I'm not warmongering. I'm not calling for war. I'm just observing reality and describing it.
> Looking at the last 150 years, or even the most recent decades, it's us having a history of invading countries or conducting military operations to support different parties.
I'm aware of much that, from Smedly Butler's "War is a Racket", to the CIA's disastrous interventions in Iran, Chile, and other countries, to the more recent endless wars of pre-emptive regime change against rogue states aspiring to become nuclear powers. But conversely, defending existing democracies against being overrun by authoritarian dictatorships is not that. One can be against the former and for the latter.
>The way I see it, western countries and US should take a clear stand about Taiwanese statehood, and Taiwan needs to do it first on their own in order for the rest of the world to take a stand, as they legally still lay claim on the entirety of China (and beyond).
Both conceding Taiwan to the CCP, and supporting a Taiwanese declaration of independence, would lead to bad outcomes from the US point of view. Conceding could embolden the CCP to push further, toward the other small countries in ASEAN, or Mongolia, etc. Appeasement of dictatorships has been known to lead to that outcome, especially ones already acting belligerent and hostile to their other neighbors. Conversely, formal independence for Taiwan is the CCP's red line and would certainly result in war.
What the US chose instead was to publicly support the "One China" policy so as not to embarrass the CCP or cause loss of face, which is important over there, while also supporting Taiwan's defacto independence (and, I suspect, privately communicating that an attack on Taiwan would not be acceptable). After formally switching recognition to the CCP in 1971, this was the only realistic policy position for the US to take. One could argue against formally switching recognition, but after that was done, ambiguity over Taiwan was the only option.
I'm not warmongering. I'm not calling for war. I'm just observing reality and describing it.
> Looking at the last 150 years, or even the most recent decades, it's us having a history of invading countries or conducting military operations to support different parties.
I'm aware of much that, from Smedly Butler's "War is a Racket", to the CIA's disastrous interventions in Iran, Chile, and other countries, to the more recent endless wars of pre-emptive regime change against rogue states aspiring to become nuclear powers. But conversely, defending existing democracies against being overrun by authoritarian dictatorships is not that. One can be against the former and for the latter.
>The way I see it, western countries and US should take a clear stand about Taiwanese statehood, and Taiwan needs to do it first on their own in order for the rest of the world to take a stand, as they legally still lay claim on the entirety of China (and beyond).
Both conceding Taiwan to the CCP, and supporting a Taiwanese declaration of independence, would lead to bad outcomes from the US point of view. Conceding could embolden the CCP to push further, toward the other small countries in ASEAN, or Mongolia, etc. Appeasement of dictatorships has been known to lead to that outcome, especially ones already acting belligerent and hostile to their other neighbors. Conversely, formal independence for Taiwan is the CCP's red line and would certainly result in war.
What the US chose instead was to publicly support the "One China" policy so as not to embarrass the CCP or cause loss of face, which is important over there, while also supporting Taiwan's defacto independence (and, I suspect, privately communicating that an attack on Taiwan would not be acceptable). After formally switching recognition to the CCP in 1971, this was the only realistic policy position for the US to take. One could argue against formally switching recognition, but after that was done, ambiguity over Taiwan was the only option.