Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 147

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

  1. #131
    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 Ben K. View Post
    Ludahai, DoL probably ain't worth it. Seems to support Ron Paul but supports peace at any cost in the Taiwan/China case, big government consequences be damned.
    Supporting a non-interventionist and supporting peace. Damn, those positions are just so inconsistent.

    He also seems to baselessly call people racists when it comes to China, even though he bemoans racial sensitivity in America.
    There is inherent racism in America's policies towards the Third World. As many Americans have been indoctrinated to blindly support said policies they naturally adopt those racist ideas themselves. When people accuse China of theft, cheating, war-mongering, and deceit and these criticisms extend to athletes, private corporations, and the masses without any relation to the government I tend to see that there is very little reason to believe such views are about the government at all.

    It a necessary element of any war footing that a country must not only demonize the leaders of the opposing country, but also the general population. The State must foster fear and suspicion of all individuals in the "enemy" country because otherwise people might question the morality of any policies pursued against that country.

    When that State is populated mainly by non-whites such demonization takes on a racial dynamic.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Fair enough, but considering the point of view from a civilian, 1,500 ballistic missiles raining death down on their city within 10 minutes is somewhat analogous to the kind of imminent death aka cold war.
    It is not really analogous, though that is the intended message. Naturally, the leaders of Taiwan and the United States are not going to be completely honest and note the general non-threat of conventional ballistic missiles to Taiwan's general population. They also are not going to mention China's "no first-strike" policy to assuage concerns about nuclear war. For both the United States and Taiwan to maintain their current policies requires that people not question whether the ballistic missiles are an existential threat.

    AS for using ground based missile platforms to launch attacks on Taiwanese defenses, doesn't it make more sense to use mobile platforms? The Taiwanese basically know where the Fujian based missiles are. Any any attack will involve massing of troops, so the Taiwanese will basically have a heads up on when the attack is coming. IMO it makes more sense to use non-Fujian based assets to attack Taiwanese defenses. Or at least in conjunction with them.
    China's short-range ballistic missiles can be moved along the road and would take at most half an hour to be fired. An attack with ballistic missiles could be launched within a sufficient timespan to keep people from noticing. Also, as I noted before, knowing there will be an attack is not going to help Taiwan because China can launch devastating strikes rapidly with little warning. No preparations Taiwan can make would be sufficient to prevent their defeat and if Taiwan were to launch the first strike they would practically be wrapping Taiwan up with a nice, little bow for China. However, I also challenge the idea that China would need to undergo considerable mobilization in order to attack Taiwan. They have within their present capabilities the deployment of 10,000 airborne troops anywhere within China in two days, which means they would have no trouble deploying the same amount of troops to Taiwan in such a time span. China has enough airpower within range of Taiwan to destroy its defenses right now. Its fleet of submarines can easily be positioned within range of Taiwan with minimal warning. China need not give Taiwan any advance warning before striking.

    Taiwan relying upon hardened highways is rather idiotic as those will be targeted. Sure you have this asset, but when it's on the hit list and you cannot defend it, it's not really a usable asset.
    Agreed.

    Without nukes, there's no way. Considering the assets that China has bought from Russia, mainly guided missile cruisers, the naval forces Taiwan has are outclassed. Furthermore, the increase in quiet subs and the sheer number will overpower Taiwanese submarine assets.
    Taiwanese "submarines assets" are useless hunks of junk. At best they would make for good target practice. As it stands Taiwan has no new submarines on order either.
    Last edited by Demon of Light; 09-08-11 at 12:56 PM.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  2. #132
    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
    Since you seem to consistently ignore what I actually say I should note here that I never said the Japanese Instrument of Surrender transferred territory. However, as a legally-binding agreement it does designate Taiwan as sovereign Chinese territory that is to be returned to China. When Japan recognized the PRC as the legitimate successor government to the ROC it reiterated in yet another legally-binding agreement its commitment to that end. Your argument that Taiwan is not Chinese territory is thus invalid and "effective control" works against you as it was the legally-recognized government of China that assumed effective control of Taiwan after Japan formally renounced its title.
    But Japan never signed an actual instrument to transfer that sovereignty. In the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan renounced sovereignty over Taiwan, but provided no mechanism for transfer, a requirement under international law.

    The PRC has NEVER for one day had any control over Taiwan. The ROC government exercised occupation over Taiwan on behalf of the Allies following WWII, NOT sovereignty. There is an important difference. And now, in Taiwan, sovereignty is held by the people, not by a one-party state that once claimed to be the legitimate government of all of China.

    Are you talking about the Treaty of Peace and Friendshup between Japan and the People's Republic of China of 1978? If so, there is no mention whatsoever of Taiwan in the treaty.


    Also, the reason the U.S. does not recognize all legally-binding international agreements as treaties is because there is a specific approval process required for passing treaties. Were the U.S. to adopt the Law of Treaties it would be the law of the land, meaning international agreements like NAFTA would unavoidably have to be regarded as treaties under the Constitution and thus would have to be passed by a two-thirds majority in Congress.
    I have point this out to you before, something you didn't accept at the time. The U.S. does NOT regard the Instrument of Surrender as a treaty and guessed who signed it on behalf of the allies... umm.. I think you know the answer to that question...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  3. #133
    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 Japan never signed an actual instrument to transfer that sovereignty. In the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan renounced sovereignty over Taiwan, but provided no mechanism for transfer, a requirement under international law.

    The PRC has NEVER for one day had any control over Taiwan. The ROC government exercised occupation over Taiwan on behalf of the Allies following WWII, NOT sovereignty. There is an important difference. And now, in Taiwan, sovereignty is held by the people, not by a one-party state that once claimed to be the legitimate government of all of China.
    You are ignoring a number of key points:

    1. Japan need not negotiate a transfer if it simply renounces its title to the territory. In this respect Japan's action can be understood to effectuate the terms of its surrender as China was left free to claim Taiwan and exercise sovereignty over it.
    2. The Republic of China did exercise sovereignty over Taiwan by formally declaring it to have been returned to China and administering it as a province of China. It is "effective control" that establishes China having reclaimed sovereignty over the territory.
    3. No matter who rules Taiwan, the government there still legally considers itself to be the government of all China, including Taiwan.

    Are you talking about the Treaty of Peace and Friendshup between Japan and the People's Republic of China of 1978? If so, there is no mention whatsoever of Taiwan in the treaty.
    I am talking about the Joint Communique.

    I have point this out to you before, something you didn't accept at the time. The U.S. does NOT regard the Instrument of Surrender as a treaty and guessed who signed it on behalf of the allies... umm.. I think you know the answer to that question...
    The U.S. certainly recognized that it was a legally-binding agreement.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  4. #134
    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
    You are ignoring a number of key points:

    1. Japan need not negotiate a transfer if it simply renounces its title to the territory. In this respect Japan's action can be understood to effectuate the terms of its surrender as China was left free to claim Taiwan and exercise sovereignty over it.
    Japan's surrender of Taiwan and its renunciation of sovereign claims over the island in 1952 does NOT equate to a transfer of sovereignty to China (either ROC or PRC). As I have made clear to you, it takes a RATIFIED and EXECUTED treaty to transfer territory from one state to another. You can't get past this basic fact of international law, nor can you come up with such a treaty no such valid treaty exists.

    2. The Republic of China did exercise sovereignty over Taiwan by formally declaring it to have been returned to China and administering it as a province of China. It is "effective control" that establishes China having reclaimed sovereignty over the territory.
    They exercised administration of the territory, not sovereignty. De jure sovereignty could only be transferred via treaty, which was never done...

    3. No matter who rules Taiwan, the government there still legally considers itself to be the government of all China, including Taiwan.
    Somethign that the vast majority of people give little more than lip service to.


    I am talking about the Joint Communique.



    The U.S. certainly recognized that it was a legally-binding agreement.[/QUOTE]
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #135
    200M yrs of experience
    Frolicking Dinosaurs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southeastern USA
    Last Seen
    05-07-12 @ 12:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,166

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

    China is unhappy the US is upgrading Taiwan's F-16s. I'm surprised the Tea Party isn't screaming about the cost.
    BBC News - China hits out at US deal on Taiwan F-16 fighters
    I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was wedding between the religious fundamentalists and political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it. ~ Billy Graham in Parade magazine February 1, 1981.

  6. #136
    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 Frolicking Dinosaurs View Post
    China is unhappy the US is upgrading Taiwan's F-16s. I'm surprised the Tea Party isn't screaming about the cost.
    BBC News - China hits out at US deal on Taiwan F-16 fighters
    And just what IS the cost to the United States taxpayer?
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #137
    American Infidel
    stsburns's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Pergatory
    Last Seen
    05-21-12 @ 03:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,297

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

    So let me see if I got this right? We are canceling our order to build Joint Strike fights for our selves, but we are making new F-16's? Hmmm.... So our government's own Bonds are worthless, lets get back into the arms race!
    CENTRIST - I AM AN EQUAL OFFENDING DEBATOR
    [{Presented in Brain Control Where Available}]|[{Not Y2k Complient or EPA Approved}]
    C-Span:Created by Cable, Offered as a Public Service. http://www.cspan.org

  8. #138
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

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

    Quote Originally Posted by stsburns View Post
    So let me see if I got this right? We are canceling our order to build Joint Strike fights for our selves, but we are making new F-16's? Hmmm.... So our government's own Bonds are worthless, lets get back into the arms race!
    The US is not making the F16 for itself, but is allowing the manufacture and sale of them to another country. The US will overall make money from it
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  9. #139
    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 Lord Tammerlain View Post
    The US is not making the F16 for itself, but is allowing the manufacture and sale of them to another country. The US will overall make money from it
    Except that there will NOT be new F-16s for Taiwan because Obama blocked the sale.

    And the Senate did not pass an amendment to push through the sale, the opposition seeming led (in part, at least) by John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts.

    There is still a small chance an amendment could be added to a defense appropriations bill, but I wouldn't bet on it.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  10. #140
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Except that there will NOT be new F-16s for Taiwan because Obama blocked the sale.

    And the Senate did not pass an amendment to push through the sale, the opposition seeming led (in part, at least) by John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts.

    There is still a small chance an amendment could be added to a defense appropriations bill, but I wouldn't bet on it.
    Depending on the US political situation I could see the F16s being released for sale in mid 2012
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 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
  •