If Colby is so hell bent on "defending" Taiwan, then why not push for U.S. ending "one China policy"? There is not a word on "one China policy" in this entire speech. This entire presentation is incoherent and confusing. If defense of Taiwan is a "core" U.S. national security interest, then the logical conclusion is that U.S. should drop "one China policy". But Colby doesn't mention "one China policy" at all. So what's going on here? So is he really hardcore on Taiwan or not? If you are really truly hardcore on Taiwan, you will be pushing for the END of "one China policy". But Colby doesn't do so. It seems that he is not so hardcore after all. The entire logic of his speech doesn't flow. He doesn't reach the logical conclusion of dropping "one China policy". Taiwan is thus not vital U.S. interest. But he says that Taiwan is U.S. vital interest.
There is absolutely nothing confusing about this speech, it is 100% coherent. Just because he didn't going into the nuances of the One China Policy (strategic ambuguity vs strategic clarity, etc) does not mean he he doesn't think Taiwan is not a vital US interest. He just made an entire speech on why he does think it is a vital interest.
@@FUTUBEFLAGS I think Colby is completely clueless about China and Taiwan issue. That is why he didn't say a word about one China policy. He knew nothing about one China policy and Taiwan. Colby is completely, totally and utterly clueless about anything on China and Taiwan. He says nothing concrete about China. He tries to hide his total ignorance about China behind fake political theories.
@@petervote7914 So Colby makes a 13 minute condensed speech designed to rapidly explain the argument in favor of defending Taiwan, and because he didn't say the words One China Policy you are unable to understand his argument, or substantiate your own counter-argument. Peter Vote internal monologue: "I didn't hear 3 magical words. Therefore, I don't understand you, Colby. And that makes you dumb" Ok, buddy.
@@FUTUBEFLAGS what are you rambling about? I've read your comments. So what's your stance? Either die for Taiwan or not. Simple as that. The ball is in America's court to wether it wants to escalate or not. China is going to invade Taiwan. What will America do is the question.
I don't support fighting for Taiwan, or Asia in general, but your question is not a repudiation to the argument. Would you ask the same thing regarding Bin Laden?
@@FUTUBEFLAGS I particularly ask US politicians. How many sent their kids to fights from wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and more while they made decisions or voted to go to wars?
@@parklilys3108 I understood the premise of your question, and while it is a valid one, it is also a cheap one that can be used as in instant conversation stopper. The worst example of hypocrisy would be Dick Cheney deferring his draft into the Vietnam, while supporting the war that others were forced to fight, yet he would dodge himself. Believe me, I do understand the sentiment. But the fall of Taiwan could be the inflection point that changes the current world order. China is the most significant geopolitical threat that we have ever seen. I personally do not support the defense of Taiwan, or Asia in general. But Colby's description and prescription is very sound and valid. The conversation cannot be reduced to "will you send your children to fight", it's too important.
@@FUTUBEFLAGS Before the launch of every war as I mentioned in previous response, the description and prescription were regarded as sound and valid just as Colby's. What was the results? disasters. The central question is not Colby's arguments sound and valid but America's arrogance and misjudgments of world affairs particularly on Asia. Who can guarantee his arguments would be right this time? While my question "will you send your kids to fight" is cheap, it does demand people to think carefully about launching a war.
He is Totally Wrong. PRC only spends 1.7% of its GDP on military. And Taiwan is its Core interest. If US does what Colby suggested, PRC and US will get into an Arm Race AND China is going to win it easily in Few Years because of its Manufacturing Power. Unless US at least double its Pentagon Budget (from 3.7% to 7%), there is no chance to seriously deter PRC on Taiwan. However PRC does not have a true Blue Navy yet and will not have one for decades, lacking of Carrier Groups, no match of US Submarine and No real Navy bases outside PRC. So the crazy idea about PRC dominating US in Pacific is simply Not True.
B/c the US thinks it's important, it can decide Taiwan (a part of CN which the US admits officially) be separated from China? This guy is thoroughly deluded--and CN will kick your ass if the US barges in a war in Taiwan Strait. 🤣🤣🤣
How do we defend Taiwan when they aren't replacing their population and they hate the mandatory military training (which is laughably short) and they seem hell bent on _not_ being militarily prepared?
@@fusion9619 The government and people are taking the threat of China much more seriously especially after the way that the PRC has ended any freedom in Hong Kong. Taiwan is spending quite a bit on their Air Force, Navy, land-based anti-Ship missiles, and surface air missiles. They're also acquiring some indigenous missiles which would allow them to hit targets in China such as ports and air fields to disrupt any invasion. For 20 years, they tried to purchase submarines from other countries. Having failed to do so, they are building their own.
@@ronmaximilian6953 that's their government. The people are still as apathetic as ever. They have the lowest birth rate in the world, worse even than China, and the only thing they feel strongly enough to actually protest is how much they hate serving in the military. They're sitting ducks. No amount of military spending can fix this.
Another guy explained that if China should control Taiwan, that would project control over critical international shipping lanes in that basin named the South China Sea (east of the Philippines, west of Vietnam, north of Malaysia, and south of China). Frankly, I'm not so sure that we should view Russia as an "enemy". The thesis that Russia is willing and able to supply oil and gas to Europe makes them somehow "bad" doesn't make much sense, and trying to marginalize Russia seems to me to be a major mistake.
Fair point, but how do you bring Russia to our side without sacrificing critical interests? Ukraine is just the beginning - they want to put their borders up to the Carpathian mountains. Do we let eastern Europe go?
@@fusion9619 ---- I'm not in the diplomatic corps, and I mean that I am not practiced in being polite, talking in an entertaining manner, and saying absolutely nothing more quotable than, "I prefer teas with sugar." Given that: you fail to specify any "critical interest", you fail to source your contentions, and you jump to conclusions about an unspecified Eastern Europe. My unstudied thesis is that Russia was invaded and taken over by Bolsheviks (as Solzhenitsyn explained), suffered mightily, and finally kicked it. We should move to assist them. One exchanges support for support, and there we can negotiate our critical interests (but you have not said which you have in mind). President Reagan was doing rather well with Russian "approchemant"[edit: sic, google spellcheck - I typed" approchement"]. When, and under whom, did relations begin to cool? For which reasons? The American propaganda machine does exist. Some here, perhaps of a mind similar to yours, do not mention that the Russian population of Donetsk has been oppressed by the Ukraine. I believe the Ukraine is something less than the saint-victim it would claim to be. Would you advocate a law here in the U.S. mandating that English is no longer to be spoken and taught because Spanish is now the language of a ruling minority? The Ukraine wanted the Russian language banned in Donetsk. That region has changed hands several times since the 1000's, and probably before that. Turks, Tartars, Jews, Turks, Cossacks, Russ, Ukrainians ... I'd have to study up on it. Without debating about the rightness or wrongness of U.S. siding with French colonial interests, and consequently going to war with North Vietnam: I do not see the wisdom of starting a similar proxy war in the Ukraine. I would prefer to have a friendly relation, however qualified, than an enmity. I mean: Russia sells oil and gas on the open market, and we somehow blame them for some sort of :imperialist aggression because of that, cutting off trade, "arresting" their citizens yachts, shipping cannons to be pointed at them? What have they done to US recently? Give me just that. (Before you mouth off about how they want to invade Paris.) I prefer sugar in my tea. Do you like Darjeeling?
@@davesmith5656 relax, I wasn't attacking you, and this isn't an academic setting. I thought I did say some critical interests. Eastern Europe is one, for the fact that it insulates western Europe from attack - the basic geopolitical paradigm for a very long time has been that the naval "western" powers are mostly aligned against the more land based Eurasian powers - not always, but that's the big picture most of the time. Another critical interest, based on our need for free maritime access, is the Suez Canal, and that means we must be close allies with Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't choose them as an ally, but the geography dictates it. Recently Russia and SA have gotten closer. If we switch to being friendly with Russia, how long until we lose SA? What about Russia's border disputes with Japan? I don't care who is correct in their dispute, but if we become friends with Russia, Japan will assess a greater chance that we won't take their side in their dispute. Is it a big loss? IDK, but it could be. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I even think Russians and Americans are very similar people. I just would like to know how you achieve such a shift without risking a lot. Can Russia be content with friendship and not pursue their security at our allies' expense? I doubt it. Also, we already tried that trick with China. The USSR scared us, so we became friendly with China, and the schism between the USSR and China widened... Good trick, but Russians will see right through it if we try it again but with the roles flipped. So that adds to my skepticism. [Gimme a minute to re-read your comment, I can't look at it on this phone while the input box is up...] K, the main issue with Donetsk and Lugansk is the established order of the Peace of Westphalia. Basically peace is built on the principle that nations can't conquer or divide each other - borders aren't up for grabs. Sure, people can decide to be their own country, but using separatism to annex territory isn't okay. That's what Russia is doing in Ukraine. It's not Ukraine's fault there are Russian people there - the USSR moved people all over the place, mostly Russians into Eastern Europe, but also some strange things like Koreans to the 'stans. If Russia can annex territory based on Russians being there, would Russia mind if Korea took back Vladivostok because that territory used to belong to the Koreans? The examples are endless. Either the Peace of Westphalia is the order, or it isn't, and we're back to empires conquering each other. This is America's global and eternal critical interest, and Russia threatens it. I like your point about assisting Russia with repelling the Bolsheviks or their modern versions, but I don't know what we could do for them. We can't even handle that here...
US want to Chinese in taiwan fight Chinese in China, just like Slavia people from Ukraine to fight Slavia people from Russia. But Sorry, China is smarter, when war break out, NY DC LA... should worry if these cities will evaporate or not.
Taiwan show little interest in defending itself from China. It spends 2.4% of GDP on defense and much of that is not spent in a way that would be effective against China. South Korea, facing a much weaker enemy, spends 2.8%. Also, 30,000 American soldiers are stationed in S Korea, along with American air power. There is reason to suppose that many Taiwanese, especially those in the military, welcome the prospect of uniting with China. They may seek an early surrender in the event of invasion. The hand waving by Colby about finding a way to defend Taiwan without provoking a major war is unconvincing. The only way to help Taiwan is through naval action. The Chinese have missiles capable of sinking all Naval vessels within 1,000 miles of Taiwan. If an entire carrier battle group were sunk, would the US remain restrained? Not likely. Colby's strategy is impractical.
I'm terrible at history as taught, but seems like Eisenhower may have been right. I don't comprehend how any man can place money and "importance" above his ethics and integrity, but if Taiwan is another made-up "talking point", the military industrial complex is real. We should have strong armed forces, but we shouldn't make up wars. I just hope it's a lot of SNAFU.
@@davesmith5656 The MIC is real, but has probably never been the most powerful faction of the ruling class. Consider that it ate up 10% of GDP in 1961 and today eats up less than 4%. We were no more at war in 61' than we are now. The MIC is on a leash. The reason for talks like the above is likely that these guys don't understand Chinese capabilities. They haven't kept up. We've lost every China-Taiwan wargame played by our war strategists for the last 15 years. The Pentagon knows the game is up for a conventional warfare defense of Taiwan. And there isn't an off-the-shelf corrective to the situation, such as buying more subs or missiles. Besides this, as aforesaid, the Taiwanese manifest little determination to remain independent.
@@kreek22 ---- I see. Your comments are very different from, for example, the talk by Colby and others. That's not the only example of very different views based on what we've been told / fed. My preconception was always the association of the USA with the flag, the Constitution, free markets, capitalism, and apple pie, etc.. What bothers me is the misperception by communists / Marxists / progressives etc., as regards Man and ethics and individuality / respect for basic human rights. Vietnam saw very significant change ca. 1986 with a guy called Doi Moi (who was instrumental in instituting free market / capitalist reforms). Taiwanese citizens might come to regret their lack of determination. I'm going to have to listen to this series on their website. Hours of YT. (I'm sick, I must be!)
If anyone has been keeping up with the Ukraine war, they would know how the Mariupol steel factory in Ukraine looked like after Russia was done with it. Sorry to say but that's how Taiwan will end up looking like when China invade Taiwan. The Chinese will be pressing buttons before they put boots on the ground. They will not make the same mistake as Russia by giving Taiwan room for air to breathe.
The only thing that is in America's interest is to go back to the bible and find what it says. Then turn back to the good way of it's founding father's. America is sick with sin! There is no healing the wounds! Repentance is it's only hope! It will be defeated by the Chinese because of it's sin!
This view is typical for those looking backward and seeing the future as modeled on the past. America's interest should focus on improving conditions for the people who live in America, and learning to trust the rest of the world to do the same for their own people.
Improving conditions for the people in America requires economic security. It costs 10 billion dollars to build a single 100K wafer per month megafab. It is much less costly to send a few billion to Taiwan to defend our economic interest than to lose 100s of billions of dollars worth of fabs, or to spend 100s of billions moving them fabs to America.
Well you would start seriously fortifying the islands months before an ideal time for invasion. That way if China responds militarily to such a fortification it can't respond with a high stakes invasion immediately. Moreover, fighting on our terms (outside of China's ideal time window) allows a sampling of effective tactics that nations can gear their militaries toward... Worse comes to worse China eventually takes Taiwan as a pyhrric victory, we take our loss... and we do need to have a good idea before of when to leave the casino... readjust our military and adapt.
You want to use Chinese in Taiwan to fight Chinese in China? Forget about it, if war break out, you need to worry if Manhattan will evaporate, DC LA will evaporate.
@@ambcfoxe4171 I’m sorry to say it like this, but that’s so far from reality I don’t know else can interpret your view other than complete lack of knowledge of history and ignorance. anyways, Taiwan is and will be part of China.
The situation in East Asia is far more complicated than this dude assessment. There are North Korea and Russia in the region too. We are talking about 3 nations with nuclear weapon. In addition I have reservation on the resolve of the US’s allies notably Japan, Australia and India in getting into war with China to protect the US interests.
Russia can't project power to its West, let alone to its East. Japan is already basically committed to directly entering a Taiwan conflict due to the fact that it is critical for its own security, but you are correct that Australia and India's role would likely be more limited.
One would reckon Goldman is being more rational and realistic, while Colby is very much loaded with fantasy, like Spalding, akin to Blinken, while he himself denied that he was any Blinken's clone. LOL.
Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China, so the USA wants to defend China towards another China (the People's Republic of China)? Please exactly what you mean.
According to Tibet, Tibet is an independent Buddhist nation. According to Mongolia, China is a Mongolian province. According to some provincial governors in China, their provinces should be independent. Why should Jiangsu be taxed to support Yunnan?
Everything is America’s National Interest, except America people.
If Colby is so hell bent on "defending" Taiwan, then why not push for U.S. ending "one China policy"? There is not a word on "one China policy" in this entire speech. This entire presentation is incoherent and confusing. If defense of Taiwan is a "core" U.S. national security interest, then the logical conclusion is that U.S. should drop "one China policy". But Colby doesn't mention "one China policy" at all. So what's going on here?
So is he really hardcore on Taiwan or not? If you are really truly hardcore on Taiwan, you will be pushing for the END of "one China policy". But Colby doesn't do so. It seems that he is not so hardcore after all. The entire logic of his speech doesn't flow. He doesn't reach the logical conclusion of dropping "one China policy". Taiwan is thus not vital U.S. interest. But he says that Taiwan is U.S. vital interest.
There is absolutely nothing confusing about this speech, it is 100% coherent. Just because he didn't going into the nuances of the One China Policy (strategic ambuguity vs strategic clarity, etc) does not mean he he doesn't think Taiwan is not a vital US interest. He just made an entire speech on why he does think it is a vital interest.
@@FUTUBEFLAGS I think Colby is completely clueless about China and Taiwan issue. That is why he didn't say a word about one China policy. He knew nothing about one China policy and Taiwan. Colby is completely, totally and utterly clueless about anything on China and Taiwan. He says nothing concrete about China. He tries to hide his total ignorance about China behind fake political theories.
@@petervote7914 So Colby makes a 13 minute condensed speech designed to rapidly explain the argument in favor of defending Taiwan, and because he didn't say the words One China Policy you are unable to understand his argument, or substantiate your own counter-argument.
Peter Vote internal monologue: "I didn't hear 3 magical words. Therefore, I don't understand you, Colby. And that makes you dumb"
Ok, buddy.
@@FUTUBEFLAGS what are you rambling about? I've read your comments. So what's your stance? Either die for Taiwan or not. Simple as that. The ball is in America's court to wether it wants to escalate or not.
China is going to invade Taiwan. What will America do is the question.
Colby WHAT QUALIFICATIONS DO YOU HAVE TO TALK ABOUT SECURITY, DEFENSE, STRATEGIES, etc. NONE!!!!
Will this guy take arms to fight or send his sons and daughters to fight?
I don't support fighting for Taiwan, or Asia in general, but your question is not a repudiation to the argument. Would you ask the same thing regarding Bin Laden?
@@FUTUBEFLAGS I particularly ask US politicians. How many sent their kids to fights from wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and more while they made decisions or voted to go to wars?
@@parklilys3108 I understood the premise of your question, and while it is a valid one, it is also a cheap one that can be used as in instant conversation stopper.
The worst example of hypocrisy would be Dick Cheney deferring his draft into the Vietnam, while supporting the war that others were forced to fight, yet he would dodge himself. Believe me, I do understand the sentiment.
But the fall of Taiwan could be the inflection point that changes the current world order. China is the most significant geopolitical threat that we have ever seen.
I personally do not support the defense of Taiwan, or Asia in general. But Colby's description and prescription is very sound and valid. The conversation cannot be reduced to "will you send your children to fight", it's too important.
@@FUTUBEFLAGS Before the launch of every war as I mentioned in previous response, the description and prescription were regarded as sound and valid just as Colby's. What was the results? disasters. The central question is not Colby's arguments sound and valid but America's arrogance and misjudgments of world affairs particularly on Asia. Who can guarantee his arguments would be right this time? While my question "will you send your kids to fight" is cheap, it does demand people to think carefully about launching a war.
@@FUTUBEFLAGS will you send your children to die for Taiwan and perhaps lead to the destruction of mainland America? That's a better question for you.
He is Totally Wrong. PRC only spends 1.7% of its GDP on military. And Taiwan is its Core interest. If US does what Colby suggested, PRC and US will get into an Arm Race AND China is going to win it easily in Few Years because of its Manufacturing Power. Unless US at least double its Pentagon Budget (from 3.7% to 7%), there is no chance to seriously deter PRC on Taiwan.
However PRC does not have a true Blue Navy yet and will not have one for decades, lacking of Carrier Groups, no match of US Submarine and No real Navy bases outside PRC. So the crazy idea about PRC dominating US in Pacific is simply Not True.
Anybody doing great is a threat to America. Come on. America, fix your own problems, get your house in order and complete on merit!
B/c the US thinks it's important, it can decide Taiwan (a part of CN which the US admits officially) be separated from China? This guy is thoroughly deluded--and CN will kick your ass if the US barges in a war in Taiwan Strait. 🤣🤣🤣
How do we defend Taiwan when they aren't replacing their population and they hate the mandatory military training (which is laughably short) and they seem hell bent on _not_ being militarily prepared?
Taiwan?
We're not replacing our own population!
Except White replacement using 3-rd world immigration.
Sell them the weapons they want
@@ronmaximilian6953 I don't think that will be enough
@@fusion9619 The government and people are taking the threat of China much more seriously especially after the way that the PRC has ended any freedom in Hong Kong. Taiwan is spending quite a bit on their Air Force, Navy, land-based anti-Ship missiles, and surface air missiles. They're also acquiring some indigenous missiles which would allow them to hit targets in China such as ports and air fields to disrupt any invasion.
For 20 years, they tried to purchase submarines from other countries. Having failed to do so, they are building their own.
@@ronmaximilian6953 that's their government. The people are still as apathetic as ever. They have the lowest birth rate in the world, worse even than China, and the only thing they feel strongly enough to actually protest is how much they hate serving in the military. They're sitting ducks. No amount of military spending can fix this.
yes of course.it's American interest to occupy the whole world
Another guy explained that if China should control Taiwan, that would project control over critical international shipping lanes in that basin named the South China Sea (east of the Philippines, west of Vietnam, north of Malaysia, and south of China). Frankly, I'm not so sure that we should view Russia as an "enemy". The thesis that Russia is willing and able to supply oil and gas to Europe makes them somehow "bad" doesn't make much sense, and trying to marginalize Russia seems to me to be a major mistake.
Fair point, but how do you bring Russia to our side without sacrificing critical interests? Ukraine is just the beginning - they want to put their borders up to the Carpathian mountains. Do we let eastern Europe go?
@@fusion9619 ---- I'm not in the diplomatic corps, and I mean that I am not practiced in being polite, talking in an entertaining manner, and saying absolutely nothing more quotable than, "I prefer teas with sugar." Given that: you fail to specify any "critical interest", you fail to source your contentions, and you jump to conclusions about an unspecified Eastern Europe.
My unstudied thesis is that Russia was invaded and taken over by Bolsheviks (as Solzhenitsyn explained), suffered mightily, and finally kicked it. We should move to assist them. One exchanges support for support, and there we can negotiate our critical interests (but you have not said which you have in mind). President Reagan was doing rather well with Russian "approchemant"[edit: sic, google spellcheck - I typed" approchement"]. When, and under whom, did relations begin to cool? For which reasons?
The American propaganda machine does exist. Some here, perhaps of a mind similar to yours, do not mention that the Russian population of Donetsk has been oppressed by the Ukraine. I believe the Ukraine is something less than the saint-victim it would claim to be. Would you advocate a law here in the U.S. mandating that English is no longer to be spoken and taught because Spanish is now the language of a ruling minority? The Ukraine wanted the Russian language banned in Donetsk. That region has changed hands several times since the 1000's, and probably before that. Turks, Tartars, Jews, Turks, Cossacks, Russ, Ukrainians ... I'd have to study up on it.
Without debating about the rightness or wrongness of U.S. siding with French colonial interests, and consequently going to war with North Vietnam: I do not see the wisdom of starting a similar proxy war in the Ukraine. I would prefer to have a friendly relation, however qualified, than an enmity. I mean: Russia sells oil and gas on the open market, and we somehow blame them for some sort of :imperialist aggression because of that, cutting off trade, "arresting" their citizens yachts, shipping cannons to be pointed at them? What have they done to US recently? Give me just that. (Before you mouth off about how they want to invade Paris.)
I prefer sugar in my tea. Do you like Darjeeling?
@@davesmith5656 relax, I wasn't attacking you, and this isn't an academic setting. I thought I did say some critical interests. Eastern Europe is one, for the fact that it insulates western Europe from attack - the basic geopolitical paradigm for a very long time has been that the naval "western" powers are mostly aligned against the more land based Eurasian powers - not always, but that's the big picture most of the time. Another critical interest, based on our need for free maritime access, is the Suez Canal, and that means we must be close allies with Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't choose them as an ally, but the geography dictates it. Recently Russia and SA have gotten closer. If we switch to being friendly with Russia, how long until we lose SA? What about Russia's border disputes with Japan? I don't care who is correct in their dispute, but if we become friends with Russia, Japan will assess a greater chance that we won't take their side in their dispute. Is it a big loss? IDK, but it could be.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I even think Russians and Americans are very similar people. I just would like to know how you achieve such a shift without risking a lot. Can Russia be content with friendship and not pursue their security at our allies' expense? I doubt it.
Also, we already tried that trick with China. The USSR scared us, so we became friendly with China, and the schism between the USSR and China widened... Good trick, but Russians will see right through it if we try it again but with the roles flipped. So that adds to my skepticism.
[Gimme a minute to re-read your comment, I can't look at it on this phone while the input box is up...]
K, the main issue with Donetsk and Lugansk is the established order of the Peace of Westphalia. Basically peace is built on the principle that nations can't conquer or divide each other - borders aren't up for grabs. Sure, people can decide to be their own country, but using separatism to annex territory isn't okay. That's what Russia is doing in Ukraine. It's not Ukraine's fault there are Russian people there - the USSR moved people all over the place, mostly Russians into Eastern Europe, but also some strange things like Koreans to the 'stans. If Russia can annex territory based on Russians being there, would Russia mind if Korea took back Vladivostok because that territory used to belong to the Koreans? The examples are endless. Either the Peace of Westphalia is the order, or it isn't, and we're back to empires conquering each other. This is America's global and eternal critical interest, and Russia threatens it.
I like your point about assisting Russia with repelling the Bolsheviks or their modern versions, but I don't know what we could do for them. We can't even handle that here...
The real enemies run the US of A. Russia is too weak to matter in future. The Great Game in China vs America.
@@kreek22 ---- One day, I aspire to achieving brevity of replies. Yuri Bezmenov lectured about subversion in the 1980's.
Let China's Taiwan be China's Taiwan !Both are Chinese and they are not pink nosed😂😂
US want to Chinese in taiwan fight Chinese in China, just like Slavia people from Ukraine to fight Slavia people from Russia. But Sorry, China is smarter, when war break out, NY DC LA... should worry if these cities will evaporate or not.
Taiwan show little interest in defending itself from China. It spends 2.4% of GDP on defense and much of that is not spent in a way that would be effective against China. South Korea, facing a much weaker enemy, spends 2.8%. Also, 30,000 American soldiers are stationed in S Korea, along with American air power.
There is reason to suppose that many Taiwanese, especially those in the military, welcome the prospect of uniting with China. They may seek an early surrender in the event of invasion.
The hand waving by Colby about finding a way to defend Taiwan without provoking a major war is unconvincing. The only way to help Taiwan is through naval action. The Chinese have missiles capable of sinking all Naval vessels within 1,000 miles of Taiwan. If an entire carrier battle group were sunk, would the US remain restrained? Not likely. Colby's strategy is impractical.
I'm terrible at history as taught, but seems like Eisenhower may have been right. I don't comprehend how any man can place money and "importance" above his ethics and integrity, but if Taiwan is another made-up "talking point", the military industrial complex is real. We should have strong armed forces, but we shouldn't make up wars. I just hope it's a lot of SNAFU.
@@davesmith5656 The MIC is real, but has probably never been the most powerful faction of the ruling class. Consider that it ate up 10% of GDP in 1961 and today eats up less than 4%. We were no more at war in 61' than we are now. The MIC is on a leash.
The reason for talks like the above is likely that these guys don't understand Chinese capabilities. They haven't kept up. We've lost every China-Taiwan wargame played by our war strategists for the last 15 years. The Pentagon knows the game is up for a conventional warfare defense of Taiwan. And there isn't an off-the-shelf corrective to the situation, such as buying more subs or missiles. Besides this, as aforesaid, the Taiwanese manifest little determination to remain independent.
@@kreek22 ---- I see. Your comments are very different from, for example, the talk by Colby and others. That's not the only example of very different views based on what we've been told / fed. My preconception was always the association of the USA with the flag, the Constitution, free markets, capitalism, and apple pie, etc.. What bothers me is the misperception by communists / Marxists / progressives etc., as regards Man and ethics and individuality / respect for basic human rights. Vietnam saw very significant change ca. 1986 with a guy called Doi Moi (who was instrumental in instituting free market / capitalist reforms). Taiwanese citizens might come to regret their lack of determination. I'm going to have to listen to this series on their website. Hours of YT. (I'm sick, I must be!)
If anyone has been keeping up with the Ukraine war, they would know how the Mariupol steel factory in Ukraine looked like after Russia was done with it.
Sorry to say but that's how Taiwan will end up looking like when China invade Taiwan. The Chinese will be pressing buttons before they put boots on the ground. They will not make the same mistake as Russia by giving Taiwan room for air to breathe.
The only thing that is in America's interest is to go back to the bible and find what it says. Then turn back to the good way of it's founding father's. America is sick with sin! There is no healing the wounds! Repentance is it's only hope! It will be defeated by the Chinese because of it's sin!
The US is greatest thread to the world peace because you have peoples like this in charge America!!!!!!!
People like him needs to mind his own dam business and man up to the competition and the audacity to mention Chinese sanctions.
Very well put.
China can be even more specific about why it needs to defend Taiwan that is a part of the country from being misled and used by America.
More "Forever War" 🤨 #militaryindustrialcomplex
This view is typical for those looking backward and seeing the future as modeled on the past. America's interest should focus on improving conditions for the people who live in America, and learning to trust the rest of the world to do the same for their own people.
US model is exploring 7 billions people for the top 0.1% richest group.
Improving conditions for the people in America requires economic security. It costs 10 billion dollars to build a single 100K wafer per month megafab. It is much less costly to send a few billion to Taiwan to defend our economic interest than to lose 100s of billions of dollars worth of fabs, or to spend 100s of billions moving them fabs to America.
Well you would start seriously fortifying the islands months before an ideal time for invasion. That way if China responds militarily to such a fortification it can't respond with a high stakes invasion immediately. Moreover, fighting on our terms (outside of China's ideal time window) allows a sampling of effective tactics that nations can gear their militaries toward... Worse comes to worse China eventually takes Taiwan as a pyhrric victory, we take our loss... and we do need to have a good idea before of when to leave the casino... readjust our military and adapt.
You want to use Chinese in Taiwan to fight Chinese in China? Forget about it, if war break out, you need to worry if Manhattan will evaporate, DC LA will evaporate.
Taiwan is chinese. Jiang khai sek is former mainland china presiden. And he ran to taiwan with his army after losing war
It is not a matter of "should or not", but "able or not".
Yankee must stay home for our own good.
If you change the name of China to USA may be properl in this topic.
He's talking like we're not doing "all that" to China now.
what does that even mean? Taiwan is part of China, so are you saying to attack China to annex it?
Taiwan is an Island just like Japan. Taiwan want their independence but China keep blocking. Hong Kong is part of China same land mass.
@@ambcfoxe4171 I’m sorry to say it like this, but that’s so far from reality I don’t know else can interpret your view other than complete lack of knowledge of history and ignorance. anyways, Taiwan is and will be part of China.
Just because China once controlled Taiwan does not mean it is forever a part of China. The UK once controlled Canada and Hong Kong and India and...
@@kreek22 cool, so China can support Hawaii’s independence?
@@rezzob That would be amusing. Also amusing: India supporting Tibet's independence.
The situation in East Asia is far more complicated than this dude assessment. There are North Korea and Russia in the region too. We are talking about 3 nations with nuclear weapon. In addition I have reservation on the resolve of the US’s allies notably Japan, Australia and India in getting into war with China to protect the US interests.
Russia can't project power to its West, let alone to its East. Japan is already basically committed to directly entering a Taiwan conflict due to the fact that it is critical for its own security, but you are correct that Australia and India's role would likely be more limited.
Cmon. ...this is all about US hegemony
.
11:11 which David is Elbridge referring to here? David who?
David Goldman.
@@kreek22 thanks
@@kreek22 I made some videos on Taiwan if you want to check them out xD
One would reckon Goldman is being more rational and realistic, while Colby is very much loaded with fantasy, like Spalding, akin to Blinken, while he himself denied that he was any Blinken's clone. LOL.
Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China, so the USA wants to defend China towards another China (the People's Republic of China)? Please exactly what you mean.
According to Tibet, Tibet is an independent Buddhist nation.
According to Mongolia, China is a Mongolian province.
According to some provincial governors in China, their provinces should be independent. Why should Jiangsu be taxed to support Yunnan?
Long live British Raj
@@kreek22 According to me, this planet belong to me.
This guy gets it.
forever war american
everything he said about china-America does the same thing
Look at how the Uass treated Cuba.