• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O'Donnell said China plotting to take over US

j-mac said:
Do we, or do we not have a treaty to protect Taiwan against Chinese aggression?


j-mac
Click to expand...
We do.

Are we going to be dumb enough to sacrifice thousands of soldiers' lives and probably trillions of dollars in material and who knows how much in damage to our trade and economy to protect Taiwan simply because of a piece of paper?

Think hard on this before you answer.
 
j-mac said:
Do we, or do we not have a treaty to protect Taiwan against Chinese aggression?

j-mac
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that it ignores the fact that the U.S. simply wouldn't go to war because we have an agreement. We have mutual defense agreements with the majority of countries on this planet in one way or another. We don't go to war all the time or even the majority of the time. We didn't do it for the British during the Falkans. We didn't do it for the Argentinians either. We didn't do it for El Salvador or Nicaragua. Seriously, a treaty to protect a country is about as valuable during war as a pimple on a horse's neck.
 
Coronado said:
We do.

Are we going to be dumb enough to sacrifice thousands of soldiers' lives and probably trillions of dollars in material and who knows how much in damage to our trade and economy to protect Taiwan simply because of a piece of paper?

Think hard on this before you answer.
Click to expand...


Look, the real world answer in all honesty is probably not, seeing as how Carter refused to continue to recognize Taipei as the capitol of Tiwan, and shifted our recognition to Bejing.

however, Isn't it odd that when talking of things like treaties that those in opposition to causes they believe in mean everything while this one seems to mean little?


j-mac
 
Hatuey said:
The problem with this is that it ignores the fact that the U.S. simply wouldn't go to war because we have an agreement. We have mutual defense agreements with the majority of countries on this planet in one way or another. We don't go to war all the time or even the majority of the time. We didn't do it for the British during the Falkans. We didn't do it for the Argentinians either. We didn't do it for El Salvador or Nicaragua. Seriously, a treaty to protect a country is about as valuable during war as a pimple on a horse's neck.
Click to expand...


No, the real problem is that you would argue that treaties ratified in the US Congress are supreme law of the land, unless it interferes with your own world view.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Look, the real world answer in all honesty is probably not, seeing as how Carter refused to continue to recognize Taipei as the capitol of Tiwan, and shifted our recognition to Bejing.

however, Isn't it odd that when talking of things like treaties that those in opposition to causes they believe in mean everything while this one seems to mean little?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Your brilliant ignorance shines again. Why is it Carter's fault that we didn't recognize Taiwan when in reality it was Nixon who first recognized Red China?
 
j-mac said:
No, the real problem is that you would argue that treaties ratified in the US Congress are supreme law of the land, unless it interferes with your own world view.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Pot, kettle, etc.
 
Hatuey said:
Your brilliant ignorance shines again. Why is it Carter's fault that we didn't recognize Taiwan when in reality it was Nixon who first recognized Red China?
Click to expand...

My brilliant ignorance? Nah...I think you'd better read again.

On January 1, 1979, the United States changed its diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communiqué that announced the change, the United States recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China. The Joint Communiqué also stated that within this context the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people on Taiwan.

Taiwan
Click to expand...


Hmmmm... 1979...Now who could that be? Nixon as you say who's term was from 1969 to 1974? Or now who could that be.......Hmmmmmmm....

Jimmy Carter

39th President of the United States
In office January 20, 1977 – January 20, 1981


doh!


j-mac
 
This whole O'Donnell thing reminds me of that movie "Idiocracy," and when I look around I can see the truth of it. Intelligent people are reproducing less and less, thus leaving the ignorant to rule.
 
tlmorg02 said:
This whole O'Donnell thing reminds me of that movie "Idiocracy," and when I look around I can see the truth of it. Intelligent people are reproducing less and less, thus leaving the ignorant to rule.
Click to expand...

Brando has what plants crave.


j-mac
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Would we, or would we not, be stupid enough to enter another landwar in Asia?
Click to expand...

Chinese think tanks have been saying for YEARS that they would have to go to war against the US.

If one were to define a Chinese Victory in 4Gen Warfighting terms, then they have gone well past the point at which they have a good shot at a win.

You need to remember several things:

1 - The military in China wags the government unlike in the US and other Western Countries.

2 - Economics of export markets (ie the US Markets) doesn't enter into the PLA/N's calculus at all. Nor should it considering the Pac Rim. Thus the loss of US Consumer Markets would only be a small speed bump in China. Loss of US COMPETITION for RESOURCES would offset the speed bump in a LOT of folks' opinions.

3 - The Chinese Military WANTS TAIWAN back in the Fold, a LOT more than the Sons of the American Confederacy want to see the South Rise Again. To many of the Chinese .mil leaders the fact that Taiwan exists is a PERSONAL affront.
 
j-mac said:
No, the real problem is that you would argue that treaties ratified in the US Congress are supreme law of the land, unless it interferes with your own world view.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Oh what a crock of ****, the 'real' problem is people like you who can't see that the U.S. has never held defense treaties in that high of a regard during times of war. Now, aside from your complete inability to see this fact, care to show us which treaties I would defend? Maybe the Autralian-American treaty for avoidance of double taxation? I don't even know how I feel about that.
 
j-mac said:
Look, the real world answer in all honesty is probably not, seeing as how Carter refused to continue to recognize Taipei as the capitol of Tiwan, and shifted our recognition to Bejing.
Click to expand...
Finally, a correct answer!
j-mac said:
however, Isn't it odd that when talking of things like treaties that those in opposition to causes they believe in mean everything while this one seems to mean little?
Click to expand...
Please be specific.
 
Hatuey said:
Oh what a crock of ****, the 'real' problem is people like you who can't see that the U.S. has never held defense treaties in that high of a regard during times of war. Now, aside from your complete inability to see this fact, care to show us which treaties I would defend? Maybe the Autralian-American treaty for avoidance of double taxation? I don't even know how I feel about that.
Click to expand...


did you, or did you not advance an argument at any time that referred to Bush as a criminal for breaking a treaty?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
My brilliant ignorance? Nah...I think you'd better read again.
Click to expand...

I think you should learn to read:

Your brilliant ignorance shines again. Why is it Carter's fault that we didn't recognize Taiwan when in reality it was Nixon who first recognized Red China?
Click to expand...

1972 Nixon visit to China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. President Richard Nixon's 1972 visit to the People's Republic of China was an important step in formally normalizing relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China. It marked the first time a U.S. president had visited the PRC, who at that time considered the U.S. one of its staunchest foes. The visit has become a metaphor for an unexpected or uncharacteristic action by a politician.
Click to expand...

The U.S. acknowledged the notion that all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait maintain that there is only one China. Nixon and the U.S. government reaffirmed their interests in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question agreed by the Chinese themselves. The statement enabled the U.S. and PRC to temporarily set aside the "crucial question obstructing the normalization of relations"[6] concerning the political status of Taiwan and to open trade and other contacts. However, the United States continued to maintain official relations with the government of the Republic of China in Taiwan until 1979 when the U.S. broke off relations with the Republic of China and established full diplomatic relations with the P.R.C.
Click to expand...

In other words, my comment stands. It was NIXON who first recognized the PRC and opened them up for diplomatic relations. But please, explain to us how it's Carter's fault that this happened when it had been set in motion by Nixon?

Hmmmm... 1979...Now who could that be? Nixon as you say who's term was from 1969 to 1974? Or now who could that be.......Hmmmmmmm....

Jimmy Carter

39th President of the United States
In office January 20, 1977 – January 20, 1981


doh!


j-mac
Click to expand...

Pick up a history book and then get back to us? Diplomatic recognition does not trump the opening of diplomatic relations. Never has.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
I think you should learn to read:



1972 Nixon visit to China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia







Pick up a history book and then get back to us? Diplomatic recognition does not trump the opening of diplomatic relations. Never has.
Click to expand...


When Nixon visited China, did he at that point refuse to defend Taiwan against aggression?

the answer would be a NO. So you're attempt to blur, and rewrite history falls flat. sorry.


j-mac
 
Coronado said:
Please be specific.
Click to expand...

Well, as specific as I can get at the moment was during the heat of debates over Iraq during the Bush terms, it seemed a popular retort of liberals to call Bush a criminal for ignoring treaties.

Now though, with Taiwan, all that is just passe?


j-mac
 
ric27 said:
Chinese think tanks have been saying for YEARS that they would have to go to war against the US.
Click to expand...

Really. Which ones?

You need to remember several things:
Click to expand...

You need to remember that you aren't any sort of expert on this subject.

1 - The military in China wags the government unlike in the US and other Western Countries.
Click to expand...

So? How would entering into a full-scale conflict with the U.S. benefit the Chinese military?

2 - Economics of export markets (ie the US Markets) doesn't enter into the PLA/N's calculus at all. Nor should it considering the Pac Rim. Thus the loss of US Consumer Markets would only be a small speed bump in China. Loss of US COMPETITION for RESOURCES would offset the speed bump in a LOT of folks' opinions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think you know what you're talking about here.

The Chinese Military WANTS TAIWAN back in the Fold, a LOT more than the Sons of the American Confederacy want to see the South Rise Again. To many of the Chinese .mil leaders the fact that Taiwan exists is a PERSONAL affront.
Click to expand...

Okay. I don't see a lot of Americans supporting us entering into war with the Chinese over Taiwan. So then, my response is...so what?

Also, there is no such organization as the Sons of the American Confederacy. Do you mean SOCV? If so, you should be aware that the Sons of the Confederate Veterans aren't eager to go to war with the union again.
 
j-mac said:
Well, as specific as I can get at the moment was during the heat of debates over Iraq during the Bush terms, it seemed a popular retort of liberals to call Bush a criminal for ignoring treaties.

Now though, with Taiwan, all that is just passe?
Click to expand...
You're going to have to address a liberal about that. I wouldn't be too upset if we ignored about 95% of our non-economic treaties.
 
j-mac said:
did you, or did you not advance an argument at any time that referred to Bush as a criminal for breaking a treaty?

j-mac
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/23659-do-you-believe-hillary-lesbian-19.html#post646616

Hatuey[10-02-07 said:
By all means do. Bush might be a retard but a War criminal? Not really.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/17195-20-u-s-service-members-killed-iraq.html#post471978

Your ignorance about who I am shows your complete partisanship. I've defended Bush on many occasions. Sure he's a bit of a nutcase but a war criminal?
Click to expand...

You lose. :)
 
j-mac said:
When Nixon visited China, did he at that point refuse to defend Taiwan against aggression?
Click to expand...

This is so tedious. Do you have any understanding of international politics beyond what you're taught on FOX News? The fact that Nixon recognized that both peoples "understood" that there was but one China gives recognition to the PRC's claims and thus makes any agreement of defense we have with the ROC irrelevant. It's like saying that you want a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but understand that there is no such thing as Palestine. Is this really too hard for you to understand as a concept of two faced politics? Nixon paved the way for Carter by recognizing but 'one China'. Carter simply put the move on paper.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom