It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can China Invade Taiwan?

page: 175
1
<< 172  173  174    176  177  178 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
But explain why ethnic Chinese in Bendigo have ZERO connections to Chinese outside Bendigo. What, they are a special cult, the Chinese equivalent of the Mennonites? They swear off all modern devices and live in walled-off communities?


The chinese that live in bendigo lived there since the gold rush. 1860s. they came before the white australia policy. from the start of the white australia policy to 1971 these chinese were isolated from the main chinese from china and elsewhere.

They are very intergated with the white culture already there,

THe chinese in bendigo wont even know the majority of the chinese that settled here after the fall of the white australia policy and the large number of chinese that got asylum after tiananmen




Proof right there that not only do you not live in Australia but you have never been to Bendigo or read an Australian map.


sovereign hill,

nearly everyone that goes to sovereign hill stops off at ballerat or bendigo.


Sorry that i dont care about a little place on the map. i live in the south-eastern suburbs and bendigo is a long way away



Bendigo is less than three hours from Melbourne up the Calder Highway. It is located almost exactly in the centre of Victoria and these days is a city of 100,000 plus. It has light and heavy industry, limited mining activity, extensive tourism, communications, hi-tech industry and agriculture. It is the home of ADI (Australian Defence Industries), where they produce the Bushmaster APC. It has one of the largest regional Telstra offices and maintainence yards in Australia.


Less than three hours drive? a 6 hour drive to get their and back. i dont see how anyone would go their regulary.


Bendigo is isloated from the real australia by the distance you have to travel to get there





It has a GPO that is equal in size to Adelaide's, it has more tramlines than Adelaide. It's art gallery houses a collection comparable in composition to the National Gallery in Melbourne. Bendigo is a perfect representative sample of Australian life.


Austrailan life? their was a debate on the news about what is a australian and austrlian culture.

sydney and melbourne are the perfect examples of autralian life. the multi-cultural society



Mt Isa is located deep within Australia, Alice Springs is located deep within Australia, Burke (from where we get the saying "the back of Burke") is located deep within Australia, Bendigo is situated on the eastern seaboard in comparison.


How much australisn in their life actually visit these places. It might be your"aussie" holiday but not to me and a lot of other people



You were awfully strong in your statements about my veiws being divergent from those of mainstream Australia. You said I don't think like most Australians, but you do think like most Chinese. Really, why are you so sure of that?


Average australians go on internet forums to discuss democracy in china.

If the average australian had these values then they wont be voting for john howard. maybe labour but most likey the greens.

I think like most chinese i am sure of that



Why not one of the 3%?


On second thought you sound like a greeny.



If you're a farmer they do. We've already discussed this.


A farmer.?

A farmer controls your food. does he contrl your life



I went to school in Melbourne, mate. That's exactly how they talk in the capital of Victoria, we slagged off Joan Kirner (Miss Piggy) and Jeff Kennet.

Don't repeat yourself, you're just reinforcing your ignorance. Read the explanation and understand, it may come in handy the next time someone uses the term slag.


Sorry mate.

But come visit melbourne now. This isn't your school days 40years ago. australia is a multi-cultural society.


Please dont show your ignorance to me, you seem like the people that wont let go to that culture of "srimp on the barbe on a sunde"



Funnily enough, in Taipei the government is Taiwanese and, would you believe it, in Washington the government is American, but that doesn't change the facts that the central government in Beijing uses violence against its people as a standard tactic to stifle protest and dissent.


What makes people on taiwan different from people living on the mainland?

What about the new anti-terriost laws john howard is trying to shove down peoples throats.

Whats your opinion about them?




posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   
To all the adherents of a forcible takeover of Taiwan ... as per my posts on the moral implications of such an act ...

... by a decided lack in response can I take this as admission of guilt and tacit acknowlegement of truthful observation on my part?

If so, then from the standpoint of liberal 21st century worldview ... are such actions and implications of actions the type of example for future generations?

Might is right ... power and strength decide morality and that the winner writes the histories ...

LCKob



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
Might is right ... power and strength decide morality and that the winner writes the histories ...

LCKob


LCKob you keep making these statements and they are completely right.

Morally china should let taiwan run itself but we want it. because they are chinese and were taken from us.

I really dont care if it stays status quo, because ordinary people around the world still thinks its chinese terrioty. while some taiwanese want status quo because they think that people around the world think they are their own country and dont have to take risk with a war and shuch.

Maybe one day after china changes from this quasi-quasi communist capitalist hybrid type of economy/government. has a better GDP per capita. taiwan might want to re-join.

But china mmust show taiwan that it is a good government like handling HK and Macua.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Maybe one day after china changes from this quasi-quasi communist capitalist hybrid type of economy/government. has a better GDP per capita. taiwan might want to re-join.

But china mmust show taiwan that it is a good government like handling HK and Macua.



Well, well finally something chinawhite says, I can agree to.

There is a possiblity that that could happen.

More democracy and hard written laws would change peoples views. China doesn't see this. The world wants to see human rights written in stone.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Chinawhite,

3 hours is a standard distance to an Australian, only Europeans think it as a long way, and apparently Chinese. People regularly drive Wodonga to Melbourne, 3 1/2 hours down the Hume Freeway, for daytrips into the city. If you live in a small country town then at least once a month you will drive an hour each way to shop in a much larger country town where the selection is bigger and the prices lower. Others commute daily from Bendigo, Ballarat, Seymour etc on the train to work, preferring to live in the "country" instead of the city. In peak hour traffic it takes a full hour and a half to get from the CBD out to Dandenong, sometimes longer. If you live out at Belgravia, Beaconsfield, Healesville etc it can be 2 hours, and they are part of greater Melbourne.

Joan Kirner: Victorian Premier, ALP, lost the election to Jeff Kennet in 1992. 40 years ago, huh?

You've proven again and again that you don't understand Australia and you claim to be living there now, given that, how could you possibly understand Taiwan, where you are not living?

FYI, I never said anything about "holidaying" in Mt Isa etc. That was a geography lesson for your benefit. Bendigo is not an isolated outpost of some backward, Akubra-wearing, HQ ute-driving, throwback society (as you seem to believe), it's a city on the eastern-seaboard, where 80% of Australia's population lives. It is almost the size of Vientiane, the capital of Laos.

I have also never thrown a shrimp on the barbie in my life, although I have consumed a fair amount of Victoria Bitter.

Your arguments become ever weaker the longer you debate. It doesn't matter how integrated the Bendigo Chinese are, the fact is they actively practice the culture they brought with them from Imperial China, they preserve their heritage and the city of Bendigo is extremely proud of that heritage. Bendigo is far more multi-cultural and relaxed than either Melbourne or Sydney.

As for control:

The farmers don't control the food you eat, the government controls what food the farmers grow, thus controlling how much they can earn.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
"The farmers don't control the food you eat, the government controls what food the farmers grow, thus controlling how much they can earn."

And that is wrong how?

A farmer in China doesn't have to grow a certain amount of food only to get a certain amount, he grows as much food as he/she desires and sells at any price he desires to meet market demand.

However, regulations exist to keep farmers farming the less expensive but more plentiful foods to feed more people cheaply and raise the standard of living.

In Canada I know that farmers are forced to use a cartain kind of grain that can't be resown so that eventually they can't afford to keep farming and are forced off their land, wouldn't that be worse then some regulations whose intentions is to help the people?

"China doesn't see this. The world wants to see human rights written in stone."

China see's it perfectly, everything decision is a well reserched decision, economic growth is tied to stability and a safe educational and work enviroment. Things are getting better and until you realize that no country can change things overnight your not going to get your way just because you wish it so.

"...does any governmental entity truly have the right to force assimilation to such a degree? ...So with this observation as a context ... I ask the participants of this thread ... has China progressed (beyond the trappings of industrial capacity) if such basic sentiment still exists as a carry over from an older age? The age of Empire?"

I was unable to post a timely reply due to circumstance, I apologize.

"Assimilation: The process whereby a minority group gradually adopts the customs and attitudes of the prevailing culture."

dictionary.reference.com...

This doesn't apply in the Taiwan Issue, Taiwan wouldn't be assimilated into our culture for our culture are similar. There would be a mixing of views and we'ld adopt some of their views and they'ld adopt some of ours, it'ld be a mutual merging of thought not an forced assimilation like the Borg assimilating entire worlds.

Think about it, it would be no different then East Germany Unifying with West Germany, why do they get to rejoin and we don't?

As for the empires comment, has any country really? Hasn't corporate takeovers replaced mobile war in most cases? Isn't America the worlds supposed example of a peaceful democratic nation currently in possetion on one of the worlds richest oil producing nations?

Isn't Russia falling back onto an centralized and possibly authoritan society inorder to reclaim old glories?

Only China historically has never done the same since 1949. We reclaimed Tibet and took back almost all that was ours and now only Formosa is all thats left before China has once and for all eliminated the shame from our ancestors.

[edit on 29-10-2005 by The Middle Kingdom]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
QUOTE : "In Canada I know that farmers are forced to use a cartain kind of grain that can't be resown so that eventually they can't afford to keep farming and are forced off their land, wouldn't that be worse then some regulations whose intentions is to help the people? "

can you cite these facts ?

IMHO it sounds like a misrepresentation of the monsanto GM seeds affair

in short -

only certain strains from the monsanto catalougue cannot be re sown

monsanto does not have a monoply on the canadian seed market

there is controvesry over weather buying mosanto seed each year is worth the savings in herbicide / pesticide and feild mainteanence costs - but thats another issue



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
sadly I heard it off of a Canadian corresponant, I'll stive for a link asap.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
"This doesn't apply in the Taiwan Issue, Taiwan wouldn't be assimilated into our culture for our culture are similar. There would be a mixing of views and we'ld adopt some of their views and they'ld adopt some of ours, it'ld be a mutual merging of thought not an forced assimilation like the Borg assimilating entire worlds."




Ah but the difference here is that the occupants do not get a choice in the matter ... similar is one thing, identical or forced exchange another (and yes, by military takeover it would be a forced exchange yes?)

Yes Middle Kingdom, as I have said earlier, forced attentions on a weaker entity is by conceptual definition ... rape ... be it a country or a woman ... and not the "mutual merging" you describe it as.

Main Entry: 2rape
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): raped; rap·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin rapere
1 a archaic : to seize and take away by force b : DESPOIL
2 : to commit rape on
- rap·er noun
- rap·ist /'rA-pist/ noun

Of course, the Borg comparison is extreme and obviously only a tv metaphor for issues of cultural assimilation ... but they were inspired by the valid social and political issues which surround the phenomena of any kind of coercive takeover.

The bottom line is this, if the exchange was as "mutual" as you claim then, hold out the hand of reason instead of the gun. Let Taiwan meet you half way ... at their own choosing ... as opposed to the implication of superior force.

Keep in mind that if this "merging" was as heartfelt as you seem to imply then ...

Open your hand and let the bird fly away ... if it was meant to be, then the bird will return on its own ...

In either case, the desires of the bird are granted as equal to that of the captor.

Holding firmly to the bird while whispering cooing noises does not constitute admiration, repect and brotherly love.

[edit on 29-10-2005 by LCKob]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
3 hours is a standard distance to an Australian, only Europeans think it as a long way, and apparently Chinese. People regularly drive Wodonga to Melbourne, 3 1/2 hours down the Hume Freeway, for daytrips into the city.


Now tell me how much people travel from melbourne to go visit bendigo?.

It takes me 1hour and a half to get to the airport. now someone in their right mine wont regulary visit bendigo for no big reason. .



Now you say a Australian? what type of australian are you talking about?.

3 hours one way is not the standard hour for australians. its a 6hour there and back from the CBD. who in their right mine travels that far one day?



In peak hour traffic it takes a full hour and a half to get from the CBD out to Dandenong, sometimes longer. If you live out at Belgravia, Beaconsfield, Healesville etc it can be 2 hours, and they are part of greater Melbourne.


Well we have completely different situations.

I can drive for ten mintues to any where and find a shopping centre.

Have you been to dandenong cranbourne? or anywhere near that. these areas are how the Majority of australians live like not some bumkin-ute driving out-post.





Joan Kirner: Victorian Premier, ALP, lost the election to Jeff Kennet in 1992. 40 years ago, huh?


Your around 30-40?



You've proven again and again that you don't understand Australia and you claim to be living there now, given that, how could you possibly understand Taiwan, where you are not living?


You dont understand australia.

come on, you currently live somewhere in australia where it is a fairly long drive anywhere.



FYI, I never said anything about "holidaying" in Mt Isa etc. That was a geography lesson for your benefit.


Sorry i dont need a geography lesson, because i know what i saw.

Semi-trailers with hay on then people driving utes. lots of pubs




Bendigo is far more multi-cultural and relaxed than either Melbourne or Sydney.


Not true at all.

melbounre has a very large ethnic diversity. 130+ different ethnic groups.

Your arguemnt about bendigo being ethnicly more diverse that melbourne is sydney is completly ignorant .



The farmers don't control the food you eat, the government controls what food the farmers grow, thus controlling how much they can earn.


The government encourages cash crops(one of the reasons why chinas grain production is falling).

chinese farmers work in collectives

[edit on 29-10-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
WAAAAAY off topic...




Originally posted by chinawhite
You dont understand australia.

come on, you currently live somewhere in australia where it is a fairly long drive anywhere.


So many awesome assumptions...Given that I was born in the country, have lived in 3 states, 4 cities, 2 country towns and an Aboriginal homeland, I've seen more, experienced more and simply know more about it than you do. Tell me, oh wise one, where do I live? Chinawhite, your ignorance is staggering. At no point have I said you don't understand China, because I cannot prove that to be true.

There's a word you need to understand:

hubris

When I lived in central Australia it was a 5 hour drive to Alice Springs and a 13 hour drive to Adelaide. Bendigo, I've dealt with, also Albury-Wodonga. Launceston and Hobart are two hours apart. Austalians drive these distances regularly. The Barossa Valley is more than an hour from Adelaide, people commute that down the highway daily. Even the people stuck in the burbs of Sunbury will regularly travel into the CBD.

You ask if I've ever been to Cranbourne or Dandenong. What, you can't read my posts about living in Melbourne?



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Why would China want to commit ground forces in an attack on Taiwan? They'd be better off to sit back and throw missles and naval artillery at the island ...... that would force the US to deploy to the area en Mass with Naval and air assets. Once they were drawn across the Pacific to the South China Sea to support Taiwan .... then the PLO would probably use nukes to hit the Force en route across the Pacific. Plausable, as the fall out would be drifting back east towards the US West Coast.

Personally, I'd be telling Taiwan, that China is Taiwans problem not ours. Go find ya self another Sherrif ..... This ones headin for Dodge



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
The point is to take the Island as undamaged as possible, utilizing nukes and missiles that against individual units may cause to much collateral damage.

A people can tak alot of punishent look at Japan and Germany during wwii.

If the island can be taken relatively undamaged then the island can be integrated int the minaland without trouble.

Assuming the situation deteriorates to the point the use of force is needed of course, for it will always be a last resort.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
The point is to take the Island as undamaged as possible, utilizing nukes and missiles that against individual units may cause to much collateral damage.

A people can tak alot of punishent look at Japan and Germany during wwii.

If the island can be taken relatively undamaged then the island can be integrated int the minaland without trouble.

Assuming the situation deteriorates to the point the use of force is needed of course, for it will always be a last resort.


>>>>You are avoiding answering my question because you alreadly know the answer? ... and that answer is integration at all costs period.

The China you promote is no better than its imperialistic precedents for the main reason that it is willing to use force in cases like taiwan.







The point is to take the Island as undamaged as possible, utilizing nukes and missiles that against individual units may cause to much collateral damage.

A people can tak alot of punishent look at Japan and Germany during wwii.

>>>>>" ... may cause to much collateral damage." Are you joking here? Haven't you learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki? We were fighting a world war at the time and it is still looked upon as a horrific option ... you would use it for what ... pride? Greed? ... and if you were forced to use nukes then what ... is it the "If I can't have it no one can?







If the island can be taken relatively undamaged then the island can be integrated int the minaland without trouble.

>>>>>

If the island can be taken relatively undamaged? You further reinforce the idea that it must fall to mainland control or the local inhabitants will suffer greatly ... hmmmm I suppose its a win-win for mainland china ... if you intimidate Taiwan into submission then great ... if not condone killing off a significant percentage of the population and start fresh ... really civilized that .. hah.




Assuming the situation deteriorates to the point the use of force is needed of course, for it will always be a last resort.

>>>>>

Rationalize all you want by saying "last resort" ... but those words mean nothing to the victims of rape or invasion ... merely by having it as a contingency option its like the mafia giving a person the proverbial "offer they can't refuse". No difference really, or the school yard bully taking money from the sickly kid by saying ... hey you can make this easy or hard ... but you will hand over your lunch money ... or c'mon honey you know you want it ... you're just playing hard to get ... don't worry you'll thank me in the morning for the swell time you had.









[edit on 31-10-2005 by LCKob]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
"you would use it for what"

I think your taking the conversation out of context. China will never use nukes, unless USA uses them first then we must use MAD to make sure they don't get away with it.

But we'ld never nuke Taiwan. That's Final.

Next, warfare to invade and take Taiwan is only a hypothetical scenario just as America prepares hypothetical scenarios to invade Canada or Mexico.

Finally stop comparing the rape of a women to the use of force to invade another country, no individual is ever in a position to comment while your own nation (USA) invades nations left and right.

We are historically, politically, and legally juistified to maintain a policy of working towards unification, its our right to do so. Sure it might not be ethically right, but Taiwan is an island nation 300 miles off our coast, that was TAKEN from us and we want it back, some of the people on Taiwan also want to come back and some haven't decided yet, we keep the threat of the use of force because we'ld seem as weak otherwise. Think about it, the USA forced the unification fo the confederacy when they OBVIOUSLY did not want to come back, we have just as much right to do so because Taiwan is legally a rebelious province.

Ethics is irrelevent, morals are subjective, only the results and the opinions of those comparable to you matter. That is realpolitik.

The only purpose ethics will play is how we work towards appeasing the people in Formosa and limiting collateral damage to only military targets and limit the amount of suffering the people endure to allow a painless transition assuming all channels of communication fail and frankly the fact that we're going through so much trouble to do so means that we are actually doing something that is morally correct in a morally bankrupt world of politics.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
"you would use it for what"

I think your taking the conversation out of context. China will never use nukes, unless USA uses them first then we must use MAD to make sure they don't get away with it.

But we'ld never nuke Taiwan. That's Final.

Next, warfare to invade and take Taiwan is only a hypothetical scenario just as America prepares hypothetical scenarios to invade Canada or Mexico.

Finally stop comparing the rape of a women to the use of force to invade another country, no individual is ever in a position to comment while your own nation (USA) invades nations left and right.

We are historically, politically, and legally juistified to maintain a policy of working towards unification, its our right to do so. Sure it might not be ethically right, but Taiwan is an island nation 300 miles off our coast, that was TAKEN from us and we want it back, some of the people on Taiwan also want to come back and some haven't decided yet, we keep the threat of the use of force because we'ld seem as weak otherwise. Think about it, the USA forced the unification fo the confederacy when they OBVIOUSLY did not want to come back, we have just as much right to do so because Taiwan is legally a rebelious province.

Ethics is irrelevent, morals are subjective, only the results and the opinions of those comparable to you matter. That is realpolitik.

The only purpose ethics will play is how we work towards appeasing the people in Formosa and limiting collateral damage to only military targets and limit the amount of suffering the people endure to allow a painless transition assuming all channels of communication fail and frankly the fact that we're going through so much trouble to do so means that we are actually doing something that is morally correct in a morally bankrupt world of politics.



"Ethics is irrelevent, morals are subjective, only the results and the opinions of those comparable to you matter. That is realpolitik. "

Hah, spoken like a true politician ... yes with that species ... morals and ethics don't enter into the equation at all.

As for taking the information out of context, I took it VERBATIM from your posts ... nothing more.

... haha don't like the moral and ethical implications of such a takeover? Find it uncomfortable when it can be compared to rape? Ask ChinaWhite ... or anyone else participating on this thread ... I repeatedly ask the questions and you conveniently duck the question and when you do answer its with indignation and dismissal ... and tacit acknowlegement that the ETHICS may be questionable ... face it, you don't have a justifiable answer ... and saber rattling to "look strong" is ridiculous ... as if Taiwan and the world does not know the capacity of the Chinese mainland. Far more likely this show of force and might is an effort to have Taiwan roll over without a shot being fired ... yes like the threat of that playground bully ... or RAPIST.

hmmmm ... funny can't come up with a straight anwer to my posts ... why is that? Oh thats right ethics be damned ... LONG LIVE REALPOLITIK!

The confederacy? hahahahha ... different beast entirely ... actually a war of ideals with human rights were the issue ... a culture integrated with basic inequalities such as slavery vs. the more progressive and liberal atttitues of the north which SUPPORTED the original intent of the founding fathers.

The civil war was for us like a family ... where the parents set down the ideals for the children to follow ... yet after the parents death, one child goes astray and commits to acts that diametrically oppose the ideals of the parents ... thus the North represents the brother who is tasked with CONTAINING the errent brother and preventing further injustice to those weaker. Yes, blood is thicker than water, but within the context of honorable intent ... the South had to fall in order to preserve the basic ideals which were formulated for the founding colonies ... in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the imperialistic nature of the British Empire ...

Okay with that said ... you want to takeover Taiwan for what reason now?

... hmmm could it be the corrupt nature of this "amoral" child - bent on corrupting the most basic and fundemental human rights accorded to all humans? Could it be to safeguard the world from such sociopathic wickedness (and thus maintain the integrity of Chinese ideals?)

Of course it can't be for the sake of pride or the fact that Taiwan is a financial cash cow ... no ... no ... never that.

LONG LIVE REALPOLITIK!


"...the fact that we're going through so much trouble to do so means that we are actually doing something that is morally correct in a morally bankrupt world of politics."


Oh and it would not have anything to do with the fact that such a conflict would be costly in terms of manpower AND world opinion? Yes, totally altruistic I'm sure.

... oh, and before you vent your spleen on me, please note that besides ChinaWhite and yourself, no other Pro-Invasion poster has attempted an effective rebuttal. ChinaWhite's response was honest ... yours though is at best "politically correct" with a hint of irritation or anger.

... and if it indeed is with anger, then honestly ask yourself, what are you mad at? ... could it be that my questions make it "awkward" to promote your notion of absolute nationalism ... in light of this crowd? Could it be that you find it difficult to JUSTIFY such actions in totality (thus allowing you to toss ethics aside)? Could it be that you wish the rest of the world to turn a blind eye to Taiwan, so that you can "harmoniously merge" with your long lost brothers?

Now, I hand the microphone on to you ... roll cameras .... Middle Kingdom is about to speak!




[edit on 31-10-2005 by LCKob]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

"Ethics is irrelevent, morals are subjective, only the results and the opinions of those comparable to you matter. That is realpolitik. "

Hah, spoken like a true politician ... yes with that species ... morals and ethics don't enter into the equation at all.

As for taking the information out of context, I took it VERBATIM from your posts ... nothing more.

... haha don't like the moral and ethical implications of such a takeover? Find it uncomfortable when it can be compared to rape? Ask ChinaWhite ... or anyone else participating on this thread ... I repeatedly ask the questions and you conveniently duck the question and when you do answer its with indignation and dismissal ... and tacit acknowlegement that the ETHICS may be questionable ... face it, you don't have a justifiable answer ... and saber rattling to "look strong" is ridiculous ... as if Taiwan and the world does not know the capacity of the Chinese mainland. Far more likely this show of force and might is an effort to have Taiwan roll over without a shot being fired ... yes like the threat of that playground bully ... or RAPIST.

hmmmm ... funny can't come up with a straight anwer to my posts ... why is that? Oh thats right ethics be damned ... LONG LIVE REALPOLITIK!

The confederacy? hahahahha ... different beast entirely ... actually a war of ideals with human rights were the issue ... a culture integrated with basic inequalities such as slavery vs. the more progressive and liberal atttitues of the north which SUPPORTED the original intent of the founding fathers.

The civil war was for us like a family ... where the parents set down the ideals for the children to follow ... yet after the parents death, one child goes astray and commits to acts that diametrically oppose the ideals of the parents ... thus the North represents the brother who is tasked with CONTAINING the errent brother and preventing further injustice to those weaker. Yes, blood is thicker than water, but within the context of honorable intent ... the South had to fall in order to preserve the basic ideals which were formulated for the founding colonies ... in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the imperialistic nature of the British Empire ...

Okay with that said ... you want to takeover Taiwan for what reason now?

... hmmm could it be the corrupt nature of this "amoral" child - bent on corrupting the most basic and fundemental human rights accorded to all humans? Could it be to safeguard the world from such sociopathic wickedness (and thus maintain the integrity of Chinese ideals?)

Of course it can't be for the sake of pride or the fact that Taiwan is a financial cash cow ... no ... no ... never that.

LONG LIVE REALPOLITIK!


"...the fact that we're going through so much trouble to do so means that we are actually doing something that is morally correct in a morally bankrupt world of politics."


Oh and it would not have anything to do with the fact that such a conflict would be costly in terms of manpower AND world opinion? Yes, totally altruistic I'm sure.

... oh, and before you vent your spleen on me, please note that besides ChinaWhite and yourself, no other Pro-Invasion poster has attempted an effective rebuttal. ChinaWhite's response was honest ... yours though is at best "politically correct" with a hint of irritation or anger.

... and if it indeed is with anger, then honestly ask yourself, what are you mad at? ... could it be that my questions make it "awkward" to promote your notion of absolute nationalism ... in light of this crowd? Could it be that you find it difficult to JUSTIFY such actions in totality (thus allowing you to toss ethics aside)? Could it be that you wish the rest of the world to turn a blind eye to Taiwan, so that you can "harmoniously merge" with your long lost brothers?

Now, I hand the microphone on to you ... roll cameras .... Middle Kingdom is about to speak!


*clap clap*

I must say your post is beautifully said, it was an well written responce and I'm sure would catch most rhetoric spewing robots off guard.

However lets get some facts straight, the Emancipation Act was only declared AFTER McClellin won a major battle against Gen. Lee, for two reasons, 1. Lee wasn't a supporter of slavery and only fought to defend his home state once he attacked into US territory he wasn't completely commited and made mistakes that he shouldn't have made in another situation. He's moves while brilliant lacked his devotion.

2. He lost 3 cigars which had his battle orders and they fell into the hands of the enemy.

The Emancipation Act was for mostly political reasons, Lincon did EVERYTHING he could to keep England and France out of the war and if Lee won a few more victories England and France who supported the Confederate cause for freedom backed out the minute the Act was declared.

More later now I have class.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom


We are historically, politically, and legally juistified to maintain a policy of working towards unification, its our right to do so. Sure it might not be ethically right, but Taiwan is an island nation 300 miles off our coast, that was TAKEN from us and we want it back, some of the people on Taiwan also want to come back and some haven't decided yet, we keep the threat of the use of force because we'ld seem as weak otherwise. Think about it, the USA forced the unification fo the confederacy when they OBVIOUSLY did not want to come back, we have just as much right to do so because Taiwan is legally a rebelious province.


Don't let the Central Committee hear you call it that!

As for rebellious provinces...The mainland of China in the guise of the PRC is the rebellious province, not Taiwan.

And how was it TAKEN from you? Who invaded and occupied PRC territory? The Kuriles were taken from Japan, Alsace and Lorraine were taken from France, the Karelian Isthmus was taken from Finland...

bold by me.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
democracy doesn't work everywhere... especially in a quick transition from communism to democracy. This can be proven with Russia... Yugoslavia... and other Eastern European nations. The change to democracy in China must be a slow transition and obviously China's leaders know it.

B.T.W. If you didn't know, many members of Taiwan's parliament are triad leaders. Just imagine that the senate was filled with mob leaders and you have an idea of how the Taiwanese gov't is ran.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Taiwan's parliment(Legislative Yuan) is probably the worst branch in Taiwan's government. And I am not saying that by myself. Many surveys show that people have a lot of problems with Legislative Yuan.

And it doesn't mean that democracy has to be run by someone that has experience in authoritarian governments. There are a lot of people from society that has great knowledges and ideas, who can become great officials, think tank members or politicians. Actually the authoritarian government of Taiwan left a lot of hard problems that still have not been completely solved, and it hinders the way the government is runned. And this problem effects all levels, education, military, and many social issues.


[edit on 1-11-2005 by twchang]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 172  173  174    176  177  178 >>

log in

join