121–130 of 171 posts
God damn that is one huge cookie consent pop up. I browse with cell phone and was unable to find what to click to make it dissapear. So I’m now here reading comments to figure out what the artcile said.
uBlock Origin for Firefox mobile removes those concents.
This is not just some pork-barrel politics of bribing a company to stay in a given country. S Korea will view this similarly to Taiwan - their chip fabs are existential to their country and state. The USA is becoming more isolationist - it is nearly oil-independent, so it's signalling pulling out of the middle east (deals with Iran etc). But it is not silicon-independent. So S Korea and Taiwan are totally dependent o…
With that in mind I feel it is time for the US to take a much more aggressive stance in defending Taiwan. They should simply figure out a way for it to be an autonomous territory of the US. Hong Kong as well, since China is not following the requirements of the agreement forged some 20 years ago - we might as well consider those bill and void and forge an agreement with the HK government to bring them into the US fol…
Culturally their are similar, speak the same language. Mainland is Taiwan's biggest trading partner. & before the Japs was Chinese territory. and China has an iron will to bring Taiwan into the fold. What would the US gain again from making Taiwan it's territory - war and more debt.
Chip fabs can easily be built in the US on a 3 year timeline. Whereas that same 3 year timeline, maybe the PRC would've taken Taiwan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With that in mind I feel it is time for the US to take a much more aggressive stance in defending Taiwan. They should simply figure out a way for it to be an autonomous territory of the US. Hong Kong as well, since China is not following the requirements of the agreement forged some 20 years ago - we might as well consider those bill and void and forge an agreement with the HK government to bring them into the US fol…
that literally means war. I'm in Taiwan currently though I'm not Taiwanase or of chinese descent. Taiwan is a mono-ethnic country, where a good % of the population believe it or not identify with the mainland. Culturally their are similar, speak the same language. Mainland is Taiwan's biggest trading partner. & before the Japs was Chinese territory. and China has an iron will to bring Taiwan into the fold. What would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is -just- because voicing those opinions is dangerous though? My understanding is that Chinese aggression is a major regional concern, even for average people.
So is the resurgence of fascism in Japan and Japan's re-armament. Those are big concerns in Korea, definitely bigger threat than North Korea, and probably a bigger threat than China.
This is not just some pork-barrel politics of bribing a company to stay in a given country. S Korea will view this similarly to Taiwan - their chip fabs are existential to their country and state. The USA is becoming more isolationist - it is nearly oil-independent, so it's signalling pulling out of the middle east (deals with Iran etc). But it is not silicon-independent. So S Korea and Taiwan are totally dependent o…
> it is nearly oil-independent This has never been how it works. Oil is a global commodity. Even if the US produced as much as it consumes, if something happened in the middle east, the global price would go up. Because when the price went up in Europe or Asia, American oil producers would sell to the highest bidder, which would force American consumers to bid higher. The real path to "independence" is to stop consum…
So it translates into a strategic issue, and, there will be direct involvement by the US if things get bad.
The US I think will stay in S. Korea until the situation changes, it's better to have chips, but that's not necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't seriously believe Europe is defenseless without America. Germany, the UK and France are among the most powerful militaries in the world, with economies that trump Russia, and enough nuclear weapons to flatten it a hundred times over.
The countries you mentioned are as prepared for war as was France in 1939/1940
This is not just some pork-barrel politics of bribing a company to stay in a given country. S Korea will view this similarly to Taiwan - their chip fabs are existential to their country and state. The USA is becoming more isolationist - it is nearly oil-independent, so it's signalling pulling out of the middle east (deals with Iran etc). But it is not silicon-independent. So S Korea and Taiwan are totally dependent o…
That is a very American perspective on things. Hundreds of thousands of US troops are stationed in Germany, Japan, Korea here 75 years after the end of the second world war. Do you think we would like them to stay for another decade? Our politicians may not be in a position to say so, but we would really like our land to be free of foreign troops. As would any other nation.
You are probably not in the majority there.
Do you want the Russians grabbing larger of E. Europe and seeing how far they can go with it?
At the end of the cold war it seemed as though maybe NATO might be past it's usefulness, but after a resurgent Russia, it seems more like it's going to take another 70-100 years probably.
Also, the 'rest of the world' is a more chaotic place, and it bodes well for Europeans to be playing well with American forces.
North Africa is a hot-spot and Europe (except UK/France in very limited form) doesn't have the ability to project power, even in the Libya intervention, it was backed by US AWACS, drones, and organization. It was kind of a folly, but there's no doubt that those interventions could be much more necessary in the future.
Politicians know this and there's no real popular urgency for the Americans to leave.
Both Norway and Sweden, the later a non-NATO country, are going more coordination with the Americans, not less.
Such will be the situation for a few decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, seems a lot of wars start from USA after WW2. The US is an empire and those bases are there to protect the empire, not the countries they sit in.
How do US bases in South Korea protect the US rather than, well, South Korea?
For the same reason the US pushed Saddam out of Kuwait.
The 'world order' we grew up with seems like it's strong but it's not, it's very fragile.
US protection of S. Korea / Japan / Europe is like 'propping up key dominoes' in the chain.
Wars break out sometimes fairly easily, having bullwarks ostensibly keeps them from falling down.
Obviously there are many costs and risks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that literally means war. I'm in Taiwan currently though I'm not Taiwanase or of chinese descent. Taiwan is a mono-ethnic country, where a good % of the population believe it or not identify with the mainland. Culturally their are similar, speak the same language. Mainland is Taiwan's biggest trading partner. & before the Japs was Chinese territory. and China has an iron will to bring Taiwan into the fold. What would…
I think the free world owes Taiwan that degree of protection of their sovereignty. It wouldn’t likely result in war - China wouldn’t risk that, since it is as much a burden to them as it would be to the US. This is just a big game of chicken, and on one side is the US and all its allies (NATO) after all. The US would gain a foothold in the region politically and militarily, and can rest assured that the capacity for…
The rest of the free world would likely need to take the first step of officially recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign country[1] before deciding to officially commit to protecting Taiwan.
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/en/country-rankings/countr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it is nearly oil-independent This has never been how it works. Oil is a global commodity. Even if the US produced as much as it consumes, if something happened in the middle east, the global price would go up. Because when the price went up in Europe or Asia, American oil producers would sell to the highest bidder, which would force American consumers to bid higher. The real path to "independence" is to stop consum…
absolutely true. Since some people are questioning this in the comments: for those that want to do their own research, this is called 'The Law of One Price,' and it applies to other commodities where transportation and storage costs are low. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/law-one-price.asp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_one_price https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/ec... This has bee…
For this and various other temporary phenomenon governments set limits on market economies to prevent outcomes pathologically opposed to the wellbeing of residents. These limits include export controls and subsidies on food and other basic necessities. It absolutely makes sense for a country not to suddenly shift its income to the benefit of external commodity holders due to a sudden price jump in the commodity due to supply chain issues. Not doing so could destroy “higher value” “finished product” industries by making them uncompetitive.
If a large supply chain issue hits a critical necessity you would absolutely expect countries to start triggering their hoarding policies making the issue worse. An economic zone not planning for such a disruption to occur in the future is equivalent to a bet that such disruptions will never occur.