy. It's the perfect target for active American intervention. It's in the interest of the world for the United States to shape the country's future.

Honestly if you want to influence the middle east, you'd do Turkey, because they were the most recent "center of the middle east" up until the first world war screwed them over. Just because saudi arabia holds Mecca, doesn't mean that they are respected, nor liked by the rest of the middle east. However, Turkey is just another despicable regime in the end of the day.

[Novus America]

As a Filipino, the implications that it may have on my country alone is already terrifying. If the Chinese can do this to Taiwan, they can make more overt shows to force the Philippines into its Sphere of Influence. It also poses a large security threat to the wider SEA region.

I always dislike it when people point to China's actions with Taiwan as some sort of imperialism. It's as much imperialism as South Korea is imperialist for claiming the entire Korean Peninsula. It's just a frozen civil war. You cannot deny that they have a legitimate claim
to Taiwan, at least more legitimate than its claims in the South China Sea. You may be able to point to other Chinese actions to further accusations of imperialism, but you cannot reasonably extrapolate anything from its actions with Taiwan.

Claiming you want it to join us one thing, invading it would be something completely. Invading and annexing something by force against the will of the people is imperialism regardless if some regime in the past controlled it. Should Poland be allowed to invade and annex Lithuania, Belarus and West Ukraine? No. And if it did it would be imperialism.

Being more legitimate than the South China Sea claims is an absurdly low bar. Because those are beyond silly claims.

[New haven america]

To those critical of American influence in the Middle East...

Overall, the United States has acted justly in the past 20 years and we must not abandon the region at this time.

Starting a catastrophic war with a country just because Cheney wanted oil is not acting justly.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

This may or may not be relevant to this thread, but if possible please refrain from talking about this unless it's demonstrably relevant, yes?

Of course, it is nominally unlinked to the increasing military tensions.

Just further reinforcing the idea of deteriorating relations between the PRC and the US, which this episode is also a part of.

If the PRC is pissed off with the USA and takes their anger out on Taiwan instead of taking it out on the USA, perhaps we NEED to stand up to the PRC more boldly. Whatever the cost.

[Sundiata]

To those critical of American influence in the Middle East...

Overall, the United States has acted justly in the past 20 years and we must not abandon the region at this time.

Starting a catastrophic war with a country just because Cheney wanted oil is not acting justly.

It's easy to criticize Dick Cheney but the Iraq war was not about oil. It was about securing a strong American presence in the region. While there's much to criticize about Mr. Cheney's record, especially his record as a House Rep, his will and determination to secure democracy in the Middle East was the right decision.

[Post War America]

Starting a catastrophic war with a country just because Cheney wanted oil is not acting justly.

It's easy to criticize Dick Cheney but the Iraq war was not about oil. It was about securing a strong American presence in the region. While there's much to criticize about Mr. Cheney's record, especially his record as a House Rep, his will and determination to secure democracy in the Middle East was the right decision.

He already had Israel, Turkey Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar, how many more bases were needed?

[Sundiata]

It's easy to criticize Dick Cheney but the Iraq war was not about oil. It was about securing a strong American presence in the region. While there's much to criticize about Mr. Cheney's record, especially his record as a House Rep, his will and determination to secure democracy in the Middle East was the right decision.

He already had Israel, Turkey Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar, how many more bases were needed?

As many as possible to secure our influence, peace, and sustained democracy.

[Post War America]

He already had Israel, Turkey Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar, how many more bases were needed?

As many as possible to secure our influence, peace, and sustained democracy.

We've managed to lose almost any capacity to exercise soft power in the region, sheltered authoritarian regimes, and crushed democratically elected governments in the region, leading to the rise of a patchwork of reactionary states and militant groups with less than democratic ideological leanings, and have started, or caused the start of numerous civil wars in the region. I'd say US influence in the region has done nothing but fail in achieving those goals.

[New haven america]

Starting a catastrophic war with a country just because Cheney wanted oil is not acting justly.

1. It's easy to criticize Dick Cheney but the Iraq war was not about oil. 2. It was about securing a strong American presence in the region. While there's much to criticize about Mr. Cheney's record, especially his record as a House Rep, 3. his will and determination to secure democracy in the Middle East was the right decision.

1. Yes it was
2. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan, Israel, etc... all had bases or were allies.
3. Except he didn't because Saudi Arabia and Iran were still allowed to exist.

Also, when did Taiwan move to the Middle East?

[Sundiata]

As many as possible to secure our influence, peace, and sustained democracy.

We've managed to lose almost any capacity to exercise soft power in the region, sheltered authoritarian regimes, and crushed democratically elected governments in the region, leading to the rise of a patchwork of reactionary states and militant groups with less than democratic ideological leanings, and have started, or caused the start of numerous civil wars in the region. I'd say US influence in the region has done nothing but fail in achieving those goals.

War is messy, ugly.

While our objectives have not been achieved yet, the tide will turn but we have to protect our allies in the region and continue to foster democracy amongst them. At that point, they will know and enjoy freedom like they never have.

[Sundiata]

1. It's easy to criticize Dick Cheney but the Iraq war was not about oil. 2. It was about securing a strong American presence in the region. While there's much to criticize about Mr. Cheney's record, especially his record as a House Rep, 3. his will and determination to secure democracy in the Middle East was the right decision.

1. Yes it was
2. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan, Israel, etc... all had bases or were allies.
3. Except he didn't because Saudi Arabia and Iran were still allowed to exist.

Also, when did Taiwan move to the Middle East?

Good point, I got distracted.

I suppose the same principle I strive for in the Middle East applies to Taiwan, the people of the republic deserve strong American protection.

[Post War America]

We've managed to lose almost any capacity to exercise soft power in the region, sheltered authoritarian regimes, and crushed democratically elected governments in the region, leading to the rise of a patchwork of reactionary states and militant groups with less than democratic ideological leanings, and have started, or caused the start of numerous civil wars in the region. I'd say US influence in the region has done nothing but fail in achieving those goals.

War is messy, ugly.

While our objectives have not been achieved yet, the tide will turn but we have to protect our allies in the region and continue to foster democracy amongst them. At that point, they will know and enjoy freedom like they never have.

We've been trying for 80 years gov, and in Iraq specifically for nearly 20, nearly 30 if one considers Gulf War 1 and the economic war of the 90s, and cost millions of lives and over a trillion dollars. Over that time scale and with that economic and human costs you'd think the most powerful state on Earth would have something to show for it.