Comments:China threatens to take action over US-Taiwan deal

Is the USA right to sell arms to Taiwan?

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

I believe United States has no rights to interfere. The cold war is over...or so were thought

Except that... Taiwan wants the arms. I would agree that the US has no right to force or coerce a country into adopting a more favorable style of government, or to back an antagonistic country for the sake of disrupting an enemy, but this is a country that wants help with its defense against a power that would otherwise subsume it. --Fishy c (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We're going to be at war with the commies at some point. Mcarthur was a genius, if he would have had his way we wouldn't have this problem right now. China is quickly becoming military equals to the USA. The USA needs to destroy the Russia/China axis while we still have military superiority. Better sooner than later.

China and Russia won't last as total dictatorships anyway, attack or not. This whole thing is silly - if the West just stands its ground and doesn't go picking fights, authoritarian regimes will eventually collapse on their own; that's what they've tended to do in the past few decades. It will probably take longer for China (Russia is just a mess and will either cease being a threat or cease being a dictatorship unless something huge happens), but once people start having good and varied economic opportunities, they will start looking for good and varied political and social opportunities. It might not result in a western-style democracy (who says that's what's best, anyway?), but it will result in something fair that the people of China happily consent to. It's how the West got rid of authoritarianism, and there's no reason to think it won't work anywhere else. Nobody except Taiwan gains anything from this kind of deal (and even then, this might endanger them in its own way).

I must disagree with that statement. For starters "dictatorships" as you are suggesting that China is, have a long history of successful existence as opposed to the republic of the USA. Secondly, while the inherent meme that democracy and capitalism prevails over communism and socialism is based on the faith and expectation that it is morally, culturally, and economically superior, not on actual evidence. Thirdly, from a strict economical sense, China has recently displayed STABLE growth for a consistently longer period than the US or any other "first world" state. Also this is whilst intentionally lowering birth rate. China now leads the world in manufacturing while the US leads the world in agriculture exports and military spending. The US spends 48% of worldwide military spending while China,the second highest spender, is at 4.8%. Those figures are misleading however since dollar expenditure does not equate proportionately to real military power. In fact China has the largest army in the world with twice as many troops. Tech-wise they have quickly caught up to the US and are par in most weapon systems. Since they have the highest manufacturing capacity in the world they could quickly out-arm all countries including the US. In the last decade while the US has spent trillions to occupy Iraq and attempt to bring it's oil to market, China has been peacefully negotiating for resources all over the world for much less cost and much more gain. No, the US is actually at far higher risk of political, societal, and economical collapse long before the People's Republic of China. Fortunately, the chinese will continue to require the US's food exports as our economy takes its last strides. China is the sleeping dragon - It's best not to prod it by assisting succession of what it considers it's territory. --66.223.168.45 (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What's funny about this, is the U.S. is directly responsible for the existence of many of the last century's dictators in the first place. Plus, I'm pretty sure the world has yet to see a large-scale attempt at true communism. I'm pretty sure China fails at many of its basic tenets, including equal distribution of resources and 'from each according to ability, to each according to need'. A brute force one-party system with strict oppression of dissent and a population who live much like slaves aren't necessary criteria for identifying a communist country at all. In fact, I think that accurately describes the U.S., only they're better at controlling their people. For one, propaganda words like 'Communism' work like a charm at manipulating public opinions, and they actually believe they have more freedom than other countries. Our government is just a one-party as any other, and our oppression of dissent is pretty extreme as well. Try looking up some of the methods used against peaceful protestors in this country. We have plenty of political prisoners. Sure we don't execute them as often as other places, but that's because most of our prisons are privately owned businesses run for profit. Inmates are free labor. Try also comparing public reaction to corruption here vs other places that are supposed to be worse. China has had multiple huge-scale riots over the last couple years over corruption and the deaths of innocents. The exact same things have happened over here and resulted in almost 0 public response. We're a depressingly docile population. We have no unified interests whatsoever in protecting ourselves against our own ruling class. Try to see things in a broader perspective.

You clearly weren't paying attention when I said that China neither needs to nor probably will develop into a western-style democracy, and that western-sytle democracy is not necessarily the best thing out there. It's right there in the third-to-last sentence. Nor did I ever say the US is stable or exemplerary (if it doesn't get its act together, it will fall apart within decades), nor did I say anything about China's economy being in a bad state - on the contrary, as you said, it's doing better than almost everyone else. I'd frankly be happier if China didn't go the way of the US, but one thing is certain, it won't stay, politically and legally, the way it is now. If the CCP reforms and develops more transparency, consultancy and less censorship and nepotism, there is no need for westernization of the political system; indeed, in that respect the CCP has been getting steadily better over the last two decades. The point is that if China becomes a society that is led by the CCP but in which its citizens are free, it simply can't be called authoritarian anymore - and it is not in the Chinese people's interest to start wars, so a CCP that leads the country well will not be a military threat to anybody else unless others strike first. China will probably not, and should probably not, fall apart and become a democracy, but what it should and will eventually do is put an end to corruption, censorship and the rule of man. It is entirely possible for a state to be transparent, liberal and ruled by law without it being Western-style, and I frankly hope this is the direction China takes. Pay attention to the finite details of what people say.

However, the US is legally obliged to sell weapons to Tawian, and is obliged to not sell weapons to China. — μ 18:14, Sunday January 31 2010 (UTC)

Though the kind of arms are not specified ("of a defensive character," according to Wikipedia). 60 helicopters and a bunch of Patriot missiles is quite a bit, when things like radar and intelligence equipment could also be used for defensive purposes. Further, if the US is legally obliged to sell Taiwan weapons, then they've done so in the past ten years without kicking up much of a stink (I'm unaware of how often the legal obligation states weapons must be sold); to me, this seems to imply that the current deal is a significant escalation upon previous arms sales. Either that, or for some reason the PRC is suddenly getting edgy for other reasons, which seems unlikely at the present time.

Is the USA right to sell arms to Taiwan?

Just like China has the right to threat, yes.

US gots no right to sell MIM-104 Patriot to Taiwan

it is completely unacceptable for US-Obama adminitration to cash-in by dumping/selling weapons to Taiwan. First, China has no intention to use military force onto Taiwan while Ma's administration has imporved communication quality and frequency with China officials. Secondly, US has got huge finantial deficit and that is their own problem. Over spend and aggresively increase government expenses in Iraq and medicare, decision has been made and Americans should take their responsiblity and consequeses rather than semi-forcing region or nations such as Taiwan to purchase unwanted WEAPON.

Hasn't China specificly (and repeatedly) stated they will use force of arms if Taiwan breaks away? [1] I don't think these weapons are unwanted by taiwan, if they were, why would they buy them. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)