China and Taiwan

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
How one can claim the ROC - as in, CKC's lot - was more legitimate than the PROC is beyond me, unless they are letting an anti-communist (NOTE : I am not pro-communist. I just happen to think that automaticaly equating anything communist to evil is totaly ridiculous) vision give them a serious bias in the matter.

That might have been true in 1949. Unfortunately, it's 2002 and Taiwan has changed a great deal since then. The sins of 50 years ago do not disqualify Taiwan's claim to legitimacy any more than the PRC's current communist government does theirs.

It's not about who likes who or who hates who. It's about whether or not the Taiwanese have the right to self-determination after 50 years of de-facto independence.

As I said in an earlier post, I don't really care what the Taiwanese decide as long as they decide it and not the PRC. If Taiwan decides it wants to re-unite with the PRC, the more power to them. I wish them luck. However, if they don't then arguments about legitimacy aren't really relevant. It all comes down to whether we will allow them to be forcibly re-united or not.

For all the bluster of the PRC, right now they are just gas. If the U.S. were to recognize Taiwanese independence, it would be so. The U.S. might have to endure a decade or two of being locked out of the PRC economy (and that might hurt) but that would be the end of the matter (at least for as long as the U.S. maintains it's position in the world).

Again, let's be totally clear on this: Taiwan has been essentially independent for 50 years now. To not recognize this is a little silly in itself, isn't it?

To get back to the double standard that seems to be prevalent here: If it's not ok for Saddam to use force to keep the Kurds from breaking away, why is it ok for the PRC?

/bruce

 

[praestare]

Originally posted by DingBat

Or is this another of those instances where there's one rule for the U.S. and a different one for everyone else? Just wondering.

Actually, at the moment, its possible that while the U.S. military isn't as large, it could be 20-30 times more effective than the PRC army. If that were true, would you say that the PRC should begin sucking? Again, just wondering.

/bruce

what do you think PRC is dong? Jiang Ze Min is sucking up to US, from embassy bombing to plane crash. what do you think they are?

another thing is that China has nukes, which negate the huge imbalance between the convetional arms.

what i'm trying to say is that if you're the smaller player, don't hope to get favor or any advantages in the fight. if you really want to win, pay the consequence. in the case of Taiwan, fight the independece war if you want independence. don't hope mainland gives up forces or hope US fights the war for you.

 

[Headline]

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
And another : -

I can see the shadow of Hitler's 3rd Reich. Maybe this is what happen when China did not research nationalism and is researching now.

 

[Headline]

Originally posted by DingBat


That might have been true in 1949. Unfortunately, it's 2002 and Taiwan has changed a great deal since then. The sins of 50 years ago do not disqualify Taiwan's claim to legitimacy any more than the PRC's current communist government does theirs.

It's not about who likes who or who hates who. It's about whether or not the Taiwanese have the right to self-determination after 50 years of de-facto independence.

As I said in an earlier post, I don't really care what the Taiwanese decide as long as they decide it and not the PRC. If Taiwan decides it wants to re-unite with the PRC, the more power to them. I wish them luck. However, if they don't then arguments about legitimacy aren't really relevant. It all comes down to whether we will allow them to be forcibly re-united or not.

For all the bluster of the PRC, right now they are just gas. If the U.S. were to recognize Taiwanese independence, it would be so. The U.S. might have to endure a decade or two of being locked out of the PRC economy (and that might hurt) but that would be the end of the matter (at least for as long as the U.S. maintains it's position in the world).

Again, let's be totally clear on this: Taiwan has been essentially independent for 50 years now. To not recognize this is a little silly in itself, isn't it?

To get back to the double standard that seems to be prevalent here: If it's not ok for Saddam to use force to keep the Kurds from breaking away, why is it ok for the PRC?

/bruce

absolutely right give a praise!!!

 

[Vrylakas]

Knight-D.! Excellent quotes, and spot-on.

One point in particular that we come close on:

(Knight-Dragon wrote:)

It's more of a matter of nationalism and feelings of racial insecurity and inadequacy. Tibet and Taiwan (for a short while anyway) once made up the great Qing empire (1644 to 1800, after which it's all downhill). By recovering these territories, the Chinese are trying to turn back the clock - to return to an era when China was a great empire. It is a powerful sell to all Chinese, incl even yours truly, and very hard to resist.
The Qing empire had been destroyed by foreign powers, so said the Chinese. I know that it was caused as much by natural disasters and other internal causes but these were conveniently ignored by Chinese nationalists. By holding on to these territories, these ppl hope to somehow reverse the past humiliations (200 years at least) of the Chinese at the hands of the rapacious European powers and Japan and 'restore' the glory of the old empire. And to redeem themselves as a great people, culture and nation, in their own eyes.
So it doesn't matter what the historical reality was. It doesn't matter the logic of the situation. It doesn't matter about fairness and legality. It doesn't matter what the world's opinion is. All that matters is for the Chinese to recover all the territories of the old empire and then somehow, it'll redeem us some way and make us worthy in the eyes of our ancestors.
And this kinda situation is not unique to China today. Germany in the 30s was probably in a similiar vein. We all know where that leads to.

Vrylakas wrote:

4. It seems as if a developmental cycle, a learning curve, has been in the works over the past century +; it began with the West establishing its imperial domains throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, only to see them fall apart or break away in two very bloody world wars. Russia caught on in the very end of the West's imperial age and entered its own similar imperial age from 1944-1989, while modern-day China seems to be just entering that phase. After the shock of the collapse of their empires had faded, Western scholars began to tabulate the real costs and effects of their imperialism and came to realize that more often than not the empires were highly inefficient, and ended up costing the imperial states far more than they were able to extract from them through exploitation - not to mention the human rights cost. This is a lesson I think some modern Russian scholars are also coming to, though their conclusions have not been fully digested yet by the population-at-large. (Sgrig? Some input?) China seems to have taken nothing from these examples, and seems bent on building an Imperial Chinese Age in Southeast Asia. The Chinese, like many former victims of Western imperialism, have programmed themselves to believe they are exclusively victims and are blind to the reality they are treading down similar paths as those taken by the Western imperialists more than a century ago. Again, a failure to see the truly human dimension of history, and its universal lessons and effects.

Praestare wrote:

I guess it's hard for the Western people to understand the feeling of a billion people whose country ruled for thousands of years, but lost every pride in the recent several centuries. The nationalism is rooted in Chinese people, not merely a product of Communist propaganda.

But that's just it, that many peoples outside of China do understand that humiliation - even in the West. I'm not belittling China's experience, rather pointing out that China is falling into a nationalist trap (that as you and others point out is used by but not a mere product of the government in Beijing) by believing themselves victims - long after the actual victimization has passed. Poland, Russia, Turkey, Serbia, Iran, even Germany; they all understand what it means to have had a great civilization once and have seen it destroyed by both internal and external factors, and have to rebuild on somebody else's terms. As both K-D and I point out, this nationalist trap has led continuously to much death and grief around the world as nationalists in these states have attempted to impose "Greater [Fill Your Aggrieved People's Name Here]". To believe that China's humiliations and sufferings are so unique that they have nothing to learn from the rest of the world is to have bought into a nationalist view of the world, typically self-serving and dangerously prone to political manipulation (which is what has been happening in mainland China since Mao's death).

muppet wrote

It is a strictly 'chinese family matter' as they put it. Western military action in support of Taiwan independence will not be approved by even the majority of those Chinese sympathetic to Taiwanese independence. It's uhm... the Chinese way, Taiwan or Mainland.

How do you think most Taiwanese will feel if the U.S. decides not to aid them in an all-out assault by the mainland Chinese? If Washington simply declares a mainland invasion of Taiwan "a family matter", will Taiwanese accept this?

 

[Headline]

Chinese felt that they should be strong once again. There is nothing wrong with that, but how is more important. One can imitate Hitler and Stalin's absolute control to obtain that goal, or one can use the US way through acceptance to achieve that goal. Hitler and Stalin both use oppression to achieve that goal. US uses acceptance to achieve that goal. Which one is better and sounds moral? I believe that acceptance is the way to create a strong nation. Hitler, Stalin, although obtained a large territory, we can see their empire falls apart one at a time into nothingness. China should accept the opinion of Taiwanese people. Agree with what their decision is.

 

[sgrig]

Vrylakas wrote:

4. It seems as if a developmental cycle, a learning curve, has been in the works over the past century +; it began with the West establishing its imperial domains throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, only to see them fall apart or break away in two very bloody world wars. Russia caught on in the very end of the West's imperial age and entered its own similar imperial age from 1944-1989, while modern-day China seems to be just entering that phase. After the shock of the collapse of their empires had faded, Western scholars began to tabulate the real costs and effects of their imperialism and came to realize that more often than not the empires were highly inefficient, and ended up costing the imperial states far more than they were able to extract from them through exploitation - not to mention the human rights cost. This is a lesson I think some modern Russian scholars are also coming to, though their conclusions have not been fully digested yet by the population-at-large. (Sgrig? Some input?) China seems to have taken nothing from these examples, and seems bent on building an Imperial Chinese Age in Southeast Asia. The Chinese, like many former victims of Western imperialism, have programmed themselves to believe they are exclusively victims and are blind to the reality they are treading down similar paths as those taken by the Western imperialists more than a century ago. Again, a failure to see the truly human dimension of history, and its universal lessons and effects.

Yeah, you are right. It is actually clear to many Russians that the billions of dollars of Soviet aid and military assistance to 'friendly countries' have completely gone to waste. In order to preserve loyal government around the world, Soviet Union sent a lot of monetary aid, military advisors and equipment, other specialists, trying to outperform the US. In the end, the cost of supporting those countries was far greater than the benefit extracted from them. Luckily it seems that our current leadeship knows the history and is not rushing to expand Russia's borders, although there are a number of opportuninities to do so - Belarus and Abkhazia (rebel state in Georgia) wouldn't mind joining Russia. It is obvious that at the moment the cost of support of such new 'colonies' would far outweigh any gains.

Generally it is a poor sign if an empire's domains are not self-supporting. In such a case, the empire's centre has to support and defend its provinces, while getting little in return. At some stage the stored 'potential' at the empire's centre runs out, and the empire collapses because the provinces cannot be supported anymore (either financially or militarily). However if a province is self-supporting, then independence movements could outweigh the Centre's influence and the empire can collapse anyway. This is my crude theory of collapsing empires! I think the clearest examples of this are the Roman Empire and Soviet Union.

In the China and Taiwan case, the first scenario clearly does not apply, because if Taiwan were part of China, it would be able to pretty much support itself, as it does now when it is independent. So the second scenario is the only one left. So the question is whether there would be strong independence movements in Taiwan if it becomes part of China, which would be powerful enough to cause the downfall of China?

I also think there is one other country in the world, other than China, which is currently busy with empire-building.

 

[praestare]

Originally posted by Vrylakas
How do you think most Taiwanese will feel if the U.S. decides not to aid them in an all-out assault by the mainland Chinese? If Washington simply declares a mainland invasion of Taiwan "a family matter", will Taiwanese accept this?

I agree with Vrylakas that nationalism is a very dangerous thing. I think Chinese leaders do realize this. But what the communists in Bejing worry most is that they'll lose power as the reform moves on. So they're more willing to use nationalism to keep their powers. This is sad.

On the other hand, if China goes to democracy today, I think a left nationalist government will come to power, and then they won't be as satisfied with the current Taiwan situation as the Communists. War will be more likely.

Back to Vrylakas's question. If US give up Taiwan, of course Taiwanese will feel like being betrayed and be very angry. But the good side is that they have no more bargaining power again the giant mainland, and finally they'll accept a peaceful unification (probabaly under the worst terms). War will not be necessary. This is all game theory stuff.

 

[Headline]

War will not be necessary.

You do know that there are US weapons sold to Taiwan right? Unless PRC use nuclear weapon, since PRC has no effective air force to constantly bombard Taiwan, there is only one way to occupy Taiwan which is through landing parties. This is hard to do as proven by Napolean and Hitler's attempt to take over England. PRC, even if successful, will cost several million lives. War is necessary if PRC is to determine to use force against Taiwan with or without US intervention.

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by praestare

Back to Vrylakas's question. If US give up Taiwan, of course Taiwanese will feel like being betrayed and be very angry. But the good side is that they have no more bargaining power again the giant mainland, and finally they'll accept a peaceful unification (probabaly under the worst terms). War will not be necessary. This is all game theory stuff.

Expensive game.

There is only one country in the world with the capability of bringing off the kind of amphibious attack that the PRC will have to undertake: the U.S. The U.S. also is pretty much the only country in the world with extensive experience in this area.

Assuming the PRC develops this capability, which will be no time soon, they then have to deal with a little thing called a carrier battle group. Actually 2-3 carrier battle groups. And the best submarine force in the world.

So, in order to make this virtual threat credible, the PRC has to invest enough money to overcome the world leader in not one, but 3 military arms. As they say, that's not chump change.

Or, they can sink their money into missiles. Also extremely expensive and not real good at occupying territoriy.

If the Soviet Union couldn't outspend the U.S, I'm not sure why the PRC thinks it can. Who knows, maybe they can. On the other hand, perhaps we can expect similar results.

/bruce

 

[muppet]

Originally posted by Vrylakas

How do you think most Taiwanese will feel if the U.S. decides not to aid them in an all-out assault by the mainland Chinese? If Washington simply declares a mainland invasion of Taiwan "a family matter", will Taiwanese accept this?

Trying to not squelch debate on the military aspect, in the event of an invasion, within this discussion. The subject of arms spending and military might and stuff is quiet interesting to unmilitarily informed people like me.

There are two assumptions that my statements are based on.

1. There will NEVER be a mainland invasion of Taiwan. Whatever the 'polls' say is simply wrong. Any visitor to China, or Hong Kong can simply ask the populace themselves how they feel? And the response will always be, "They are CHINSESE! The inhabitants today, are our brothers that immigrated there yesterday. How can anyone attack their brothers?" That's the general public opinion there.

2. Tianamen Square is likely to have been the very LAST time any Chinese Administration exercises that kind of force in my lifetime. The public outrage by Chinese civilians, and the torture that the Red Army officers still feel today after murdering 'their own brothers' is too much for future administrations to overcome a second time. We need to give the people of communist states, AND the officers in these states more credit. They learn as we do from mistakes.

Generally, IMO, even if somehow, beyond all odds, for some bizare unknown reason, it became a war:

I don't think the majority in Taiwan would support US involvement. The Chinese are a strange lot. At least the ones that are on the other side of the world. They have this 'mythology' of some kind they believe in. They say these things like, "It's our family. If we fight, it's our fight. If my side obtains aid from an outsider (eg. US) then I will no longer serve my side. I might even defect."

It seems, that more important than the rules they fight for, is the principle of it being a family affair. Like, if I fight with my brother, it is none of my friend's business.

 

[praestare]

Expensive game.

Yes, it is. But China's strategic target is not to compete w/ US all around the world, but to be a regional power in the surrounding areas. I feel China could afford the military expenses, if taking into account of the continuing economic growth.

The Russian analogy does not apply to China, because 1) China doesn't need a worldwide military force, rather only a regional one. So China doesn't need to outspend US; 2) Russian economy was never very large, while it's estimated that China will have larger GDP than Japan in 20-30 years; 3) Russia had a communist economy structure during the cold war, while China is turing to market economy. 4) China has 1.3 billion population even now, think of the huge domestic demand.

I'm no military expert, so don't have much to say the military plan to take Taiwan. But one alternative to a large scale amphibious attack is to block Taiwan from the outside world. Without the interference of US, I think China can successfully block Taiwan seaports, even now, though there may be heavy casulties. Once blocked, I'm not sure whether Taiwan can survive long enough without important strategic resources, like oil. Like in Civ3, once a city is block out of trade, it's dead.

Also, though chinese fighters are not so advanced, but mainland can produce them like producing cars during wartime. Taiwan has to resort to US, even for parts. How can the small amount of fighters of Taiwan fight a 2-year war?

Plus, China can attack with missiles. and I read that China now had long range rocket artillery, which can cover some areas of Taiwan, not sure though.

So assume that US won't interfere, mainland's military threat to Taiwan is credible.

 

[muppet]

Originally posted by Headline

Taiwanese retain or inherit most of culture from Japanese Han culture and Chin empire culture (ROC inherited from Chin), which is not the same as the Chinese culture in China now.

Mainlanders are definitely American. I have never met a Chinaman that I believed was actually Chinese.

Originally posted by Headline
The mainland China obtains the Soviet Union communist culture which forced them to abandon the Chinese culture.

The Taiwanese obtained the American democratic culture which coerced them to abandon the Chinese culture.

Originally posted by Headline
The Cultural Revolution destroyed a lot of the actual Chinese artifacts. However, since the PPC finally admit that what they did was wrong, they rebuild and imitate the old culture which dissapear from mainland China. I assure you, the real Chinese culture is in Taiwan right now, and it is not the same as the one in PPC.

The Great Wall of Taiwan was rebuilt in China yesterday. Culture is exclusively defined by the sum of historic buildings and 'cultural' artifacts.

Originally posted by Headline
I assure u it is equally hard to learn both Chinese. In fact, the simplified Chinese isn't anything simple but is a media of Mao Zedong to show that he changed China into a new Dynasty. It is like the pigtail of Chin Dynasty.

Simplifed Chinese is not 'simplified' Chinese?

Next HEADLINE:

Scientists have discovered that rice is not rice at all, but is actually genetically modified lice.

Sheer Brilliance!

Edited for sarcasm.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

The Chinese are feeling increasingly suspicious that America, esp during the present Bush administration, is trying to 'keep China down'. The Taiwan 'question' is merely one aspect of the present American policy to 'contain' China. A PRC-Taiwan combo will be an even more powerful Chinese political entity and many Chinese probably feel the American govt are going all out to prevent it.

Not so long ago, Bush dubbed China as a strategic competitor (before the complications and distraction of 911). Just weeks ago, Bush visited Japan and S Korea (along with China) and strengthened ties with these traditional American allies on China's borders. And the Bush administration also unilaterally walked out of that NMD treaty and began building their missile shield (which many feel is directed against China). Presently, American troops, on the prowl for the al-Qaeda, are active in the Philippines, Afghanistan and Central Asia, countries with strategic significance for the Chinese.

Can the Chinese not feel they're being contained? All signs point that way.

Now taking this view into account, American intervention in Taiwan is being viewed increasingly in the same ilk like those predatory actions of the European powers and Japan during the past 1-2 centuries i.e. interference in China's 'internal affairs' for their own gain. To back down in the event of American military aid to Taiwan during a military confrontation (in the event of a Taiwanese independence declaration) will be tantamount to reliving those past national humiliations. That'll not happen again ever. War will be imminent.

Rationality, legality and free choice are not going to work here. Chinese nationalism will.

 

[praestare]

muppet,

I actually like the sarcasm.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by praestare
muppet,

I actually like the sarcasm.

Me too. I was at a loss on how to reply.

 

[Headline]

Mainlanders are definitely American. I have never met a Chinaman that I believed was actually Chinese.

No, Mainlanders are definitely Chinese with Soviet culture, which is the opposite of US culture. Chinaman is Chinese with Soviet culture and I believe they are Chinese with Soviet culture.

The Taiwanese obtained the American democratic culture which coerced them to abandon the Chinese culture.

The Taiwanese obtained the demoratic value from ROC, which is Sun Yet Son's idea, not American. Yes, Sun Yet Son did consider about American democratic system when he wrote his philosophy about democratic government.

You should learn the history before speaking.

The Great Wall of Taiwan was rebuilt in China yesterday. Culture is exclusively defined by the sum of historic buildings and 'cultural' artifacts.

Culture is the way of life. Culture is objects or actions that has no scientific function. Taiwanese should really build a great wall at mainland China's coast to prevent them from invasion. If the mainland Chinese want to do it for the Taiwanese, I believe that Taiwanese will be really welcome.

Simplifed Chinese is not 'simplified' Chinese?

Simplified Chinese is not simple at all. Change 2 strokes ain't going to change anything. The basic structure is completely the same. There is an acutal comparison shows that the speed of writing for example is about eqivelent. I don't know where I can find the same source.

Scientists have discovered that rice actually has three lineage with different phenogenic difference. One type of rice lack cotyledon, which saperate from the whole rice lineage at the time around Tang Dynasty. Another type of rice lack nutrients, which saperate from the whole rice lineage at the time around 1900. Finally, we have the last type of rice which is evolve around 1049 using Soviet genetic manipulation, which makes the rice smell foul. We have to rename it lice.

Sheer Brilliance!

Edited to counter dumb sarcasm

 

[Headline]

Headline

The People's Assembly in China passed an ultimatum calling the nations that have Chinese people to surrender and to unite with the motherland or the PRC is going to use force.

Two days ago, UN passed resolution to give PRC the China Town of San Francisco hoping to satisfy PRC's hunger.

Yesterday, PRC pressing on UN to give up Singapore. Chairman Jiang declared that Singapore, which has mostly Chinese population should surrender immediatly to the Liberation Army. Yesterday morning, PRC send in 8000 refugees across the Southern Chinese Ocean in Chinese Junk to Singapore and successfully occupy the island.

British Premier Tony Blair was dismissed yesterday for his PRC pleasing policy.

Today morning, PRC launched the Blizslow Liberation Army into Mongolia by using feet walking. This started the so call Long March. Russia, which had a secret pact with PRC were tired of waiting for the Liberation Army decided to take over Mongelia all by themselves.

Today afternoon, the People Liberation army arrived in Japan through two Koreas around the DMZ line of Korea with several Chinese Junks. Around 12:00, Japan submit Tokyo without resistance, fearing that their cities will be destroyed by the war. 1:00, the Liberation army marchs under the Tokyo Tower. A muppet government is installed in Kyoto.

For more news, check out Headline @ Civ3Fanatic.com

 

[Headline]

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
The Chinese are feeling increasingly suspicious that America, esp during the present Bush administration, is trying to 'keep China down'. The Taiwan 'question' is merely one aspect of the present American policy to 'contain' China. A PRC-Taiwan combo will be an even more powerful Chinese political entity and many Chinese probably feel the American govt are going all out to prevent it.

Not so long ago, Bush dubbed China as a strategic competitor (before the complications and distraction of 911). Just weeks ago, Bush visited Japan and S Korea (along with China) and strengthened ties with these traditional American allies on China's borders. And the Bush administration also unilaterally walked out of that NMD treaty and began building their missile shield (which many feel is directed against China). Presently, American troops, on the prowl for the al-Qaeda, are active in the Philippines, Afghanistan and Central Asia, countries with strategic significance for the Chinese.

Can the Chinese not feel they're being contained? All signs point that way.

Now taking this view into account, American intervention in Taiwan is being viewed increasingly in the same ilk like those predatory actions of the European powers and Japan during the past 1-2 centuries i.e. interference in China's 'internal affairs' for their own gain. To back down in the event of American military aid to Taiwan during a military confrontation (in the event of a Taiwanese independence declaration) will be tantamount to reliving those past national humiliations. That'll not happen again ever. War will be imminent.

Rationality, legality and free choice are not going to work here. Chinese nationalism will.

America is not interfering with PRC's politics. Taiwan (ROC) is a saperate political entity. It of course has the right to deal with other nations, such as the US. I don't think Bush wants to support the one China policy, but he is bounded by Clinton's silliness.

What kind of government would go around the world forcing other nations to admit that their government has the legitiment claim at their territory? That is just showing the world that ROC is not part of PRC.

Rationality, legality and free choice are not going to work here. Chinese nationalism will

Everyone see!!! The shadow of Hitler's Nazi.

 

[Evie]

Originally posted by DingBat


That might have been true in 1949. Unfortunately, it's 2002 and Taiwan has changed a great deal since then. The sins of 50 years ago do not disqualify Taiwan's claim to legitimacy any more than the PRC's current communist government does theirs.

It's not about who likes who or who hates who. It's about whether or not the Taiwanese have the right to self-determination after 50 years of de-facto independence.

As I said in an earlier post, I don't really care what the Taiwanese decide as long as they decide it and not the PRC. If Taiwan decides it wants to re-unite with the PRC, the more power to them. I wish them luck. However, if they don't then arguments about legitimacy aren't really relevant. It all comes down to whether we will allow them to be forcibly re-united or not.

For all the bluster of the PRC, right now they are just gas. If the U.S. were to recognize Taiwanese independence, it would be so. The U.S. might have to endure a decade or two of being locked out of the PRC economy (and that might hurt) but that would be the end of the matter (at least for as long as the U.S. maintains it's position in the world).

Again, let's be totally clear on this: Taiwan has been essentially independent for 50 years now. To not recognize this is a little silly in itself, isn't it?

To get back to the double standard that seems to be prevalent here: If it's not ok for Saddam to use force to keep the Kurds from breaking away, why is it ok for the PRC?

/bruce

You missed my point DingBat. I wasn't talking about those who claim ROC is the legitimate Taiwanesse government ; but about those who claim it is the legitimate overall CHINESSE government with the communist as rebels.

For THAT title, both sides are equally legitimate. Which is, not a whole lot.

Now let's be clear on a little historical detail. The only elections in China (barring those that MIGHT have been under the CCP) were , AFAIK, won by Yuan Shi Kai whose major goal right after was to get himself imperialized. (Or they might have been won by Sun Ya Tsen who then gave up the power for YSK)

That was well over 10 years before CKC took power. Is it me or is over 10 years without facing the elections a single time a bit of a, how to put it...illegitimate claim to governing a country?

As for whoever has the rightful claim to Taiwan right now, that depends on international recognition, which might, in this case, be far too heavily influenced by politics. History, both sides could make a claim to it, so there's no help there.

*As international recognition goes now though, Taiwan *IS*, strictly speaking, a rebel chinesse province.* As of now, in the eyes of the international diplomatic community, the Beijing government IS the legitimate Chinesse government, and Taiwan *IS* a chinesse territory.

But then again, in the eyes of said community, Israel has spent the last 35 years or so in places which aren't recognized as Israeli territory (IE, West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem). This hasn't much affected the US sending over weaponry, that I noticed, so legitimacy isn't that big a thing. And the US have been known to support rebellions before.

answer to goododa

Communism is never going to succeed, as long as humans exist.
All communist countries end up becoming totalitarian and then capitalist.
Total equality : everyone is equally weak and the government is strong in order to protect equality.

Communism is not evil, but those who use it as a tool to exploit the people are evil.
Democracy sucks, but at least it's the best system we know of.

In Civ3 terms, we got lots of happy citizens, many content citizens, a few unhappy citizens under democracy; few happy citizens, lots of content citizens and maybe some unhappy citizens under communism.

There's still somewhat of a difference between totalitarianism and communism. Slight, but the later is an improvement, in economics term, upon the former (for the common people).

What really sunk communism though was the appearance of a somewhat more people-oriented form of democracy. IE, laws on child work, minimum wage, free health care, free education up to a more reasonable level, social wealthfare, increased power to labor unions, etc. The version of "Democracy" prior to that where the state was basically a shield for the business people to hide behind to continue making money on the back of workmen (IE, full-fledged capitalism, late 19th-century style) was practially an open invitation for the development of communism-style philosophies.