Can China Invade Taiwan?

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Nox
Actually, I disagree.
Communism can work in very small, sheltered societies.

Shocking that you disagree

So your saying that communicm has failed or is failing in China? Not exactly a small sheltered society. Is there instances where it has worked beyond that? Greater good will not overcome basic human drive unless brainwashing and large amounts of drugs it seems are involved. Even the "model" communes that are based loosly on communism fail eventually.

PS. Don't drink the Kool Aid

The Chinese Communist Party is communist in name only.

I've always considered them closer to a Socialist Republic.
Socialist because the gov't controls the economy.
Republic because a small group of people hold the power.

I've always went with the traditional "collective ownership of property" and "to the common advantage of all" definition of Communism.

That does, after all, sound a lot like the true intent of More and Marx.

I've always assumed that Amish societies were communist.

[edit on 13-12-2004 by Nox]

FredT,

"Don't drink the Kool-aid"

That's good!

Wow, what a thread. Fred caused all this because he used the 'p' word in his first post!

Back to THE topic- political arguments aside finances don't add up to an invasion and neither do military aspects.

China has been at the 'China game' for 6,000 years, what's another 30-50 years? Taiwan has limited natural resources

CIA fact book, Taiwan (near bottom of long page)-

The trade surplus is substantial, and foreign reserves are the world's third largest. Agriculture contributes 2% to GDP, down from 32% in 1952. While Taiwan is a major investor throughout Southeast Asia, China has become the largest destination for investment and has overtaken the US to become Taiwan's largest export market. Because of its conservative financial approach and its entrepreneurial strengths, Taiwan suffered little compared with many of its neighbors from the Asian financial crisis in 1998.

HELLO to reality

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Wow, what a thread. Fred caused all this because he used the 'p' word in his first post!

P word??

It has become a bit of a monster no? Perhaps its soon time to shut this beast down. I never imagined that it would 1300+ replies, but we are getting there eh?

[edit on 12/13/04 by FredT]

Actually from the time I've spent on this forum I've realised that everybody's a bit hazy on th exact government structure of china..Everybody has his/her own interpretation..but IMHO so far none of them seem to match!!Actually even the chinese on this forum are in the woods w.r.t. this!!

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Actually from the time I've spent on this forum I've realised that everybody's a bit hazy on th exact government structure of china..Everybody has his/her own interpretation..but IMHO so far none of them seem to match!!Actually even the chinese on this forum are in the woods w.r.t. this!!

Nothing is EXACT.

In my opinion, a Socialist Republic is CLOSER to what China is than Communist.

A good example of true communism would be Thomas More's Utopia.

The Amish don't appear to be communistic to me. They have a belief which states that modern tech is bad and they should not partake of it. So they cut-off tech at 1900. They work for money and allot of their goods are high quality hand made goods which adds to the worth of the items they sell.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by CoMrAdE_IvAn
Chinese of course would bomb the nation to bits then send troops I think the Geneva convention will not worry them too much.

I think you guys are missing the point Taiwans only value to them is an economic one. The sput off about reuniting with thier countrymen, but the bottom line is if Taiwan was a third world country with no economy, they could care less. They have no interest in destroying Taiwan. If they did they could have done it at anytime. They want the money that having Taiwan under thier umbrella could bring in.

Taiwan wasn't always an economic power, the roots of the division (from mainland China) go back to when Chiang Kai Shek's Nationalists occupied it after being defeated by Mao's Communists in 1945. From the onset, the Communists wanted to capture it to defeat their old enemy - they see it as unfinished business. Taiwan wasn't even an economic power - but a fortified last standing ground for the Nationalists, which was why it wasn't stormed. It became an economic power with US and Japanese money, and the fact that it was and still is to a large extent - a dictatorship, which suits business fine.

I wouldn't quite call Taiwan a dictatorship , as they just had there 5th fully democratic election.

Originally posted by bodebliss
I wouldn't quite call Taiwan a dictatorship , as they just had there 5th fully democratic election.

I know, which is why I said "to a large extent", it is still a young democracy so is working out the kinks - which is the way to do it.

China's economic growth is export lead - where would China be without its democratic trading partners.

It has been democracy that has been fueling China for some time now

[edit on 13-12-2004 by Vanguard]

Originally posted by bodebliss
The Amish don't appear to be communistic to me. They have a belief which states that modern tech is bad and they should not partake of it. So they cut-off tech at 1900. They work for money and allot of their goods are high quality hand made goods which adds to the worth of the items they sell.

Well, my word is never enough for you.

The Amnish

In 1968, Wisconsin decided to force Amish residents to formally educate their children through 12th grade (many of the Amish cease classroom instruction at 8th grade). Kansas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania already had successfully defeated the Amish on this front, but some Amish in Wisconsin decided to fight, taking the case to the United States Supreme Court by 1972. This was risky: Before, the Amish would simply move to another state when life became intolerable (something our founders had in mind, actually). Setting the wrong precedent in the Supreme Court would consolidate power against the Amish in all 50 states, meaning they would lose their communal sovereignty; some would feel compelled to leave the country.

The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, and the Amish retained their freedom. Further, the Amish have some exemptions from social security, Medicare, and Medicaid taxes. They have argued successfully that care of the elderly is a family and community responsibility, and that government medical insurance suggests a reliance on someone or thing other than God and hard work. They�ll have no part of any government insurance. One might assume the Amish don�t use hospitals and doctors anyway, but this is a myth. They just pay as they go. If the patient can�t afford the bill, members of the community with more resources will help. Note that in this "communist" system, they don�t lose 65% of the money to bureaucratic overhead � 100% goes to the beneficiary, and is given voluntarily.

(The Amish isolate themselves, such as by forgoing the ownership of automobiles and electricity. This is not from a fear of technology, but from a thoughtful estimation of what such technology would do to their communities. Cars would spread them out and make it too easy to sink into the popular culture. Electricity would bring the popular culture into their homes. Thus, when we see them hiring a taxicab to get to the modern hospital, they are not being hypocritical.)

Why, the Amish are even more restrictive of their media than the Chinese! The Amish definitely have less defense than the Chinese! We should attack them and "free" their people, since their freedoms are obviously being taken away from them!

Give me a break.

Originally posted by FredT
I think you guys are missing the point Taiwans only value to them is an economic one. The sput off about reuniting with thier countrymen, but the bottom line is if Taiwan was a third world country with no economy, they could care less. They have no interest in destroying Taiwan. If they did they could have done it at anytime. They want the money that having Taiwan under thier umbrella could bring in.

Where have I heard an argument like this before?

Oh yes, "I think you guys are missing the point, Iraq's only value to America is an economic one. They sput off about freeing the Iraqi countrymen and bringing them democracy, but the bottom line is if Iraq was a third world country with no oil and no military/economic strategic value, Americans could care less. They have no interest in freeing Iraq. If they did they could have done it at anytime. They want the oil and control over the middle east that having Iraq under their umbrella could bring in."

Now, mind you I don't believe either of these quotes, but I can see the resemblance.

FredT, I'm willing to bet you fight a lot with your conservative moderator co-workers (Thomas Crowne and SeekerOf in particular).

[edit on 13-12-2004 by Nox]

Originally posted by bodebliss
I wouldn't quite call Taiwan a dictatorship , as they just had there 5th fully democratic election.

bodebliss,

Greek learned demorazy from Taiwan 5000 years ago
and Jesus was born in Taiwan too.
Washtington was in fact taiwanese.

you will soon be arguring like that.

the more you talk, the more you make peple know how funny you are. I am sorry for Nox too, wasting too much time with bodebliss

Originally posted by proteinx
the more you talk, the more you make peple know how funny you are. I am sorry for Nox too, wasting too much time with bodebliss

Um, I was wrong to say it was a waste of time. Sorry.

I understand that a lot of people on these boards have been so pre-conditioned to dislike certain forms of gov't and praise other gov'ts so much that it has blinded them to the truth. Forms of gov't are not inherently evil by nature. Once they are instantiated into REAL gov'ts controlled by real people, they have the potential to be corrupted.

Communism is NOT evil. The people who toyed with the concept of communism (Thomas More and Marx for all I know) had good intentions and did not want people to be ruled under a tyranny.

We all keep thinking, "Communism can't possibly work for a country" without considering the fact that forms of gov't are to be applied to societies not just countries.

Let's take an extreme example. A tribe of Native Americans who are very close and are all close friends with each other. It wouldn't be reasonable for them to adopt a capitalistic attitude towards each other. In fact, we'd look at that kind of behaviour between friends negatively. With enough trust between friends, I'd say the Value System loses some of its own value.

Some other friendships or families are governed more by Civilized Anarchies. No explicit rules need to be given, like "Love, respect, help your family and friends in their times of need." The the trust has reached a level where rules are implied and left to the discretion of the members.

I'm sure there are less extreme examples than that, but hopefully it shows that almost every kind of gov't is being implemented. The Amish are a good example of either Communism or Civilized Anarchy. I'm sure there are other examples, but I'm not a sociologist.

It's not simple black and white like "Communism ONLY works in theory. It NEVER works in Real Life!" That's just plain ignorant... (I still get the impression that people think America is governed by a democracy. We are governed by a Democratic Republic ).

... and I don't mind "spending time" helping people deny that ignorance.

For ALL the 'China hates Russia' crowd- ATS China war games

Fred, usually long threads stray afar, this one seems to stay relatively focused. Don't lock it yet. The invasion of Taiwan scenario is still 'virginal.'

I think this thread should keep going till the actual attack attempt takes place.

Nox,

There is no doubt that communism has taken place in small communities for short periods of time , but there has never been a successful scaling up of the concept as layers of bureaucracy makes such attempts untenable as history has shown.

Can communism work, yes .

How would it work? Well in the future if they use nano-biology to alter the human spirit till everyone has no tendency outside communist ideology, well , it could work , but would the workers be human any longer?

Bode Bliss

It is rather absurd for people to call china a communist country. I think many of you need to upgrade your knowledge on China. Also, trade is bilateral. We need you and you need me. Capitalism is built upon this fundamental belief. Cutting off us means you are cutting off yourself. The recent recovery of Japanese economy is largely due to the strong growth and consumption demand from China. Many US companies are looking at China for their expansion.

It is rather absurd to say that China's economy is one-dimensional as we are the 3rd largest trading country in the world with very well-balanced imports and exports. Plus, we are going up the value chains quickly in terms of export. I will post a couple of articles for you guys to read.



[edit on 13-12-2004 by Hawkssss]

Originally posted by bodebliss
Nox,

There is no doubt that communism has taken place in small communities for short periods of time , but there has never been a successful scaling up of the concept as layers of bureaucracy makes such attempts untenable as history has shown.

Well that's a blanket assumption if I ever saw one.

Are you an expert sociologist who knows the history of every small community that ever existed? Define "short periods of time" for me.

Would 250 years be short enough for you?

Bureaucracy is also a style for gov'ts. It's not necessary but a lot of real world gov'ts use it, so your mentioning of bureaucracy as a counter to communism doesn't necessarily fit.

Also, may I point out that the Amish don't have a structured bureaucracy (as pointed out by my quote on "The Amish" in a previous quote? (nothing lost to "bureaucratic overhead")

Can communism work, yes.

How would it work? Well in the future if they use nano-biology to alter the human spirit till everyone has no tendency outside communist ideology, well , it could work , but would the workers be human any longer?

Bode Bliss

Humans have been evolving for thousands of years. Morals and ethics now aren't the same as they were. Morals and ethics of the future may not be what they are now. To assume that nothing will ever change in the human psyche is very closed minded.

If communal awareness and individual self-sacrifice didn't occur among single-celled organisms, us multi-cellular organisms would never have existed.

EDIT: Also, if China was truly communist, it would not be considering "invading Taiwan" in the first place.

Communism is a lot more isolationist than other forms of gov't. Trade is restricted (a LOT) and foreign policy is very passive. Note, China is called the "People's (Socialist) REPUBLIC of China". It's not Communist.

[edit on 13-12-2004 by Nox]