What now for Taiwan and China?

[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.

[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.

[Papewaio]

Likewise

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

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

[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?

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.