What now for Taiwan and China?

[King Edward]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4753974.stm

So President Chen is going to dissolve the unification council. That is going to anger Beijing no end! How is this going to develope?

[Duke Malcolm]

China will invade Taiwan; The US will declare war against China and send an Expeditionary Force to the Orient; The US' allies (Britain, Japan, Australia, et al.) will join (reluctantly) with the US; India shall join on the British side; Russia and North Korea will join Cathay; A protracted war shall occur in which Britain gets Hong Kong back, and China shall be broken up into little bits. Taiwan shall remain a US protectorate for some time. India will get bits of China; the Russian Federation will be broken up. And in 100 years time we will all look back and laugh at the hundreds of millions of dead, put differences behind us, and join under the nice red flag of the People's Republic of America...

[AquaLurker]

Probably some political demostrators clashes in Taiwan between the ruling party and KMT.

[Samurai Waki]

Its not my war, nor should it be anyone elses besides China and Tawain.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

China CAN'T invade Taiwan, it'd have to do it about 10,000 men at a time. Not possible. It needs a much larger naval transport capacity.

Good move by Taiwan, imho.

[BDC]

Lots of explosions, lots of radioactive fallout, lots of dead people.

Even if China gets Taiwan, it will be a burned out bombsite.

[Blodrast]

errr...how about... nothing ? as in, nothing will happen. maybe a lot of waves, and not much more... wars don't just pop up like that all the time - not when the big boys are involved. So even if China does take a stab at Taiwan, I don't think anything will happen other than a lot of international indignation, protests, and more of the same ;)

[BigTex]

I'm singing in the radioactive fallout
Just singing in the radioactive fallout
What a glorious feeling
I'm happy again
I'm laughing at clouds
So dark up above
The sun's in my heart
And I'm ready for love

Let the radioactive clouds chase
Everyone from the place
Come on with the radioactive fallout
I've a smile on my face
I'll walk down the lane
With a happy refrain
Singing, singing in the radioactive fallout




I'm singing in the radioactive fallout
Just singing in the radioactive fallout
What a glorious feeling
I'm happy again
I walk down the lane
With a happy refrain
I'm singing, singing in the radioactive fallout
singing in the radioactive fallout

[Proletariat]

Its not my war, nor should it be anyone elses besides China and Tawain.

It pretty much is America's war. If we welch on our end of the bargain with Tawain, than Japan and S. Korea will want their own nukes to defend themselves since the US will show it really doesn't mean it when it says it's pacific allies are important or worth defending.

[Samurai Waki]

EDIT: Just Being Stubborn.

[Spino]

Be sensible now, China nuking Taiwan would pretty much defeat the purpose of invading it in the first place. Taiwan is a profitable little island with loads of well educated professionals and lots of impressive high tech, revenue generating industries, etc. China desperately wants to 'appropriate' another fat cash cow like Hong Kong or Macau and Taiwan is the prize bull of the Sino county fair. Lucky for Taiwan that a considerable span of water seperates them from the mainland. Anyway it's not as if the U.S. or Japan is actually threatening to conquer Taiwan so China is the only one playing the part of a bully with their insistence on bringing Taiwan 'back into the fold'. Razing Taiwan and reducing it to a pile of smoldering radioactive ash would be the ultimate act of idiocy. And China nuking Japan or the U.S. means millions of dead, China becoming ostracized and isolated by the world and quickly returning to a bronze or stone age existence in a matter of weeks....

If China tried to invade Taiwan using conventional forces its military would experience the quickest, most devastating losses in that country's history. China suffered massive losses in Korea to an outnumbered opponent whose armed forces weren't that technologically ahead of them in terms of equipment. Now imagine their losses in an age where cruise missiles, GPS bombs, fuel air explosives, thermobaric devices, cluster bombs, etc. are all brought to bear on China's poorly trained armed forces. Many Chinese hard liners know this which is why they constantly rattle the nuclear saber, it's the only card they have to play.

Here's to China's old guard communists dying of stomach cancer.... ~:cheers:

[AquaLurker]

It will just be another round of "Words War" and "Missile tests" from both side, then they will sit down, and talk again.

[Kommodus]

Taiwan will keep being as independent as it wants to be; China will keep pretending that it's in charge. The ability of China's government to deny the facts on the ground while staring right at them is mind-boggling.

[King Edward]

I'd hardly say this potential conflict had just 'popped up' its been going on since the 50's but since the KMT lost power Chen really is pushing china hard. Mind you i'd be a bit nervey if i knew a superpower had 7000 ballistic missiles pointed at me. Thats why I think the american sold them parts of the Aegis technology 18 months ago.

Would the public really support the US in another ground deployment of troops? not sure the UK public would....

[Watchman]

By what I know of the respective PRC and Taiwanese naval and air assets, nevermind the US ones in the region, Beijing can forget amphibious assault right off the bat. They just plain don't have the hardware to get anything floating even as far as the Taiwanese coastline without being buried under a torrent of anti-ship missiles.

[Mount Suribachi]

not sure the UK public would....

I would. I'm sick to the back teeth of the EU sucking up to China all in the name of business. Its "screw the human rights abuses and aggressive militaristic chinese diplomacy, let me at the ££$$$£££". And it makes me mad. Seeing British troops on the street holding back protestors when the chinese Pres came to britain a few years ago, lest he see them made my blood boil :furious3:

In the past 12 months China have publicly threatened to attack Japan, invade Taiwan and start a nuclear war with America. Its about time someone stood up to the Bully Boy.

Now, the truth is, between Afghanistan, Iraq and the simmering tensions in the Falklands, there's not much Britain can actually do :juggle2: other than allow the US to use Diego Garcia as a base. But if I was Bush, I would make sure to keep a carrier battle group or two in the area for the time being

[Kagemusha]

You guys realize that war with China would mean draft in United states.And to be honest do you think drafted US troops would be any superior to conscripted Chinese troops?Also the in the US arsenal do you guys believe that the basic equipment for those drafted US troops would be anywhere near advanced to that equipment that is available to active troops in US service.I think that this will be once again more talk less action.And im glad becouse of that.

[Kagemusha]

With our Abrams tanks and F/A-22 jets, half the job is done already. :juggle2: The last 15 years have proven that no conventional army can stand up to the USA. The only possible problem china could pose is occupation. And we would not be invading to conquer, simply invading to cripple.

Yep.But you have little problem currently.Your well armed spearhead Divisions are already deployed everywhere around the globe.Im not on the Chinas side anyway on this but if you want war with them you better start practicing how to use M-16.You can always Bomb China and destroy their infrastructure but thats about that and i guess China is pretty well aware of that fact too.But if you want go to land war against chinese army by occypying China.I wish you good luck my friend.

[Beirut]

Russia to the North, India to the West, Taiwan, South Korea, and the US to the East, hundreds of enemy sea & airbases and untouchable lines of communication surrounding it, and a billion people itching for freedom on the inside.

China is in a fragile position.

[Watchman]

It's also starving for energy. Them think-tanks and such that now play with these scenarios apparently theoretize a possibility of eventual war between Chian and the US - over control of oil tranfer routes, such as the Central Asian pipelines and particularly those SE Asian shipping lanes that run through, whatwasit, the Malage Straits.

In any case as of now it has absolutely no way of winning any such conflict (at least militarily; the necessities of politics may naturally be an entirely different thing). Just about the best it could manage would be to simply grimly hang on and absorb the dreadful beating its previous-generation military would take until the US plain runs out of ammunition and money to keep going. Given that a major embargo, information warfare and propaganda campaign and other such modern niceties would also be the order of the day, the populace are a tad restless to begin with, and the army ...getting depleted pretty rapidly, avoiding a total internal collapse long enough should be a bit tricky.

Whatever else the old fogeys in Beijing might be, I don't think it includes "criminally stupid". They can no doubt recognize a blatantly losing proposition like anyone else.

[Leet Eriksson]

You guys set up a countdown calender to the year 2050.. thats when half the world is one peoples republic and the rest are administrative regions being directly commanded from Beijing.

~;p

https://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8639/china9sd.th.jpg (https://img151.imageshack.us/my.php?image=china9sd.jpg)

For some reason japan is a nuclear populated zone..

[Don Corleone]

Talk about paranoid fantasies, Faisal. I really hope that was a joke. Let me ask you this... the Western World will allow PRC to overrun India, Indochina, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia and a host of other countries, yet somehow, they're going to stop at Iran's borders? And I love the notch cut out for Pakistan (and Burma?) Tell me the truth, where did you get that map? :oops:

[Leet Eriksson]

Talk about paranoid fantasies, Faisal. I really hope that was a joke. Let me ask you this... the Western World will allow PRC to overrun India, Indochina, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia and a host of other countries, yet somehow, they're going to stop at Iran's borders? And I love the notch cut out for Pakistan (and Burma?) Tell me the truth, where did you get that map? :oops:

I wasn't serious about my previous post ~;p

I got it from some forums, i forgot where, but it was pretty funny so i saved it on the HDD.

From what i understood, pakistan, khazakstan, "korean union" and burma are the "good guys" so they let them be vassals.

the red areas are conquered territory, the rest they ain't interested in.

I think the guy who posted this took it from some ultra nationalist chinese website.

[Kagemusha]

Yet another reason to be against the Iraq War. Big Surprise. :inquisitive:

How big is the PLA? 2.5 Million? How big was Saddam's army the first time around? Over 1 Million? The first Gulf War lasted about a month. We were smashing the army, and didn't really give a damn about insurgency. I imagine the case would be true in a conventional war with China as well. Smash the army, lay waste to the country-side, peasants with rifles be damned since we're leaving when the business is done. Catch my drift?

Sorry Cube if im getting on your nerves but it seems it doesnt matter anyway what i say to you forget about it.Go invade China.Im sure when Peking sees US Marine divisions on their cost making ambhibious assault they wont launch their Nukes to US.

[Kommodus]

Even if there were war between China and the US over Taiwan (which is highly unlikely), I doubt the US would actually invade China with ground forces. The point would be to defend Taiwan from invasion, not to conquer China. Thus the US and allies would only have to destroy China's navy and air force, making any invasion impossible. I'm sure there would be plenty of airstrikes against the Chinese mainland, but still no ground invasion.

Once that phase of the conflict ended, things would wind down to a sort of cold war, with both sides staring at each other across the water and conducting ongoing small-scale operations. China would not concede defeat, so there's no telling how long this might last. It would probably be sort of like the Korean war - no official end, but a de facto permanent ceasefire.

All this would be very bad for all parties involved, and for the global economy. As long as everyone recognizes this, war is a very unlikely possibility.

[Kagemusha]

I completely agree with you Kommodus.Lets just hope this doesnt go to it.:bow:

[BigTex]

You guys realize that war with China would mean draft in United states.And to be honest do you think drafted US troops would be any superior to conscripted Chinese troops?Also the in the US arsenal do you guys believe that the basic equipment for those drafted US troops would be anywhere near advanced to that equipment that is available to active troops in US service.I think that this will be once again more talk less action.And im glad becouse of that.

Main difference would be the tactics. With China having a 2.5 million man army I seriously doubt their infantry tactics have evolved much from Korea. And considering how much better weapons have gotten it could turn into a turkey shoot.

As for China sending off ICBM's to the US, at least we'll get to see if those ICBM interceptor missile's work on a real weapon. Or if the goverment just used the money for another bridge in Alaska.

[BDC]

I'm sure America could pay for its conscripted soldiers to have much better training and equipment than China ever could. Plus I imagine American soldiers would be far more motivated, and supported by a much better command and supply structure.

[Kagemusha]

I'm sure America could pay for its conscripted soldiers to have much better training and equipment than China ever could. Plus I imagine American soldiers would be far more motivated, and supported by a much better command and supply structure.

Im not saying that.Think it like this.If you were drafted now.You would shipped in war on wartime after aprox two months training time. Normal armies that use conscription train their citicen soldiers for 6-18 months normally.And continue training those troops after that.You just dont have much time to learn that much in that time.So it would be bootcamp and deployment after that.

[Papewaio]

What is the current Industrial output of China vs the rest of the players.

And what is it projected to be in 20 years time?

For those who are historians of WWI and II... the winner tends to have the most industrial might...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

More likely we sink their navy, destroy their air force, starve their economy.

We won't land a boot in China, methinks. Mehopes we aren't that dumb. :inquisitive:

[Proletariat]

...the winner tends to have the most industrial might...

Nuclear might helps too.

[Papewaio]

And it is a function of industrial might...

[Proletariat]

Didn't mean to sound contradictory, just clarifying. :bow:

[Papewaio]

Likewise :bow:

[Papewaio]

Which is why they need to be quashed quickly.

Which means if China doesn't do anything stupid it will be well on the way to upsurping USA's industrial powerbase.

So who gains from rattling sabers in China vs Taiwan. The Chinese and Taiwanese governments as they can blame others for internal problems.

But neither government would gain from an actual war. China could quite possibly find not only being on the losing end but it could set off an internal fracturing of the country. Taiwan would have at least 700 missile craters doted along the west coast and losing a chunk of its industrial capacity.

As for the chinese and taiwanese business men they would lose lots of money... particularly all the taiwanese owned factories in china...

[Papewaio]

Not quite your post showed why others may have an interest in sparking a war there:


Which is why they need to be quashed quickly.

If they are not belligerent there is no need to squash them. However this could mean going back to the dual superpower scenario. It is a bit of a longshot, but some might feel that a war now will save a lot more in the future...

[Papewaio]

Nope, if America does things in a aggresive manner without 'due cause' it will lose more face.

It really wouldn't help if USA ended up on the short side of trade sanctions or tarifs.

China really has to make the first move, and then USA can righteously bitch slap them back into position... aka Japan and Pearl Harbour.

If USA makes the first move, they will appear the aggressor. Which would mean minimal support.

No need to assert military control if you have capital ownership of the industrial base...

[Papewaio]

Why?

At some point the sheer economic prosperity of the nation is going to cause internal change... and the very need to educate the workforce will become apparent once they find that educated workers produce more and they have hit the production limit using uneducated workers...

educated workers + wealth = middle class hence social change.

That and a generation of little emperors... no way do the 4 grandparents to a single grandchild will wish to see their little emperor go off to war.

[Strike For The South]

The goal here is not democracy in China. It's American supremacy on the world stage. A democratic rival is still a rival.

That couldve been worded better now thanks to you the whole world misunderstands us:mellow:

[Papewaio]

That is assuming that the advancement of a nation hinders your own advancement.

However if you want the balance of trade to be better for the US... you want the Chinese to be richer and buying American goods.

As nations become more wealthy they can afford to buy more goods.

Slaves are nice, but they don't make very good consumers.

So if you are a true capitalist you make sure the consumers have enough to pay for your luxury goods. And to make sure they are buying your luxury goods you have to be nice to them.

If you think riding roughshod over other countries will best serve the interests of a nation think again. Payback is always served in full with interest.

[Papewaio]

The trade deficit is a function of who has the most consumers. Not whom has the politicans with the hardest stance.

If you the locals bought local goods you wouldn't get such a deficit.

Also if foreign citizens could afford American goods the deficit would diminish.

Blame the consumers and the corporations for demanding overseas made produce.

Oh and payback can be served... as you can see trade is one way.

In asymetric relationships there are always asymetric forms of payback.

[DemonArchangel]

What you propose, my jingostic friend is pure insanity. What you are advocating is American supremacy, or at least the maintenance of the illusion of American supremancy. Unfortunately, social and political dynamics tend to change with the times and as such. China's economy is such because it is simply more competetive than America in the business arena. And instead of bitching about that, how about you invent a better mousetrap and stay on top of the game? That is for sure, a far better option than calling for the use of force, in which case, you should be the first one into the combat zone, because your money only can go where your mouth is.

[Redleg]

Which means if China doesn't do anything stupid it will be well on the way to upsurping USA's industrial powerbase.

Yep, but unless something in thier government gives a little more, soon the cost benefit of cheap labor will be exhausated for new investment.



So who gains from rattling sabers in China vs Taiwan. The Chinese and Taiwanese governments as they can blame others for internal problems.


Correct - I need all my fingers and toes to count how many times the two have rattled the sabers in the last 10 years. Seems to me to be the opening for a new round of talks that costs the United States something to ease the rattlings between the two.



But neither government would gain from an actual war. China could quite possibly find not only being on the losing end but it could set off an internal fracturing of the country. Taiwan would have at least 700 missile craters doted along the west coast and losing a chunk of its industrial capacity.

Hince I tend to agree the sabre rattling is about something else.

[Redleg]

Why?

At some point the sheer economic prosperity of the nation is going to cause internal change... and the very need to educate the workforce will become apparent once they find that educated workers produce more and they have hit the production limit using uneducated workers

educated workers + wealth = middle class hence social change.

That and a generation of little emperors... no way do the 4 grandparents to a single grandchild will wish to see their little emperor go off to war.

Damn I didn't see this post prior to my posting - it seems we are alreadly in agreement.

[Proletariat]

Does Cube's worst case scenario mean my grandchildren will get to rip off someone else for a change with 'Support Our Troops' bumber magnets?

[Avicenna]

The people of Taiwan will finally see Chen Sui-Bian's true colours: a liar who does not keep the promise he made during his campaign. Probably means that he cheated as well, getting that sympathy vote. What kind of useless sniper would shoot a bullet across him grazing the chest instead of into his chest? and why did the size of his wound change a short while later?

[Proletariat]

huh?

I hate to explain a stupid joke, but in a 100 years or so it could be our children manufacturing millions of bumper magnets for the Chinese instead of the other way around. Just think about how sweet it will be! mwaha

:balloon2:

[Avicenna]

Which is why they need to be quashed quickly.

With that attitude, nobody will support America: just publicly demonstrates to those who don't know what America thinks. I'm sure Chinese Americans wouldn't like this either: they all have relatives in China. Then others, like European Americans who have European relations will see that America will do this to the EU, and they won't help and eventually if this is the attitude America takes it will lose a lot of foreign and American support.

[Watchman]

Can the megalomania. The world doesn't work that simply.

[AntiochusIII]

Ah, GC, I find it contradictory, if not altogether uncommon, that libertarian isolationists can become neoconservative imperialists at the same time, even though the categories, when mixed together, create an oxymoron. But I never thought of you as one.

How, then, do you justify your support of the present-and-recent-past American supremacy on the world stage, that its upholding should come at all cost?

[Avicenna]

We wouldn't need foreign support if the people in charge would step up to the plate and assert control. Less spending on welfare crap, more spending on military. Less catering to whiny European countries who have long since proven their ingrate nature (what Marshal plan?), and more open power grabbing. I'm talking Empire, dammit. This country should be the epitome of a Republic on the inside, at the expense of everyone on the outside. If the government could prove to the people that what's good for the country is good for everyone in the country (instead of catering only to a select few within the country) then I think the American people could get behind it.

Oh, I'm sure that the other world powers can prevent any American dictatorship. Just think about what happened to Germany before.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Upon reading what I just wrote, I think I might be a psuedo-Fascist. Whoopsie.

Oh, I don't think pseudo comes into it. You just wrote a pretty decent precis of the arguments of Mein Kampf.

Your forebears and Founding Fathers fought against an Empire that was considered the most unassailable economic/military machine in history. They won, and that empire passed away, because men are willing to die for liberty. My countrymen did the same, for 800 years. Sometimes with little more than sticks, rocks and the shining belief in freedom to be won - the most precious prize there is.

You dishonour your country, your flag and your Constitution.

:no:

[Kagemusha]

Cube i think what Haruchai is trying to say is that:The founding fathers fought against those values you are talking about.I dont think that their plan was to become something like the British Empire that lived by exploiting other areas,and i understand that British Empire didnt bring just bad things to those under it.The bottom line is do you think that in order to make lives of US citizens better you need an US hegemonia over the world.If so how much worth that kind of liberty and wellfare is if demands opression of other peoples of the world.My answer would be nothing.But thats just me.

[Kagemusha]

Oh I think you would be surprised. Many of the founding fathers were slave owners, with only the very small exception having any real reservation about it. And from the get-go we began increasing America's influence at the expense of others, including both the Indians, and even Britain during the war of 1812, as the seizure of Canada was one of the main reasons for the war.

Oh i know that.They were children of their time.You have to remember that in the general opinion of that time Native americans and black slaves were thought just little more then animals.But that shouldnt allow you to think that in modern world that kind of ideas of exploiting other people are accepted.That was exactly what Nazis and in lesser standard Japanese thought in WWII,that they were uber mänchen,goods chosen people that where the ones that were above others.USA has been key part of stopping those kind of ideas in past.I just hope you are not promoting that kind of ideas that your fore fathers had fought and died fighting against.



I think that Liberty is the greatest thing out there. And I think that my country, being the one I live in, should have first dibbs, if you will. If there is any possibility of another country threatening that liberty in the near or far future, it should be suppressed.

I fail to see your logig here.Who is taking away your freedom and Liberty,what country?What are you so afraid?How i understand US military machine is more then capable defending it against any foreign invasion of single country.How i see it that the case is not about your freedom but who is the biggest power in the world.Empires come and go its only natural.:bow:

[Kagemusha]

Empires come and go because of failings that otherwise could have been avoided.

As to who is taking away our freedoms? Lossa people. Directly, our own government. Something that needs to stop quickly. Indirectly? It is the rest of the world forcing the government's hand. We can't out-and-out protect our interests anymore, and so the government has to take a pussy-footed role in world affairs that serves to piss off Liberals and Conservatives alike for different reasons. The government responds by doing whatever it can to crack down on dissent (Patriot Act, the NSA "scandal", ect.)

*In short, my freedoms are being limited because the rest of the world sucks. Burn for it.


Thats your opinion and you are entitled to that,but no empire in the history has survived.Everything starts and ends.That is just how the world works.Im sorry to hear that you think its rest of the worlds fault that your government is taking away your freedom.All i can say that thinking can lead to very hazardous path.But if the world has to burn becouse the freedom of America needs that,its the future that shows how that will turn out.:no:

[Banquo's Ghost]

But I did not question Liberty in what I wrote. In fact, the entire premise for it is to increase the level of Liberty in America.

You seem to think only Americans desire or deserve liberty, and that others will accept loss of freedom and subjugation because the US is currently the strongest militarily and economically. Liberty is a universal concept.

All men desire to be free. That is why the USA stands as a beacon to oppressed peoples, and has done since its founding. For a citizen of the US, who enjoys the freedom gained for him by other's blood, to advocate that other peoples are less deserving of freedom, is repulsive.

My point was that your argument of 'lesser humanity' has been used by tyrants throughout history. Not least, by the British Empire of the 18th century, which ruled the world and America by 'Divine Right and Moral Certitude'. The Empire that the Revolutionaries faced was hugely powerful, economically in control - yet did your forefathers sit wringing their hands and accept that they were 'less than true men' because they had inferior muskets?

No, of course they didn't listen to the counsel you champion. If they had followed your philosophy, the USA would not now exist as an inspiration to those who believe that no power can defeat eventual liberty. And if you think the wicked empire that you long for would not be fought against by patriots, just as the British Empire was, then I pity you.


*On the assumption, of course, that Liberty for the entire world is not a viable goal. Prove me wrong, I'd love it

I don't need to prove you wrong, history does. It's the kind of assumption a mullah in Iran, a party leader in China or a concentration camp guard would make to justify their behaviour. From an American, it is an abomination. But one that the Romans, the Mongols, the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, the British and all ephemeral empires embrace at some point.

The great comfort of course, is that you don't represent your nation. Despite mistakes, the US is still the heart of freedom, and its people, in the main, desire to foster liberty in the world rather than impose it. You are the aberration, not the norm.

[Banquo's Ghost]

*In short, my freedoms are being limited because the rest of the world sucks. Burn for it.

The sooner you accept it, the easier it will be.

:idea2: Ah, methinks I am being trolled, and with great effect.

Well done, you had me going for quite a while. :laugh4: :bow:

[Ironside]

As to who is taking away our freedoms? Lossa people. Directly, our own government. Something that needs to stop quickly. Indirectly? It is the rest of the world forcing the government's hand. We can't out-and-out protect our interests anymore, and so the government has to take a pussy-footed role in world affairs that serves to piss off Liberals and Conservatives alike for different reasons. The government responds by doing whatever it can to crack down on dissent (Patriot Act, the NSA "scandal", ect.)

*In short, my freedoms are being limited because the rest of the world sucks. Burn for it.

There's only a slight ironic tuch here. Even if you're 100% correct with your statement your solution will bring increased repression for the American people during the conflict (standard procedure in war, and more doubtful reasons gives higher dissent to prevent) and will then continue until the assimilation process is complete in atlest 150 years.
Preventing assimilation will increase the need to control the inner ranks, while keeping the US population in a permanent war situtation due to the need to maintain dominance.

Military states are hardly the concept for liberty is it? :dizzy2:

May I suggest a better idea? Build massive underground bunkers, start a nuclear war with Russia and watch the world burn. Then start to repopulate the surface after a few hundred years. It's successful rate is considerbly higher and the underground societies doesn't need to become military states (although some kind of dictorship can still happen due to dependence on equipment) and can actually come quite close to libertarian societies (although probably closer to organised anarchism with some socialistic tendencies (mostly due to the closeness the smaller comunities develops)).

[AntiochusIII]

Indeed it is. But we established already that while Liberty is a universal concept, it cannot be universally applied. There must be the haves and the have-nots.That is not necessarily the case. Liberty is not a limited commodity. It is a human condition, applied and guaranteed in society, easily if the will of the people wishes so, in, perhaps, a single law; a "social contract," if you will. The problem is, humans also wish to deprive liberty from others, as well, hence the unfortunate situation in the world. I want to do what I want, but I don't want others to do what I do not like, even if I wouldn't like to admit the latter part.

Is it? I'd die for a moment if my freedoms were being threatened. As I said earlier in the thread, i'd be the first at the conscription booth during a war with China. No Chicken-Hawk crap for me. As for us being a Beacon? Ho, ho! That's a good one. If we're a beacon, we're a bad one. Many European "democracies" based their constitutions on ours, yet many still have kings? Even in name only, that is repulsive. And what of North Vietnam? They based their declaration of independance on ours, publicly louding the US as a beacon of hope for oppressed peoples. So what did we do? We fought against them, as they were harming our interests. Our freedoms were clearly of more value than theirs, and 50,000 Americans gave up their lives for that cause.I don't understand your point about Europe, though your great dislike of royalty is amusing in a sense--that you seem as if you are a classical Whig, or even a Jacobin, but of course, a libertarian and a Whig does not concide well.

Vietnam, on the other hand, was not fought to protect American freedom. Not at all; it's just a political tool for the US to assert its dominance, and failed. The flaw in your argument lies on the assumption that, somehow, a nation's strength is proportionally related to its citizens' liberty, which is not the case. Look at Switzerland, for example.

It is also noteworthy that America's reputation does not necessarily reflects America's nature; Oliver Weldel Holmes, I believe, laughed at the notion of the inalienable right to life by pointing out at the Civil War, how the Union seems more important than 700,000 lives. The same applies to liberty, for example the draft laws et al. And he's the guy who coined our modern concept of Freedom of Speech, graciously repeated by you recently: "Let everyone do as they please, your freedoms end at my nose, sort of thing."

The kiss of death for the lesser humanity argument has always been that the Higher Humanity in the equation eventually comes to believe they are inherantly superior. That is folly. Higher Humanity is established through force, and is not genetic, nor inherant, in any fashion.Power corrupts...

Don't be so sure. Perhaps I am simply the minority who dares to speak up? Deep down, every American wants to see his or her counrty at the top. And deep down, every American is sick and tired of the rest of the world accepting our money, accepting our blood, but not accepting our dominance. Deep down, the American people are sick of having to play cat and mouse with the rest of the world, and some day it will explode.What you are saying, basically, is that Americans are extremely self-righteous bigots angry at the bad behaviors of the world, which I hope is not necessarily the case. The "rest of the world" comment makes me think of one little cartoon I saw in a history textbook, depicting Philippines, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc., as schoolchildren to be taught by Uncle Sam; not a very nice picture, in my opinion. Since Uncle Sam conquered and oppressed the Philippines, overran Hawaii, and took Puerto Rico in an aggressive, American-initiated war against Spain.

[AntiochusIII]

That is exactly my point. You have stated the motivations behind the quoted text you are responding to. Some will always want to take liberty from others to increase their own liberty. That is unavoidable. Therefore we had best act first.And you missed my point that liberty is not a limited commodity. And that everyone can have basic liberty--according to Holmes' concept, of course, not the true libertarian's, in which he or she will probably infringe on other's rights--all to himself. Thus, the argument that America has to deprive liberty from others so it can has its own makes no sense.

Vietnam was more important to our Liberty than you might think. First of all, they were communists, whom, as a rule, should be crushed where found. Nothing is more disastrous towards the cause of Freedom and Liberty than Communists. Second, those communists were harming American interests. American interests are directly related to American Freedoms. Attack my interests and you're attacking my freedoms. So, I repeat: American Liberty was proven to be worth fighting over, at the expense of Vietnamese Liberty. Yet the radical left, stirring up discontent, and no doubt with ties to Communists of some sort, started the anti-war movement which was largely responsible for ending the war before we could win. You see the pattern here? Anti-War Movement was Communist. Anti-War Movement, and Communists, Hurt Our Interests. Therefore, Anti-War Movements and Communists are against American freedoms. I guess we can apply that to the entire left as well, for kicks.Red scare?

Not worth arguing for.

Still, it is amusing to note the irrational fear the American public placed on socialism, which is much older than most people thought.

Of course it does. Better that the angst of bored rulers can be directed against subjected peoples than the American people, no?You misunderstood my post. I should've worded it better: American power (hegemony, whatever you call it) corrupts America. Make a case why America should be on the top forever and ever, and not, say, Portugal.

If we're a bunch of self-rightous pricks, the rest of the world is to blame for it. Enjoy the consequences.That still makes no sense. Why should Uncle Sam chaining the Filipino be blamed on the Filipino, and not Uncle Sam?

[AntiochusIII]

Makes no sense? It has a plan and a strategy. Where's yours?And why do I need a plan and a strategy? If I write one, though, it will probably be a very long-winded UN resolution, and that's just a start. And don't start an anti-UN argument now; I'm not really up to it.

But that is off-topic. What at hand is, you did not explain how depriving liberty off others increase one's own liberty. My point is that, liberty is not gold and other such commodities to be taken as such. My older posts explained that. Mercantilism and Imperialism does not brings home liberty. Oh, not at all.

There is no need to have the haves and have-nots in the application of liberty in the concept we are familiar with--that of liberty until the infringement of others' rights.

Hardly a counter-proposal. In this case i'll take it as you ceding me this point. Apology accepted.Very well, I shall address it in full:

Vietnam was more important to our Liberty than you might think. First of all, they were communists, whom, as a rule, should be crushed where found.Err...no. The universe does not has a law that says communism must be crushed where found. It does has other laws like gravity, though.

Nothing is more disastrous towards the cause of Freedom and Liberty than Communists.Oh yes there is. All you have to do is ask the Jews in 1939, Patrick Henry in 1776, and perhaps the Demosthenes in the Fourth Century BC. Of course, they will have different answers. I have my own, and it's Einstein's too, I think: human stupidity. And that's not exclusively American, nor are Americans exempt from it.

Second, those communists were harming American interests. American interests are directly related to American Freedoms. Attack my interests and you're attacking my freedoms.I concede that North Vietnam is detrimental to American interests; but American interests are not directly related to American Freedoms. You have not made any case why. In fact, Vietnam was detrimental to American Freedoms. See the Berkeley incident.

So, I repeat: American Liberty was proven to be worth fighting over, at the expense of Vietnamese Liberty. Yet the radical left, stirring up discontent, and no doubt with ties to Communists of some sort, started the anti-war movement which was largely responsible for ending the war before we could win.I remembered this phrase from somewhere: "Don't blame the audiences if they don't clap." And I think we should not blame the anti-war protesters if the war is lost. Not many of them hippies went to Vietnam to fight for the "gooks." Many, in fact, went to fight for the Americans, unwillingly, thanks to the Draft, a fundamental detriment to liberty, by the way.

I mean, come on, if forcing you onto the battlefield--to die, often--against your will is not against liberty, then what is?

Surely not the communists?

You see the pattern here? Anti-War Movement was Communist. Anti-War Movement, and Communists, Hurt Our Interests. Therefore, Anti-War Movements and Communists are against American freedoms. I guess we can apply that to the entire left as well, for kicks.You know, your argument is the one that is often used to the end of ending all liberty but those few who rules, for example, Augusto Pinochet and his cronies, or, better yet, good ol' McCarthy. It is so obvious I really shouldn't be addressing it. You see, McCarthyism pisses me off, and I don't want to go emotional about why it so pisses me off, because you might misunderstand it as you pisses me off, which is not the case.

That's an easy one: Because I live in America, not Portugal.Ah, very clear. Then you are the center of the universe...oh wait, you are not.

If you take this viewpoint, then the others have the right to hate America all they want. After all, America is detrimental to their interests. And the attack of 9/11 (how I love to bring that up) is justified. We do that too, right? Pursuing our own interests at the detriment of others?

Chaining the Filipino? :inquisitive: They did better under us than they did under Spain. Except for that whole revolt thing, which they soon realized was all a big mistake. But as for who to blame? The Spanish, of course.Alright, I'll ask it clearly: why is American Imperialism be blamed on the victims and not the Americans?

[Avicenna]

And GC, about your fear of Communists: true Communism has never existed and never will, so don't you fret.

[Banquo's Ghost]

In case you couldn't tell, I was not being 100% serious with my posts in this thread. I was putting forth a straw man, in hopes that one of the more rabid pro-government americans might prove it wrong for me.

You certainly had me going for a while, which perhaps tells me more about my own prejudices than I care to know. :shame:

But you provoked a good debate, so well done (and I'm so glad to know the reality) :2thumbsup:

[Kagemusha]

All i can say is that im glad those were not 100% serious opinions Cube.~:)