Would the US act if China invaded Taiwan?

I don't understand why you don't understand what I'm trying to convey.

I accept...

* We will help our ally.
* China is being obnoxious.
* We have the best military in the world.
* We have nuclear power.
* Our government is mostly stupid and liars.

How is **protecting** our ally HELPING if we keep them alive and then they are dying of radiation from nuclear weapons?

 

It is better to die than to be conquered and enslaved.

Or, like they said during the cold war: Better Dead Than Red.

 

Did you do a poll of those people to know that is their position or are we just, once again, liberating people in an attempt to force our values (well, not *our* values because they are clearly non-existent lately) onto other cultures? That was very successful back when...oh, wait...never.

 

Oh yes, how dare we do that!

I forget, that is the claim of every nation that invades another then tries to take it over. Iraq was "liberating" Kuwait. Germany was "liberating" most of Europe. After "liberating" the Crimea and parts of Georgia, Russia is now "liberating" Ukraine.

And I guess you are perfectly fine with that. You seem to like the idea of China "liberating" Taiwan.

Well, I guess there is nothing to be said then, you fully support that kind of "liberation".

 

I guess you're having a boring Sunday if you have time to start a fiction novel.

Spoiler alert...I never said that I'm okay with China invading Taiwan.

 

It time to accept the threat that everything is a "nuclear threat". No one needs to be reminded that the threat goes both ways. No rational leader will simply say "it's not all that bad, let's go for it!"
My big worry is China, Russia, NoKo, and Iran getting together and wondering "I wonder what the world would be like without America? Let's find out." and all three launch together.

 

I think it is safe to assume that people do not want to be conquered and enslaved.

 

That's not the question I asked.

 

Sanctions, - Yes

Boots on the ground, - No way

Probably not. With Ukraine he "acted" by praising Putin, and he would probably do the same with Taiwan.

He would consult with foreign policy experts would would probably tell him the cost in American blood and treasure in WW-3 would off the charts, and then hopefully ask the Congress (its up to Congress to declare war).

Its not our duty to fight other people's wars.

 

Actually, that is not true.

He "praised" the way the attack was done, not that it was done. It is a huge difference, but the common media is constantly pushing an almost fanatical anti-Trump message so that no longer surprises me.

And in the same way, I can praise how in December 1941 the way Japan conducted 3 major simultaneous offensives, in a complete communication blackout without news of any of the three leaking prior to the commencement of fighting.

But that is not the same thing as saying I praise that they did the attacks. President Trump never praised that Russia attacked, simply in the way they covered it to create so much confusion as nobody knew for sure if it was going to happen, when, or where.

 

Well to answer your question, no. I did not poll them to ask them if they wanted to be conquered and enslaved.

But... is this something that even needs to be asked?

 

Thanks for answering my question.

I posit that it is.

Have you ever witnessed any exchanges and interpersonal communications inside a civil courtroom? Domestic violence center? Juvenile hall? Prison? Jail? Counseling center. Community health clinic? Homeless shelter? Detention center?

 

You're welcome.

I don't think it is necessary to ask this. I think it can be safely assumed that people do not want to be conquered and enslaved.

Look at Ukraine for an example of this.

I was in a courtroom of some sort once for a wedding. I have no idea what sort of courtroom it was. It looked like there were only six seats in what I assume was the jury box.

Other than that wedding, I have never been in any of those places that you listed.

 

Psychology, people only fight back if the circumstances they are in are too much to bear. Otherwise, people will repeat the same mistakes if that's more familiar.

Look at Afghanistan for an example of this. We spent 20 years and billions of dollars and countless lives for them to end up basically where they started.

It sounds like a traditional court room. Judges are also "Justices of the Peace" and can officiate weddings. All that is required is the licensed officiant and two witnesses. I was married and divorced by the same judge.

The one thing all those places have in common is the sociology model and psychology foundation that a person has to want to change themselves or all the help in the world won't do any good. This is why addicts have to reach "rock bottom" and no amount of nagging, negative consequences (ie. divorce, termination, estrangement, etc.) will push him or her to do that. The only volition that will have any impact is self-motivation.

This does not mean that it's negative to help others but we can't *force* someone to want something different for themselves. It's hard enough to change oneself. It's damn near impossible to change anybody else.

 

We betrayed Afghanistan and abandoned them, just like we did to South Vietnam, and just like we did to the Kurds. There were lots of people in Afghanistan who wanted to be free.

I'm pretty sure that Taiwan wants for China to not conquer and enslave them.

I'm likewise pretty sure that Ukraine wants Russia to not conquer and enslave them.

No, I haven't taken a poll. It's just a gut instinct.

 

~ Sad but true ...

 

And in each and every case the US did so as a means to justifying the ends.

The US played the Kurds to create political turmoil between Iraq and Iran -- both have sizeable Kurdish populations -- to get Saddam and the Shah to do what the US wanted them to do.

Later, the US played the Kurds in order to create a No-Fly Zone over Iraq, because that the NFZ justified maintaining a military presence in the region until an opportune time arose for the US could move to achieve its objective, which was control of Iraq.

9-11 provided that opportune time.

The US abandoned Vietnam because it was abandoning the Pacific Rim Geo-Strategy and embarking on a new Geo-Political Strategy that had nothing to do with Southeast Asia.

The reason Nixon went to China was to gain security assurances for certain of our allies, namely, South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Part of the compromise was the "One-China" policy, so Taiwan doesn't fit into the equation, and the US would pull out of Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines, plus close a number of island military facilities.

There's a reason the US abandoned Afghanistan.

Nobody is drinking the "Iran's got nukes" Kool-Aid®.

Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. You should know that because your Media is telling you they don't.

Your Media uses the Orwellian term "nuclear program." If Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, your Media would use the correct term "nuclear weapons program" which I would point out is separate and distinct from "nuclear energy program."

Look for a false flag event in the near future, say 5-6 years.

The US will falsely accuse Iran and the Taliban of being in cahoots, and then use that as justification to invade Iran, and also re-invade Afghanistan.

Then the Ukrainians should have entered into a bilateral treaty with Russia prohibiting the US/NATO from basing aircraft there which will be used to enforce a No-Fly Zone over Russia at some future date while the US and Britain carve up eastern Russia's spoils for themselves.

 

What does Iran plan to do with all the enriched uranium they are producing? Make bicycle tires?

 

War in 2025?

 

We'll be lucky to make it that far. Every day that Biden is in office we get weaker and weaker. Once that begins to change... we'll get hit... a lot.

 

We're not technically allied with Taiwan. We don't even technically recognize them as an independent country. Though effectively, we treat them as both. But whether or not that will extend to defending them strategically in a hot war... I think it depends a lot on our domestic political situation in the moment.

 

Biden made a very strategically important move by having Philippines agree to American bases in their territory. That is a huge step forward for the west.

 

It was one of his few good decisions, or whoever actually made the decision. But its hardly "a huge step forward".

 

It’s a huge step forward. Look at a map.

 

Four more aircraft carriers, four new Infantry Divisions, doubling the nuclear arsenal, doubling the size of the Marines and 200 more F-35's... THAT would be a HUGE STEP FORWARD.