Can China Invade Taiwan?

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by chinawhite
[chinas communist government is the right choice for china. if we didn't have it china wouldn't be nearly as well developed as it is today. Roughly 49.9% of taiwanese dont want independence. its a know fact.

Hmmm how accurate are those polls? 'So do you want to declare independance? Oh pay no attention to the Missiles and constant threats aimed at your country?

Is the government the right choice for China? Maybe you might ask the millions killed in the cultural revolution or better yet those starved to death in the "Great Leap" foreward? Are you saying that China and her people would never have developed thier nation without the communists? And really now, when you get out of the "showcase" cities, rural China shows a much differnt picture than the urban utopia you imply.

the polls are the most accurate you can get. their called presidential elections.

2 different presidents. 1 pro chinese 1 pro independence.


ummm... those killed/abused in the cutural election now control power....den xiao ping was one of the most wrost affected. he lost most of the control in the chinese communist party and had to spend those 10years hard-labour in some distance part of china. his son was made a paraplegic...

those that were responisble for the culture revolution were tried and convicted. aa gang of four. one of them was maos wife.


As for your urban utopia... 376million people in 668 cities. thats 80 million more people than the whole US population...

as for rural people i think they are doing fine seeing how the chinese government is planning to scrap agricultural tax in 5 years.

www2.chinadaily.com.cn...

What are you trying to say about chinas rural class people?.

Originally posted by chinawhite
the polls are the most accurate you can get. their called presidential elections.

Hmmmm how is the intimidation tactics and sabre rattling any differnet if its a poll or an election??

As for your urban utopia... 376million people in 668 cities. thats 80 million more people than the whole US population...as for rural people i think they are doing fine seeing how the chinese government is planning to scrap agricultural tax in 5 years.

Yes, there has been alot of industrial projects and infrastructure in the cities esp those that will be on display to the world for the Olympics comming up. BTW, many are being forced out of thier homes to make way for stadiums and the like.

China’s rapid urban development, fueled in Beijing by preparations for the 2008 Olympics, is leading to the eviction of homeowners and tenants in violation of Chinese law and international standards on the right to housing. In many cities, Chinese local authorities and developers are forcibly evicting hundreds of thousands of homeowners and tenants who have little legal recourse. Evicted residents left with few avenues of redress have increasingly taken to the streets to protest, where they have met police repression.
www.hrw.org...

But I digress. While we see all the modern and updated cities in government controlled press releases and the like (several ATS members have been good at spreading this as well) what is going on in the country side?

The communist clique that runs the country is realizing that the poverty and generaly poor conditions in the rural area is ripe for unrest and is trying to take steps:

Chinese leaders regard chronic poverty in the vast countryside, home to some 800 million people, as their most pressing problem and worry that rising anger over the problem could lead to political instability.
.
Complaints that local officials seize farmland for real estate development and other uses with little compensation to farmers are a key source of discontent. Violent protests over such complaints have erupted in areas throughout China.
www.iht.com...

Bravo that you have more citizens in your cities than all of the United States, but what of the 800 million not so fortunate??

She has suffered from stomach-ache for years, and even though she now has a huge growth she still cannot afford to see a doctor.

"I was so sick that I even went blind for some time," she said. "I can't sleep at night because of the pain. But I have no money to treat my disease." Farmers like Mr Jin have been getting relatively poorer
Her husband, Jin Xiaoting, scratches out a living from growing crops in the dry soil.

He sells anything he can afford to, but last year he says he made just $30, and paid almost two-thirds of that in tax. He is bitter about how much of his meagre income he has to hand over to the state.
news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 6/24/05 by FredT]

There is no political unrest, people are too busy trying to make money for themselves and have a better life, opportunities are endless right now, doing anything could make you a millionare however you gotta get the times right.

How many stadiums do you think Beijing is building? 8000? Just something like 3 or 4 major atheletic facilities and the Olympic village, that doesn't take that much space, its mostly in the outer rings of Beijing or outside of Beijing anyways. My counsin's family who lives in Beijing under the land designated for the Olympic village was moved elsewhere given a new apartment for each of the families that lived in that house (for his family, a small complex 3 rooms, 3 sibling families which means they actually gain two houses) all the relocation apartments are new, much more prettier than the crap they used to live in which consumes a lot of land (its not apartment buildings, its old crappy houses from the earlier half of the 20th century) and they had to use public washrooms (not the ones in Macdonald's or KFC, its something you might not have experienced in America). I'd say its really a fair deal to relocate and give the houses for the Olympic village and stadiums.

[edit on 24-6-2005 by COWlan]

[edit on 24-6-2005 by COWlan]

I saw a poll somewhere but not quite remember where. 40% Taiwanese want "keep up the status quo indefinitely." Some smaller percentages want "status quo now, rejoin mainland later," "status quo now, declare independence later," "rejoin mainland now," and "declare independence now."

That's a logical choice actually. Most Taiwanese are suspicious of the CCP, but they know declaring independence = war. Best thing to do is: do nothing! Leave things the way they are indefinitely.

Originally posted by FredT

Hmmmm how is the intimidation tactics and sabre rattling any differnet if its a poll or an election??

in the recent elections china didn't make any threats or stage a war game.

Yes, there has been alot of industrial projects and infrastructure in the cities esp those that will be on display to the world for the Olympics comming up. BTW, many are being forced out of thier homes to make way for stadiums and the like.

What your article doesn't say is that they are given a new bigger unit or flat in one of the governments relocating projects with indoor plumbing and other benifits.

those houses they were living in are small houses without indoor plumbing and crude electrical wiring.

Chinese leaders regard chronic poverty in the vast countryside, home to some 800 million people, as their most pressing problem and worry that rising anger over the problem could lead to political instability.
.
Complaints that local officials seize farmland for real estate development and other uses with little compensation to farmers are a key source of discontent. Violent protests over such complaints have erupted in areas throughout China.
www.iht.com...

Bravo that you have more citizens in your cities than all of the United States, but what of the 800 million not so fortunate??

well lifting 370+million people out of poverty is a big step. and abloshing agricultural tax is another. devlopment doesn't just stop in the cities. the chinese government now have planings to increase development into chinas agricultural' heartland . eg building the three gorges dam to increase trade between east and west china. pouring 200billion dollars into Chongqing to make it the shanghai of the west.

She has suffered from stomach-ache for years, and even though she now has a huge growth she still cannot afford to see a doctor.

"I was so sick that I even went blind for some time," she said. "I can't sleep at night because of the pain. But I have no money to treat my disease." Farmers like Mr Jin have been getting relatively poorer
Her husband, Jin Xiaoting, scratches out a living from growing crops in the dry soil.

He sells anything he can afford to, but last year he says he made just $30, and paid almost two-thirds of that in tax. He is bitter about how much of his meagre income he has to hand over to the state.
news.bbc.co.uk...

well she doesn't have to worry because the government is going to abolish agricultural tax in 5 years.

FredT if you look in any third world country you will find that china is a lot better off then them

external image

these are old late 19th century and early 20th century houses. not new apparments.

Is that a relocation area? It sure is different for my cousin, he actually got a two bedroom apartment (not the new huge ones, the cheap and easy to build ones, fairly new from the outside, no furnishing on the inside) My two aunts and my great aunt is there too.

[edit on 24-6-2005 by COWlan]

Originally posted by COWlan
Is that a relocation area? It sure is different for my cousin, he actually got a two bedroom apartment (not the new huge ones, the cheap and easy to build ones, fairly new from the outside, no furnishing on the inside) My two aunts and my great aunt is there too.

[edit on 24-6-2005 by COWlan]

nope i just posted a picture of a old beijing house. this is not the area that is going to get demolished

Boys and Their Toys
Enthusiasts dressed as Taiwanese and Chinese military personnel pose in front of the flags of the Republic of China, the People's Republic of China and the US at a press conference held at the National Taiwan University Association to launch the 2005 War Game Conference yesterday.

US Supreme court rules homes and land can be seized for businesses

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
7 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.

ADVERTISEMENT

Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.

City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

Email Story IM Story Discuss Printable View RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:

Average (134 votes)
» Recommended Stories
Full Coverage: Supreme Court
News Stories
Scalia Finds Reputation Under Scrutiny AP via Yahoo! News Jun 22 Reporters Plead Their Case to Supreme Court Law.com via Yahoo! Finance Jun 22 White House pares picks for top court at The Chicago Tribune

Originally posted by chinawhite
US Supreme court rules homes and land can be seized for businesses

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
7 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.

ADVERTISEMENT

Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

Now, at running the risk of sounding like something I totally despise, I feel I must register the following comment regarding this decision:

That is the most #ing retarded decision to ever come out of the Supreme Court.


Apologies for language, but hopefully my bluntness will help people realize what just happened here.

THis thread is like the road runner. It just won't go down


meep meeP ////...................................................

the only way that China can attack Taiwan is if the U.S.A will try to send troops over... which they dont have cuz they are out there fighting other peoples wars...
and if the U.S will defend Taiwan then keep this in mind... China might team up with Russia

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 only started fast economic growth in the 70s but before that china still wanted taiwan. do you wanna know why.

becuase its chinas.

... ok... makes sece i guess....

russiankid,

America has military personel on Taiwan.


chinawhite,

"taiwan only started fast economic growth in the 70s but before that china still wanted taiwan. do you wanna know why.

becuase its chinas."

cause you say so and who the heck are you ! some ignorant kid.

Originally posted by bodebliss
russiankid,

America has military personel on Taiwan.


chinawhite,

"taiwan only started fast economic growth in the 70s but before that china still wanted taiwan. do you wanna know why.

becuase its chinas."

cause you say so and who the heck are you ! some ignorant kid.

I'm chinese. you are the one that is ignorant. its a known fact that before taiwan was a rich country china already claimed it as their own.

china already had plans to attack taiwan before the korean war. i dont know how they would but they had already launched assults on other islands close to china in the taiwan straight

did you know that only in the last few years that taiwan has finally droped their claim to mainland china. they still claim mongolia.

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by bodebliss
russiankid,

America has military personel on Taiwan.


chinawhite,

"taiwan only started fast economic growth in the 70s but before that china still wanted taiwan. do you wanna know why.

becuase its chinas."

cause you say so and who the heck are you ! some ignorant kid.

I'm chinese. you are the one that is ignorant. its a known fact that before taiwan was a rich country china already claimed it as their own.

china already had plans to attack taiwan before the korean war. i dont know how they would but they had already launched assults on other islands close to china in the taiwan straight

did you know that only in the last few years that taiwan has finally droped their claim to mainland china. they still claim mongolia.

you are not chinese you are Aussie, unless you want to go back to china and live the good life there and give up your hard destitute life in Aus? I think you need to rethink your loyalities or support china's take over of aus. You support China while you dont have to suffer like the rest of "our" people, kicking up your heels while chinese workers are beaten and expilotied by CHina and Big Business what will happen when wages dont grow with the inflation? What will happen when the businesses leave for cheaper wages? it will happen, its already happened in Mexico, US, Thailand, India...etc

Doesnt the US supply 50% of the gain that China consumes? I hope China has huge food stocks or they are in for a world of hurt. Hope you enjoy that full course meal.

Everyone always says " China has a million soldiers!" well this may be true. But that actual number of fighting soldiers would be closer to 2 hundred thousand if that. the ratio of support to combat arms is roughly 7-1 . Now given those numbers lets assume china was able to get a foot hold on taiwain without having a deep blue navy. They would have to fight off every swinging richard in Taiwain, not counting what ever the U.S. threw at them.

Can you say Custer?

..... China can and will attack Taiwan... even if the U.S would have all its power there
China would still be able to take em down