Is Pelosi really planning to visit Taiwan

If Trump ever wins the presidency again, that's the green light for a Taiwan "embrace." 


nohero said:

nan said:

Ok, well I tried to google "US hackers targeting China" and I got nothing.   However, "Chinese hackers targeting US"  got 5,670 results.  

It's true. Here's a story from 2018 - Chinese hackers targeting U.S. Navy contractors with multiple breaches: WSJ | Reuters

Here's another about an indictment in 2014 - U.S. Charges Five Chinese Military Hackers for Cyber Espionage Against U.S. Corporations and a Labor Organization for Commercial Advantage | OPA | Department of Justice

It has nothing to do with Pelosi's travels, of course, or the Biden Administration.

Oh, I forgot to reply to this one.  I was looking for US hackers targeting China, not the other way around.  That's why it's so important to have coordination with Chinese government.  Because now they will ignore the "Chinese hackers targeting U.S. Navy contractors. ."


nohero said:

China issued a long and detailed argument for its case that Taiwan should consent to be ruled from Beijing.

This is obviously something long-planned, and wasn't prompted by Pelosi's visit.  They were just looking for a pretext to release it.

China releases white paper on Taiwan question, reunification in new era (www.gov.cn)

"The Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council and the State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China published a white paper titled "The Taiwan Question and China's Reunification in the New Era" on Aug 10.

"The white paper was released to reiterate the fact that Taiwan is part of China, to demonstrate the resolve of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Chinese people and their commitment to national reunification, and to emphasize the position and policies of the CPC and the Chinese government in the new era."

In that document, here is how the government of Taiwan is described: "They have steadily built up their military forces with the intention of pursuing 'independence' and preventing reunification by force."

The people of Taiwan don't want to be invaded by China, but China definitely wants to be able to do just that.


 

Well, that is something for Taiwan and China to work out between themselves.  Would you like it if China sent weapons to California and promised they would support them in their succession bid?   We already have a huge mess in Ukraine that is getting worse instead of better.  We have lots of more urgent problems in our country.  The neocons don't have a good winning streak. 


nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

Ok, well I tried to google "US hackers targeting China" and I got nothing.   However, "Chinese hackers targeting US"  got 5,670 results.  

It's true. Here's a story from 2018 - Chinese hackers targeting U.S. Navy contractors with multiple breaches: WSJ | Reuters

Here's another about an indictment in 2014 - U.S. Charges Five Chinese Military Hackers for Cyber Espionage Against U.S. Corporations and a Labor Organization for Commercial Advantage | OPA | Department of Justice

It has nothing to do with Pelosi's travels, of course, or the Biden Administration.

Oh, I forgot to reply to this one.  I was looking for US hackers targeting China, not the other way around.  That's why it's so important to have coordination with Chinese government.  Because now they will ignore the "Chinese hackers targeting U.S. Navy contractors. ."

Don't worry, the Chinese government isn't going to "ignore the Chinese hackers targeting U.S. Navy contractors". Heck, they may even pay them bonuses over the regular salary they pay them.


nan said:

nohero said:

China issued a long and detailed argument for its case that Taiwan should consent to be ruled from Beijing.

This is obviously something long-planned, and wasn't prompted by Pelosi's visit.  They were just looking for a pretext to release it.

China releases white paper on Taiwan question, reunification in new era (www.gov.cn)

"The Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council and the State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China published a white paper titled "The Taiwan Question and China's Reunification in the New Era" on Aug 10.

"The white paper was released to reiterate the fact that Taiwan is part of China, to demonstrate the resolve of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Chinese people and their commitment to national reunification, and to emphasize the position and policies of the CPC and the Chinese government in the new era."

In that document, here is how the government of Taiwan is described: "They have steadily built up their military forces with the intention of pursuing 'independence' and preventing reunification by force."

The people of Taiwan don't want to be invaded by China, but China definitely wants to be able to do just that.


 

Well, that is something for Taiwan and China to work out between themselves.  Would you like it if China sent weapons to California and promised they would support them in their succession bid?   We already have a huge mess in Ukraine that is getting worse instead of better.  We have lots of more urgent problems in our country.  The neocons don't have a good winning streak. 

I don't know if Ms. Nan's statement comes from naivete, ignorance, actual animosity, tankie warmongering, or something even more Surovellian, so I won't comment on it.


You really have to admire the world class suspension of reality that Nan brings to the table every day.


Article in today's NY Times about that document from China I posted about, above, along with more details which show that their "freakout" over Pelosi was all "theater", it's more related to the leader's plans.

You can read it at this unlocked link (you're welcome).

Overall theme: "Alongside its flashy display of raw power, China has been laying out its most forceful vision — political, economic, cultural — of a future unified with Taiwan." The contents of China's most recent missive are "a window into what Beijing means when it talks about China’s rise and rejuvenation — a goal it has emphasized more and more in the run-up to a party congress this fall, when Mr. Xi is expected to break with recent precedent and claim a third term."

Probably most important, China's most recent detailed statement is more ominous for the people of Taiwan: "The paper, the first that Beijing has published on Taiwan since 2000, largely restated longstanding rhetoric, including that Beijing would not rule out the use of force. But, in a reflection of China’s more authoritarian turn under Mr. Xi, it also offered a harsher view of what life under unification would look like than had previous versions of the policy paper." In no uncertain terms, China promises military occupation and "reeducation" -

Also absent from the paper was a previous pledge not to station Chinese troops or administrative personnel in Taiwan. It also hinted at efforts to remake Taiwanese identity, which the island’s young people increasingly view as distinct from mainland China’s. It vowed to “increase our compatriots’ knowledge of the mainland” to reduce “misconceptions and misgivings.”

Some Chinese officials have been more explicit. China’s ambassador to France said recently that unification would be followed by “re-education” — a chilling echo of the so-called re-education camps that China has used to intern Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

sbenois said:

You really have to admire the world class suspension of reality that Nan brings to the table every day.

Ms. Nan is just a symptom of the larger problem. There are too many faux "progressives" and phony "peace activists" who demonize genuine efforts for peace and public good. But the phonies are flashy and use all the right buzzwords, as a substitute for actually caring about people.


nohero said:

Ms. Nan is just a symptom of the larger problem. There are too many faux "progressives" and phony "peace activists" who demonize genuine efforts for peach and public good. But the phonies are flashy and use all the right buzzwords, as a substitute for actually caring about people.

I don't think they're fake. But I do think many have a very simplistic outlook of the world. If you can simply identify good guys and bad guys, things are nice and easy and details can be dismissed as small potatoes. Media criticism gets simplified to seeing if you can tie someone to one of the bad guys and, if so, then you can safely dismiss them. The world may be under the thrall of evil puppetmasters, but at least someone's in control, as opposed the the terrifying possibility that no one is in control and we truly are free moral agents responsible for our own lives.


PVW said:

nohero said:

Ms. Nan is just a symptom of the larger problem. There are too many faux "progressives" and phony "peace activists" who demonize genuine efforts for peach and public good. But the phonies are flashy and use all the right buzzwords, as a substitute for actually caring about people.

I don't think they're fake. But I do think many have a very simplistic outlook of the world. If you can simply identify good guys and bad guys, things are nice and easy and details can be dismissed as small potatoes. Media criticism gets simplified to seeing if you can tie someone to one of the bad guys and, if so, then you can safely dismiss them. The world may be under the thrall of evil puppetmasters, but at least someone's in control, as opposed the the terrifying possibility that no one is in control and we truly are free moral agents responsible for our own lives.

You mean nobody is driving the ship?


tjohn said:

You mean nobody is driving the ship?

If I tell you someone is driving, and that I'll let you in on who these people really are, will you subscribe to my podcast? Also, click on the affiliate links.


PVW said:

I don't think they're fake. But I do think many have a very simplistic outlook of the world. If you can simply identify good guys and bad guys, things are nice and easy and details can be dismissed as small potatoes. Media criticism gets simplified to seeing if you can tie someone to one of the bad guys and, if so, then you can safely dismiss them. The world may be under the thrall of evil puppetmasters, but at least someone's in control, as opposed the the terrifying possibility that no one is in control and we truly are free moral agents responsible for our own lives.

I'm not feeling as charitable about them, I guess.  I see them following the same playbook through Assad apologetics, Putin apologetics, and now naked support for authoritarian China against the people of Taiwan, their democracy and their freedoms.

[Edited to add] By way of yet another example, when I see the same voices supporting the Palestinians' desire for their own state, but also denigrating the people of Taiwan who prefer their freedom and democracy to autocratic rule and "re-education" by China, I call bullsh*t on their "progressive" intentions.


nohero said:

sbenois said:

You really have to admire the world class suspension of reality that Nan brings to the table every day.

Ms. Nan is just a symptom of the larger problem. There are too many faux "progressives" and phony "peace activists" who demonize genuine OK,efforts for peace and public good. But the phonies are flashy and use all the right buzzwords, as a substitute for actually caring about people.

OK, please answer my questions:   Can the US win a war against China?   Are you willing to go to war with China?

Because if the answer is "NO" than everything you say is ****. 


nan said:

nohero said:

Ms. Nan is just a symptom of the larger problem. There are too many faux "progressives" and phony "peace activists" who demonize genuine OK,efforts for peace and public good. But the phonies are flashy and use all the right buzzwords, as a substitute for actually caring about people.

OK, please answer my questions:   Can the US win a war against China?   Are you willing to go to war with China?

Because if the answer is "NO" than everything you say is ****. 

I already told you that those are the wrong questions to ask.


nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

Ms. Nan is just a symptom of the larger problem. There are too many faux "progressives" and phony "peace activists" who demonize genuine OK,efforts for peace and public good. But the phonies are flashy and use all the right buzzwords, as a substitute for actually caring about people.

OK, please answer my questions:   Can the US win a war against China?   Are you willing to go to war with China?

Because if the answer is "NO" than everything you say is ****. 

I already told you that those are the wrong questions to ask.

If that is being wrong, I don't want to be right.

Again:

Can the US win a war with China.    Are you willing to go to war with China?


nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

Can the US win a war against China?   Are you willing to go to war with China?

Because if the answer is "NO" than everything you say is ****. 

I already told you that those are the wrong questions to ask.

If that is being wrong, I don't want to be right.

Again:

Can the US win a war with China.    Are you willing to go to war with China?

The only people who frame the issue as “either/or” like that, are those who say the people of Taiwan should surrender to, and accept “re-education” and rule by, China.

Please see the thread referenced earlier (and where you already asked that question) - 

PVW said:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/taiwan/politics-plus?page=next&limit=0#discussion-replies-3593086

Seems to be the thread if Nan would like to give her view on the right questions to ask.


I think the question should be 

“ does China want a war with America and do they think they can win a war with America “?

Yee of little faith should just curl up in to a fetal position and suck your thumbs 


nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

Can the US win a war against China?   Are you willing to go to war with China?

Because if the answer is "NO" than everything you say is ****. 

I already told you that those are the wrong questions to ask.

If that is being wrong, I don't want to be right.

Again:

Can the US win a war with China.    Are you willing to go to war with China?

The only people who frame the issue as “either/or” like that, are those who say the people of Taiwan should surrender to, and accept “re-education” and rule by, China.

Please see the thread referenced earlier (and where you already asked that question) - 

PVW said:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/taiwan/politics-plus?page=next&limit=0#discussion-replies-3593086

Seems to be the thread if Nan would like to give her view on the right questions to ask.

I don't care if I'm in with the right people.  I just want to know:

Are you willing to go to war with China?  Do you think the US can win a war with China?

Why can't you answer that?


nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

Can the US win a war against China?   Are you willing to go to war with China?

Because if the answer is "NO" than everything you say is ****. 

I already told you that those are the wrong questions to ask.

If that is being wrong, I don't want to be right.

Again:

Can the US win a war with China.    Are you willing to go to war with China?

The only people who frame the issue as “either/or” like that, are those who say the people of Taiwan should surrender to, and accept “re-education” and rule by, China.

Please see the thread referenced earlier (and where you already asked that question) - 

PVW said:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/taiwan/politics-plus?page=next&limit=0#discussion-replies-3593086

Seems to be the thread if Nan would like to give her view on the right questions to ask.

I don't care if I'm in with the right people.  I just want to know:

Are you willing to go to war with China?  Do you think the US can win a war with China?

Why can't you answer that?

You really can't get over the fact that one guy said the U.S. couldn't win a war with China, can you?

You're kinda loving it.


drummerboy said:

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

Can the US win a war against China?   Are you willing to go to war with China?

Because if the answer is "NO" than everything you say is ****. 

I already told you that those are the wrong questions to ask.

If that is being wrong, I don't want to be right.

Again:

Can the US win a war with China.    Are you willing to go to war with China?

The only people who frame the issue as “either/or” like that, are those who say the people of Taiwan should surrender to, and accept “re-education” and rule by, China.

Please see the thread referenced earlier (and where you already asked that question) - 

PVW said:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/taiwan/politics-plus?page=next&limit=0#discussion-replies-3593086

Seems to be the thread if Nan would like to give her view on the right questions to ask.

I don't care if I'm in with the right people.  I just want to know:

Are you willing to go to war with China?  Do you think the US can win a war with China?

Why can't you answer that?

You really can't get over the fact that one guy said the U.S. couldn't win a war with China, can you?

You're kinda loving it.

Ba da ba ba ba.


nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

nan said:

Can the US win a war against China?   Are you willing to go to war with China?

Because if the answer is "NO" than everything you say is ****. 

I already told you that those are the wrong questions to ask.

If that is being wrong, I don't want to be right.

Again:

Can the US win a war with China.    Are you willing to go to war with China?

The only people who frame the issue as “either/or” like that, are those who say the people of Taiwan should surrender to, and accept “re-education” and rule by, China.

Please see the thread referenced earlier (and where you already asked that question) - 

PVW said:

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/taiwan/politics-plus?page=next&limit=0#discussion-replies-3593086

Seems to be the thread if Nan would like to give her view on the right questions to ask.

I don't care if I'm in with the right people.  I just want to know:

Are you willing to go to war with China?  Do you think the US can win a war with China?

Why can't you answer that?

It's obvious that you are literally refusing to read any of what any other poster has already written on this.

As I've indicated before, I found  Keven Rudd's book, "The Avoidable War", about the China-U.S. relationship, to be very informative on this. As anybody should be able to tell from the title, Ambassador Rudd discusses the history, the current relationship, and a future addressing of that relationship through means other than war.  As he writes on p. 332, after noting various uncertainties in China, the U.S., and elsewhere: “It is hazardous, therefore, to attempt any single, authoritative forecast of what the US-China relationship will look like by 2030. The best way to envisage the future is to instead outline a range of potential scenarios based on different assumptions, providing some indication of the consequences that are likely to flow from each of them in the years ahead. This may at least provide a cautionary guide to policy makers today as they seek to navigate the dangerous shoals that lie ahead.”

He does go through and discuss 10 scenarios, of what could happen in the near future. Among the titles he gives to some of them -

  • China’ Succeeds in Taking Taiwan by Force as the US Decides Against Military Intervention – America’s Munich Moment (p. 332)
  • The United States Defeats a Chinese Military Action Against Taiwan – A Second Midway (p. 334)
  • Chinese and American Military Stalemate over Taiwan – A New Korean Stalemate (p. 338)
  • Washington and Taipei Together Succeed in Deterring Beijing from the Use of Force Against Taiwan – Washington’s Best-Case Scenario (p. 339)
  • Xi Jinping’s Regional and Globa Strategy Succeeds in the Absence of Military Confrontation with the United States – Xi’s Optimal Plan (p. 347)

With that, I think the discussion can go back to that more general thread, already identified above.


Neither China nor the U.S. can win in a fight over Taiwan.  The only prospect is economic destruction.


All the people that lost their freaking minds over Pelosi visiting Taiwan are now making excuses for Trump keeping classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.  This includes documents related to nuclear weapons.  But don't worry, there was only one key to the storage room!

Hypocrites.


nan said:

jamie said:

Isn't he a barred attorney?   Now he's the leading expert on China?  LOL  It's incredible how many times he premises his reaction with "I think" or "I suspect" or "I believe".

Any actual link for what they're talking about?  Or backup with the bullet points you listed?

He's an expert on geopolitics.  He gives measured responses, which is much better than someone who shoots their mouth off with certainty over things we can't know for sure.  Were it not for the Duran we might not know about these important suspended cooperations.  I am still looking for the list, although I have found reference to it.  Wonder why they are not telling us this while presenting the visit in positive or neutral terms.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/05/china-halts-us-cooperation-nancy-pelosi-taiwan

He was a lawyer, who had to take a different career path when he was disbarred in 2012.

How did he develop his expertise on geopolitics?


yahooyahoo said:

nan said:

jamie said:

Isn't he a barred attorney?   Now he's the leading expert on China?  LOL  It's incredible how many times he premises his reaction with "I think" or "I suspect" or "I believe".

Any actual link for what they're talking about?  Or backup with the bullet points you listed?

He's an expert on geopolitics.  He gives measured responses, which is much better than someone who shoots their mouth off with certainty over things we can't know for sure.  Were it not for the Duran we might not know about these important suspended cooperations.  I am still looking for the list, although I have found reference to it.  Wonder why they are not telling us this while presenting the visit in positive or neutral terms.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/05/china-halts-us-cooperation-nancy-pelosi-taiwan

He was a lawyer, who had to take a different career path when he was disbarred in 2012.

How did he develop his expertise on geopolitics?

His family was very into politics so it was a big thing for him at a young age. 


nan said:

His family was very into politics so it was a big thing for him at a young age. 

Lol. My Dad was a socialist who drove trams and my Mum read The Sun. I learned how to read from The Sun, even though my Dad bought The Daily Mirror, so politics was a big thing for me at a young age, too. That’s why I’m an expert in geopolitics, too.


ridski said:

Lol. My Dad was a socialist who drove trams and my Mum read The Sun. I learned how to read from The Sun, even though my Dad bought The Daily Mirror, so politics was a big thing for me at a young age, too. That’s why I’m an expert in geopolitics, too.

He was also a whole lot smarter than you. That helped. 


nan said:

ridski said:

Lol. My Dad was a socialist who drove trams and my Mum read The Sun. I learned how to read from The Sun, even though my Dad bought The Daily Mirror, so politics was a big thing for me at a young age, too. That’s why I’m an expert in geopolitics, too.

He was also a whole lot smarter than you. That helped. 

My dad? Possibly smarter than me. He was incredibly misogynist, though, and he really hated Chinese people.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Advertise here!