Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 147

Thread: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

  1. #101
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Taiwan is ever vigilant in watching. If there really were an attack coming, they would get the planes up.
    Your comments on this cause me to believe you have no understanding of military strategy whatsoever. Having all planes in the air is a feat in itself, never mind having all planes in the air at exactly the right moment. It simply would not be doable for Taiwan. China would not build up its force and strike the moment it was ready since that would make defensive planning way too easy for Taiwan. Either they would attack suddenly with those forces in theater that can be used immediately for just such a purpose or build up their forces and keep them on standby for a given time period. In both cases Taiwan would have no real way to avoid a scenario where a substantial number of their aircraft are caught on the ground.

    Also, China can't destroy all of the highways with its missiles.
    Not every stretch of highway would be suitable for use as an airstrip if that is what you are suggesting. There are certain requirements regarding the dimensions of the highway and its path. Curved highways do not make good airstrips for obvious reasons. You also have to have infrastructure in place for it to be a viable airstrip. China would first go after those highway strips that have specifically been designed and intended for use as an airstrip and then target the most viable alternatives. This would not insure that there are no places for a plane to touch down, that would just be an absurd expectation. However, China would not have to act on the expectation that no plane in the air could land. Instead, it would be looking to cause enough logistical difficulties to seriously impede Taiwan's ability to wage a continued air war. Even if a plane is able to land successfully it still needs to be resupplied and have a viable takeoff route.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Many Western countries allow successionist parties.
    "Many"? Does that not also mean to say "not all"? Also, if you note, I specifically mentioned not allowing such a party to hold political power. This would not impede the ability of groups or individuals to express this view in Taiwan.

    Taiwan is far higher political rights
    Like I said, that is an automatic result of its political system. Because of limitations on public elections Hong Kong is regarded as partly free despite the level of actual political freedom in Hong Kong.

    Freedom House ranks Taiwan as free with a score of 24 (a score that has dropped slightly during the KMT administration) and Hong Kong as Partly free with a score of 33. And if you read through the RSF (Reporters Without Borders) site, it is clear that Taiwan has better press freedoms than Hong Kong has.
    I saw that about press freedom. I also saw the part where South Korea has the same rating on press freedom.

    Except that there is no record of this with the Chinese government. The fact is that Taiwan has rights under international law. We have an open, free-wheeling political process here that Hong Kong does not have. Comparing political freedom between Hong Kong and Taiwan is an utter joke. Of course Taiwan is more free. And we like it that way.
    The difference is that Hong Kong had not been under such a process before being handed over to Chinese rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    Given the military build up of China currently and in the future, Taiwan without external support would lose (perhaps not today, but within 10 years ).
    Oh no, Taiwan without external support would lose in any military scenario under the present circumstances even if China attacked this very moment. Taiwan's leaders are well aware of this fact and so they make all their military plans under the assumption that they only need to hold off China long enough to allow foreign support to arrive. Any scenario that does not include foreign support leads to China's rapid victory.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  2. #102
    Civil Libertarian
    DashingAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    08-31-17 @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,357

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    While I don't think we should be protecting ANYBODY other than our own country; congress certainly can overrule him.
    If you strike me down, I'll become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

  3. #103
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,926

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Few people think Obama will approve the sale.
    Of course not. Someone might actually get a job.
    Нава́льный 2018

  4. #104
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Your comments on this cause me to believe you have no understanding of military strategy whatsoever. Having all planes in the air is a feat in itself, never mind having all planes in the air at exactly the right moment. It simply would not be doable for Taiwan. China would not build up its force and strike the moment it was ready since that would make defensive planning way too easy for Taiwan. Either they would attack suddenly with those forces in theater that can be used immediately for just such a purpose or build up their forces and keep them on standby for a given time period. In both cases Taiwan would have no real way to avoid a scenario where a substantial number of their aircraft are caught on the ground.
    Just as your comments on Taiwan's international legal status vis a vis China lead me to believe that you know little about international law. Notice you ignored my calls for examples of similar transactions of land from one state to another state.


    "Many"? Does that not also mean to say "not all"? Also, if you note, I specifically mentioned not allowing such a party to hold political power. This would not impede the ability of groups or individuals to express this view in Taiwan.
    But as the majority of Taiwan's people do not consider Taiwan to be a part of China, this WOULD be a significant restriction on the choices of Taiwan's people. What is it about freedom you hate so much?

    Like I said, that is an automatic result of its political system. Because of limitations on public elections Hong Kong is regarded as partly free despite the level of actual political freedom in Hong Kong.
    Taiwan is more free than Hong Kong. Only the truly delusional would deny that simple fact.

    I saw that about press freedom. I also saw the part where South Korea has the same rating on press freedom.
    And South Korea is relevant... how? Before Ma took office, Taiwan had the same press freedom rating as Japan.

    The difference is that Hong Kong had not been under such a process before being handed over to Chinese rule.
    And it is too bad that the U.K. made the decision to return Hong Kong to China, but that was the right of the British government as the legal sovereign over Hong Kong island. Who is the legal sovereign over Taiwan? Taiwan's people, not a foreign government.

    Oh no, Taiwan without external support would lose in any military scenario under the present circumstances even if China attacked this very moment. Taiwan's leaders are well aware of this fact and so they make all their military plans under the assumption that they only need to hold off China long enough to allow foreign support to arrive. Any scenario that does not include foreign support leads to China's rapid victory.
    There are many smaller nations who would lose to larger neighbors in the event of a military conflict. I suppose they should all surrender without challenging those larger neighbors. That would bring us back to the era of empires, except that, with the exception of China and Russia, most of the more powerful states don't have it in their designs to invade and annex neighbors.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #105
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    But as the majority of Taiwan's people do not consider Taiwan to be a part of China, this WOULD be a significant restriction on the choices of Taiwan's people. What is it about freedom you hate so much?
    How do you take from me saying barring politicians from pushing secession is not a serious infringement on liberty that I "hate freedom"? Is it really that unreasonably restrictive for a country to bar its territories from secession and, by extension, barring people from government who would pursue that end?

    Taiwan is more free than Hong Kong. Only the truly delusional would deny that simple fact.



    And South Korea is relevant... how? Before Ma took office, Taiwan had the same press freedom rating as Japan.
    I doubt you are fear-mongering over the idea that Taiwan will end up as free as South Korea.

    And it is too bad that the U.K. made the decision to return Hong Kong to China, but that was the right of the British government as the legal sovereign over Hong Kong island. Who is the legal sovereign over Taiwan? Taiwan's people, not a foreign government.
    China is the legal sovereign over Taiwan.

    There are many smaller nations who would lose to larger neighbors in the event of a military conflict. I suppose they should all surrender without challenging those larger neighbors. That would bring us back to the era of empires, except that, with the exception of China and Russia, most of the more powerful states don't have it in their designs to invade and annex neighbors.
    Taiwan would be free to try and resist. I am saying it would be futile. What I am most concerned with is peace and that cannot happen through Taiwan attempting to secede. Eventually it will have to reunify with China. Doing so voluntarily would allow Taiwan to retain its system of government and current level of liberty. If it tries to secede and is forcefully reunified it will be treated less like Hong Kong and more like Tibet.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  6. #106
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    How do you take from me saying barring politicians from pushing secession is not a serious infringement on liberty that I "hate freedom"? Is it really that unreasonably restrictive for a country to bar its territories from secession and, by extension, barring people from government who would pursue that end?
    Well, you often seem to take the side of the dictators of the world. Also, as Taiwan is not part of China, politicians arguing for Taiwan's legitimate rights is part of free speech. You would like to deny such a fundamental freedom. It exists in the U.S. and most other civilized countries.

    I doubt you are fear-mongering over the idea that Taiwan will end up as free as South Korea.
    In many respects, Taiwan is more free than South Korea... and the people here would like to keep it that way.

    China is the legal sovereign over Taiwan.
    In your mind and the mind of Chinese dictators. Not in the reality of international law. You have not been able to show that territory can be transferred from one state to another state by any means other than a ratified and executed treaty among states.

    Taiwan would be free to try and resist. I am saying it would be futile. What I am most concerned with is peace and that cannot happen through Taiwan attempting to secede. Eventually it will have to reunify with China. Doing so voluntarily would allow Taiwan to retain its system of government and current level of liberty. If it tries to secede and is forcefully reunified it will be treated less like Hong Kong and more like Tibet.
    Taiwan would not be able to keep its current political system with a merger with China, as you yourself have already admitted. The overwhelming majority of Taiwanese have no desire for such a political merger between the two countries. China has no rights in Taiwan. China ceded Taiwan in a ratified and executed treaty in 1885 and has not engaged in one following that to regain rights here. The PRC has NEVER for one minute had sovereignty over this island country.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #107
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Well, you often seem to take the side of the dictators of the world. Also, as Taiwan is not part of China, politicians arguing for Taiwan's legitimate rights is part of free speech. You would like to deny such a fundamental freedom. It exists in the U.S. and most other civilized countries.
    There's that word again. Also, it has nothing to do with what I would "like" to do. I just think it is a reasonable restriction on political activity. Politicians do not have unlimited rights to do or say what they like while in office. Restricting the actions of politicians on a single non-essential issue is not a serious infringement on general liberty, especially when the restriction is one that is perfectly consistent with the security interests of a country.

    In many respects, Taiwan is more free than South Korea... and the people here would like to keep it that way.
    Even if Taiwan under Chinese rule were only able to be as free as South Korea would you seriously view that as some horrific catastrophe?

    In your mind and the mind of Chinese dictators. Not in the reality of international law. You have not been able to show that territory can be transferred from one state to another state by any means other than a ratified and executed treaty among states.
    Except the whole principle under international law is that Japan coerced China into surrendering Taiwan to it and that, as a result, the first transfer was declared illegitimate. The ROC already agreed that the terms of all past treaties, including the one concerning the transfer of Taiwan to Japan, were no longer valid. In other words, the original transfer of territory no longer applied.

    Taiwan would not be able to keep its current political system with a merger with China, as you yourself have already admitted. The overwhelming majority of Taiwanese have no desire for such a political merger between the two countries.
    Where did I say they would not able their current political system? I said politicians would not be allowed to pursue secession. That you see such a thing as the end of Taiwan's political system speaks to your own radical hostility towards China.

    China has no rights in Taiwan. China ceded Taiwan in a ratified and executed treaty in 1885 and has not engaged in one following that to regain rights here. The PRC has NEVER for one minute had sovereignty over this island country.
    It was 1895 and, as I just said, the treaty was declared an unequal treaty and thus its terms are no longer valid. Japan already agreed, in the Instrument of Surrender, that Taiwan is Chinese territory. Your insistence that it is not a treaty is simply because of your own ignorance of international law. Someone who understands international law knows that a treaty need not be called a treaty to be one. Any agreement between two parties that has a legally-binding effect is considered a treaty under international law. The Japanese Instrument of Surrender was such a document.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  8. #108
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    There's that word again. Also, it has nothing to do with what I would "like" to do. I just think it is a reasonable restriction on political activity. Politicians do not have unlimited rights to do or say what they like while in office. Restricting the actions of politicians on a single non-essential issue is not a serious infringement on general liberty, especially when the restriction is one that is perfectly consistent with the security interests of a country.
    I used the word to forestall any possibility that you would find a single counter-example to try to invalidate my argument. You can't change the fact that in many Western countries, separation talk is permitted -- including the US, Canada, France, U.K. and many others.

    Even if Taiwan under Chinese rule were only able to be as free as South Korea would you seriously view that as some horrific catastrophe?
    Yes, I would. Taiwan is under the control of Taiwanese and Taiwan is, despite imperfections in the system here, one of the freest countries in Asia.

    Except the whole principle under international law is that Japan coerced China into surrendering Taiwan to it and that, as a result, the first transfer was declared illegitimate. The ROC already agreed that the terms of all past treaties, including the one concerning the transfer of Taiwan to Japan, were no longer valid. In other words, the original transfer of territory no longer applied.
    Not true. There was nothing illegal or illegitimate about the Treaty of Shimonoseki. The fact is that nearly every treaty of peace is, by definition, an unequal treaty. Under international law as it has been practiced since the days of Hugo Grotius until WWII, such treaties were perfectly legal. Sure, China declared them illegal, but that unilateral declaration has no bearing under international law. If it had, then Hong Kong would have simply reverted back to China without an agreement being signed between them. There are so many other examples that would apply as well. Sorry, your argument has no bearing under international law and would be laughed out of about any international law classroom in Western universities.

    Where did I say they would not able their current political system? I said politicians would not be allowed to pursue secession. That you see such a thing as the end of Taiwan's political system speaks to your own radical hostility towards China.
    My hostility is toward the Chinese government, which is a threat to the freedoms that I, my family, and 23 million others, enjoy. It would be very natural and normal for me and others to be hostile to that.

    It was 1895 and, as I just said, the treaty was declared an unequal treaty and thus its terms are no longer valid. Japan already agreed, in the Instrument of Surrender, that Taiwan is Chinese territory. Your insistence that it is not a treaty is simply because of your own ignorance of international law. Someone who understands international law knows that a treaty need not be called a treaty to be one. Any agreement between two parties that has a legally-binding effect is considered a treaty under international law. The Japanese Instrument of Surrender was such a document.
    Untrue. China declared it an unequal treaty, but that declaration did not make it invalid. Also, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender was an armistice, not a treaty. That was signed in 1951 and ratified in 1952. It takes a signed, ratified, and executed treaty to transfer territory from one state to another state. I challenged you before to find a similar situation in which territory was tranferred from one state to another with anything short of such a ratified and executed treaty and you have not been able to find it. You are making a citation from the 1969 Law of Treaties, but that is not accpted by everyone (including some signatories to that 1945 armistice), thus it does not have the status of a treaty. Furthermore, that 1969 law specifically states that it does not apply to agreements signed before it. So, sorry, you don't have a strong case at all under international law.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  9. #109
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Not true. There was nothing illegal or illegitimate about the Treaty of Shimonoseki. The fact is that nearly every treaty of peace is, by definition, an unequal treaty. Under international law as it has been practiced since the days of Hugo Grotius until WWII, such treaties were perfectly legal. Sure, China declared them illegal, but that unilateral declaration has no bearing under international law. If it had, then Hong Kong would have simply reverted back to China without an agreement being signed between them. There are so many other examples that would apply as well. Sorry, your argument has no bearing under international law and would be laughed out of about any international law classroom in Western universities.
    Do you realize that it was not only China that declared those treaties void?

    My hostility is toward the Chinese government, which is a threat to the freedoms that I, my family, and 23 million others, enjoy. It would be very natural and normal for me and others to be hostile to that.
    I could point to a number of comments you have made that suggest your hostility does not merely extend to the government and no matter how many times you play the "I married a yellow woman" card it is not going to change the revealing things you say about Chinese people in general. Back in the day many white colonists in North America regarded the natives as subhuman, but that did not keep them from knocking up a few. Same goes for white slave-owners (Do not make the ridiculous assumption I am saying you are exactly like those people, because I am only noting that the contempt you show for the people of China in general is not mitigated by the fact it is not universal and absolute contempt).

    Also, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender was an armistice, not a treaty. That was signed in 1951 and ratified in 1952. It takes a signed, ratified, and executed treaty to transfer territory from one state to another state. I challenged you before to find a similar situation in which territory was tranferred from one state to another with anything short of such a ratified and executed treaty and you have not been able to find it. You are making a citation from the 1969 Law of Treaties, but that is not accpted by everyone (including some signatories to that 1945 armistice), thus it does not have the status of a treaty. Furthermore, that 1969 law specifically states that it does not apply to agreements signed before it. So, sorry, you don't have a strong case at all under international law.
    The Japanese Instrument of surrender was a treaty. Just because it established a ceasefire and not a permanent peace, does not mean it did not have legally-binding effect between nations. A legally-binding agreement between two or more countries is, by definition, a treaty. The content of the instrument indicates that it was clearly intended to have legally-binding effect. So when Japan declared a commitment to fulfill the demands of Potsdam Declaration, they made a legally-binding commitment that Taiwan was China's sovereign territory and that Taiwan was to be returned to China.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  10. #110
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Do you realize that it was not only China that declared those treaties void?
    Who, then, declared those treaties void? You do know that when subsequent treaties refer to "voiding" a treaty, it only refers to those provisions that are continuining. Those clauses that are executed are not included. A basic principle of international law.

    I could point to a number of comments you have made that suggest your hostility does not merely extend to the government and no matter how many times you play the "I married a yellow woman" card it is not going to change the revealing things you say about Chinese people in general. Back in the day many white colonists in North America regarded the natives as subhuman, but that did not keep them from knocking up a few. Same goes for white slave-owners (Do not make the ridiculous assumption I am saying you are exactly like those people, because I am only noting that the contempt you show for the people of China in general is not mitigated by the fact it is not universal and absolute contempt).
    Is this all you have? You have no idea what you are talking about. The comments I have made regarding the bahavior of Chinese tourists here are widely held by those dealing with those tourists. You should hear the things Taiwanese hoteliers have said about the Chinese tourists who have come here. I have dealt with their behavior first hand in hotels and at Sun Moon Lake. Sorry, but telling the truth does not make one racist, no matter how you like to characterize it. You make racist comments like this in reference to my family and I will report you for it.


    The Japanese Instrument of surrender was a treaty. Just because it established a ceasefire and not a permanent peace, does not mean it did not have legally-binding effect between nations. A legally-binding agreement between two or more countries is, by definition, a treaty. The content of the instrument indicates that it was clearly intended to have legally-binding effect. So when Japan declared a commitment to fulfill the demands of Potsdam Declaration, they made a legally-binding commitment that Taiwan was China's sovereign territory and that Taiwan was to be returned to China.
    No, it was not a treaty. It was an armistice pending the peace treaty. The final status of Taiwan was determined in the peace treaty. The western powers all regarded Taiwan's status as undetermined following the signing of the armistice pending the peace treaty. History and law do not defend your argument. Nice try parroting the legal rationale of the butchers in Beijing, though. And... even if your legal rationale were valid, if you followed legal reasoning of the ICJ in recent decades, you would understand the notion of effective control in modern international law. I have discussed this matter with more than a dozen scholars of international law and NOT ONE OF THEM agreed with your point of view on the matter. It also goes against basic principles in an introductory textbook of public international law or what is taught in public international law classrooms.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •