Nancy Pelosi arrives in Taiwan despite retaliation warnings from China

[His Divine Shadow]

Just telling you to get fucked, no more, no less. You're obviously not able to brain this out correctly because of personal feelings, but I don't have to take baseless childish idiot accusations from you because of that.

[ray245]

Just telling you to get fucked, no more, no less. You're obviously not able to brain this out correctly because of personal feelings, but I don't have to take baseless childish idiot accusations from you because of that.

You wanted a war, or refuses to consider any possibility of de-escalation even though the people in the region will suffer the most. And you got upset when I pointed out war is basically what you wanted.

And your response to that is to resort to petty insults. Shows what kind of person you are.

If you cannot take the welfare of the people getting hurt into account, shut the fuck up.

You're not a Taiwanese, you don't have family living there. So we don't need to hear stupid rhetoric for you on how we are doomed to war and death. If you can't say anything that can help ensure peace, then all you are doing is adding fuel to the fire.

Westerners like you need to fucking think.

[His Divine Shadow]

I said Taiwan should choose to either go with the west or with China, because I think the US and China will eventually come to blows and that conflict doesn't even have to be over Taiwan. Now you have to prove, how is thinking a war is likely, actually wanting that war? Tell me where I said I wanted a war. Thinking a war is coming isn't wanting one. But remember if you voluntarily joined China, you'd have no war with China at least.

But what if China and the US comes to some other blows over some entierly different country or area in SE asia? Am I now lusting, frothing at the mouth for the idea of a war in SE asia that could possibly kill my wifes relatives in vietnam? Given the things are going in the world I see it as likely, so that means by ray logic that yes, I want war and I want to hurt my wifes extended family in vietnam. Clearly the ray logic is beyond rebuke.

Another example with your "logic", anyone saying for instance, Finland should join NATO to protect itself against Russia, is war mongering and wanting my family to die in a war. Hell I think we're likely to have more wars in europe due to climate change eventually, does that mean I want to die in a war, well yes, by your standards it does! I want to die in a war myself! Can't wait to get ripped apart by bullets at the karelian isthmus like my granddad!

You also began the insults so stop whining about that you glass jaw.

[ray245]

I said Taiwan should choose to either go with the west or with China, because I think the US and China will eventually come to blows and that conflict doesn't even have to be over Taiwan. Now you have to prove, how is thinking a war is likely, actually wanting that war? Tell me where I said I wanted a war. Thinking a war is coming isn't wanting one. But remember if you voluntarily joined China, you'd have no war with China at least.

Taiwan don't have to do that. Despite the rhetoric you hear from some Taiwanese, China is still one of the biggest trading partners with Taiwan. Relationships were actually good between 2008 to 2016. Many Taiwanese lived and worked in China.

What most Taiwanese want is to maintain the status quo. That's the near constant majority in polls. Despite some relatively minor headaches for Taiwanese, Taiwanese enjoy de facto independence and having de facto relationships with most of the Western world all while benefiting from trade with China.

Joining China does not benefit the Taiwanese because we will lost our political independence. With the status quo Taiwanese enjoy political independence all while being able to trade peacefully with China and the West alike.

And despite the public rhetoric of the CCP, they are enjoying the benefits of the status quo. It's why war has not broken out despite various crisis over the years. Saber-rattling is a useful domestic policy of theirs to appease some of their even more hardcore nationalist citizens. They lose more from the status-quo breaking down as well. Disrupted trade, disrupted economy. Even the CCP don't want an actual war because the current status quo benefit them as well.

But what if China and the US comes to some other blows over some entierly different country or area in SE asia? Am I now lusting, frothing at the mouth for the idea of a war in SE asia that could possibly kill my wifes relatives in vietnam? Given the things are going in the world I see it as likely, so that means by ray logic that yes, I want war and I want to hurt my wifes extended family in vietnam. Clearly the ray logic is beyond rebuke.

Then you know nothing about the entire geopolitics of the region. China went to war against Vietnam a few decades ago yes, but there is nothing in recent years that will even come close to actually sparking an actual conflict. A few border skirmishes yes, but again, China is not going to war against SE Asia.

Even then, Vietnam isn't going to jump onto the American train. Vietnam refused to even condemn Russia for their aggression in Ukraine. Again, you display a huge level of ignorance about the actual geo-politics of the region.

Another example with your "logic", anyone saying for instance, Finland should join NATO to protect itself against Russia, is war mongering and wanting my family to die in a war. Hell I think we're likely to have more wars in europe due to climate change eventually, does that mean I want to die in a war, well yes, by your standards it does! I want to die in a war myself! Can't wait to get ripped apart by bullets at the karelian isthmus like my granddad!

You also began the insults so stop whining about that you glass jaw.

There's doing sensible actions and fanning the flames of war. No war is inevitable. They become so when people themselves believed war is inevitable.

What Taiwan is doing by engaging with the West is not to become a Western puppet regime, but merely to preserve the status quo. Most Taiwanese don't want the US and China to engage in open war, because they know they will be caught in the cross-fire.

It's not about choosing sides, it's about encouraging strategic competition between the major world powers in order to ensure the competition can benefit everyone while it is peaceful. That's the entire cornerstone of almost every Asia-Pacific geopolitical strategy.


The best piece of work done in Western media on Taiwan is fucking John Oliver.

[ray245]

To talk about how conflict is inevitable is an inherently warmongering position. War can break out, but thinking it is an inevitable thing means people do not even want to try and preserve peace.

[His Divine Shadow]

Then I hope you are right, but I am pessimistic about the future of the world. Climate change will destabilize things I fear, the best way to stop future wars, is to stop climate change. But we're failing so far.

I've also seen that video. I do know most taiwanese are happy with the status quo. Most finns where happy being outside NATO until a few months ago when it changed radically. We're however counting on it keeping the peace and it was in the same way I meant for taiwan.

[ray245]

Then I hope you are right, but I am pessimistic about the future of the world. Climate change will destabilize things I fear, the best way to stop future wars, is to stop climate change. But we're failing so far.

Being pessimistic does not mean you should stop all you can to ensure lives can be saved and preserved as much as possible. Climate change happening does not mean we stop the current efforts to limit carbon emissions, destroying rainforest and etc.

I've also seen that video. I do know most taiwanese are happy with the status quo. Most finns where happy being outside NATO until a few months ago when it changed radically. We're however counting on it keeping the peace and it was in the same way I meant for taiwan.

And people outside of Taiwan needs to ultimately respect what the Taiwanese want. Forcing people to chose sides ultimately lead to bad end. The US after 9/11 forcing people to chose sides ultimately led to pointless wars that just killed more people needlessly.

The day Taiwan is forced to chose a side is when war has broken out. So it's in Taiwanese interest to never fully chose a side as long as possible.

[Exonerate]

Unconfirmed photo from a PLAN ship that some have geolocated to within 12nm of Taiwan's shore. If it was indeed in territorial waters, Taiwan's Ministry of Defense is staying mum about it.

They should ally more closely with the west while there is time, or go to china, with the lessons of Ukraine we can see those are ultimately the choices they have but don't want to take. This trying to balance between east and west won't work forever, soon a clash will be coming between china/russia and the west and Taiwan should consider on which side it wants to be.

Well... it was the attempts to normalize Taiwan as a de jure state in public perception that lead to this situation. The status quo where Taiwan was de facto independent and everybody just paid lipservice depending on who they were talking to mostly worked, and while it had its ups and downs, it was stable. China really doesn't like the current Taiwan administration's unwillingness to reaffirm the 92 Consensus and flirtation with independence/international recognition, so pressure has been building and Pelosi's visit finally put it over the top. In my estimation, saying the right platitudes could've kept it going for a lot longer, but the incentives for the DPP to do that weren't there, with their electoral base being what it is.

[Dominus Atheos]

Taiwan has been used as a cheap "nationalism button" for the chicoms to distract from their internal problems for too long, they may not be able to avoid going to war even if they want to.

[Ralin]

Taiwan has been used as a cheap "nationalism button" for the chicoms to distract from their internal problems for too long, they may not be able to avoid going to war even if they want to.

The government of China, well known for its inability to disregard popular opinion.

[Dominus Atheos]

Taiwan has been used as a cheap "nationalism button" for the chicoms to distract from their internal problems for too long, they may not be able to avoid going to war even if they want to.

The government of China, well known for its inability to disregard popular opinion.

Not anymore they don't. Name 3 times in the last 20 years the prc has disregarded the masses' public opinion? There was covid lockdowns, which is not coincidentally one of the reasons they might be forced to follow public opinion into a war with taiwan, but that's about it. They've stoked nationalism too often to get the chinese public to follow along with whatever dumbass idea they wanted to do anyway, it might bite them in the ass if the people realize the emperor has no clothes.

[Ralin]

Not anymore they don't. Name 3 times in the last 20 years the prc has disregarded the masses' public opinion?

Well, I'd say they were way more lenient and hands off with the illegal anti-criminal justice riots in Hong Kong than most people wanted them to be. Just off the top of my head.

There was covid lockdowns, which is not coincidentally one of the reasons they might be forced to follow public opinion into a war with taiwan, but that's about it. They've stoked nationalism too often to get the chinese public to follow along with whatever dumbass idea they wanted to do anyway, it might bite them in the ass if the people realize the emperor has no clothes.

And how is this going to happen? People are going to, what, riot in the street and demand a war and try to storm Zhongnanhai? Is Xi Jinping worried about losing an election? Because that actually sounds like it would a great way for him to not get that third term.

[Dominus Atheos]

Oh, you're a chicom supporter, my mistake I was responding to you like you were sane. Let me try this again:

Yes, triumphant china will march into it's glorious future were all under heaven will belong to the illustrious middle country. They will punish the paltry usurpers squatting on taiwan and all will know that the mandate of heaven lies with the People's Republic, the true heirs to the Celestial Empire.

There, are you less offended now?

[Ralin]

Oh, you're a chicom supporter, my mistake I was responding to you like you were sane. Let me try this again:

Yes, triumphant china will march into it's glorious future were all under heaven will belong to the illustrious middle country. They will punish the paltry usurpers squatting on taiwan and all will know that the mandate of heaven lies with the People's Republic, the true heirs to the Celestial Empire.

There, are you less offended now?

If you're done trolling, mind naming three times public opinion in the past twenty years has forced the PRC government to do something they considered harmful to the country's well-being?

[Ralin]

Actually no, let's stop with the dumb challenges crap. Can you prove that popular opinion on the subject is so fanatically pro-war that the national government will be forced into this course of action whether they think it's a good idea or not? And if so could you explain how you expect this to happen?

[Dominus Atheos]

Actually no, let's stop with the dumb challenges crap. Can you prove that popular opinion on the subject is so fanatically pro-war that the national government will be forced into this course of action whether they think it's a good idea or not? And if so could you explain how you expect this to happen?

No, but I can show examples of other countries who were forced to start wars to distract from internal problems after using threats of said war to whip their populations into frenzies. It's called "diversionary foreign policy" or "wagging the dog", with the most famous being the russo-japanese war, about which this was said:

What this country needs is a short, victorious war to stem the tide of revolution

Also the Falklands War, where Argentina was recently subjected to a military coup and was undergoing severe economic issues and responded with what they thought would be a "short victorious war" to take some islands based on a claim from 200 years ago. And the Crimean war, which was started mostly by Napoleon III after gaining the throne partly by promising to restore french "glory". Bill Clinton got weirdly militarily belligerent and started bombing several countries, including Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia almost immediately after the got caught diddling his secretary.

Do any of these examples prove that the chicoms are definitely going to invade taiwan, or that the chinese mob is going to force them to do so against their will? No. But it does show that several countries in similar situations to the prc have started similar wars. It's a pattern in history and in my humble opinion, it's going to repeat.

[Ralin]

As someone who lives here, I think you drastically overestimate how much the Chinese public wants a war and how much they need to be distracted. The national government is doing pretty good in terms of public good will these past couple years just from the widespread (and accurate) perception that the rest of the world is a plague-ridden house on fire. Yeah, if China's Taiwan province were to declare independence or Biden ordered the island fortified into some sort of American military fortress and the government backed down things might get tense, but short of that most people would be happy for things to stay the way they are for the foreseeable future.

The Chinese government doesn't go around invading other countries because they need a PR boost, and they don't need one anyway because everyone knows things are better than they were a couple decades ago and they're currently doing better than most places. As an American I think you should step back and consider that you're maybe doing a little projection.

[Dominus Atheos]

I'll link to just some of the youtube videos I have watched that that make me think the prc is a paper tiger who's bubble is bursting:











And this one from just today:



Sorry about the clickbait thumbnail.

But if even half of these videos are even half correct, your country is probably going to need a "short victorious war" pretty soon.

[ray245]

Unconfirmed photo from a PLAN ship that some have geolocated to within 12nm of Taiwan's shore. If it was indeed in territorial waters, Taiwan's Ministry of Defense is staying mum about it.

They should ally more closely with the west while there is time, or go to china, with the lessons of Ukraine we can see those are ultimately the choices they have but don't want to take. This trying to balance between east and west won't work forever, soon a clash will be coming between china/russia and the west and Taiwan should consider on which side it wants to be.

Well... it was the attempts to normalize Taiwan as a de jure state in public perception that lead to this situation. The status quo where Taiwan was de facto independent and everybody just paid lipservice depending on who they were talking to mostly worked, and while it had its ups and downs, it was stable. China really doesn't like the current Taiwan administration's unwillingness to reaffirm the 92 Consensus and flirtation with independence/international recognition, so pressure has been building and Pelosi's visit finally put it over the top. In my estimation, saying the right platitudes could've kept it going for a lot longer, but the incentives for the DPP to do that weren't there, with their electoral base being what it is.

Even the DPP have to maintain the status quo if they want to maintain power. They lost power back in 2008 because the public was too annoyed with them stirring things up unnecessarily and allowing it to affect the economy.

And the KMT could have won the 2016 presidential elections, if the events in Hong Kong didn't break out.

Westerners generally ignore periods of warm relations because it's not exciting on the news. Taiwan only appears on international news whenever there is more tension.

Unfortunately, westerners as a whole are addicted to things going wrong.

[ray245]

I'll link to just some of the youtube videos I have watched that that make me think the prc is a paper tiger who's bubble is bursting:

And this one from just today:



Sorry about the clickbait thumbnail.

But if even half of these videos are even half correct, your country is probably going to need a "short victorious war" pretty soon.

The fact you know they are clickbait and proceed to link them anyway shows you're not known for being able to think critically.

There are a ton of issues in China...but the same can be said about the US and many other European nations as well in many ways.

But the fact that many of those videos are so utterly pro-capitalism that they aren't worth anyone's time.

One of them had talked about how China's High Speed Rail is a bad idea because it's not profitable, all while failing to understand rail investment is a public good and not necessarily aimed at making money.

And also good environmental reasons to invest in HSR over aviation industry.

But no, only money making makes sense.

I am hardly interested in listening to captialist who thinks wrecking the environment is a "right thing" to do to tell me any issues on China.

[ray245]

As someone who lives here, I think you drastically overestimate how much the Chinese public wants a war and how much they need to be distracted. The national government is doing pretty good in terms of public good will these past couple years just from the widespread (and accurate) perception that the rest of the world is a plague-ridden house on fire. Yeah, if China's Taiwan province were to declare independence or Biden ordered the island fortified into some sort of American military fortress and the government backed down things might get tense, but short of that most people would be happy for things to stay the way they are for the foreseeable future.

The Chinese government doesn't go around invading other countries because they need a PR boost, and they don't need one anyway because everyone knows things are better than they were a couple decades ago and they're currently doing better than most places. As an American I think you should step back and consider that you're maybe doing a little projection.

Americans have zero ground to stand on considering they are the ones that invaded other countries for utterly stupid reasons and for zero gain.

And given how American civilians are generally shielded from the dangers to their lives in a war, American civilians should shut the fuck up about anything to do with war.

[ray245]

The historic visit of the US House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to Taiwan on Wednesday has certainly triggered a harsh response from China. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been conducting a series of drills around the island that amount to a partial blockade of the Taiwan Strait. In addition, Beijing has announced sanctions against Taiwan, affecting goods from pineapple cakes (a Taiwanese delicacy) to oranges; it has also declared eight countermeasures in response to Pelosi’s visit, which included cancelling dialogues between the leaders of Chinese and US military theatres and suspending the joint Sino-US talks on climate change.

Tension in the Taiwan Strait has put the world on edge. The G7 foreign ministers last week called on China to “resolve cross-Strait differences by peaceful means”. However, there has also been much criticism of Pelosi. For instance, in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman characterised her visit as “utterly reckless, dangerous, and irresponsible”. For such critics, it could not have happened at a worse time: 1 August is PLA Day, a holiday celebrating the founding of the Chinese army.

Furthermore, the visit happened right before the Beidaihe conference – a secretive gathering of Chinese Communist party elites where major policy decisions are made – and the 20th CCP congress, where President Xi Jinping is widely believed to be pursuing an unprecedented third term. The timing thus made Pelosi’s visit highly provocative. Xi could hardly afford to lose face to the Americans at this critical juncture.

One implication of these criticisms is that the current tension could be diffused after a few months. Once Beijing felt that it had sufficiently rebuked Pelosi and punished Taipei, the tension could subside.

Focusing on Pelosi’s visit distracts us from the deeper problems that plague Sino-US relations
We are not so optimistic. Pelosi’s visit was merely a trigger. The crisis reflects deeper issues in Sino-US relations. If they are not addressed, we expect more instability in the Taiwan Strait and the evolution of great power competition into great power conflict.

In the past few years, policymakers, opinion leaders and members of the public in China have increasingly compared America to a “paper tiger”. On the one hand, the US is believed to be pernicious. Jealously guarding its own hegemony, it does not and cannot accept China’s rise, they say; since the Trump administration, Washington has started to systematically hollow out the “one China principle” with the intention of using Taiwan as a pawn to contain China. On the other hand, Washington is believed to lack resolve and capabilities.

Although the US is malicious, it is also weak, runs the line. While China’s 1.4 billion citizens are united in their pursuit of the “Chinese dream”, America is plagued by internal contradictions ranging from partisan polarisation to racial tension. If the US did not send troops to Ukraine, surely it lacks the stomach to defend Taiwan? Notably, Hua Chunying, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson, was mocking America as a “paper tiger” on Twitter just days before Pelosi went to Taiwan.

This “paper tiger” line significantly complicates efforts to maintain stability across the Taiwan Strait. If Pelosi had decided to cancel her trip to Taiwan after Beijing’s protest, China would probably have launched a propaganda campaign ridiculing Washington’s claim that its commitment to Taiwan was “rock solid”. However, whenever the US tries to signal its resolve and capabilities, Beijing is likely to interpret this as evidence of hostility.

Washington is caught between Scylla and Charybdis. If the US attempts to reassure China, that risks looking like appeasement. If it signals its intention to defend the liberal international order in the Indo-Pacific, that could trigger an uncontrollable security dilemma.

In the context of this dynamic, can we be confident that Beijing would not have raised tensions at some later date even if Pelosi had not visited Taiwan? How would Beijing react were the US to sell Taiwan offensive weapon systems comparable to those that have been recently supplied to Ukraine? We might debate how provocative Pelosi’s visit would look in comparison with arms sales (some may perceive the former as a more overt challenge to Chinese sovereignty). But this very discussion draws attention to the underlying dynamic that makes US actions provocative to China.

As Beijing’s view of Washington swings from contempt to anger, Washington needs to focus on de-escalation
Focusing on Pelosi’s visit distracts us from the deeper problems that plague Sino-US relations. Beijing needs to recognise how destabilising and counterproductive the “paper tiger” analogy is. It complicates any attempt to construct “guard rails” that would prevent US-China competition becoming US-China confrontation.

Beijing needs to stop suggesting that the US lacks the will to guard the liberal international order in the Indo-Pacific. Jeering at America’s resolve is not only dismissive and insulting but also counterproductive. Even if the US does lack resolve, taunting it serves only to fuel anti-China sentiments and force Washington to harden its position.

As Beijing’s view of Washington swings from contempt to anger, Washington needs to focus on de-escalation. On Thursday, the Biden administration delayed a long-planned intercontinental ballistic missile test in order to diffuse tension with China. That was right. But the US should not cease expressing its support for Taiwan. On the contrary, it should take steps to signal its commitment to Taiwan by deepening bilateral trade and economic relations, which would have less risk of provoking Beijing. In short, dealing with China requires a firm yet soft touch.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ver-taiwan


There are ways to de-escalate the situation. Do not give up hope on them.

[Solauren]

One of them had talked about how China's High Speed Rail is a bad idea because it's not profitable, all while failing to understand rail investment is a public good and not necessarily aimed at making money.

And anyone against rail transit, and think they can't increase profits is a short sighted idiot anyway.

The benefits, even for a minimal-profit rail, are enormous

#1 - Immediate benefits
Construction industry jobs

Once the rails are running
Short Term benefit that lasts
Less traffic congestion, and more reliable commuter movement.
This means that commuters don't have as much stress. It avoids traffic, and is cheaper then a automobile due to less wear and tear.
As a result of the lower stress, workers are more effective and efficient. This increases business efficiency, increasing profits.

Mid term benefit that lasts
With less commuter traffic, you have increased efficiency in commercial and industrial traffic. (i.e product delivery)

Long Term benefit
More efficient transit means less pollution and environmental damage. Meaning less money needs to be put into repairing it or offsetting that damage.

[ray245]

One of them had talked about how China's High Speed Rail is a bad idea because it's not profitable, all while failing to understand rail investment is a public good and not necessarily aimed at making money.

And anyone against rail transit, and think they can't increase profits is a short sighted idiot anyway.

The benefits, even for a minimal-profit rail, are enormous

#1 - Immediate benefits
Construction industry jobs

Once the rails are running
Short Term benefit that lasts
Less traffic congestion, and more reliable commuter movement.
This means that commuters don't have as much stress. It avoids traffic, and is cheaper then a automobile due to less wear and tear.
As a result of the lower stress, workers are more effective and efficient. This increases business efficiency, increasing profits.

Mid term benefit that lasts
With less commuter traffic, you have increased efficiency in commercial and industrial traffic. (i.e product delivery)

Long Term benefit
More efficient transit means less pollution and environmental damage. Meaning less money needs to be put into repairing it or offsetting that damage.

When most of the anti-China rhetoric comes from right-wing anti-environmental, anti-social welfare crowd of people, it's better to disregard most of it.

Even "left-wingers" buy into those right wing rhetoric far too easily in the west.

Biden's policy on China is really just a continuation of Trump's policies. Which is a fact that many are ignoring.

There's a level of racism in Western attitude and politics towards Asian that few want to acknowledge. Back when Japan was becoming the 2nd biggest economy, there was a lot of hysteria over Japan as well in the West. The way the West treated Japan is almost similar to the way they are treating China, and this is in spite of Japan being a Western ally.

Orientialism is deeply rooted in western psyche.

[LadyTevar]

DIVINE SHADOW. RAY.

You both need to go back and read the rules of the board. Now sit down, cool off, and drop it.