Author Topic: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects  (Read 684 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SPQR

  • Guest
Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« on: December 28, 2013, 02:16:45 AM »
By PETER ENAV

A government monitoring body has cast serious doubts on Taiwan's ability to launch a credible all-volunteer military force, undermining a crucial plank in President Ma Ying-jeou's defense policy, and raising difficult questions about the island's ability to defend itself against any attack from China.

In a report unveiled Tuesday, the Control Yuan quoted high-ranking retired military officers, including a former navy commander, as saying that the defense ministry's failure to attract enough recruits to replace the existing conscription-based system spells bad news for Taiwan's military deterrent.

"My gravest concern is that the all-volunteer system may not be fully developed by the time the government scraps the conscription system," said Admiral Miao Yung-ching in the report. "Is it possible to suspend this to a later date?"

Taiwan's all-volunteer transition was supposed to have been completed by 2015 but in September the Defense Ministry delayed implementation for two years amid continuing recruiting failures.

During the first 11 months of 2013, the government says only 30 percent of the recruiting target of 28,531 was met.

Report co-author Huang Huaung-hsiung said the Defense Ministry's recruiting difficulties appeared to leave it with three options heading toward the 2017 deadline: lower force levels from the 175,000 target, opt for a further delay in implementation of the all-volunteer force or revert to the conscription system.

Responding to the Control Yuan report, the Defense Ministry said it is still on course for a 2017 transition to an all-volunteer military.

The transition to an all-volunteer force is an important part of President Ma's defense policy, despite his insistence that the possibility of armed confrontation with China has receded substantially amid his efforts to lower tensions across the 150-kilometer- (100-mile) wide Taiwan strait through greater commercial engagement. That engagement has been the centerpiece of his administration since he came into office in May 2008.

China and Taiwan split after a civil war in 1949. Beijing continues to regard the democratic island of 23 million people as part of its territory and says it is committed to bringing it back into the fold — by persuasion of possible, by force if necessary.

Once boasting a standing force of more than 500,000 troops, Taiwan's enthusiasm for its military has declined greatly in recent years, paced by well-publicized horror stories about poor conditions for recruits and Ma's repeated failures to deliver on promises to devote at least 3 percent of GDP to military expenditures.

China's own massive defense outlays — at least $90 billion this year — and the lukewarm attitude of Taiwan's once steadfast American ally to providing the island with state-of-the art military hardware have also had a negative impact on the thinking of many Taiwanese, including potential recruits.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/government-body-grim-taiwan-military-prospects

Online massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,021
    • Auktion Online
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2013, 07:05:52 AM »
Taiwan's days as an independent state are numbered.  The country is entirely dependent on the spine and good faith of Barack H. OPapaDoc.  Good luck with that.
"She only coughs when she lies."

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2013, 01:12:51 PM »
Taiwan's days as an independent state are numbered.  The country is entirely dependent on the spine and good faith of Barack H. OPapaDoc.  Good luck with that.

What they need is  strong dose of American hardware. They have already expressed interest in purchasing the F-35s, anti aircraft weapons and other upgrades to their military hardware. They have already purchased the Apache Helicopter.ROC Army has extensive experience in the construction and utilization of underground tunnels and bases gained during the People's Republic of China's bombardments of Kinmen and Matsu during the Cold War and many facilities are rumoured to be located underground in undisclosed locations.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 01:14:13 PM by SPQR »

Offline Cincinnatus

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,514
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2013, 01:21:08 PM »
Taiwan's days as an independent state are numbered.  The country is entirely dependent on the spine and good faith of Barack H. OPapaDoc.  Good luck with that.

Taiwan's fate was decided the day Kissinger touched down in Beijing.
We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid ~~ Samuel Adams

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2013, 01:23:38 PM »
Taiwan's days as an independent state are numbered.  The country is entirely dependent on the spine and good faith of Barack H. OPapaDoc.  Good luck with that.

Taiwan's fate was decided the day Kissinger touched down in Beijing.

You are forgetting that we have a mutual defense treay that was signed with Taiwan on December 2, 1954

Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of China

 

The Parties to this Treaty,
     Reaffirming their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all Governments, and desiring to strengthen the fabric of peace in the West Pacific Area,
     Recalling with mutual pride the relationship which brought their two peoples together in a common bond of sympathy and mutual ideals to fight side by side against irnperialist aggression during the last war,
     Desiring to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity and their common determination to defend themselves against external armed attack, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone in the West Pacific Area, and
     Desiring further to strengthen their present efforts for collective defense for the preservation of peace and security pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the West Pacific Area,
     Have agreed as follows:

 

Article 1   

    The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

 

Article 2

    In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack and communist subversive activities directed from without against their territorial integrity and political stability.

 

Article 3

    The Parties undertake to strengthen their free institutions and to cooperate with each other in the development of economic progress and social well-being and to further their individual and collective efforts toward these ends.

 

Article 4

    The Parties, through their Foreign Ministers or their deputies, will consult together from time to time regarding the implementation of this Treaty.

 

Article 5

    Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the West Pacific Area directed against the territories of either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.
     Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

 

Article 6

    For the purposes of Articles 2 and 5, the terms "territorial" and "territories" shall mean in respect of the Republic of China, Taiwan and the Pescadores; and in respect of the United States of America, the island territories in the West Pacific under its jurisdiction. The provisions of Articles 2 and 5 will be applicable to such other territories as may be determined by mutual agreement.

 

Article 7

    The Government of the Republic of China grants, and the Government of the United States of America accepts, the right to dispose such United States land, air, and sea forces in and about Taiwan and the Pescadores as may be required for their defense, as determined by mutual agreement.

 

Article 8

    This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations or the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

 

Article 9

    This Treaty shall be ratified by the Republic of China and the United States of America in accordance with their respective constitutional processes and will come into force when instruments of ratification thereof have been exchanged by them at Taipei.

 

Article 10

    This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. Either Party may terminate it one year after notice has been given to the other party.
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.
     DONE in duplicate, in the Chinese and English languages, at Washington on this Second day of the Twelfth month of the Forty-third Year of the Republic of China, corresponding to the Second day of December of the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty-four.

For the Republic of China:
GEORGE K.C. YEH

For the United States of America:
JOHN FOSTER DULLES
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 01:24:36 PM by SPQR »

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2013, 01:34:11 PM »
You are forgetting that we have a mutual defense treay that was signed with Taiwan on December 2, 1954

Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of China

 

The Parties to this Treaty,
     Reaffirming their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all Governments, and desiring to strengthen the fabric of peace in the West Pacific Area,
     Recalling with mutual pride the relationship which brought their two peoples together in a common bond of sympathy and mutual ideals to fight side by side against irnperialist aggression during the last war,
     Desiring to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity and their common determination to defend themselves against external armed attack, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone in the West Pacific Area, and
     Desiring further to strengthen their present efforts for collective defense for the preservation of peace and security pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the West Pacific Area,
     Have agreed as follows:

 

Article 1   

    The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

 

Article 2

    In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack and communist subversive activities directed from without against their territorial integrity and political stability.

 

Article 3

    The Parties undertake to strengthen their free institutions and to cooperate with each other in the development of economic progress and social well-being and to further their individual and collective efforts toward these ends.

 

Article 4

    The Parties, through their Foreign Ministers or their deputies, will consult together from time to time regarding the implementation of this Treaty.

 

Article 5

    Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the West Pacific Area directed against the territories of either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.
     Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

 

Article 6

    For the purposes of Articles 2 and 5, the terms "territorial" and "territories" shall mean in respect of the Republic of China, Taiwan and the Pescadores; and in respect of the United States of America, the island territories in the West Pacific under its jurisdiction. The provisions of Articles 2 and 5 will be applicable to such other territories as may be determined by mutual agreement.

 

Article 7

    The Government of the Republic of China grants, and the Government of the United States of America accepts, the right to dispose such United States land, air, and sea forces in and about Taiwan and the Pescadores as may be required for their defense, as determined by mutual agreement.

 

Article 8

    This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations or the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

 

Article 9

    This Treaty shall be ratified by the Republic of China and the United States of America in accordance with their respective constitutional processes and will come into force when instruments of ratification thereof have been exchanged by them at Taipei.

 

Article 10

    This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. Either Party may terminate it one year after notice has been given to the other party.
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.
     DONE in duplicate, in the Chinese and English languages, at Washington on this Second day of the Twelfth month of the Forty-third Year of the Republic of China, corresponding to the Second day of December of the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty-four.

For the Republic of China:
GEORGE K.C. YEH

For the United States of America:
JOHN FOSTER DULLES


I forgot to link it. http://www.taiwandocuments.org/mutual01.htm

Offline Cincinnatus

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,514
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2013, 01:34:41 PM »
You are forgetting that we have a mutual defense treay that was signed with Taiwan on December 2, 1954

I am not forgetting it at all. I just don't think if push comes to shove we will honor it.

Say, aren't we the same country that promised to support Taiwan as the legitimate government of China in the UN and then ignored the promise in favor of Mao?
We shall never be abandoned by Heaven while we act worthy of its aid ~~ Samuel Adams

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2013, 01:37:37 PM »
You are forgetting that we have a mutual defense treay that was signed with Taiwan on December 2, 1954

I am not forgetting it at all. I just don't think if push comes to shove we will honor it.

Say, aren't we the same country that promised to support Taiwan as the legitimate government of China in the UN and then ignored the promise in favor of Mao?

We will. The United States has a huge interest in Taiwan.

Why Taiwan Matters

By Michael Mazza
US strategic interest in Taiwan has grown in step with China’s advancing military modernization and increasing assertiveness. Yet some argue that the cross-Strait dispute is a relic of the Cold War—that there’s no reason that Taiwan should continue to be a source of tension in US-China relations.

Many of these commentators point to Taiwan and China’s closer economic ties, arguing that the two sides are willingly pursuing political integration. Cross-Strait tensions are certainly easing—why should Washington let a problem that’s resolving itself continue to challenge US ties with Beijing?

Proponents of this line of reasoning ignore the fact that the PLA has continued its fast-paced build-up of missiles across the Strait in spite of greater economic integration.

One critic of the current state of the US-Taiwan relationship recently warned of the negative consequences should the United States ‘interfere in the final stages of the Chinese civil war by backing Taiwan.’ But it seems odd to advocate in favour of an autocratic regime at a time when freedom-seeking peoples are overthrowing despotic rulers across the Middle East—even more so when one considers that, unlike in the Arab world, China exists in a region where democracy has already taken root.

That aside, the argument that the United States is taking Taiwan’s side is anyway less clear than many think. Yes, Washington has continued to sell defence items to Taipei. But both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations have also refused to sell those weapons that Taiwan most needs. During the Chen Shui-bian administration, Washington was adamant in its insistence that Taiwan not take any steps towards formal independence. More recently, Obama made significant concessions to Hu Jintao on Taiwan in their joint statement of 2009.

Indeed, Washington’s mistake is in not taking a clear side in the cross-Strait dispute. The United States should be more vigorously supporting its long-time democratic friend and partner. There are clear strategic reasons for doing so—reasons that are only growing in importance.

Not least of these is the increasing importance for the United States to been seen as both a reliable friend and a supporter of democratization. As China rises and puts increasing pressure on its neighbours—many of whom are US allies—it’s essential that those allies consider the United States to be a dependable security partner. Without that assurance, the region is more likely to descend into unwanted and unnecessary arms races, as countries work on their own to balance China and potentially each other as their military might grows.

Moreover, Taiwan’s continued existence as an independent, democratic state—and US support for it—can provide succour for liberals in China, who want representative government for their own country. Since the end of World War II, Americans have found that the spread of liberal democracy in Asia has benefitted their interests. An imposed reversal of liberalization in Taiwan would benefit no one but the Chinese Communist Party.

From an American point of view, there is, of course, a military-strategic imperative as well for Taiwan’s continued de facto independence. An annexed Taiwan almost certainly becomes a militarized Taiwan, home to both PLA air and naval bases. For China, the benefits of such bases are threefold. First, in the event of conflict in East Asia, the ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier,’ as Douglas MacArthur referred to Taiwan, will provide mainland China with strategic depth that it currently lacks. Any US forces steaming into the region will have to contend with Chinese military aircraft and naval vessels operating from Taiwan. Neutralization of bases on the island will likely be necessary prior to pursuing other primary objectives, thus complicating US calculations and military planning.

Second, an annexed Taiwan will allow China to easily threaten Japan’s southern flank, including US bases on Okinawa. Clashing strategic, economic, and nationalistic interests foreshadow a more antagonistic future for Sino-Japanese relations, and while Japan has foresworn the use of violence to settle international disputes, China most certainly hasn’t. It will be much more difficult for Japan to defend itself—and for the United States to defend its ally—if the islands face PLA threats emanating from Taiwan, from China’s east coast, and, perhaps one day, from the east coast of North Korea.

Finally, control of Taiwan will enable the PLA to more easily exert control over the Luzon Strait, the waterway connecting the South China Sea and the Philippine Sea. Control of the Strait is necessary for China to achieve its dual goals of enforcing its claims to sovereignty over the South China Sea and of keeping foreign military forces out of that body of water. Control of Taiwan and the Luzon Strait, moreover, will for the first time grant the PLA Navy easy access to the Philippine Sea and the Pacific Ocean beyond, providing China even greater strategic depth and, for the first time since 1941, allowing an Asian power to threaten Guam and Hawaii.

Taiwan isn’t a relic of the Cold War. Rather, it is situated at the geographic forefront of the strategic competition that very well may define the 21st century—that between the United States and China. The United States has long pursued a policy in Asia in which it provides security while promoting economic and political liberalization. The Taiwan of today is in many ways a fruit of that policy. Washington would soon regret any decision to drop its support for Taiwan and allow mainland China to annex the island nation. Only by continuing to nurture its relationship with Taipei and by continuing to steel the island against threats from the mainland can the United States hope to ensure continued peace in Asia.

Michael Mazza is a senior research associate at The American Enterprise Institute.



« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 01:38:13 PM by SPQR »

Online massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,021
    • Auktion Online
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2013, 01:45:15 PM »
We can easily nullify the treaty with the "Republic of China" by claiming that the USA for decades has recognized that there is only one China, and that our votes in the UN and elsewhere make clear that the China we recognize is not Taiwan.  Besides, OPapaDoc has already demonstrated that he is not bound by the law.  Why would he feel bound by a treaty, which has less authority?
"She only coughs when she lies."

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2013, 05:41:41 PM »
We can easily nullify the treaty with the "Republic of China" by claiming that the USA for decades has recognized that there is only one China, and that our votes in the UN and elsewhere make clear that the China we recognize is not Taiwan.  Besides, OPapaDoc has already demonstrated that he is not bound by the law.  Why would he feel bound by a treaty, which has less authority?

I do not think that we will not nullify the treaty with Taiwan. That is something a Democrat or an Obama like President will do. We have been fully committed to our treaties with other nations.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 05:43:20 PM by SPQR »

Online EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,780
  • Conspiracy engineer. Low rates.
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #10 on: December 28, 2013, 05:53:16 PM »
I do not think that we will not nullify the treaty with Taiwan. That is something a Democrat or an Obama like President will do. We have been fully committed to our treaties with other nations.

Well - not exactly.
The fastest way to a man's heart? Inch to the right of the breastbone, between the fourth and fifth rib.

Every time I start to feel boring, I remember there is a monthly magazine devoted to elevators.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #11 on: December 28, 2013, 05:54:23 PM »
Well - not exactly.

Provide me with an example. The only treaty we have nullified was the 1972 ABM Treaty in 2001. This treaty was constraining ourselves in the development of Ground Based Interceptors and strategic defense. The Russians have broken every treaty they have signed with us. We have honored every treaty we have signed with our allies.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 06:00:57 PM by SPQR »

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2013, 06:06:34 PM »
Provide me with an example. The only treaty we have nullified was the 1972 ABM Treaty in 2001. This treaty was constraining ourselves in the development of Ground Based Interceptors and strategic defense. The Russians have broken every treaty they have signed with us. We have honored every treaty we have signed with our allies.

It must be modern treaties. You cannot have treaties dating back into the 19th century

Online EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,780
  • Conspiracy engineer. Low rates.
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2013, 06:11:12 PM »
Provide me with an example. The only treaty we have nullified was the 1972 ABM Treaty in 2001. This treaty was constraining ourselves in the development of Ground Based Interceptors and strategic defense. The Russians have broken every treaty they have signed with us. We have honored every treaty we have signed with our allies.

1982. Falklands War. Despite a very long standing mutual defence treaty between the UK and the US, the US did zero to assist us. Didn't want boots on the ground, but we couldn't refuel in the usual places, had no satellite intel and no diplomatic assistance in reducing the loss of life. You can look it up and dispute it if you wish, but I have the advantage. I was physically there.

You guys may forget that. We don't. So yeah. Thanks for that. However, that was a long time ago. I trust Obama, Kerry and Hagel will do their duty by sticking to treaty obligations. After all, they have been models of trust and confidence to their allies so far this year.
The fastest way to a man's heart? Inch to the right of the breastbone, between the fourth and fifth rib.

Every time I start to feel boring, I remember there is a monthly magazine devoted to elevators.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2013, 06:16:03 PM »
1982. Falklands War. Despite a very long standing mutual defence treaty between the UK and the US, the US did zero to assist us. Didn't want boots on the ground, but we couldn't refuel in the usual places, had no satellite intel and no diplomatic assistance in reducing the loss of life. You can look it up and dispute it if you wish, but I have the advantage. I was physically there.

You guys may forget that. We don't. So yeah. Thanks for that. However, that was a long time ago. I trust Obama, Kerry and Hagel will do their duty by sticking to treaty obligations. After all, they have been models of trust and confidence to their allies so far this year.


We were not  involved in that war. That war was strictly between the UK and Argentina. We provided no ships or aircraft. The US almost took sides but it did not.

U.S. Neutrality and the Falklands

By Daniel Larison

Liam Hoare’s article on the U.S. and the Falklands comes to an odd conclusion:


Even today, the United States refuses to come to terms with the notion that Falklanders may wish to remain British [bold mine-DL]. The Falklands Islands are a self-governing territory protected by the British government, and in the first half of next year the people of those isles will partake in a referendum regarding sovereignty. It is the position of the British government to adhere to the outcome of the vote, a stance supported by a majority of the UK population. The State Department, however, when asked if the United States will “respect the referendum results” stated, “We will not speculate on a referendum that has not taken place. Our position remains one of neutrality.”

Neutrality is very different from “refusing to come to terms” with what the inhabitants of the Falklands want. Neutrality implies that the U.S. neither supports nor opposes either outcome, but that doesn’t mean that the U.S. will ignore or dismiss the Falkanders’ wishes to remain British if that is what they choose (as we all assume they will). Presumably if the Falklanders vote in favor of the status quo, the U.S. will “come to terms” with that. Then again, since it already is the status quo, that won’t be difficult.

Remaining neutral in the dispute makes the most sense for the U.S., which doesn’t need to insert itself into what is properly an internal matter of another state, and it certainly doesn’t need the headache that would come from saying anything more than this. As it is, the U.S. position of neutrality is considered to be insufficiently “pro-British,” and it would only complicate relations with Argentina and the other states that it has won over to its side in Latin America to take a more overtly pro-British position. The current position is in line with what Obama told Cameron the U.S. would do during the latter’s visit here, and Cameron seems to have been satisfied with that assurance.

Hoare’s comparison with Northern Ireland and references to Irish-American views of the conflict there don’t make a lot of sense in connection with the Falklands. Unlike in Northern Ireland, there has been no community on the Falklands that seeks to join itself to another country, and there has certainly been no armed rebellion against British control. Many Irish-Americans provided misguided and destructive support to the IRA in the past, but there is no comparable pro-Argentinean constituency in the U.S. that has any interest in the Falklands. There are not many Americans who would dispute Britain’s claim to the Falklands. U.S. neutrality in this matter isn’t informed by a continued push for “decolonization” or a tendency to see issues through the “lens of occupation.” It’s informed by the desire to maintain good relations with Britain and Argentina for the sake of American national interests

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/u-s-neutrality-and-the-falklands/
« Last Edit: December 28, 2013, 06:20:56 PM by SPQR »

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,006
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2013, 09:13:12 PM »
[[ You are forgetting that we have a mutual defense treay that was signed with Taiwan on December 2, 1954 ]]

That was then.
This is now.

America, in the age of Obama, is not going to war with China to "save" Taiwan.

For that matter, whatever America still exists _after_ Obama isn't going to do it, either.

That's reality, no matter what a piece of paper from 60 years ago says.

Online EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,780
  • Conspiracy engineer. Low rates.
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2013, 09:41:48 PM »
Quote
U.S. neutrality in this matter isn’t informed by a continued push for “decolonization” or a tendency to see issues through the “lens of occupation.” It’s informed by the desire to maintain good relations with Britain and Argentina for the sake of American national interests

So treaties are honored when it is convenient for US national interests. That is really going to cheer up the Taiwanese.

It seems, from this side of the pond, that the US has burned up it's goodwill with most of it's allies. We've been burned too many times to jump to the guns when the President calls for it.

Part of it might be the idiot in the WH. Part of it is disrespect - I mean, seriously, the country has been around for like 2 minutes, and both sides of the aisle are equally guilty of that. Part of it is being hung out to dry - repeatedly.

Whoever swears the oath in 2017 is going to have to spend a lot of time repairing fences and rebuilding bridges.
The fastest way to a man's heart? Inch to the right of the breastbone, between the fourth and fifth rib.

Every time I start to feel boring, I remember there is a monthly magazine devoted to elevators.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #17 on: December 28, 2013, 11:06:17 PM »
So treaties are honored when it is convenient for US national interests. That is really going to cheer up the Taiwanese.

It seems, from this side of the pond, that the US has burned up it's goodwill with most of it's allies. We've been burned too many times to jump to the guns when the President calls for it.

Part of it might be the idiot in the WH. Part of it is disrespect - I mean, seriously, the country has been around for like 2 minutes, and both sides of the aisle are equally guilty of that. Part of it is being hung out to dry - repeatedly.

Whoever swears the oath in 2017 is going to have to spend a lot of time repairing fences and rebuilding bridges.

As long we maintain our commitments to mutual defense treaties we signed in good faith I have no problems.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,753
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #18 on: December 28, 2013, 11:41:10 PM »
So treaties are honored when it is convenient for US national interests. That is really going to cheer up the Taiwanese.

It seems, from this side of the pond, that the US has burned up it's goodwill with most of it's allies. We've been burned too many times to jump to the guns when the President calls for it.

Part of it might be the idiot in the WH. Part of it is disrespect - I mean, seriously, the country has been around for like 2 minutes, and both sides of the aisle are equally guilty of that. Part of it is being hung out to dry - repeatedly.

Whoever swears the oath in 2017 is going to have to spend a lot of time repairing fences and rebuilding bridges.

It is most definitely the idiot in the White House and if the U.S. has anything to apologize for to the international community it's for how badly it's abused its friends and allies since Jan. 20, 2009.

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: Government body grim on Taiwan military prospects
« Reply #19 on: December 28, 2013, 11:43:43 PM »
It is most definitely the idiot in the White House and if the U.S. has anything to apologize for to the international community it's for how badly it's abused its friends and allies since Jan. 20, 2009.

I agree. The Obama Administration has been extremely abusive and neglectful toward our allies.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf