Can China Invade Taiwan?

Of course but the action of using them or not makes all the difference in the world.

Originally posted by rapier28

Originally posted by bodebliss
I am for Taiwan independent thinking and I am sure there are alot of people in Taiwan who would choose that before independence, but I also think it is up to the Taiwanese to decide their fate

That is simply impossible.

Full Autonomy or the status quo is the best that Taiwan can hope for without triggering a war. It is a case of give and take.

Even in a democracy we don't always get what we want. Heck, my party hasn't being in power for 4 terms.

I support your saying, you did us proud, thanks. And i believe a lot of Chinese from Taiwan want to have peace with the world, never wants to have a war. The problem sourced from the minority of the chinese people who want to gain independent.

Yes, democracy dont really get what we want. Youre definitely correct.

Democratic system in like the US striked war with so many countries!! Im a Chinese, i have friends from all around the world including Iraq and Iran. To me, they seems so good and kind. They have feelings and families. But the US destroy their families. Is this what the US term 'democracy' which mean freedom to kill.

You wil mention about how a tank running over someone's leg (i were there that time, and i knew why this happened, PLA had been killed as well, they dont just simply kill people but just to protect themselves) and why you some of you people dont think about thousands and thousands of innocent people being killed by US with their advance technology. In fact millions of people have been killed by US. SO IS THIS DEMOCRACY???????!!!!! WHERE is the rights!!! The right came from US people itself, but the right do not exist around the world!! US can go war with anyone as and when they like. I am not mentioning about all the americans here, only part of them because i believe they are some good american out there who know how to think.

China, being a communist country is changing tremendously. And i can say that capitalism has been implemented at time being. Also, confucian teah have been used widely. Its a country with great cultures over 5000 years.
Communism in the past had brought all the chinese people more unified. Because of communism, we are what we are today, we have 1.3 billion people because due to this political system, that make us fast economic growth since 80s. Therefore, communism has bring all the chinese people great, it never have war as it like with other countries. It is a very safe and beautiful country on the Planet earth. China want to gain respect with other countries, but not hatred, not like the 'democratic US'.

I am proud to be a Chinese, I will live for China and will die for China.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The United States in not a dictatorship or communist country so no by my point of view it will not fall.
And Taiwan is a country it is buying it arms for defense only and it is not attacking China. The Insurgent want arms to cause trouble and kill innocent people. So your comparison is not correct.

Not in the true sense but it is in the same political side as the dictatorship...and since there is no communist countries existing then its not with them ethier.
Weapons dont have a devesive or offensive nature, they can be used for both.
Also what do you mean by inocent people?
Civies or troops?

Originally posted by rogue1

Just as well, we'd be living in a Banana Republic by now. Seriously though look who the past leaders of your party have been, men of average intelligence at best.
Even now fatman Beazly doesn't stand a chance

I would seriousley doubt that intelligence of Bob Hawke or Paul Keating is in any way less then John Howard.

Anyway, once Johnny goes, your will all be running around fighting for the PM job and the Labour party would storm in to government.

Also what do you mean by inocent people?
Civies or troops?

Civies of course, I think the way they attack troops is cowardly but he beheading of civilians who have nothing to do with the decision of the war is barbaric and cowardly.
Well if your on offense to defend then isn't that defensive?

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Also what do you mean by inocent people?
Civies or troops?

Civies of course, I think the way they attack troops is cowardly but he beheading of civilians who have nothing to do with the decision of the war is barbaric and cowardly.
Well if your on offense to defend then isn't that defensive?

::cough:: Spin ::cough::

No weapon system is purely defensive, I am sorry but you are only looking at items from the American View point, as an example, Americans that fund the IRA are no better than the Russians that are supplying the rebels in Iraq. I find it interesting how you can inforce your opinions on some nations and groups and ignore others, e.g The lack of Womens rights in Saudi Arabri and then your views to china and Iran.

Its interesting how you speak of beheading, are you saying that your closest arab nation, is "barbaric and cowardly" As they still behead people, for some of the strictest Arab laws.

- Phil

I don't think Saudi Arabia is perfect, I think they need to change some of their laws and give more rights and freedoms to certain groups of people. And they are working toward that.
However Iran on the other hand is isolating itself even more by breaking international treaties/laws and acting crazy by demanding that they have a nuclear weapon.

Hmm,

First Question, how can any nation demand that it has nukes, usally any nation would "state" it has nukes etc. What makes you think that the United States has the Right to state which Nations should or should not have nuclear weapons.

In my opinion I can tell you that many nations aren't happy with the US having nukes, nor would I say the russians are happy that the US developed nukes before them.

If you prompt the card about preventing weapons from being used to attack the United States. May I remind you of the fact that the United States was the only nation to use nuclear weapons on any other nation.

As for breaking treaties and international law, I apologise but you can hardly hold that against Iran, as in the last 5 Years the United States have had a pretty good record of breaking international laws and treaties, an example would be Bush throwing out the global warming treaties.

::Shrugs:: As for Iran Isolating itself, I myself can understand that, a superpower is threatening it with force, I myself would do a hell of a lot more if I was in a position of power with in Iran.

But at the moment, the US is doing a great example of isolating itself from the rest of the planet, either by threatening them with force or by invading those nations.

::shrugs:: Good Luck

- Phil

They are demanding/telling the world that they have the right to develop nuclear weapons, and have said they don't care about what anyone else says. Also if they don't want to be threaten they should just give up their nuclear ambitions.
And when the U.S. developed nuclear weapons it was a different era you cant bring something that happened 60 years ago and apply it to the current situation. Also its not just the U.S. that is trying to convince Iran to stop enriching Uranium.

Hmm,

Westpoint, you failed to answer my question,

What gives the US, the right to dicate to any other nation, who can or can not have a nuclear system.

Also, I feel that the fact that the US is the only nation to ever have employed a nuclear warhead on another nation as a very important fact. I don't care if it was 100 years ago or yesterday, if they were willing to do it once before, they will not have any doubts about using the weapon again.

- Philip

[edit on 25-3-2005 by gooseuk]

What gives us the right?

Simple,
we believe that Iran is nor responsible enough to have nuclear weapons and their intentions with them threatens us and the rest of the world. And because we and other counties do not feel safe with Iran having nuclear weapons we are trying to convince them that it would not be wise for them to acquire such weapons.

And the Fact that the U.S. has not used a nuclear weapon in a war n bout 60+ years is also very important. The U.S. used the atomic bomb to end WWII with Japan. Millions would have lost their lives if the U.S. had not acted like as it did.


[edit on 25-3-2005 by WestPoint23]

I thank you,

This is why in my opinion that the US is hated by many nations on the planet, the United States believes that they can impose their will on, what they deem in their view "lesser" nations or ones that could become a future threat to them.

There are no international laws stating that the US has the right to dicate demands to a foriegn nation, merely due to the fact that they are afriad Iran "could" use it in the same means that the US already had in the past.

Sure other nations don't like nations with some weapons, I personally worry when orders come over the radio that the Americans are covering the flank. Not all americans are bad nor are they lacking in their abilities but the mentality is such that these opinions are created.

::shrugs:: In my opinion, the United States have become nothing more than the nations they have always calmed to try to defend the world from. We all know how they ended up. The current United States may not appear to be a dicatorship in the true sense but they sure as hell seem to be trying hard to create one.

- Philip

P.S. Millions did die, they just weren't American, does that make it all better then?

[edit on 25-3-2005 by gooseuk]

That is your opinion, and you have a right to sate it. But Fact's are Fact’s. Why would Iran possibly need a nuclear bomb other than the obvious reason to use it.
Do you really think they are going to spend millions and go through all that trouble, to hang it up in display? Nope they intend to use it.

And P.S. Millions more would have died on both sides if the war had continued on longer. Dose that make you feel better.

Interesting,

Iran, has started that it wishes to increase its power levels without the need to increase its dependance on their own Oil supplies, why use their own oil when they could sell it to european or asian markets for a huge profit? The only other fuel source they can use is Nuclear, rather than using fossil fuel sources.

Oh also, why do you think Iran wants a Nuke, they want one so that the americans don't bomb the hell out of the nation when they feel like it, a prefect example of that would be Iraqi, why haven't the US invaded North Korea?

You made a very interesting point Westpoint,

Do you really think they are going to spend millions and go through all that trouble, to hang it up in display? Nope they intend to use it.

Are you telling me that all those American Nuclear Missiles weren't designed as a deterrent to any other nuclear nation in the world, you mean to say that after all the years of nuclear peace, the Americans are just itching to throw a few nukes into any nation it feels is "bad". I believe the term is Assured Destruction.

Oh another thing, are you trying to tell me that Iraq was just a play ground to test all the US technology and battle systems that they had developed to counter any new threats. They publically stated that, the first gulf war was great for that very reason, so are you telling me that the US government wanted a war just so that they could play with their toys?

- Philip

[edit on 25-3-2005 by gooseuk]

Oh please... don't give me some BS about they don't want to use their fossil fuels. They have been using them so far and its not like they use that much anyway. And why does Iran want heavy water rectors? The can still get nuclear technology with light water rectors, in fact heavy water reactor cost more to build and are more dangerous to operate. Aging the obvious reason for this is that they want to have a nuclear bomb.

Iran is only forcing other nations to be against it, the U.S. would have bombed Iran to pieces by now if that is what it wanted to do all along.

The U.S. created its nukes in WWII to end the war on the Pacific, the form then on it was a arms race with the Soviets.

And what are you talking about, I don't believe I have said anything about the U.S. testing new systems.

Gooseuk, please don't give that baloney about since the U.S. used nukes in WWII, it would have "no doubts about using them again." PLEASE. The nukes were used on Japan to end the war quickly, as both sides were tired, and also, it would've cost a LOT of American and Japanese lives to go and invade Japan the old-fashioned way.

People also seem to forget that the nukes themselves were not all that damaging. The U.S. firebombed the he** out of the Japanese, and killed a LOT more people that way. Firebombing a city and setting the whole city on fire kills lots of people. The difference was it takes a lot of bombs to get such a fire going. Whereas, with the atomic bomb, it was one blast and the whole city went up.

BUT, despite the fact that the U.S. set fire to all of a lot of Japanese cities, have you seen the U.S. firebombing anyone these days (civilian targets at least)? The bombs that blew Saddam's regime away were even set to detonate a second or so after impacting inside the buildings to help keep shrapnel from flying at civilians.

But what did the Iraqis report? That "all of Baghdad is on fire," which obviously was a lie. Point is, the U.S. is not going to fire nukes on anyone.

As for hate, European nations can hate the U.S. all they want. We personally do not care. The United States looks after its own security. All the European nations do the same as well, it just doesn't make the news headlines. There is no such thing as "being fair" when it comes to something like nuclear missiles. If you don't know if your enemy is going to use them or not, even if he really isn't, the point is you don't know. So you don't let him threaten you. Is that fair? In the traditional sense, No. But since when is warfare fair at all?

Securing one's nation isn't about fairness. The United States knows it won't use nukes on other nations. Other nations may not be aware of this, but we are, so we will do our best to prevent other nations from having such an ability to threaten us.

If anything, Europe is the one that needs to be hated. There is genocide happening right now in Africa, which the EU has stated is not its business, so it won't go in there and try to do anything. So who has been called? The U.N., to mobilize a 5000 man army, which consists primarily of? U.S. troops.

Europe basically went into Africa, screwed it all to he** and gone, but feels no responsibility over there now. The French could have stopped one genocide, but decided it would cause too big a war over there for them to handle, which thus resulted in the enemy coming through the villages with bladed weapons and one-by-one slaughtering the citizens. The slaughterers had bladed weapons. The French had, um, GUNS. Doesn't take a genius to figure out who could win.

The United States went into Iraq. Whether we screwed it up or not is debatable, as the final outcome will determine that. Have we simply left it, so that the civilians get slaughtered? NOPE. We stay there, while everyone else pulls out. God forbid if the U.S. pulled out, we'd be being cursed by every newspaper in the world for screwing up Iraq and then allowing everyone to be slaughtered.

No one mentions the French in Africa though. Or the fact that the EU won't even try anything over there.

And quit with this crap about the U.S. being a dictator. We do not tax other nations, we do not invade other nations for the pure sake of imperialism. We look after our own security, the same as all these other nations do. Sure the U.S. gov't has done some corrupt things, but overall, the U.S. is a pretty good nation. The world just does not like it when another nation with more power then they have can look after its own interests without their help.

Europe has always resented the U.S. because it has been more successful militarily, economically, and culturally then any of them have. And it has accomplished all of this without making war all over the place. Granted, yeah, I do think Iraq is over oil, but in general in U.S. history, most of the wars have been defensive. One can mention the wars in the island territories near the U.S., but those were mainly because the U.S. did not want Europe coming over and claiming those lands.

IMO, the rest of the world should care more about what the U.S. thinks of it, not the other way around.

And also, it makes perfect sense for Iran to want a nuclear bomb. With a nuclear ability, they could bully around other nations in the region.

Broadsword,

I apologise, but the fact is that if the United States Government had the political mentallity to use a nuclear weapon before, to protect US lifes, are you telling me that you can say without a doubt that the US government would not employ that same weapon system to safe guard american lifes?

Does a burglars quit after their first breakin, do rapists just do it once, do speed freaks speed just once in their life, I apologise if I refuse to believe that the current US government has the common sense to not employ nuclear weapons.

Yep, I know of the Japanese firebombing, I also know of the RAF firebombing of German cites. In relation to Hate, I did not mean European Nations, I was thinking more in mind with the Middle Eastern Nations, but you are correct, I am sure quite a few European Nations wouldn't help the US if it was drowning.

Fair ended in the Trenches, I agree with you there, I did not emply that the US had to be fair but I do not believe that the United States has the Right to dicate to another Nation on the planet what it can and can not do, nor should they threaten to employ deadly force if that nation, doesn't do as it is "told". I don't understand how you can tell me that that isn't dicating?

Yeap I know of the Geocide in Africa, are you speaking of the SAME America that is planing to Veto a bill to help use the IIC, aka the same people that did the war crimes tribunals in bosnia, the reason is simple, the United States is crapping itself as so far in relation to international law, they have conducted War Crimes. I will post a link from Military.com.

I never said that the French was smart But I will not have an american berate nor say that the British government condones geocide, we have worked in nearly EVERY peace keeping mission from 1914, we have been working on Hearts and minds in Africa/Middle East/Asia from 1950, I feel that American telling the british that they aren't doing enought is a sick joke.

As for my comments about the US being a dicatorship, that is my opinion, as I see the US dicating to other soveign nations on this planet, what they can and cannot do, with out any rights or international laws that can back them up apart from a smoking gun. That is a dicatorship. Invading Iraqi for your "security" seem weak, as they did not employ any weapons that could reach the United States, the British did have a more "secure", I use that term lightly, reason to go to war in relation to the Iraqi missile systems.

IMO, the rest of the world should care more about what the U.S. thinks of it, not the other way around.

Many countries in the world, are happy of their image, nor do they require the United States to stoke their egos, but I hope that in that sentense you weren't saying that they should watch out, 'cause if the US thinks a nation is bad, they are gona come stompin'!!'

- Philip


[edit on 26-3-2005 by gooseuk]

Why would Iran need to bully any one in the region, when the US is doing such a good job as it is.

Iran should have Nuclear Weapons, it would stop Israel throwing their weight around.