5 ms·

China will do everything it can to keep the factories in a war, it’s likely the US would offer a lot of Taiwanese US visas especially those in tech, it’s likely

China will do everything it can to keep the factories in a war, it’s likely the US would offer a lot of Taiwanese US visas especially those in tech, it’s likely the Taiwanese people will have a general strike and the whole place will be very unpleasant to live in after probably many hundreds of thousands of Chinese dead due to choke points getting onto the island. It’s likely after an invasion most production for the West will have to move to other cheaper countries. I can’t see how we can do business with a country that invaded a democratic country. I really don’t get why China care so much or the CCP see their hold over China as so weak they don’t want to be a part of the world system. But it’s their loss and America will have a clear competitor to focus minds and have a Cold War with again.

Dah00n 5y ago
>I can’t see how we can do business with a country that invaded a democratic country. Where do we draw the line? Because there is one country in the western world that would be banned from trade if destroying democracies are not allowed. It is also the only country in the world that has toppled governments so many times it has its own Wikipedia article. So unless you define it as only "full-scale invasion" the US would have to be put outside.
- babayega2 5y ago
  As someone from Africa with knowledge of USA involvement in toppling some governments here, I sometimes wonder who's worst? A country I know for certain it has invaded unilaterally others (USA) or a country with potential of one day in the future for invading countries (China).
  - onetimemanytime 5y ago
    OK, in theory you are right. But I doubt the average citizen lost from that. Did those guys win elections or just stole them /took power by gun to loot the country?
    - Dah00n 5y ago
      That...is a very racist view of African governments.
      - ReptileMan 5y ago
        Sorry. Saying that region is a mess full with strongmans, dictators and other unsavory people on top is not racist. North of Africa is a mess. A lot of Sub-Saharan is ruled by strongmen. And even the places where there is actually democracy the state apparatus usually tries to rig elections in favor of current rulers. Both by territory and population I am willing to bet that the people that live in countries with free and fair elections with peaceful transitions between administrations are a minority.
    - MrsPeaches 5y ago
      Patrice Lumumba [1] won an election and was removed and assassinated by the US and Belgian governments. They replaced him with Mobutu Sese Seko a kleptocratic and murderous dictator, whom they supported for most of his reign. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobutu_Sese_Seko https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobutu_Sese_Seko
      - 0dayz 5y ago
        Maybe read your sources before posting: "The report concluded that Belgium had not ordered Lumumba's assassination" And "In 2013, the U.S. State Department admitted that President Eisenhower authorized the murder of Lumumba. However, documents released in 2017 revealed that an American role in Lumumba's murder was only under consideration by the CIA. CIA Chief Allan Dulles had allocated $100,000 to accomplish the act, but the plan was not carried out."
        MrsPeaches 5y ago
        It does also say: "In the early 21st century, writer Ludo De Witte found written orders from the Belgian government that had requested Lumumba's execution, and documents on various arrangements, such as death squads" I realise that this may be a bit of confirmation bias on my side, regarding which of these I believe.
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    I can't say which outcome will be better but I do personally like China's way of buying their way in with money, roads, etc. better than the "old way" with selling guns to rebels, using CIA agents etc. I wish both would stop meddling in Africa though. Such a horrific history of greed. I'm curious how you see the difference though?
    - devoutsalsa 5y ago
      Small correction... China’s belt & road initiative is more about lending than buying.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        It’s more nuanced than that. They lend, sure, but the terms often involve them flying in their own labor force from the mainland to do the building - with Chinese materials of course - meaning they have basically no skin in the game. Then, when the host country defaults on its obligations the PRC owns the infrastructure they built, and leverage their largesse to hold onto the infrastructure until it makes sense, or incorporate it into new plans. The southern port in Sri Lanka, Hambatonta. [1] > “John Adams said infamously that a way to subjugate a country is through either the sword or debt. China has chosen the latter,” said Brahma Chellaney, an analyst who often advises the Indian government and is affiliated with the Center for Policy Research, a think tank in New Delhi. Careful not to underestimate the PRC. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank...
      - babayega2 5y ago
        I work with some UN and Bretton Woods institutions lending money to Africa and I can tell you that IMF/WB are also lending us money. They take "your hard earned savings" and come in here and invest her so that they can make future profits and grow the saving funds. If USA give you his money, as head of state you need to understand that it is not for the joy of it but that money need to yield interest or you will be toppled. This is not your money, it's American Savings! China is doing the same, just blatantly and with the bashing for the west. [We] see you two .
  - elefanten 5y ago
    Please share the examples of the US “unilaterally invading” countries in Africa. I’m not aware of an example, but I’d love to learn something new. If you are using fuzzy rhetoric to refer to various forms of political interference (clandestine or otherwise, legal or otherwise)... I would agree. But then the comparison vs. China and other world powers gets a lot muddier. Even the comparison between world powers and local powers gets muddy in that case. Politics, local or global, is historically ugly business. The key global questions should be what frameworks of behavior do we want to condone? What justifications do we allow as legitimate nation-state motivations? How is it acceptable for states to treat their own people? (The last is particularly relevant when a state contains approximately 1/5th of humanity itself.) Does China really offer a better vision to you?
    - smcl 5y ago
      You have misread the comment and mixed up two separate but undeniably true things: 1. "... USA involvement in toppling some governments here" - if we go by the 20th and 21st Centuries we have at least Egypt (1952), Angola (from 1975 onwards), Congo/Zaire (1960s, 1977, 1978, 1996) and most recently Libya (2011). 2. "A country I know for certain it has invaded unilaterally others (USA)" - so numerous and well known it's pointless to bother listing them.
      - elefanten 5y ago
        The comment was written in a way that seemed to casually comingle the two claims. Your #2, despite your smug certainty, is wrong as well. Go ahead and name some. I promise none were “unilateral invasions”.
      - tekknik 5y ago
        Both of these were mixed up in a parent post. Chinas version of this includes forced communism, and a whole slew of lost freedoms as a result. When was the last time the US took away freedoms from an “elected” gov? Also who elected these govs? Free or forced citizens?
- vagrantJin 5y ago
  [Retracted]
  - ta_ca 5y ago
    i think you may have misunderstood him, you both are talking about the same thing
    - vagrantJin 5y ago
      Noted. I've retracted my statement.
mschuster91 5y ago
> after probably many hundreds of thousands of Chinese dead due to choke points getting onto the island I wouldn't put it past China to simply flatten the entire island or at least everything surrounding these chokepoints with conventional bombs until submission and genocide whoever remains alive afterwards.
- andy_ppp 5y ago
  They want the island as much for the people and technology as they do the land. They have plenty of land. The choke points can be bombed from anywhere on the island and even from cruise missiles.
- powerapple 5y ago
  China does not want to take over Taiwan other than not having a non-US-ally close at door. Previous government of Taiwan had good relationship with China, although China didn't allow them to join WHO as an independent country, it did permit it to join WHA and WHO as a non-member state. China's trade deficit with Taiwan is tens of billions dollars every year. It is just that US's strategy of containing China works really well with the pro-independence party in Taiwan. Anyone allowing Taiwan to be fully independent will lose power in China. It is mainly a proxy power fight between US and China. Taiwan is the most important spot in the first pearl chain containing China. China will have to make a decision either to break the chain or be contained forever. It is a interesting year, since we already have three or four wars broke out this year so far.
  - andy_ppp 5y ago
    Business as usual you could say...
  - elefanten 5y ago
    This is wholly contradicted by decades of Chinese statecraft and diplomacy, and more recently and directly by Xi’s repeated, insistent rhetoric about unification. They badly want Taiwan. Not at any cost, but certainly at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives —- especially those of the ‘ungrateful’ and ‘unruly’ Taiwanese. The existence of trade between them in no way contradicts those desires.
mrtweetyhack 5y ago
like we still do business after they invade HK?

Dah00n 5y ago

>I can’t see how we can do business with a country that invaded a democratic country. Where do we draw the line? Because there is one country in the western world that would be banned from trade if destroying democracies are not allowed. It is also the only country in the world that has toppled governments so many times it has its own Wikipedia article. So unless you define it as only "full-scale invasion" the US would have to be put outside.

babayega2 5y ago
As someone from Africa with knowledge of USA involvement in toppling some governments here, I sometimes wonder who's worst? A country I know for certain it has invaded unilaterally others (USA) or a country with potential of one day in the future for invading countries (China).
- onetimemanytime 5y ago
  OK, in theory you are right. But I doubt the average citizen lost from that. Did those guys win elections or just stole them /took power by gun to loot the country?
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    That...is a very racist view of African governments.
    - ReptileMan 5y ago
      Sorry. Saying that region is a mess full with strongmans, dictators and other unsavory people on top is not racist. North of Africa is a mess. A lot of Sub-Saharan is ruled by strongmen. And even the places where there is actually democracy the state apparatus usually tries to rig elections in favor of current rulers. Both by territory and population I am willing to bet that the people that live in countries with free and fair elections with peaceful transitions between administrations are a minority.
  - MrsPeaches 5y ago
    Patrice Lumumba [1] won an election and was removed and assassinated by the US and Belgian governments. They replaced him with Mobutu Sese Seko a kleptocratic and murderous dictator, whom they supported for most of his reign. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobutu_Sese_Seko https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobutu_Sese_Seko
    - 0dayz 5y ago
      Maybe read your sources before posting: "The report concluded that Belgium had not ordered Lumumba's assassination" And "In 2013, the U.S. State Department admitted that President Eisenhower authorized the murder of Lumumba. However, documents released in 2017 revealed that an American role in Lumumba's murder was only under consideration by the CIA. CIA Chief Allan Dulles had allocated $100,000 to accomplish the act, but the plan was not carried out."
      - MrsPeaches 5y ago
        It does also say: "In the early 21st century, writer Ludo De Witte found written orders from the Belgian government that had requested Lumumba's execution, and documents on various arrangements, such as death squads" I realise that this may be a bit of confirmation bias on my side, regarding which of these I believe.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  I can't say which outcome will be better but I do personally like China's way of buying their way in with money, roads, etc. better than the "old way" with selling guns to rebels, using CIA agents etc. I wish both would stop meddling in Africa though. Such a horrific history of greed. I'm curious how you see the difference though?
  - devoutsalsa 5y ago
    Small correction... China’s belt & road initiative is more about lending than buying.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      It’s more nuanced than that. They lend, sure, but the terms often involve them flying in their own labor force from the mainland to do the building - with Chinese materials of course - meaning they have basically no skin in the game. Then, when the host country defaults on its obligations the PRC owns the infrastructure they built, and leverage their largesse to hold onto the infrastructure until it makes sense, or incorporate it into new plans. The southern port in Sri Lanka, Hambatonta. [1] > “John Adams said infamously that a way to subjugate a country is through either the sword or debt. China has chosen the latter,” said Brahma Chellaney, an analyst who often advises the Indian government and is affiliated with the Center for Policy Research, a think tank in New Delhi. Careful not to underestimate the PRC. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank...
    - babayega2 5y ago
      I work with some UN and Bretton Woods institutions lending money to Africa and I can tell you that IMF/WB are also lending us money. They take "your hard earned savings" and come in here and invest her so that they can make future profits and grow the saving funds. If USA give you his money, as head of state you need to understand that it is not for the joy of it but that money need to yield interest or you will be toppled. This is not your money, it's American Savings! China is doing the same, just blatantly and with the bashing for the west. [We] see you two .
- elefanten 5y ago
  Please share the examples of the US “unilaterally invading” countries in Africa. I’m not aware of an example, but I’d love to learn something new. If you are using fuzzy rhetoric to refer to various forms of political interference (clandestine or otherwise, legal or otherwise)... I would agree. But then the comparison vs. China and other world powers gets a lot muddier. Even the comparison between world powers and local powers gets muddy in that case. Politics, local or global, is historically ugly business. The key global questions should be what frameworks of behavior do we want to condone? What justifications do we allow as legitimate nation-state motivations? How is it acceptable for states to treat their own people? (The last is particularly relevant when a state contains approximately 1/5th of humanity itself.) Does China really offer a better vision to you?
  - smcl 5y ago
    You have misread the comment and mixed up two separate but undeniably true things: 1. "... USA involvement in toppling some governments here" - if we go by the 20th and 21st Centuries we have at least Egypt (1952), Angola (from 1975 onwards), Congo/Zaire (1960s, 1977, 1978, 1996) and most recently Libya (2011). 2. "A country I know for certain it has invaded unilaterally others (USA)" - so numerous and well known it's pointless to bother listing them.
    - elefanten 5y ago
      The comment was written in a way that seemed to casually comingle the two claims. Your #2, despite your smug certainty, is wrong as well. Go ahead and name some. I promise none were “unilateral invasions”.
    - tekknik 5y ago
      Both of these were mixed up in a parent post. Chinas version of this includes forced communism, and a whole slew of lost freedoms as a result. When was the last time the US took away freedoms from an “elected” gov? Also who elected these govs? Free or forced citizens?
vagrantJin 5y ago
[Retracted]
- ta_ca 5y ago
  i think you may have misunderstood him, you both are talking about the same thing
  - vagrantJin 5y ago
    Noted. I've retracted my statement.

mschuster91 5y ago

> after probably many hundreds of thousands of Chinese dead due to choke points getting onto the island I wouldn't put it past China to simply flatten the entire island or at least everything surrounding these chokepoints with conventional bombs until submission and genocide whoever remains alive afterwards.

andy_ppp 5y ago
They want the island as much for the people and technology as they do the land. They have plenty of land. The choke points can be bombed from anywhere on the island and even from cruise missiles.
powerapple 5y ago
China does not want to take over Taiwan other than not having a non-US-ally close at door. Previous government of Taiwan had good relationship with China, although China didn't allow them to join WHO as an independent country, it did permit it to join WHA and WHO as a non-member state. China's trade deficit with Taiwan is tens of billions dollars every year. It is just that US's strategy of containing China works really well with the pro-independence party in Taiwan. Anyone allowing Taiwan to be fully independent will lose power in China. It is mainly a proxy power fight between US and China. Taiwan is the most important spot in the first pearl chain containing China. China will have to make a decision either to break the chain or be contained forever. It is a interesting year, since we already have three or four wars broke out this year so far.
- andy_ppp 5y ago
  Business as usual you could say...
- elefanten 5y ago
  This is wholly contradicted by decades of Chinese statecraft and diplomacy, and more recently and directly by Xi’s repeated, insistent rhetoric about unification. They badly want Taiwan. Not at any cost, but certainly at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives —- especially those of the ‘ungrateful’ and ‘unruly’ Taiwanese. The existence of trade between them in no way contradicts those desires.

mrtweetyhack 5y ago

like we still do business after they invade HK?