Well personally, I don't really care for the chinese government, they have been punishing their own people for far too long. As for US's intrusion, I agree, it does seem way too excessive, and I think US's agenda lost its direction in Asia because of their constant fear of North Korea, and it makes them to have a strange realtionship with China. On the one hand, they want an ally in China to control North Korea, on the other they want to protect Taiwan from China's sphere of influence. There is a lot of self interest involve, since China is the number one manufactor for US domestic goods, just check out Wal Mart. The contradiction makes it tough for US to not be invovled in that region. At the end, it was ok to let China's human right violation go because they made the christmas toys. I just hope for consistency in our foreign policy, we are the superpowers, act like one, I have to quoted Spiderman on this "With great power, comes with great responsibility".
page 2 of 4 « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next » 88 total items
-
Thank you einna for the siggy :)- Mar 22, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by ChaosXAngelMan... as a Chinese... no <ahem> offense... but I really hate the
president of Taiwan's guts. That man wants Taiwan to be independent,
that was really what the argument is about. If they want to be
independent, then go ahead, stop stealing China's land, language,
writing, governing, culture and religon. And trade (ah ha they'll be so
dead). The president said China is threatening Taiwanese, but hey, they
did too. 2 years ago they threatens to bomb Shanghai. Of course Chinese
were laughing their heads off. Don't get the irony? There are 64
thousand Taiwanese in Shanghai... man the president is such an airhead.lol - I have a friend who used to live in Taiwan before I enountered her at my old uni. in Canada - I've got to see the expression on her face when she sees this comment. lol - But what you are saying is so true. ROFL - Without China's trade, a lot of nations would be screwed ten times over - including Taiwan for sure. That's what makes it so hard for them to declare independence - no money, no development. It'll be hard for them to stay sustained indeed without China's exports. This is going to be one heck of a politic issue for sure.
Quote by ChaosXAngelBut what is interesting is that Russia take the side of China this time, oppisite of u.s.a. They've never done that before.
They better not go into conflict. You know what happens when they pick sides all over again. Another rough position for Bush and the US? I sense tension floating around the air.
Quote by ChaosXAngelBut I don't know why,
every time I go to America I hear diffrent stories than the ones I hear
from Chinese. Gusse no one will own the truth (But you can own the dvd
^^) lol I wonder how Bush got his job with almost every theater in the
world is showing how he is unfit for that job^^</ahem>It's sad how some Americans only see it as the patriots of America sees it - that they can't admit their own faults at times. Is Bush unfit for the job? Not going to offend anyone, but I am pretty darn sure someone else could do an obviously better job than he can. I don't see Bush doing his job well over here.
"No matter where you go, no matter how tough life may be, just remember that always in your heart, you will still be loved."
- Mar 22, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by CelessaI don't see Bush doing his job well over here.
I think just about everyone agress with this statement.
Quote by MordinAt the end, it was ok to let China's human right violation go because they made the christmas toys.
I really don't think the US has any right to talk about Chinese human rights violations with all the sick crap going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and even their own country :hmpf:
In case anyone's interested, I heard from my economics teacher that the US is in over a trillion dollars deficit to China XP China could totally destroy the American economy if they wanted although it'll also hurt the Chinese economy.
- Mar 22, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by Holt
Quote by MordinAt the end, it was ok to let China's human right
violation go because they made the christmas toys.I really don't think the US has any right to talk about Chinese human rights violations with all the sick crap going on in Iraq, Afghanistan and even their own country :hmpf: In case anyone's interested, I heard from my economics teacher that the US is in over a trillion dollars deficit to China XP China could totally destroy the American economy if they wanted although it'll also hurt the Chinese economy.
Well you got to agree, no matter how bad US acted, it could never be as bad as a communist regime that beats down on dissenters. The last time I check you could bash Bush and voice your opinion in US, but if you said anything remotely against authority in China, you are going to meet their secret police personally. ;)
Thank you einna for the siggy :)- Mar 22, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by Mordin if you said anything remotely against authority in China, you are going to meet their secret police personally.
So the propaganda stories from the American government tell you! (Ah who am I kidding? You're probably right x_x )
I guess true freedom of speech is lacking greatly in China. But at least people can still riot in HK! :nya:- Mar 22, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by HoltIn case anyone's interested, I heard from
my economics teacher that the US is in over a trillion dollars deficit
to China XPYes, and they expect the children of the future to pay such a burden? You should read the slogans about Bush and the economy he has running in store.
His only solution - tap into the oils of Iraq and Alaska to cover their losses - and strip the country of its fundamental source of income. But where will the rest of it go? Into more military development, perhaps for the next upcoming battle up ahead. Err - not to sound rude or simplistic, but why isn't the US spending its money elsewhere - in a sense? They've wasted billions of dollars sending troops oversea - its utterly ridiculous that they haven't done much progress at all - and politically speaking, Bush isn't getting any smarter by knocking through somebody's door and acting like the boss over the other nation just like that - while at the same time asking for China's help in return. It's kind of sad, really.
Quote by HoltChina could totally destroy the American economy if they
wanted although it'll also hurt the Chinese economy.lol - China needs the US as well as the US needs China in a sense - which makes this situation so much more unique than the US facing off against Iraq.
Quote by HoltI guess true freedom of speech is lacking greatly in China. But at
least people can still riot in HK! :nya:lol - I haven't been in a riot before, but I saw it on television and its pretty rough out there. China lacking true freedom of speech? At least you can post your thoughts over here and get away with it, ne? lol - Wouldn't like to see some officials start barging into your home and arresting you for conspiracy against the authorization of the government. Reminds me of that story book - but I'm not going to get into it. **Snickers**
"No matter where you go, no matter how tough life may be, just remember that always in your heart, you will still be loved."
- Mar 22, 2005
- Gallery
-
I also hear that the US are clamouring China to unpeg the renmenbi from the dollar to try and slow down imports from China. But China's just like "hell no". Meanwhile China's GDP is growing at an alarming rate.
But anyway, this thread wasn't about economics. US should stay out of China's business with Taiwan!- Mar 22, 2005
- Gallery
XavierCrow
From Angel to Vigilante
-
Actually, I recall something similar with the IRA and America, where Clinton was talking about trying to find peace, etc. I thought it kind of weird that the president of America would have anything to do with the IRA at all ! I mean... he just said the same thing that everyone else has for the past 30 years and strictly speaking, it had nothing to do with him or America. I dunno... I guess America, because of it's power, see's itself as the world's "big brother", so I'm not suprised that it finds itself intervening with the Taiwan situation.
Disclaimer : XavierCrow has no problems with any country and apologises for any offence he may have caused and insists that it was not intended. All words are unofficially copyrighted in crayon by XavierCrow, however he can take no responsibility for any actions or damage caused directly and/or indirectly by the above oppinion.
jk! XP
In the end, all there is, is what exists and what we believe or perceive is true... and there's no distinctions between the two.
- Myself- Mar 22, 2005
- Gallery
-
I must admit that when I first saw this thread, my interest was piqued and I read through the responses with great expectancy. However, the farther down I read, the more I felt an immesurable fatigue weighing down upon my shoulders. Twice did I venture a response, but both times I cleared my response simply because I was mentally exhausted enough from all of my academic and extracurricular commitments. Only now, five weeks after the fact, do I again have the time and energy to begin venturing a response. I know that because my response comes so far into the discussion that many of my points will fall upon deaf ears, and most of the responses that follow mine will be by people who will not take the time and effort to read through the extant discussion, but my words are not for them. I will continue nonetheless because I believe that the exchange of ideas, especially contrary ones, is fundamental to a greater understanding of the world. Therefore, to those who take the time to read and critically consider my words, I give thanks and my respect.
Without further ado, I shall begin.
Historical Background
In politics, as with many other fields, that which seems contrasts starkly with that which is. To understand the question of Taiwan, the classic Taiwan wenti of scholars of East Asian policy, requires understanding of the events that lead to the current situation. What I will give now is a highly abbreviated history, but one that I hope will help many understand the nuances of the situation.The island of Taiwan first appeared on the global scene in the seventeenth century when it was discovered by the Dutch. From 1624-1662, the island, known then as Formosa, was a colony of the Netherlands. Under Dutch administration, the first immigrants from the mainland arrived on Taiwan as laborers on sugar plantations and rice fields. In 1662, with the Ming Dynasty on the verge of collapse on the mainland, a Ming loyalist fled to Taiwan and overthrew the Dutch government. For the next two hundred years, Taiwan existed as a state that, while was within the Chinese sphere of influence, was not under Imperial administration. The Manchu goernment in Beijing's official position on Taiwan was that it was not part of China and therefore its administration was not the responsibility of Beijing.
Meanwhile in Japan, with the abdication of Tokugawa Yoshinobu, the Tokugawa Bakufu collapsed, to be replaced by a new Meiji government dominated by samurai from the Satsuma and Choshu domains who wanted to establish Japan as a modern nation state that could deal with those of the west as an equal. Wary of Japanese ambition, the Manchu government decided to take action and annex Taiwan, and therefore in 1887, Taiwan became a province of Qing China.
Less than a decade later, tensions between China and Japan over influence over Korea reached a breaking point and in 1894, war erupted between the two countries. A year later, the Japanese emerged victorious, and as part of the peace settlement, China ceded Taiwan to the Meiji government. It is important to note that unlike Hong Kong, which the Manchu government leased to Great Britain, here the Manchu government surrendered all claim over Taiwan to Japan.
In the first two years of Japanese rule, the Meiji government allowed all Taiwanese who did not wish to live under Japanese rule to leave for the mainland. It must be stressed that the period of Japanese administration over Taiwan was one that, though strict, was one that was marked by fairness and efficiency. The Japanese established schools and universities and built infrastructure such that access to water and electricity was available and reliable even in the most remote places and that the entire island was connected by a system of roads and railroads. It is interesting to compare Taiwan and mainland China at the end of the Second World War; Taiwan on one hand was highly developed, with a literacy rate of between 80 and 90 percent while most of China was still undeveloped and the vast majority illiterate.
Development and literacy were not the only things that set Taiwan apart from the mainland. The Mandarin used by the Nationalist government was a foreign language in Taiwan, where Japanese and Taiwanese (a variant of the Fujian provincial dialect) were the language spoken and used by all. While many Chinese disillusioned by the Qing Dynasty had settled upon Taiwan in the years before the island became a province under Manchu administration, the customs and traditions of the island was one highly influenced by its distinct island heritage and flavored by its Japanese administration. Furthermore, the Nationalist government was highly corrupt and inefficient, while the Japanese administration, while not particularly popular, had established an expectation for an orderly society governed by fair laws overseen by an efficient administration. When the Japanese Imperial Governor surrendered Taiwan to the Nationalists in 1945, the Taiwanese, who had been excited by the prospect of being ruled over by fellow Chinese had their hopes shattered, because the Nationalist administration that replaced the Japanese was one that was inefficient and corrupt and which bled the resources of the island dry, a far cry from what they had come to expect through their experience under the Japanese colonial administration.
In the years after the end of the Second World War, a full-scale civil war broke out in China between the Communists and the Nationalists. On 9 December 1949, the capital of Nationalist China (zhonghua minguo) was moved to Taipei; earlier that year, Mao Zedong declared an independent People's Republic of China (zhonghua renmin gongheguo) with a capital in Beijing. In 1950, the Nationalists were forced, through a long string of defeats, to abandon the rest of its mainland possessions and retreat to Taiwan.
The history of the subsequent fifty years is much more common knowledge, and thus rather than take up space in reiterating what most people already know, I will use the historical background above as a foundation from which I will address some of the points raised earlier in this thread.
The Taiwan wenti Today
The degree of pro-China sentiment in this thread honestly surprised me, as I am more used to seeing at least an equal number of responses framing Taiwan as an independent state that should be regarded as such in this type of debate.Quote by HoltNow, what the hell is this? The US is doing all they can to try and make China weaker and increase it's foothold in the area (by getting the support of Taiwan probably so they can build another Air/Naval base and then they have the nerve to ask China to help them in stopping another country from getting power?
I agree that the fewer nukes the better, but who made the US the deciders of who gets power and who doesn't? The nerve of that idiot president really pisses me off.It is important to note that the official policy of the Bush administration regarding the Taiwan issue is the exact same policy as that of the preceeding administrations of Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Carter: there is one China, the status of Taiwan should be determined through peaceful means, and it is the responsibility of the United States to provide for the defense of Taiwan. This was established by the Democratic administration of Jimmy Carter in the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which was ratified and is now USC Title 22 Chapter 48.
The Taiwan Relations Act states
Quote: It is the policy of the United States to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character and to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.
Taiwan is a democracy facing the threat of armed force by an authoritarian government across the Taiwan strait. As of December 2003, the PLA had 496 short-range ballistic missiles stationed across the Taiwan strait and aimed towards Taiwan: 96 in Jiangxi province, 144 in Fujian province, and 96 in Guangdong province. This number has steadily increased, and current estimates place the actual number of missiles over 700. Furthermore, the Chinese military has been embarking upon a program of military expansion such that annual military spending has consistently increased by an average of fifteen percent each year in the past five years. However these figures are misleading, because the official figures published by the PLA do not account for spending in the areas of research and development, weapons purchased from abroad, and operational costs at the local and regional levels. Therefore, while the published increase in 2002 was 185.3 billion renminbi, an equivalent of $22.4 billion or an increase of 17.6 percent, the actual increase was between $44 and $67 billion.
It is clearly erroneous to say that the United States wishes to increase its foothold in East Asia. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has made its presence felt through one hundred thousand troops, one Marine amphibious group, and one carrier battle group stationed in the region. If anything, as the dialogue between Washington and Tokyo regarding their bilateral security treaty shows, the United States wishes to significantly reduce its presence in the region, as it presents a significant economic drain to the United States among othe reasons. China recognizes this and wishes to step in to fill the void as regional hegemon. However, China's military buildup is of clear concern to the United States and Japan, especially when both have either legal or traditional ties to Taiwan and are obligated to step in to protect it if it comes under attack. The United States's interest in the matter, then, is not so it can build a military base in Taiwan, which it does not want given its desire to gradually withdraw from the region or to stifle China, but rather to ensure the continued survival of the democratic governments in Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea.
Onto the next topic, the arms embargo of China by the United States and the European Union.
Quote by IyasisI hadn't known that the EU had embargos on China, but it is rather stupid and hypocritical that the US wants to keep the embargo intact and thereby inhibiting the growth of China's miliatary technology. Look at US's military technology - is anybody trying to stop them? And with North Korean, I agree (and hope) that the nuclear weapons are destroyed, but it annoys me how the US approaches the issue by enlisting the help of China, not to mention how ironic that is as well.
The United States and countries in Europe enacted arms embargos against China following the Tiananmen Square incident in 1989, where several thousand Chinese students were killed by Chinese soldiers. When the European Union was officially created under the Maastricht treaty, the extant embargos were adopted under the aegis of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy, with their annulment dependant upon improvement of China's human rights record. Simply stated, once China improves its human rights record, the United States and the European Union will lift its prohibitions on the sale of arms to China.
Quote by XavierCrowDefending Taiwan is fine, but the situation is thrown into rediculous proportions when America asks for China's cooperation. China's a large and powerful country and America needs to be more careful about throwing it's weight around like it has been recently. Basically, if America wants North Korea to have no nukes, then it'll have to do it on it's own or allow china to grow in military power... personally, I'd opt for the first... not because I support everything America does, but because the last thing we need is another super-power, itching to show it's might. The embargo should stick, Taiwan should be left alone and America should fight it's own battles. We don't need another world war. The idea of these countries getting into a battle is terrifieng.
You recognize here that the Taiwan wenti is not just a dispute between China, Taiwan, and the United States but rather one of regional significance. Much more is at stake here, including the unstable situation in Korea and general regional security. However, I would warn against leaving Taiwan alone. Taiwan is an example of a country that went through a period of authoritarian dictatorship under the rule of the Nationalists starting from 1945 but by 1996 had emerged as a fully democratic country and one of the economic powerhouses of East Asia. For the United States to turn its back on Taiwan would not only be breaking the obligations set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act, but more importantly undermine the United States's support for democratic governments. Furthermore, the degree of uncertainty regarding Taiwan's future would have profound shocks on the East Asian economy as a whole, which in turn would send tremors that would be significantly and negatively affect the global economy.
Quote by HoltI guess you're right in that if China does one day become as technologically advanced in military power as America, the same thing will probably happen.
Official estimates by both the Pentagon, the defense ministries of foreign governments, and a number of respected independent organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, suggest that the United States will only maintain a lead over China in military capability and techology for the next two decades. That means that this scenario is not only possible, but will more than likely occur during our lifetime.
Quote by kai81220it seems that the US feels that they are the only people capable of dealing with world issues while the rest of us are completely ignorant.
The United States does not act on the global sphere because it feels that the rest of the world is ignorant. Rather, it acts because it is in the position to assist. Since the days of Woodrow Wilson, the United States has believed that people the world over ought to live in freedom, and as the best way to secure freedom was through the establishment of democracy, all people should be able to live in democratic societies and determine the course of their own destinies.
Quote by Keiichi-K1But i think the US should F#cking mind its own business!
Taiwan is a part of China, it became a renegade state when the chinese civil war ended and the nationalists retreated to the island of Taiwan. That war is now over and the ruling side of China have won, it's time that Taiwan accepts that!This is one of the most common misconceptions of the situation. As I noted in my historical background to the situation, Taiwan had never been a part of the People's Republic of China, which was established on 1 October 1945. On 17 August 1945, the Showa Emperor instructed the colonial administration to surrender not to China, but to Chungking, the military headquarters for the Nationalist army ("we make peace with the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, and to Chungking").
Beijing has issued two white papers that extensively explain its basis for stating that Taiwan is a part of China. Both, however, are flawed as they ignore several key points. I have provided links to both so that you can see the text for yourself. The White Paper on the Taiwan Question and Reunification of China focuses on events before the end of the Second World War and bases its claims upon a number of mapping and exploration expeditions during the Imperial and intermediary periods that included Taiwan and the fact that by the time Taiwan became a colony of Japan there was a population of 2.54 on Taiwan, the majority being of Chinese descent. At certain parts of the Imperial era, Taiwan was sometimes included as part of certain provincial administrations in maps. However, throughout the period, Taiwan was either ruled by foreign powers or by Taiwanese themselves and never experienced administration by mainland governments. In fact, at several points, when Taiwanese pirates interfered with Western shipping prompting official complaints by countries such as the United States, Great Britain, and France to the Manchu government in Beijing, the response of the Chinese government was always that Taiwan was not part of China and therefore the government of the Qing Emperor was not responsible for actions taken by the Taiwanese. Thus the only times that Taiwan was officially administered as part of China were the eight years between 1887 to 1895 when Taiwan existed as an official province of Qing China. Furthermore, while it is true that there were over two million people of Chinese descent in Taiwan by the time of the surrender of Taiwan to the Japanese, most of the people were descendants of either laborers who had migrated during the period of Dutch colonial administration or people who had fled to Taiwan to escape Manchu rule in the Qing Dynasty.
The White Paper on the One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue focuses on events post-1945. What it omits is the fact that Mao Zedong established on 1 October a People's Republic of China ruled by the Chinese Communist Party distinct from the Republic of China ruled by the Chinese Nationalist Party which at the time still controlled the southern portion of mainland China. It ignores the fact that agreements such as the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and the Japanese surrender of Taiwan were negotiated with the Nationalist Republic of China at a time when the People's Republic of China did not exist. It claims that when the PRC was declared, it became the sole legitimate government of China, something that was not recognized at the time by the countries of the international community and is still not recognized by over two dozen countries. The Republic of China existed in 1949 as it does today, a de facto independent country of dubious de jure status.
Culture and Tradition
Much of the argument today for including Taiwan as part of China has to deal with the fact that the two share a common culture. This did not escape the notice of some people who posted to this thread, and therefore I will respond to one of the posts in order to address the very important issue of common cultural heritage.Quote by ChaosXAngelMan... as a Chinese... no <ahem> offense... but I really hate the president of Taiwan's guts. That man wants Taiwan to be independent, that was really what the argument is about. If they want to be independent, then go ahead, stop stealing China's land, language, writing, governing, culture and religon. And trade (ah ha they'll be so dead). The president said China is threatening Taiwanese, but hey, they did too. 2 years ago they threatens to bomb Shanghai. Of course Chinese were laughing their heads off. Don't get the irony? There are 64 thousand Taiwanese in Shanghai... man the president is such an airhead. Also he wants Taiwanese to ditch their ansestors... and ansestors is the most important thing to... Chinese... and Taiwanese... since they were Chinese a long time ago. Aww if Taiwan really get independent, the world would see them diffrently.
First of all, Taiwan has never stolen territory of the People's Republic of China. Neither has it stolen China's language, as the Taiwanese speak Taiwanese in addition to Mandarin, which is also spoken by many in Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. Furthermore, the written Chinese language is also used in Japan and Korea. Furthermore, Taiwan has not stolen the governing scheme of the PRC, as Taiwan has a fully-functional western-style democratic system.
If you would like to speak about Chinese culture and tradition, I don't think that the argument can be made that Taiwan is anything other than the steward of custom. During the Cultural Revolution, millions of priceless artifacts from throughout Chinese history were destroyed through the encouragement of the Communist Party. Traditional practices and arts were the targets of destruction, with scholars, historians, and other intellectuals slaughtered. Assembly, including religious assembly, is officially outlawed in China. What remains of the Chinese cultural legacy lies mostly in Taiwan, where custom, be it ancient traditions, artifacts from antiquity, and elements of China's rich heritage have been preserved to this day.
Furthermore, never did Taiwan threaten to bomb Shanghai.
Economic Concerns
Some of you brought up economic concerns. Given that this issue affects two of the largest economies in the world, economics clearly cannot be omitted from the picture.Quote by HoltIn case anyone's interested, I heard from my economics teacher that the US is in over a trillion dollars deficit to China China could totally destroy the American economy if they wanted although it'll also hurt the Chinese economy.
The deficit being discussed is a trade deficit. Let me introduce this equation: y=c+i+g+(ex-im). To students of economics it should be familiar, as it's the equation for the current account balance, the fundamental concept in macroeconomics. It is true that the United States's current account balance, used to calculate GDP, suffers because of the existance of a trade defecit (IM > EX) due in large part because of the disparity between the amount of goods coming into the United States from China and vice versa. However, China only accounts for 12% of US imports. Furthermore, trade as a whole is just one of four elements used in the calculation of GDP. Therefore, though it is clear that a reduction of trade with China would have a negative effect on the GDP of the United States, it would not be a crippling blow to the United States. It would, however, be a crippling blow to China, as the US is its largest export market and its fourth largest source of imports.
When compared to that of other countries, China's economy has an extremely high annual growth rate. Many point to its high annual growth rate of approximately 9 percent as indicator of its economic strength, but they fail to understand that this is just an indicator of the fact that the Chinese economy is still in development and in flux, and therefore cannot withstand as much economic shocks as economies with lower but more stable economic growth rates, such as the EU and the United States. Furthermore, all economists are aware that that the current level of growth, fueled in large part by speculative investment, is not sustainable and that the growth will take a significant fall soon from its current inflated level. My point is to show that while China certainly has a large economy, its economic strength and influence tends to be exaggerated.
Conclusion
I thank all of those of you who have read up to this point for considering my opinion on the matter; I will not step back and make some general observations about the situation. I am not a great fan of China, and I feel that it is a grave injustice that because of threat of military force from Beijing the twenty-three million citizens of Taiwan are not allowed to decide their own futures. Many feel that the status quo is acceptable, and while it is preferable to many of the alternatives, the fact of the matter is that the current situation is not maintanable. Each year brings Taiwan farther and farther away from China in both practice and popular sentiment. Furthermore, China's refusal to admit Taiwan into international organizations is irresponsible on a fundamental human level. For example, China has consistently blocked Taiwan's bid to join the World Health Organization, and as a result Taiwan was denied international aid when the SARS epidemic hit east Asia. Taiwanese citizens died because Beijing refused to let doctors and aid workers assist in controlling the spread of the disease.The question that needs to be asked is this: why does China want Taiwan? Taiwan would be a rich prize economically, but the real reason lies again in history. Scholars of east Asian policy know the importance of face, especially saving face, in Chinese politics. Fifty years of Chinese foregn policy has been built around the Taiwan wenti, with China's relations with other countries and its activity in international organizations based solely upon the application of the Taiwan wenti on the issue at hand. For example, while China has veto power in the United Nations, it only uses it in issues where a precedent could be set that would allow for the declaration of Taiwanese independence or in issues where Taiwan has a stake. Furthermore, China determines its diplomatic relations with individual countries depending on their relations with Taiwan. When a Dutch firm sold two Zwaardvis-class diesel submarines to the ROC navy, the Netherlands found its diplomatic status downgraded and its ambassador temporarily recalled. In domestic affairs, the Taiwan question is tightly integrated into the identity of the Chinese Communist Party as well, which has framed the Taiwan wenti as a rallying point for nationalistic and patriotic sentiment. Therefore, many leading China scholars feel that if Taiwan were to successfully declare independence, it would lead to a cascading series of events that could lead to the collapse of the current regime in Beijing through the destruction of the cornerstones of Beijing's foreign policy and domestic power. This is clearly undesirable because of the massive detrimental effects it would have in regional stability, especially vis a vis North Korea, which may feel even more isolated, and of course in its rammifications upon global markets.
With that, I'll stop for now. I look forward to a reasoned and intelligent discussion!
s h i n s e n g u m i
Minitokyo Policy, Forum, Review, and Category Maintenance Moderator EmeritusDo not expect to be applauded when you do the right thing, and do not expect to be forgiven when you err, but even your enemies will respect commitment, and a conscience at peace is worth a thousand tainted victories.
- Apr 27, 2005
- Gallery
-
Yo. It's been a while since this thread ever got looked at. I've completely forgotten about it :\
Thanks for bringing it back out of the grave anyways ;)My my, what an essay. You must be a humanities student XD
I'm a science side further mathematician myself so excuse me if my writing is not so excellent ^_^' I know only what I read in the news. (and maybe a little from history when I was 11-14. But most of that was about the history of woman's rights because my teacher was crazy about that for some reason)
Although I might not agree with everything you said, Shinsengumi, I have to congratulate you on how calmly and intellectually you presented your side. Nicely done.Quote by shinsengumiThe Republic of China existed in 1949 as it does today, a de facto independent country of dubious de jure status.
Could you clarify for me what all those italic phrases mean exactly? I'm not really sure what you're saying here :x
Here's what I know about the diplomatic status (source: BBC)
Quote: Legally, most nations - and the UN - acknowledge the position of the Chinese government that Taiwan is a province of China, and as a result Taiwan has formal diplomatic relations with only 25 countries and no seat at the UN.
Which if I get your meaning properly kind of contravenes it. If I got it right, China is a well recognized country and superpower in today's world. Whereas many countries view Taiwan simlarly to how some arab middle-east countries view Israel ie. it doesn't exist.
I'm a little patriotic so I support China in this which makes me completely biased XD But in truth, I don't mind that much whether or not Taiwan becomes independent. It's not really going to affect me. All I'm sure of is that I don't want this to spark some huge war and we all know how sooooo willing Bush is to get into those :hmpf:
So naturally I'm going to support my own country. I'm originally from Hong Kong so take that as an example. China owns HK and that's not doing so bad. What's Taiwan so afraid of?What exactly was your position on independence anyway? For? Against? Don't mind? I don't think you made that clear.
Anyways, I can't be bothered to write to much on here but you taught me alot here. Thanks for posting :D- Apr 27, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by HoltBasically, China says Taiwan is part of China and is trying to get them back whilst the US sides with Taiwan and provides them with weapons etc.
Meanwhile, the EU is thinking of lifting arms embargoes on China so China's military technology can develope and oh course, the US is against China getting stronger so they want the embargo to stay.yep totally. the pentagon knows China's going to become a greater threat in the future so it's doing what it thinks it can to thwart their growth (esp militarily) as much as possible. But i mean, China is still perceived to be about 20 years behind in military technology compared to the US, and it has started increasing its military budget rather recently. So its not like China is a rival of equal status just yet, but the US is anxious.. i guess that's reasonable considering how much power potential there is in China
Quote by HoltAnd at the same time, the US doesn't want NK to have nuclear weapons so they want China to cut them off from essential resources like rice and such to collapse the NK economy.
Now, what the hell is this? The US is doing all they can to try and make China weaker and increase it's foothold in the area (by getting the support of Taiwan probably so they can build another Air/Naval base :hmpf: ) and then they have the nerve to ask China to help them in stopping another country from getting power?
haha ahh the north korean issue... i honestly think the US doesn't really know what to do with NK. they've currently employed as the highest guy on NK issues (and maybe asia i dunno) someone (victor cha) who thinks 'hawk engagement' is the best way to deal with NK. basically hawk engagement tells the US to view NK with deep suspicion in what they do, not give into NK demands (and as a result reward bad behavior) and basically admist negotiations, lay the groundwork for having greater control over the NK regime. But now that NK has announced that they got nukes, Cha's hawk engagement doesn't work anymore.. i wonder what bush is thinking..
but i dont think people need to worry about China taking part in getting the NK regime to collapse. (there isn't much of an economy to destroy anyway) the last thing China wants is to have a collapsed NK state that produces crazy numbers of refugees flooding over into their borders. it would hurt their economy. more so with South Korea.
"Faith means believing in something that will only make sense in reverse."
"When men are the most sure and arrogant they are commonly the most mistaken..."- Apr 27, 2005
- Gallery
-
Holt, the interesting thing is while 25 countries officially recognize Taiwan, the Republic of China, in practice eighty countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia, recognize Taiwan as an independent entity and deal with Taiwan through "representatives" who are ambassadors in all but name in "representative offices" which are embassies in all but name.
This ties into my statement that the Republic of China is a de facto (in practice) independent country of dubious de jure (on paper) status; in practice, both in domestic administration and foreign relations with other countries, the Republic of China is an independant sovereign entity. Your analogy with the status of Israel is a very good one to demonstrate the legal status of Taiwan. Israel is clearly a soverign state, but many countries simply pretend it doesn't exist. Beijing exercises no oversight over Taiwan at all, and neither does it have the ability to do so: there is no official contact between Beijing and Taipei, and neither can there be.
The points that I'm trying to make are these: First, regardless of personal opinions on the matter, Taiwan is an independent country even though it may not be recognized as such by all members of the international community. Second, drawing borders based on historical claims is not the most legitimate of methods. This was demonstrated in the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, where Imperial Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire were partitioned, with former constituent ethnic groups and the victorious Allied countries trying to increase their borders. So many countries had competing claims on pieces of territories that it was remarked at one point that if historical basis was legitimate, all of the states of Europe should just become a part of Italy because of their Roman heritage. If China has a historical claim to Taiwan, objectively speaking the Dutch have more legitimate a claim, simply because the Dutch ruled over the island for a much longer time than mainland China did.
At Paris, the borders that proved to last the most stable and the most lasting (at least until World War II), were the ones that were determined by plebiscite. In other words, where the people living in those territories voted to decide whether they would be a part of a particular country or an independent state. Wilson was one of the greatest proponents of instituting popular determination, letting people of individual territories decide their own future, and I agree with this fundamental principle.
In the case of Taiwan, I think that it is more fair for the twenty-three million citizens to be able to decide their own future rather for them to be dictated to by a government in Beijing that has never exercise administration over the island and who simply do not have enough exposure to the distinct customs, traditions, and sociopolitical atmpshere in Taiwan to be able to adequately understand the people. The two countries have diverged significantly in their political traditions (rule of law exists in democratic Taiwan while rule of law has yet to be implemented in authoritarian China), their customs, their traditions, and the like. The drift is made more clear with each passing generation; apart from the difference nuances in accent, the Mandarin spoken in Taiwan now differs significantly in the fundamental pronounciation of certain basic words, has different vocabulary for numerous common words and phrases, and the like. Furthermore, there has been a recent turn back towards greater use of the traditional Taiwanese dialect over Mandarin.
You asked this: China owns HK and that's not doing so bad. What's Taiwan so afraid of?
My answer is this: The PRC has never owned Taiwan and Taiwan is doing just fine.
s h i n s e n g u m i
Minitokyo Policy, Forum, Review, and Category Maintenance Moderator EmeritusDo not expect to be applauded when you do the right thing, and do not expect to be forgiven when you err, but even your enemies will respect commitment, and a conscience at peace is worth a thousand tainted victories.
- Apr 27, 2005
- Gallery
-
Can't say I disagree with anything you said. You make a good argument ;)
- Apr 29, 2005
- Gallery
-
So, Taiwan's Lien (or.. Lian, who barely lost to current Taiwanese prez Chen Shui-bian in the presidential elections) went ahead and had peace talks with Beijing. And apparently the Taiwanese people were quite supportive (according to some.. 56% or so, which is more than the percentage of votes that either Chen or Lien respectively received during elections) of this supposedly traitorous political move. (ostracizing president Chen and speaking in favor of China's anti-secession law)
I'm not sure what to make of this. If the Taiwanese truly want independence, shouldn't this be an outrage..? And now with this surprising popular support Chen also needs to make a point and is dutifully sending Soong over to Beijing as well.
Hm.. I'm also wondering where support from the so-called 'noncommitted rationalists' will lean toward, if they haven't already.
"Faith means believing in something that will only make sense in reverse."
"When men are the most sure and arrogant they are commonly the most mistaken..."- May 03, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by unicorn2006So, Taiwan's Lien (or.. Lian, who barely lost to current Taiwanese prez Chen Shui-bian in the presidential elections) went ahead and had peace talks with Beijing. And apparently the Taiwanese people were quite supportive (according to some.. 56% or so, which is more than the percentage of votes that either Chen or Lien respectively received during elections) of this supposedly traitorous political move. (ostracizing president Chen and speaking in favor of China's anti-secession law)
I'm not sure what to make of this. If the Taiwanese truly want independence, shouldn't this be an outrage..? And now with this surprising popular support Chen also needs to make a point and is dutifully sending Soong over to Beijing as well.
What's interesting is that numerous newspapers did independent polls and reached similar numbers, but many believe there were methodological errors involved in obtaining the published numbers. There is in fact a good amount of outrage; to many Taiwanese, this seems to be clear indication that the Nationalists, are trying to take their country away from them by any and all means.
It's not surprising that the Nationalists want to unify with China, given the fact that they are mainlanders themselves and not Taiwanese. The term for them in Mandarin is waisheng ren, literally people from outside of the territory, which distinguishes them from the Taiwanese, who are bensheng ren, people from the territory. In fact, Lien Chan was, like most Nationalist leaders, was born in China.
Random fact. . . Lien Chan is my neighbor. No joke. He lives on the second floor of the apartment complex where my family lives in Taipei.
s h i n s e n g u m i
Minitokyo Policy, Forum, Review, and Category Maintenance Moderator EmeritusDo not expect to be applauded when you do the right thing, and do not expect to be forgiven when you err, but even your enemies will respect commitment, and a conscience at peace is worth a thousand tainted victories.
- May 03, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote by shinsengumiWhat's interesting is that numerous newspapers did independent polls and reached similar numbers, but many believe there were methodological errors involved in obtaining the published numbers. There is in fact a good amount of outrage; to many Taiwanese, this seems to be clear indication that the Nationalists, are trying to take their country away from them by any and all means.
It's not surprising that the Nationalists want to unify with China, given the fact that they are mainlanders themselves and not Taiwanese. The term for them in Mandarin is waisheng ren, literally people from outside of the territory, which distinguishes them from the Taiwanese, who are bensheng ren, people from the territory. In fact, Lien Chan was, like most Nationalist leaders, was born in China.
Random fact. . . Lien Chan is my neighbor. No joke. He lives on the second floor of the apartment complex where my family lives in Taipei.Hmm yea I guess it makes more sense if we assume that these polls aren't very reliable. But considering that it isn't just one suspicious source that has come up with these numbers, i just cant help but think that there's more to it. And I'm guessing the people that are showing positive response to these 'peaceful' dialogue with China can't all be Nationalists
Despite the expected outrage from Taiwanese nationalists, I also think that there are surprising numbers of those who also see some potential good in these talks. Whether they actually approve of these dialogues with China or just see some pragmatism in trying to peacefully engage China and maintain the 'status quo' or whatever it is, I guess I don't know. And that president Chen is taking Lien's trip to Beijing seriously and is sending one of his own, seems to reflect on the fact that this sort of engagement with China is receiving some domestic support at least.
heh well i could be wrong. plus i just realized i strayed from the original thread topic.
cool so you're from Taipei~ Did you go to TAS?
"Faith means believing in something that will only make sense in reverse."
"When men are the most sure and arrogant they are commonly the most mistaken..."- May 03, 2005
- Gallery
-
Hmmm... I can't be bothered reading through this whole topic (got my first exam tomorrow, need it or not degree XD) so I'm just going to drop my opinion. I think USA is a joke really, they have no right sticking their nose in everywhere. They think they are the world police. In anycase, I'm not in a position to debate whether China is right about Taiwan or not, but that is not the reason USA is getting involved. It is because China is getting bigger (at current rate is will be thee super power in 30 years or something like that) and America doesn't like that. It currently has the world divided enough that they can do what they like. If China gets bigger than them they won't be as powerful hence they have started being like this.
This argument could go on forever though. America is forever doing terrible stuff like invading Iraq for oil (don't even try and dispute it...), not invading N.Korea (going back to Iraq, you see?), lets not even talk about Vietnam (communist countries don't trade as easily, less money for USA, THATs why they had that war Lol)..... but yes, it goes on and on, and I really can't be bothered with them anymore. They fund terrorists and then when they come back and bite them on the ass they are all innocent.... blah. Yay for China! I welcome the day there is a proper power to put USA in it's place.I'll show you how scary I am when I get serious.
- May 03, 2005
- Gallery
-
We could sit around and ignore the world like before wwii. And then kick their ass when they decide to touch us.
Personally I think pre-emptive war is foolish and just words for "we get to kick your butt because you might threaten us later".
We're not fighting for freedom or democracy. We're fighting to remain king of the hill.
We dont have moral standards as a country, few do actually. I believe the purpose of most collections of people as countries is to strengthen them against opposing powers, so that we will always be top.Humans live on war and the changes it brings. And one day, it will be the USA"s turn to fall. I suppose then, nobody would be thinking about morals. :p
i wish world peace was possible and we could stop sticking our noses everywhere else in the world but we gave up our isolationist attitudes a long time ago and that has brought both good and bad things into this country system. We should write a letter to our rep or something. :)
[Join ForceFirefox!][Order of Reason][Hyung-Tae-Kim][Minitokyo Review]
http://www.sunira.net - my walls, and brushes for you!! <3- May 03, 2005
- Gallery
-
Whether or not Taiwan is or is not independent and whether it will or will not gain independence in and of itself is of little value. The gravity of the Taiwan wenti is as it pertains to Sino-American relations.
That being said, the Taiwan issue as it pertains to the United States involves much more than the so called national sovereignty of either China or Taiwan. The truth be told, American presidents past and present have continued to practice a policy that entails both the recognition of the "one-China" policy in words and the continued support for Taiwan in actions.
The reason for that lies the in the basic underlying doctrine of American foreign policy, realpolitik. America will NOT officially recognize Taiwan's independence because doing so will severely cripple Sina-American ties. Washington knows fully well that America cannot create an active enemy in China, and thus will continue to champion "one china" at face value. No president and so congressman will jepardize American interests in China by giving Taiwan it's independence. American trade depends much too heavily on Chinese markets at the present and will most likely continue to in the near future.
At the same time, America will never allow China to easily reincorporate Taiwan. Washington also knows fully well China's growthing power in the Orient. In the past twenty years, the consistent economic growth rates of greater than 9% have made China a much more influential nation in the Far East. Because of this, Washington will not stand idle and let China become a major competitive power because China will never become a compliant ally like Japan. Therefore, to stem China's growing influence, America will continue to provide Taiwan with arms and financial support. In doing so, the present status quo of a divided Taiwan Strait will continue, thereby preventing a consolidation of Chinese power.
us foreign policy has little to do with whether it "believes" in the sovereignty of Taiwan or the unification of China. American benefits the most when China and Taiwan continue the conflict, for China cannot truly unite Taiwan without American support and Taiwan will never survive the Chinese threat without American backing. Thus, by standing with one foot on each side of the strait, America benefits the most, politically, and economically.
The same logic applies to America's growing diplomatic ties with nations bordering China. In the recent aniversary of American withdrawal from Vietnam, one clearly notices a shift in American policy. Though Vietnam remains under communist rule, it is no longer an enemy, but a growing protege of the United States as a buffer state against China. American ties with India, besides long standing relations, also has a China deterrence factor, for India and China had numerous past conflicts.
The most significant example is the warm relations between the US and Pakistan. China has long been on good terms with Pakistan, as each joined the other to oppose India. After 9/11, besides the obvious anti-terror imperative, American-Paskistani relations warmed as American began to move that nation away from China to its own umbrella. To shift an ally of China to an ally of the US will create a significant buffer state that limits China's growing power. Did the US better relations with Pakistan out of ideological reasons? Of course not. Remember that Pakistani president Musharif came to power by a military coup. America has traditionally opposed coups except in former communist states.
China is a looming threat. It holds the second largest stockpile of American government bonds after Japan. It is the US's largest trading partner, with Chinese imports to the US outweight American exports to China 4 to 1. China has already surpassed many western European nations in the size of its economy. And the sheer size of that nation of 1.3 billion must give anyone pause.
Taiwan is simply a chess piece in the oncoming struggle as China looks to become a great power while American seeks to reduce its threat. Whether Taiwan gains independence or becomes another province will do little except to make either the US or China lose face in the arena of international politics.
EternalParadox
Previously the Forum, Vector Art, and Policy Moderator- May 03, 2005
- Gallery
Archer79
Nerdly Ghost
-
I am very impressed by the development and presentation of Shinsengumi's comments. Mine will not be nearly as well backed nor nearly as well presented.
Reading this thread, I am somewhat disturbed. It seems very few people understand why it is important for the United States to preserve a world-wide view, just as it is for every nation across the earth.
First off, let me say I support the USA's involvement in Taiwan. I am also glad that the US is not acting alone. In my opinion, people must be allowed to pursue their own destiny. ...To work for their dreams, and receive the just consequences for their own actions, just or good. No one should be forced to be a slave to another. I believe I am not alone in this opinion.
It is critical that martial conquest is prohibited world-wide, and actively enforced. I think it would matter little if Taiwan actually wanted to join China, and did so of its/their own free will. However, martial conquest is a much different thing. It is unlikely that those conquested will receive their freedom.
In World War I, martial conquest was a major issue. Germany was a very powerful country, and was backed by the militaries of other powerful countries. It is my perception that it martial expansion was the origin of the First World War. ...It's not the first time such has happened. Many times throughout history, military conquest has been a successful way to increase the power of a nation. However, it doesn't make it right.
Following World War I, Germany agreed to terms that would have limited the power of Germany's military, so as to prevent a massive military buildup. It was well-known that Germany was in broad violation of these treaties, but nobody set forth to stop them. They once again built a powerful military, and went to war. It is my perception that if the Germans had been held to their agreement by other nations, World War II might not have happened. It is also quite possible even that the invention of the nuclear bomb would have been delayed for some time. In any case, there were no "world policemen" and many people paid the price for it. It seems it used to be such that it wasn't until the fighting started that folks realized, "Hey! If they take out France, then I'm probably going to be next! ...Maybe we should help..." It seems today's attitude is a pro-active one. The US' initial involvement in Iraq came about when the Iraqis crossed into Kuwait with a military presence. Such an action by the Iraqis was wrong, and would have served to bolster a power who clearly was already fine with military conquest, and perhaps worse. (Such as mistreatment of Kurds, possible development of WMD...)
The USA went in with ALLIES and protected the assets of a peaceful nation. ...A nation that would have fallen to the "bad guys" easily had they been alone.
i believe it is best to stand up to a problem when someone else is under fire. It is always better than facing a difficult problem alone.
i consider the US involvement in North Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq, and other coutries to be very important. Genocide must be stopped. Military dictators must be prevented from enslaving the whole world. People should be free. I support everything the USA has been involved in, because as far as I can tell, the USA has acted with restraint, and has been very selfless in doing so. Had the USA actually taken Iraq, and kept Iraq as a state or territory, my opinion would be vastly different. To the contrary, US soldiers were discouraged from flying the US flag in Iraqi cities as they advanced. It was not about conquest. It was about freedom for Iraqis. Ever wonder why Saddam has such beautiful, new palaces, but the people seem to be so poor? So do I. The offensive in Iraq was necessary from a humanitarian standpoint and from a national security standpoint.
....i hope when/if China becomes *the* martial superpower, and decides on martial conquest of the USA that there will be some other folks, world-wide who might be willing to help keep me/us safe.
I am impressed with Bush. His actions remind me of the movie "Air Force One". (With Harrison Ford...) He's doing what's right. No matter if it's popular.
President Clinton said terrorists would be hunted down and punished. President Bush actually tried, with some success.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/forum/boards/viewtopic.asp?topicid=57439&page=1
War is very expensive. It costs lives and lots of money. It is entirely undesirable. However, for peace, one must prepare for war. ....And when peaceful rapport fails, there is little else left. This is why countries have militaries. If we could just play a game of chess and be done with it, that would be nice. However, it's not the way things work here. I wish it was...
On a side note, North Korea was mentioned a few times. I just want to refresh everyone's memory that the USA actively supplied NK with vast (and recurring) food and supplies in exchange for NK to abandon their nuclear weapons programs. They accepted the peaceful proposition until recently. I hope that their decision will not result in loss of life for anyone.
I am certain that the US had no military intentions in Iraq before Iraq crossed into Kuwait. It had nothing to do with money. ...No matter what you might have heard. The US sent vast military assets after Iraq crossed, including F-16's (without a toilet) for a 16-hr non-stop, arial-refeulled flight to Iraq. Iraq was not a problem the US wanted to shoulder. ...It was something the US shouldered because the US was the only power in the world that could.
North Korea has been a constant thorn in the side of the US. Eventually something will probably happen there. However, the US still pursues peaceful rapport with NK, after over a decade of difficulty. The US isn't a war-monger. Ironically, as far as I can tell, it seems to be a war-monger-stopper. Taiwan should be spared should a nation try to conquest them. I am proud that I live in a country that would serve to spare them. ...And I am grateful to those who risk their lives to do so while I get to work at a peaceful desk, and return home in safety each night. (And pay some of the lowest Federal taxes in the world.) I hope that the Taiwanese will have similar luxuries for years to come.
Lessons have been learned from history. Let's open our eyes and see the mistakes others have made, focusing not just on our present but the future, and inherently the past.
- May 06, 2005
- Gallery
-
I'm afraid I can't agree which such a one sided pro US argument with clear ignorance of certain very important facts. Call me pro China if you will but I want to present a counter argument and maybe tell you some "facts" (I hesitate to call them facts because I can't guarantee the trustworthiness of the UK media either) you may not have been told in the US.
Where to begin...
You're prefectly right that in WW1 and 2 all countries needed to step in and stop the offending army. But comparing that to the situation between China and Taiwan is far from fair. I'm pretty sure the Chinese government doesn't want to wipe out a whole religion and take over the world. It's completely different.
You also imply that China would be "enslaving" Taiwan. Now that's just wrong.
I also find it hypocritical that you would believe your country is the war stopper and only the "bad guys" go and invade other countries. What happened in Vietnam? I believe that was something about trying to take over the country merely because the US was afraid of the growing influence of communism. You call that fighting for freedom? I don't. I call it attempting to push your own political system on others forcibly.I'm also quite sure that alot of middle-eastern countries are thinking, "Hey, they took out Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe we're next!" Sure Al Qaeda started it but how does that justify bombing an entire country and replacing the government with one chosen by the US? Go in and take out the terrorists if you must but leave the innocent civilians out of it.
i guess you feel that any country run by a dictator must be horrible full of corruption, violence and evil. Only democratic nations like the US have happy people.
I can tell you that there are plenty of countries run by dictatorships which are very well run. Some even better than the US. Take the UAE for example. Very rich country. Very high GDP per capita. Very happy people. 5 years ago no one had ever heard of the tiny country. Now the city of Dubai is known for it's incredible hotels, shopping, sun, beach, everything!
I've also wondered why you have billion or trillianairs in the US yet there are so many poor people there. Perhaps the US should sort out their own problems before they go sticking their noses in other's.About the US action in Iraq, here's something I read recently in the news. Over $1 million raised by the UN and trusted to the US to invest into rebuilding Iraq has simply gone missing! On top of that, inquiry boards found that hundreds of million dollar deals were made with no documentation, no infromation on what they were for and no evidence that the contractors had done anything. Apparently incompetence was so high that some contractors got paid twice for absolutely nothing.
What's going on? So far the new runners of Iraq haven't been any less corrupt and incompetent than Saddam.Now the US as the world police. I thought you were all for democracy and freedom. I don't remember any worldwide vote to let the US do whatever the hell they want. I thought that's what the UN are for. A representative of the world.
And if Bush's actions are unpopular, yet he does it anyway, how is that any different to a dictatorship?
I must say that the Bush election campaign in the US must have been very good because absolutely no one outside of the US can think of any reason to keep Bush in office except that maybe the alternative was even worse. I know I know, who cares what us foreigners think? He's your president.
But I think that if your president is to be given the right to be the police commisioner of the world so to speak, then the people of the world should be the ones to vote him in.
If all us smaller countries are just meant to bow down to the US judgement, I for one wouldn't call it freedom.- May 06, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote: I've also wondered why you have billion or trillianairs in the US yet there are so many poor people there. Perhaps the US should sort out their own problems before they go sticking their noses in other's.
There are trillionaires in the u.s.? Or anywhere in the world for that matter? I was under the impression that only governments operated using amounts of money that large.
At the same time, having billionaires and poor people at the same time is not indicative of a problem in and of itself; you have rich and poor in every country. Oil has made several Gulf states rich, but how far down does that wealth go? How large is the poor in the UAE, for example? It may have a high GDP per capita, but the population isn't that big, either. It can make billions selling oil, with those who control the oil getting the vast majority of it, and the poor getting little. It would still raise the GDP per capita, though, since that represents an average of the country's gross domestic product divided by its population.
You can see this in China, too. The economy is booming, and money is being made in vast quantities, but how far does it go? How many of China's hundreds of millions don't see any of it?
Quote: What happened in Vietnam? I believe that was something about trying to take over the country merely because the US was afraid of the growing influence of communism.
Or it could be the U.S. protecting a country from Communist aggression. After Vietnam was divided, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (otherwise known as North Vietnam [Communist]) declared war on the Republic of Vietnam (otherwise known as South Vietnam [Noncommunist]) and stated its intention of unifying Vietnam by force. To this end, they began the Vietnam War.
The United States, already nervous of countries going over to Communism (and going under Soviet influence), aided South Vietnam with weapons and military advisors. After the Gulf of Tonkin Resoultion, U.S. combat forces were committed.
You're right, though; there was an attempt to focibly impose a policial system on a country. Only problem with it was it was the Communists that were doing the imposing.
- May 06, 2005
- Gallery
-
Communist aggression :hmpf: I guess it's not called aggression when the US does it.
If you read the post before mine, you'd understand that I was referring to archer's idea that the people in Iraq were poor all because they weren't in a democracy and that the US sets them free. Then you'll understand that I was saying that there are people just as poor in the US and spending billions on "freeing" people on the other side of the world like some wannabe hero isn't helping the people closer to home.
You see the communists as the bad guys imposing their rule on others forcibly by fighting. That's your viewpoint. I'm sure from the North's viewpoint it was the south and the americans doing the imposing. I'm sure if one of the states in the US wanted to go independent they'd have a hard time at it. You know that the US government would never allow one of its states to break away no matter how much they want to. Whether they actually do at the moment isn't the point. You should understand that when a country undergoes civil war that's their own business. They don't need other countries secretly throwing in weapons and guns to try and get a political party similar to theirs into power.- May 06, 2005
- Gallery
-
Quote: If you read the post before mine, you'd understand that I was referring to archer's idea that the people in Iraq were poor all because they weren't in a democracy and that the US sets them free. Then you'll understand that I was saying that there are people just as poor in the US and spending billions on "freeing" people on the other side of the world like some wannabe hero isn't helping the people closer to home.
Except the line I quoted was about how wealthy the UAE was, and made specific reference to a division between rich and poor. The "poor" you were talking about were poor in a monetary sense.
Quote: You see the communists as the bad guys imposing their rule on others forcibly by fighting. That's your viewpoint. I'm sure from the North's viewpoint it was the south and the americans doing the imposing.
This is all well and good, but it conveniently ignores the fact that it was the North that was sending regular military forces and operating guerillas in the South, not the other way around. No matter how you look at it, North Vietnam was trying to destroy the South Vietnamese government and conquer South Vietnam.
Which it eventually did.
- May 06, 2005
- Gallery
page 2 of 4 « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next » 88 total items
Back to General Discussions | Active Threads | Forum Index
Only members can post replies, please register.