Hmm... this could potential be a shaky subject. You'd think the U.S. would support Taiwan's call for independence from an oppressive regime. Oh..wait I forget that China's an "ally", actually does have nukes, and doesn't have any oil. My bad.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Interestingly, though, the anti-UN fellow that Bush has nominated to be our UN ambassador is apparently a fan of Taiwanese independence.
This situation could get... sticky.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:In the event of any conflict, China would take the utmost care to protect civilians and foreigners, as well as their property, Wang stressed.
That's the funniest thing I've seen all week.
Just yesterday, Miami Herald reported China's announcment "We will never release our claim on Tiawan".
Not much point negotianting with that.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
*shrug* Thats essentially the same claim that the US made before going into Iraq and Iraq wasn't even recognised by most of the world as being theirs. Why would China want to damage their own province, albeit renegade?
But taking off the devil's advocate hat and putting on the, uh, other devil's advocate hat.
What the heck would you have the US do? Go to war over a new *law*? If you accept the claim that the US should be going around the world changing dictatorships to democracies, then getting the crap kicked out of you in a two-front war is not the best idea if you want to continue doing so. Keep in mind that the Chinese government is probably one of the biggest investors in the US currency (and without them, that the US dollar would sink like a rock) making even an economic war unlikely, what the heck would you do?
*taking off hat*
Yes, sometimes its fun making fun of the US and its policies, but lets not get carried away. Saying that the US is hypocritical because it doesn't go to war with every nation that it disagrees with (N. Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) just to slam its involvement in Iraq is a non-starter.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Everyone's a "fan" of Taiwanese independence. (except the Chinese, of course)
It's not as though anyone will go to war to support Tiawan as an independant country: it would be impossible to assure that China would not invade once whatever showdown senario was over and besides, China likes to make a big deal out of their rather lax ownership of Tiawan.
It's a money-maker for them so communism is let slide whenever possible.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, let me rephrase. The guy has been known to explicitly state support for Taiwanese independence even while the administration officially waffles on the subject to appease China.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, his vocal support makes him look good to all the countries that we're already pals with and in in line with Bush's "spreading freedom" line of thinking.
He's not exactly going out on a limb.
He can both publicly state (as a US representative) that he's all for Tiwanese independance and the administration can tell China that his viewpoint is just his own opinion.
Besides, this guy may have further political aspirations that his "pro-freedom" stance sure wont hurt.
Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
Personally, I don't agree with China's point of view, but I can still understand it if I reach back into the dark recesses of my memory. After all, Taiwan's Nationalist Party had been talking about reunification for literally decades after the revolution, let alone China (now that it has gained economic momentum). I remember back in Taiwan we were taught to be upset that Mongolia was now its own country, rather than part of China.
As pissed of as I am at China's attitude, I don't see them disturbing the status quo unless Taiwan actually declares independence.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Fuck China's POV: the Tiwanese people probably dont want to become faceless masses like the rest of China's populace.
For example, it's estimated three large earthquakes killed thousands of people in China last year, bur western reporters were not even allowed to view the area and were told that humanitarian help was "not needed".
China wants to simmularly "protect" Tiawan from the West's interference.
Those noy humanitarian relief workers: always trying to embarass China by saving countless lives. They should mind their own business. Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Big diffrence between a leader saying that "others need more help than us," and another not wanting anyone to see how bad things are in their country.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
The point being that there are big political issues having to do with both giving aid and receiving aid in even countries that are traditionally US allies. So I'd hardly consider a refusal of aid by a rival nation to be anything but business as usual and not any evil cover-up.
There's a good passage:
quote: And finally, like it or not, when it comes to disaster assistance, both recipient and donor nations play games all the time. A study titled The Politics of Humanitarian Aid: US Foreign Disaster Assistance, 1964-1995, by political scientist A Cooper Drury of the University of Missouri at Columbia and other researchers, presents some disturbing findings.
The authors conclude that the decision by the US government on whether to help a country after a disaster is markedly political. The size of the aid package is somewhat less so, though it is to a great extent influenced by media coverage of a tragedy: one article in the New York Times is worth more disaster aid dollars than 1 500 fatalities, it says.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, the notion that only "newsworthy" disasters get bigtime aid is dispicable.
I was more pointing out the "none of your business" attitude China has taken when there's a disaster: the recent coal mine explosion comes to mind. Hard to believe they initially told reporters this was not a major incident (untill reports leaked and chinese reporters told the story the day after).
The Chinese government never wants to show the world anything but it's notion of stability. They feel even natural disasters are "an embarassment".
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I'm curious what would happen if a situation arose (like Yellowstone completely blowing its top) where the U.S. would need outside aid? How many countries would withhold aid in order to do some political wrangling?
B.J.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Well, I wouldn't have thought all that many. The Chinese, possibly, maybe the Russians. I don't think the Continentals would, although I'm sure they'd rub in the fact that the US needed their help.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Not giving the US aid would be a really stupid thing to do. American goodwill is always a good thing to have.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: Well, I wouldn't have thought all that many. The Chinese, possibly, maybe the Russians. I don't think the Continentals would, although I'm sure they'd rub in the fact that the US needed their help.
France probably would wrangle and posture a bit- not bashing France itelf here- Chiriac has campaigned on his anti-Bush sentiment.
China would probably not help and while Russia is strapped for cash, they'd help anyway.
Britan and Japan would probably be first to help financially and Canada woud be there with physical reief aid immeadeately.
Really, all the countries that helped immeadeately after 9/11 without reservations would help in any disaster.
Dispite Bush's blundering, the US's friends are there for the long haul....as in long after Bush is out of office.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
1.) When you owe the bank one hundred dollars, you have a problem. When you owe the bank one trillion dollars, the bank has a problem.
2.) What nations hold the largest amounts of U.S. Treasury bonds?
This is all somewhat moot anyway, though, since it is hard to imagine a quick disaster (as opposed to a long-term economic decline) that would affect only the United States. And why is Yellowstone the hip disaster these days?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It just sounds cool. "Tonight on ABC....The Yellowstone Disaster...based on a true story."
The only major disaster that wuld require a flood of international aid would be either a terrorist attack (in which case the aid would be mainly logistic and inteligence) or some nuclear plant nightmare (a Chernoybol like disaster in the US would affect Canada and Mexico as well).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: 2.) What nations hold the largest amounts of U.S. Treasury bonds?
This is all somewhat moot anyway, though, since it is hard to imagine a quick disaster (as opposed to a long-term economic decline) that would affect only the United States.
Way too tired to think about what you're getting at but there's this. http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt with the three biggest being Japan by far, then China and the UK comparable, Caribbean banking centres (hmmm....), and the rest fall relatively speaking pretty quickly.
Maybe a very major earthquake in California? A serious Black Death-level disease outbreak?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
As an aside, I know the UK is scheduled to finally finish paying off the US for World War II next year.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
But that was kind of worth it, right?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Well, yeah. I was just mentioning it, seeing as we were talking about America and money.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: As an aside, I know the UK is scheduled to finally finish paying off the US for World War II next year.
Then you can (mabye) afford membership in the EU, right?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Yes, so we can give them even more of our money to waste thinking up new ways to ruin our economy and bring us under the oligarchic, undemocratic rule of Brussels.
Not that I really care all that much, of course...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)