transplant democracy into Middle East! Ha! What do you say?

taiwan

in relation to tw.
most western citizens view taiwan has having or deserving independent status, like as if the mainland was some big bully trying to absorb a neighbour.
but whos to say there were neighbours in the first place?
the issue of tw is a relic that dates back to post-WWII era, and should have been solved half a century ago if US did not intervene as part of their coldwar policies --- ie: Domino effect of communisim.
Save explaining too much; taiwan has been a part of china for times longer than tripple the existence of united states.
to put it in a simple analogy of how the issue taiwan became as it is today, hypothetically, its basically like if there was a civil war in america between democrats and republicans. one side eventually take control while the other flees to Hawaii.
Or, if u r Australian, its like the John Howard wining a civil war and the opposition flees to Tasmania.
Or, if u r a New Zealander, its like Helen Clarke wining a civil war and chasing National Don Brash runs to Steward island.

Is not the legitmacy of your government contingent on the fact that you must establish sovernigty over your own territory? If you cant actually do so (as in the case of CHina) due to whatever reasons, you must, or even if u didn't want to, at lesat pledge to do so...(disregarding economical or military reasons)...just for the sake of your own existence!

To put things in perspective. Disregarding the economic and strategic benefits of taiwan (ie: control of one of the worlds most busiest trading traits, buffer zone or control of south china sea--- benefits the dutch and japanese have sought after) the unification of taiwan is imperative to the stability of modern china and survival of the PRC government.
Inevitably, either 'Taiwan' stays, or PR China collapses into internal turmoil and rebellion as an indirect outcome.
Consider the facts;
- Populations of hundreds of millions of migrant works r unemployeed in the mainland and pondering around.
- The income gap is more inequitable than it was before the communists governed...forget the socialist title!! when did socialism ever mean a caved in Lorenz curve?
- GNP is growing rapidly in urban areas, but lesser in rural areas,...or few cases even negative growth. Dont forget that 60% of mainland population are rural residents.
60% bro, is like 1.4billion x 0.6 thats like 0.84 billion, 840 million. probably more than america and Europe combined. I am not saying they are all poor and unemployeed. But if just 30% of them decided that they r left out of the loop and they r fed up (and they do have a right to be considering entry in WTO will decrease grain prices and hence lower income for peasants), that would be mayhem and loss of control for the government.
Now, considering these internal insidious problems, why do u think u hear so often the GNP growth of China...9.3% first quarter? 8% anually?....if the middle class urban population isn't happy with improved living, and obviously the rural population isn't happy and they decide on subversion....the result will be the most catastrophic event in China's history and send the world into a worse economic stagnation than 1930s.
how to avoid it? economical growth, nationalism thru national achievements, and national goals coupled with government legitimacy and territorial sovernigty (ie: taiwan).

Good points, and very well said, hanshoe.

Originally posted by hanshoe
Is not the legitmacy of your government contingent on the fact that you must establish sovernigty over your own territory? If you cant actually do so (as in the case of CHina) due to whatever reasons, you must, or even if u didn't want to, at lesat pledge to do so...(disregarding economical or military reasons)...just for the sake of your own existence!

Historically, China has often operated as a loosely organized collection of smaller city-states and economic zones, each with differing governments and economic policies. Occasionally a great movement comes along to unify all of China under a single type of government (the great dynasties of the past, for instance), or more recently with the Nationalists and Communists.... or for that matter, the Mongolians, or the Japanese.

Anyway, the thing to bear in mind is that China is very large and very diverse. It's tough to keep such a huge area unified under any single type of government.

The PRC, in recent years, has taken a policy of allowing micro-economic zones and autonomous regions. It works out pretty well, as the locals feel less opressed by the "evil central government", and it lets prosperous city-states like Macau, Hong Kong, etc continue to prosper under PRC rule.

To put things in perspective. Disregarding the economic and strategic benefits of taiwan (ie: control of one of the worlds most busiest trading traits, buffer zone or control of south china sea--- benefits the dutch and japanese have sought after) the unification of taiwan is imperative to the stability of modern china and survival of the PRC government.

Honestly I don't know how the PRC views Taiwan. I mean, sure it would be a fantastic prize for them, economically speaking, to incorporate Taiwan back into red china. But Taiwan would never go for it without a whole ton of negotiations and concessions.

Inevitably, either 'Taiwan' stays, or PR China collapses into internal turmoil and rebellion as an indirect outcome.

So, Taiwan as a stabilizing factor for the PRC. Interesting

Consider the facts;
- Populations of hundreds of millions of migrant works r unemployeed in the mainland and pondering around.
- The income gap is more inequitable than it was before the communists governed...forget the socialist title!! when did socialism ever mean a caved in Lorenz curve?
- GNP is growing rapidly in urban areas, but lesser in rural areas,...or few cases even negative growth. Dont forget that 60% of mainland population are rural residents.
60% bro, is like 1.4billion x 0.6 thats like 0.84 billion, 840 million. probably more than america and Europe combined. I am not saying they are all poor and unemployeed. But if just 30% of them decided that they r left out of the loop and they r fed up (and they do have a right to be considering entry in WTO will decrease grain prices and hence lower income for peasants), that would be mayhem and loss of control for the government.

Yes. And unfortunately issues like rural poverty and the income gap are a serious problem in mainland China. It's rather frustrating that a supposedly socialist government is unable to look out for the welfare of its own people.

On the plus side, the PRC government does seem flexible in other ways, such as allowing capitalist style economic zones in some ports.

It would be nice if they found a balance... for instance (1) using the remaining bits of socialism in the government to ensure the welfare of rural China, develop infrastructure, public works, environmental protection, etc., and (2) continuing to let laissez faire capitalism run in Shanghai, Hong Kong, etc where the local society can handle it.

Bustling ports and high tech office buildings are probably a better way to boost the economy, rather than masses of unskilled laborers transplanted from the countryside into sweatshops. Yet, opening all of China to free market, especially smaller provincial towns, could be real trouble. Look for instance at the New Russian economy in the years right after the end of the USSR. The initial (and seemingly, permanent) distribution of wealth was based on corruption and fast-moving biznismen, and it's taking a long long time for an honest market system to struggle to overcome the oligarchy.

Now, considering these internal insidious problems, why do u think u hear so often the GNP growth of China...9.3% first quarter? 8% anually?....if the middle class urban population isn't happy with improved living, and obviously the rural population isn't happy and they decide on subversion....the result will be the most catastrophic event in China's history and send the world into a worse economic stagnation than 1930s.

Well, if the rural population still believes in Marxist-Leninist communism, they'd view their situation as a great opportunity for revolution and class struggle. Oh, how ironic that such a situtation could exist in a "communist" country.

how to avoid it? economical growth, nationalism thru national achievements, and national goals coupled with government legitimacy and territorial sovernigty (ie: taiwan).

Yes, yes and yes. Of course, the Taiwanese government see themselves as the legitimate Chinese government, too. I have no idea how to even begin to reunify Taiwan with the mainland.

---One thing that seems ridiculous to me is that the US government policy has been to support democratic governments.
and we often hear taiwan is a demorcatically governed and therefore it always receives weapons and pledges for support from the US.

But correct me if I am wrong...
until something like the mid 1980s (from 1949), taiwan was governed under an "Emergency Decree" or something like that, it meant a state similar to martial law.
Therefore, there was only one party allowed in power. the nationalist party. There were no elections held for about 40yrs!!
moreover i dont think i've heard about any presidents of taiwan with a different surname (Jiang) to the guy who lead them to run from the communists in 1949, until presidents on from 1990s years...
it was family business for 4 decades, hummm doesnt sound democratic to me.

if anyone has any more information regarding this point plz post.

Interestingly, the Kuomintang Party (KMT), or Nationalist Party, did not get the majority of the vote in the 2000 election.

It's a sign of stepping into democracy.

Ok lets get off politics and back on subject. Have you seen the AIDC CHING KUO INDIGENOUS FIGHTER Its a mix between the f-20 and f-16 built in Taiwan
www.vectorsite.net/ avf164.html
kinda looks a little like a rafale, though only a little

its a dead link. u sure the link is right?
---> www.vectorsite.net/ avf164.html ???

Originally posted by roniii259
Ok lets get off politics and back on subject. Have you seen the AIDC CHING KUO INDIGENOUS FIGHTER

The F-CK-1 (Ching Kuo) has short legs and it's slow, but it has a good radar and good acceleration. In clean configuration it has enough range to cover anywhere over Taiwan, yet almost zero playtime over mainland China.

It's still a nifty little plane, though. The Ching Kuo was developed locally in Taiwan after the exports of Northrop F-20s were blocked.

Taiwan operates approx. 130 F-CK-1's, split between the 443rd TFW in Tainan and the 427th TFW in Chin Chuan Kang.

Besides being fresh low-hour airframes with newer avionics, the Ching Kuo is rather a step backwards compared to the F-104.

[edit: the obscenity filter is screwing up the ROCAF desgnation for the Ching Kuo. Let's see if this tweak throws it off...]

[Edited on 9-5-2004 by Amet Khan]

shes a good looking bird.
on C&C Generals, the J-10 is more useful than the F22. haha
anyone got anymore photos?

Xerxes brought one million men to bear against 100 mighty Spartans and died upon the rocks at Thermopolae... because they believed that numbers mattered more than skill, bravery and knowledge.

.....and Xerxes won......... silly bugga, Marathon is the comparison you're looking for.

they would ask China to fund the Mig-35 project and form a joint program in the MiG-35 production.

The problem is Mig hasen't been doing too well wth their sales and dosen't have the good reputation to get that going, the Mig-35 project would probably do better under Sukhoi. It's better funded due to sales to India and china and has more experience with the crown jewel of Russian fighter tech, 3d TVC.

because when the UN does something, it really means that the US does it for them

Bull#, look at Rwanda, not one U.S. soldier involved.

This does NOT mean that the US must do what the UN tells them. Far from it.

Unless of course the U.S. wants something out of the U.N., pay you damn dues cheapskates!

I don't think that this particular plane should worry anyone that much, it's an importatn step forward and important as a sign of the progress of the chinese fighter tech. For military capabilities though, this fighter isn't something to worry about unless Russia is not willing to continue supplying China in wartime. The Su-30 is and will continue to be China's best fighter, and in the event of wr that's what they'll want, probably the TVC mod at that. Yes the J-10 will probably be featured as well but don't expect that the be sent against the F-15 and onwards planes, that's just silly. Also one production of the Su-37 is established it will likly be the fighter of choice for those who are buying(I haven't heard of any sales yet).With the possible exception of the new Chinese tank underway, Russian technology will be the best the Chinese can get their hands on for quite a while, until locally made tech catches up.

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Amur_Tiger]

I'm editing this into nothingness because I made the mistake of posting before reading the whole thread. The thoughts contained here weren't really worth thinking, much less sharing.

[Edited on 17-5-2004 by The Vagabond]

As I know, J-10 is not designed for mass production purpose. J-10 is a cornerstone on the way to Chinese next generation of fighters XXJ, which will combine with a blue navy membered with Aegis vessels.

Originally posted by Amet Khan
Honestly I don't know how the PRC views Taiwan. I mean, sure it would be a fantastic prize for them, economically speaking, to incorporate Taiwan back into red china. But Taiwan would never go for it without a whole ton of negotiations and concessions.

i'm a commen citizen of China, Peking.
Allmost all my friends and i, view the taiwan as Hawwii to commen Americans.

I don't like communists, and there's no any real Commuinst in China, although Cumm Party of China has about 60million members.

If you ask what is communism, they would say "absolutely i don't know."

But when you ask"Reunite mainland and taiwan, but you'll pay for the war, wether or not?" most of Chinese, I believe say YES.

I think fight with US is crazy to any country in this world, US has powerful military and ecnomic weapons, which can do big damage. So we do not want to follow the silly imperial Japan 1941. For example, cooperate on anti-terrorism, when disarm the army/navy/af of taiwan.

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by bingo]

[Edited on 23-5-2004 by bingo]

The Dept of Defense in the US asked a retired Marine general to lead the Opposing force in a wargame. The general accepted. he prepared the opposing force using shrewd tactics, low level technology, and simply tricks of the trade. He used federal express to send out orders instead of using communication equipment, that way his orders could not be intercepted, etc. tricks of the trade.
The Retired Marine sank two carriers, warhips, aegis cruisers, wiped out entire air force units, took out army divisions, and would have won the wargame had the Dept of Defense not stopped the scenario and "reset" the wargame to start over. This happened about 18 months ago.

dont place blind trust in technology, its a fools game. you would be far better off reading the writings of Sun Tzu, or the book of five rings. Both of which are excellent writings on war tactics, which is what we are discussing.

Originally posted by toolmaker

The Dept of Defense in the US asked a retired Marine general to lead the Opposing force in a wargame. The general accepted. he prepared the opposing force using shrewd tactics, low level technology, and simply tricks of the trade. He used federal express to send out orders instead of using communication equipment, that way his orders could not be intercepted, etc. tricks of the trade.
The Retired Marine sank two carriers, warhips, aegis cruisers, wiped out entire air force units, took out army divisions, and would have won the wargame had the Dept of Defense not stopped the scenario and "reset" the wargame to start over. This happened about 18 months ago.

dont place blind trust in technology, its a fools game. you would be far better off reading the writings of Sun Tzu, or the book of five rings. Both of which are excellent writings on war tactics, which is what we are discussing.

- That's interesting and fair comment there toolmaker but before this China-USA thing gets too silly, let's pause and consider.

The Chinese have approximately 10 ICBM silos (more missiles may be held in reserve), a handfull of SLBM's in very noisey low tech submarines and no credible long range attack aircraft versus how many HUNDRED (mirv'd) US ICBMs, SLBMs and bombers?

Instead of creating a new enemy for everyone in the west to be frightened of a little 'reality check' might be of a damned sight more use to us all - unless those Americans are determined to piss away their tax-dollars on paranoid delusions?