10 ms·

Nah. Seeing how China reneged on the "one country, two systems" promise and wrecked Hong Kong has turned the Taiwanese people more firmly against reunification.

by nradov 6mo ago

Nah. Seeing how China reneged on the "one country, two systems" promise and wrecked Hong Kong has turned the Taiwanese people more firmly against reunification. Iran would be attacking other nearby states regardless of whether they host US military bases. Iran has a long history of aggression, including sponsoring terrorist groups. Personally I favor a less interventionist US foreign policy but even if we completely disengaged from the Middle East it would still be a violent neighborhood — probably even more so.

pazimzadeh 6mo ago
> Iran has a long history of aggression, including sponsoring terrorist groups The US has a longer history of aggression and sponsoring terrorist groups: Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-pro... During the Iran–Iraq War, which began with the Iraqi invasion of Iran on 22 September 1980,[1] the United States adopted a policy of providing support to Iraq in the form of several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, dual-use technology, intelligence sharing (e.g., IMINT), and special operations training.[2] This U.S. support, along with support from most of the Arab world, proved vital in helping Iraq sustain military operations against Iran.[3] The documented sale of dual-use technology, with one notable example being Iraq's acquisition of 45 Bell helicopters in 1985,[4][5] was effectively a workaround for a ban on direct arms transfers; U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East dictated that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism because of the Iraqi government's historical ties with groups like the Palestinian Liberation Front and the Abu Nidal Organization, among others.[6] However, this designation was removed in 1982 to facilitate broader support for the Iraqis as the conflict dragged on in Iran's favour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq...
- _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - NomDePlum 6mo ago
    [dead]
  - Muehe 6mo ago
    > [...] Iran targeted Americans for acts of violence. Remind me, what happened in Iran in 1953?
  - bigyabai 6mo ago
    > Iran has been calling for the death and destruction of me, my family, and my country my entire life. America has been kidnapping, killing and torturing Iranian civilians since before you were born: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
    - _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
      [flagged]
      - bigyabai 6mo ago
        If 10 year old you was born in Shahist Iran, then you, your parents, your grandparents, your friends and your political leadership might be tortured or executed by the American regime for exercising free speech or opposing domestic policy. You are indeed luckier than those 10 year olds, for enduring death threats and not summary executions. Your fears are the ones lucky enough to be considered silly, theirs are mortal panic.
        _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
        [flagged]
        bigyabai 6mo ago
        "You see Timmy, your kneecaps are smashed because Mr. Nixon doesn't think you deserve free speech. Don't take it personally, and don't oppose us or your teeth are next." Which Timmy would you rather be?
- Sabinus 6mo ago
  The USA sending support to a state during a war specifically for that war is not supporting terrorism, even if the recipient has supported terrorism in the past. >This U.S. support, along with support from most of the Arab world, proved vital in helping Iraq sustain military operations against Iran.
  - pazimzadeh 6mo ago
    How do you ensure they only use it on that war? Is using chemical weapons on civilian targets in cities and villages not terrorism? Anyway, there are earlier and more direct instances of the US sponsoring terrorists groups.
    - Sabinus 6mo ago
      >How do you ensure they only use it on that war? Intelligence agencies. But you can't ensure it. >Is using chemical weapons on civilian targets in cities and villages not terrorism? I'm not an expert on the Iran-Iraq war and I'm a bit tired for research ATM but I'm going to assume the USA did not provide it's help for chemical weapons use, and that there was plenty of conventional conflict going on to provide assistance for. >Anyway, there are earlier and more direct instances of the US sponsoring terrorists groups. Sure, but we should point to when that happened. Not when the USA supported a government to do something at the same time as they did something bad.
      - pazimzadeh 6mo ago
        > I'm a bit tired for research ATM but I'm going to assume Hilarious but sad that this is the state of HN. After you get some rest consider reading the article. Maybe you can have it read to you like a audiobook, might be easier? Some of the original CIA documents are at the bottom. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-pro... https://archive.is/XWevr https://archive.is/XWevr I pulled some key quotes for you: In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks declassified CIA documents show that Casey and other top officials were repeatedly informed about Iraq’s chemical attacks and its plans for launching more The use of chemical weapons in war is banned under the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which states that parties “will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the” agreement. Iraq never ratified the protocol; the United States did in 1975. By 1988, U.S. intelligence was flowing freely to Hussein’s military. That March, Iraq launched a nerve gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in northern Iraq
oa335 6mo ago
[flagged]
- seanmcdirmid 6mo ago
  The KMT is not in power right now because they are pro-one china/unification. If it was just western-filtered copium, the KMT would not keep losing popular elections. The DPP remains in power because it isn’t the KMT. Your view, as a matter of fact, is mainland-filtered copium. Yes, the rich Taiwanese mainlanders who used to dominate Taiwan politics want a return to the past, but native Taiwanese are more populous and have less vested interest in unification with the mainland do not.
  - oa335 6mo ago
    > Your view, as a matter of fact, is mainland-filtered copium. Yes, the rich Taiwanese mainlanders who used to dominate Taiwan politics want a return to the past, but native Taiwanese are more populous and have less vested interest in unification with the mainland do not. Fair enough, and it seems that polls of Taiwanese support this view as well.
- Saline9515 6mo ago
  Maybe because the PCC is an authoritarian regime, with no respect for human rights (including using prisoners as living organ banks)?
  - dualvariable 6mo ago
    > an authoritarian regime, with no respect for human rights I mean Alex Pretti was murdered because he was exercising his 2nd amendment rights and was getting beaten after having been disarmed and never displaying his firearm. Headlines are full of people who are dying without medical care because they're being incarcerated and shipped overseas due to legal technicalities.
    - Saline9515 6mo ago
      Nice whataboutism, nothing has changed since the USSR, I see! The US also has its problems; this doesn't give the PCC a free pass. And those issues will likely go after the elections, something people in China haven't been able to do since the PCC took over the country. Anyway, shall I discuss the cultural genocide being committed on the Uighurs, or the Tibetans? Or, in a quite bizarre fashion, the descendants of the Mongols? [1] The goulags created during covid? And let's not talk about all the horrors of the Mao-era PCC. Etc, etc... [1]: https://www.economist.com/china/2023/12/20/why-chinas-rulers-fear-genghis-khan https://www.economist.com/china/2023/12/20/why-chinas-rulers...
statguy 6mo ago
The Taiwanese know they can't take on China directly, they now know that Western support is meaningless - in fact it pushes them more into conflict with China. Given a choice, I think the Taiwanese would prefer a Hong Kong like outcome to a Ukraine/UAE like outcome. AFAIK Iran never directly attacked several countries (e.g. UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi, Bahrain) before this war.
- fragmede 6mo ago
  The question you have to ask is, in the story of offense vs defense, can Taiwan mine that srait and deny China access, or does China posses anti-mine technology that counteracts that.
  - maxglute 6mo ago
    TW gets most of energy and calories from strait shipping. It would be PRC mining/denying TW for lulz if anything. Ultimately TW going to have to look to see if they want to be HKers, who got less retarded after kissing PRC boot (see HK kids going to SZ to party) or whether TW wants to be Gaza who capitulates to Israeli demand, because reality is with sufficient force asymmetry, one can destroy civic life enough to force capitulation. And PRC can do that to TW, trivially, with mainland fires alone. The only hold back is the "family across the strait" narrative. TW forceful reunification even if depopulated husk basically done deal, the real question is whether PRC wants to do an Iran and push US security out of east Asia, which is ultimate grand strategic goal. And to be blunt TW is perfect casus belli to spark this. PRC would be net worse off long run getting TW peacefully and but still deal with US security in region. Hence whether Iran can squeeze US out of CENTOM (even marginally) will set huge precedence.
    - statguy 6mo ago
      The down votes to this suggest that many in the west are in denial. China doesn’t need to fight a hot war with Taiwan, they can incrementally pressure Taiwan while their western allies issue impotent statements.
tim333 6mo ago
I think an EU type agreement might be the way to go. Separate countries but in a union. I know Xi would hate it as he wants to be the ruler of all but compare say France and Germany - years of peace under the EU arrangement with Ukraine / Russia with both countries getting wrecked.
- watwut 6mo ago
  EU style union is voluntary one. So no that cant happen.
- Sabinus 6mo ago
  That'll be far too close to the 'one country two systems' promise that China broke when it got control of Hong Kong to get Taiwan to voluntarily to sign up to it.

by nradov 6mo ago

pazimzadeh 6mo ago

> Iran has a long history of aggression, including sponsoring terrorist groups The US has a longer history of aggression and sponsoring terrorist groups: Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-pro... During the Iran–Iraq War, which began with the Iraqi invasion of Iran on 22 September 1980,[1] the United States adopted a policy of providing support to Iraq in the form of several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, dual-use technology, intelligence sharing (e.g., IMINT), and special operations training.[2] This U.S. support, along with support from most of the Arab world, proved vital in helping Iraq sustain military operations against Iran.[3] The documented sale of dual-use technology, with one notable example being Iraq's acquisition of 45 Bell helicopters in 1985,[4][5] was effectively a workaround for a ban on direct arms transfers; U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East dictated that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism because of the Iraqi government's historical ties with groups like the Palestinian Liberation Front and the Abu Nidal Organization, among others.[6] However, this designation was removed in 1982 to facilitate broader support for the Iraqis as the conflict dragged on in Iran's favour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq...

_DeadFred_ 6mo ago
[flagged]
- NomDePlum 6mo ago
  [dead]
- Muehe 6mo ago
  > [...] Iran targeted Americans for acts of violence. Remind me, what happened in Iran in 1953?
- bigyabai 6mo ago
  > Iran has been calling for the death and destruction of me, my family, and my country my entire life. America has been kidnapping, killing and torturing Iranian civilians since before you were born: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK
  - _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - bigyabai 6mo ago
      If 10 year old you was born in Shahist Iran, then you, your parents, your grandparents, your friends and your political leadership might be tortured or executed by the American regime for exercising free speech or opposing domestic policy. You are indeed luckier than those 10 year olds, for enduring death threats and not summary executions. Your fears are the ones lucky enough to be considered silly, theirs are mortal panic.
      - _DeadFred_ 6mo ago
        [flagged]
        bigyabai 6mo ago
        "You see Timmy, your kneecaps are smashed because Mr. Nixon doesn't think you deserve free speech. Don't take it personally, and don't oppose us or your teeth are next." Which Timmy would you rather be?
Sabinus 6mo ago
The USA sending support to a state during a war specifically for that war is not supporting terrorism, even if the recipient has supported terrorism in the past. >This U.S. support, along with support from most of the Arab world, proved vital in helping Iraq sustain military operations against Iran.
- pazimzadeh 6mo ago
  How do you ensure they only use it on that war? Is using chemical weapons on civilian targets in cities and villages not terrorism? Anyway, there are earlier and more direct instances of the US sponsoring terrorists groups.
  - Sabinus 6mo ago
    >How do you ensure they only use it on that war? Intelligence agencies. But you can't ensure it. >Is using chemical weapons on civilian targets in cities and villages not terrorism? I'm not an expert on the Iran-Iraq war and I'm a bit tired for research ATM but I'm going to assume the USA did not provide it's help for chemical weapons use, and that there was plenty of conventional conflict going on to provide assistance for. >Anyway, there are earlier and more direct instances of the US sponsoring terrorists groups. Sure, but we should point to when that happened. Not when the USA supported a government to do something at the same time as they did something bad.
    - pazimzadeh 6mo ago
      > I'm a bit tired for research ATM but I'm going to assume Hilarious but sad that this is the state of HN. After you get some rest consider reading the article. Maybe you can have it read to you like a audiobook, might be easier? Some of the original CIA documents are at the bottom. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-pro... https://archive.is/XWevr https://archive.is/XWevr I pulled some key quotes for you: In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent. The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks declassified CIA documents show that Casey and other top officials were repeatedly informed about Iraq’s chemical attacks and its plans for launching more The use of chemical weapons in war is banned under the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which states that parties “will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the” agreement. Iraq never ratified the protocol; the United States did in 1975. By 1988, U.S. intelligence was flowing freely to Hussein’s military. That March, Iraq launched a nerve gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in northern Iraq

oa335 6mo ago

[flagged]

seanmcdirmid 6mo ago
The KMT is not in power right now because they are pro-one china/unification. If it was just western-filtered copium, the KMT would not keep losing popular elections. The DPP remains in power because it isn’t the KMT. Your view, as a matter of fact, is mainland-filtered copium. Yes, the rich Taiwanese mainlanders who used to dominate Taiwan politics want a return to the past, but native Taiwanese are more populous and have less vested interest in unification with the mainland do not.
- oa335 6mo ago
  > Your view, as a matter of fact, is mainland-filtered copium. Yes, the rich Taiwanese mainlanders who used to dominate Taiwan politics want a return to the past, but native Taiwanese are more populous and have less vested interest in unification with the mainland do not. Fair enough, and it seems that polls of Taiwanese support this view as well.
Saline9515 6mo ago
Maybe because the PCC is an authoritarian regime, with no respect for human rights (including using prisoners as living organ banks)?
- dualvariable 6mo ago
  > an authoritarian regime, with no respect for human rights I mean Alex Pretti was murdered because he was exercising his 2nd amendment rights and was getting beaten after having been disarmed and never displaying his firearm. Headlines are full of people who are dying without medical care because they're being incarcerated and shipped overseas due to legal technicalities.
  - Saline9515 6mo ago
    Nice whataboutism, nothing has changed since the USSR, I see! The US also has its problems; this doesn't give the PCC a free pass. And those issues will likely go after the elections, something people in China haven't been able to do since the PCC took over the country. Anyway, shall I discuss the cultural genocide being committed on the Uighurs, or the Tibetans? Or, in a quite bizarre fashion, the descendants of the Mongols? [1] The goulags created during covid? And let's not talk about all the horrors of the Mao-era PCC. Etc, etc... [1]: https://www.economist.com/china/2023/12/20/why-chinas-rulers-fear-genghis-khan https://www.economist.com/china/2023/12/20/why-chinas-rulers...

statguy 6mo ago

The Taiwanese know they can't take on China directly, they now know that Western support is meaningless - in fact it pushes them more into conflict with China. Given a choice, I think the Taiwanese would prefer a Hong Kong like outcome to a Ukraine/UAE like outcome. AFAIK Iran never directly attacked several countries (e.g. UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi, Bahrain) before this war.

fragmede 6mo ago
The question you have to ask is, in the story of offense vs defense, can Taiwan mine that srait and deny China access, or does China posses anti-mine technology that counteracts that.
- maxglute 6mo ago
  TW gets most of energy and calories from strait shipping. It would be PRC mining/denying TW for lulz if anything. Ultimately TW going to have to look to see if they want to be HKers, who got less retarded after kissing PRC boot (see HK kids going to SZ to party) or whether TW wants to be Gaza who capitulates to Israeli demand, because reality is with sufficient force asymmetry, one can destroy civic life enough to force capitulation. And PRC can do that to TW, trivially, with mainland fires alone. The only hold back is the "family across the strait" narrative. TW forceful reunification even if depopulated husk basically done deal, the real question is whether PRC wants to do an Iran and push US security out of east Asia, which is ultimate grand strategic goal. And to be blunt TW is perfect casus belli to spark this. PRC would be net worse off long run getting TW peacefully and but still deal with US security in region. Hence whether Iran can squeeze US out of CENTOM (even marginally) will set huge precedence.
  - statguy 6mo ago
    The down votes to this suggest that many in the west are in denial. China doesn’t need to fight a hot war with Taiwan, they can incrementally pressure Taiwan while their western allies issue impotent statements.

tim333 6mo ago

I think an EU type agreement might be the way to go. Separate countries but in a union. I know Xi would hate it as he wants to be the ruler of all but compare say France and Germany - years of peace under the EU arrangement with Ukraine / Russia with both countries getting wrecked.

watwut 6mo ago
EU style union is voluntary one. So no that cant happen.
Sabinus 6mo ago
That'll be far too close to the 'one country two systems' promise that China broke when it got control of Hong Kong to get Taiwan to voluntarily to sign up to it.