China invasion of Taiwan POLL!

[10Seven]

I say no to sending troops to the Rhine. And part of Czech. is german anyway...

 

[Constantine]

I say no to sending troops to the Rhine. And part of Czech. is german anyway...

Peace in Our times!

Anyway I would send help to the ROC if they were attacked by the PLC. It is a democratic nation and other democracies should help it.

 

[stratego]

But the government can interfer with what he does. if he disrespects the law he can go to jail(if someone witnesses his wrongdoing).
Anyway, analogies won't cahnge the fact that Taiwan is independent.

And China can interfer with what Taiwan does. If Taiwan try to declare independence, China will step in. Over 200 nations in the world realize that Taiwan is part of China. You thinking that it's independent doesn't make it a fact.

Do you think you know more about the situation of Free Press in China then Reporters Without Borders?
Do you think you know more about the situation of human rights in China then Amnetsy International?
If your answer is yes, well that would be some arrogance.
As for your question. There's no free press, but the people are able to communicate through covert means. They did it during the military dictatorship here in Brazil.

Do you think that you're opinion of Taiwan being independent overrides the decision of over 200 countries? If yes, you are pretty arrogant yourself. Amnesty International goes into a country with the intention of finding human rights violations, that's why they're able to find problems with every country they investigate. Same with RWB with free press. Every country has problems and there will be people in every country that is discontent with the government, but that doesn't mean every leader is a tyrant. What I can offer in this discussion are primary sources, what you can offer are secondary sources from groups determine to only find the negative aspects of a country.

He can, but the people also can kick him out after 4 years. What if the chinese people want the CCP out?

I think you're more concern with being able to remove the government than having the government respond to the people's needs.

 

[stratego]

okay, to get back on topic, I say not to send troops to Taiwan.

Oh yea, that's the original topic.

 

[stratego]

For the same reason that family violence doesn't simply stop even after people have been told many times that it isn't 'cool' - our indoctrination is not so easily shaken - especially when it comes in context of a wider society.

Consider the young man, having been raised in the violently abusive environment, in which his entire family is both accepting of, excusatory for, and active in the abuse - the young man visits with another family who are openly against and do not practice such abuse. Yet, as many studies appear to agree, the likelyhood that this young man will suddenly change his ways is low. What's more, he is likely to feel threatened by the differing environment, and retreat to one that is more comfortable.

There is also the idea of 'no place like home' and the attachment most people seem to have with the place of their birth.

Your analogy of the abused child assumes just initial reactions. In the case of the Chinese scholars, they are not returning to China because they can't handle their new country. The Chinese scholars who return has been in the US or Europe for several years, and they have adapted the "western" style. They know how they live in China compared to they do in the West, and they still made the decision to go back. They have no obligation to China, some may even be US or European citizen, and those who returned are not returning reluctantly because they feel obliged to, they returned because they wanted to. If we are using a child analogy, China would be like a poorer family where the child has to work harder. The child may live with a well off family for a while, but returns because he loves his old family.

So far, I like debating against you on this topic, because I feel that this debate with you is actually constructive. I hope we can keep it this way.

 

[luiz]

And China can interfer with what Taiwan does. If Taiwan try to declare independence, China will step in. Over 200 nations in the world realize that Taiwan is part of China. You thinking that it's independent doesn't make it a fact.

Not 1 Taiawanese dollar goes to Beijing. Why isn't China stepping over.

Do you think that you're opinion of Taiwan being independent overrides the decision of over 200 countries? If yes, you are pretty arrogant yourself. Amnesty International goes into a country with the intention of finding human rights violations, that's why they're able to find problems with every country they investigate. Same with RWB with free press. Every country has problems and there will be people in every country that is discontent with the government, but that doesn't mean every leader is a tyrant. What I can offer in this discussion are primary sources, what you can offer are secondary sources from groups determine to only find the negative aspects of a country.

Those nations believe that Taiwan is a rebel province. But everyone know that it is autonomous. That's not an opinion, that's fact. Taiwan is self-governning, and thus independent.

Now, why aren't you comparing the human rights violations from China and the other countries?
I already said, all countries have human rights issues. But China is one where tens of thousands are arrested for their beliefs.

If you refuse to compare, I'll do it.
You provided a link about a human rights abuse in Brazil. It's about police officers that threatned a priest. Now let's see the one about China. It's about tens of thousands beign arrested every year because of beliefs, and beign held with trial in prision. Now, do you think both cases are even similar? Are you that cynical? Or can you admitt that there are gigantic violations of human rights going in China right now, that are not in anyway comparable to what goes on in democratic countries?

I think you're more concern with being able to remove the government than having the government respond to the people's needs.

How will make sure that the government will in fact always respond to people's needs? The only way is to give the people the power to remove the government. What if the CCP decides to do another Cultural Revolution? There's nothing the people could do about it. The only way to have a government act in the self interest of the people is to keep the government permanently in check. That's not me speaking, that's very old knowledge.

 

[stratego]

Not 1 Taiawanese dollar goes to Beijing. Why isn't China stepping over.

Those nations believe that Taiwan is a rebel province. But everyone know that it is autonomous. That's not an opinion, that's fact. Taiwan is self-governning, and thus independent.

However China wishes to deal with one of its province is China's decision. Yes, Taiwan has a self sufficient government, and if you want to define that as independent, its up to you. But, Taiwan doesn't have a seat in the UN, and it doesn't have an embassy with most other nations in the world. Taiwan is not a sovereign nation, it is a part of China.

Now, why aren't you comparing the human rights violations from China and the other countries?
I already said, all countries have human rights issues. But China is one where tens of thousands are arrested for their beliefs.

They're not arrested for their beliefs, they're arrested for their actions. You can not be arrested simply because you're a Falun Gun member, but if you are out in the street obstructing people's path, the police can do something about it. Your country and my country arrest thousands each year for smoking marijuana, etc in a party, why doesn't Amnesty International report on that. They're being arrested for their beliefs.

How will make sure that the government will in fact always respond to people's needs? The only way is to give the people the power to remove the government. What if the CCP decides to do another Cultural Revolution? There's nothing the people could do about it. The only way to have a government act in the self interest of the people is to keep the government permanently in check. That's not me speaking, that's very old knowledge.

China's government is kept in check by their laws and the people. What is to keep Congress from making amendments that would keep them in power. There is nothing in the legal process that would prevent that, because they can make amendments to the constitution. The only thing that stop them from doing it is the respect for people's wishes. It is the same in China's case. The government has the power to change the laws to ignore the people and benefit themselves, but the respect for people's wishes prevent them from doing it. There was high enthusiasm for the Cultural Revolution when the idea was introduced to the public, but now the government won't do it again because the people won't support it.

 

[General Brown]

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would in no way resemble the Korean War, in my opinion. As Kublai Khan, Philip II, Napoleon, and Hitler all found out, land armies' effectiveness stops at the edge of any significant body of water which they cross only in the absence of an opposing naval power. Right now the US Seventh Fleet is that naval power, and even if Taiwan were an uninhabited parking lot the invasion would succeed or fail based upon which side won naval and air supremacy, which is traditionally not as manpower-intensive as pure land battles.

Yes, and I don't know if this is true, but i'd think the Chinese Navy would be technologically inferior to a "UN" Navy. Also, I agree that China would not be stupid enough to invade Taiwan and provoke war. Imagine if you were Taiwanese

 

[IglooDame]

China's government is kept in check by their laws and the people. What is to keep Congress from making amendments that would keep them in power. There is nothing in the legal process that would prevent that, because they can make amendments to the constitution. The only thing that stop them from doing it is the respect for people's wishes. It is the same in China's case. The government has the power to change the laws to ignore the people and benefit themselves, but the respect for people's wishes prevent them from doing it. There was high enthusiasm for the Cultural Revolution when the idea was introduced to the public, but now the government won't do it again because the people won't support it.

Well, first off, Congress can propose amendments, but 3/4 of the state legislatures have to approve the amendments. [/nitpick]

More to the point, if elected representatives were to go against the wishes of the majority of the people in the first place, the people would correct the situation at the next election by replacing the representatives with new ones that have a mandate to reverse the initial despised unpopular action. The fact that elected representatives are largely selected by the people for their views on general issues makes it unlikely they would go against popular wishes in the first place, but the expectation that they will lose the next election by doing so makes it even more unlikely.

The Chinese people have no such recourse.

 

[nmosfet]

yes luiz you are right about stalin, I wasn't thinking about him despite writing his name down. But there is still a key difference between Stalin and Mao. Mao established a unified stable Chinese government after decades of more or less anarchy. Do you think the chinese people would have been better off in the hands of the warloards or even chiang kei-shek? Also there are differences in cultural idealogies. For example Asians tend respect parents and elders more. As a result many Chinese people still respect Mao. If you feel he is a brutal dictator, that's fine with me since i was only trying to help you understand why Chinese people have a different attitude towards him.

LUIZ "Stalin was the most important person in the defeat of the germans"
Also i don't think he was the most important. In fact some scholars willl even debate his importance in repelling the German invasion though i don't necessarily agree with them.

LUIZ "I was about to make a huge replly to your post, but then I read this."
if eaveryone were to respond to your mastakes with that post this thread would have ended 10 pages earlier. I hope you are atleast smart enough to figure out what those are and don't need me to list them

LUIZ "Seriously man, go learn history ASAP"
if anyone need to learn more histroy it's you. I don't think high school history classes give you the whole picture. Your knowledge of Asian history is severily lacking.

@ igloodude
to be real nitpicky, there are two wasy to amend the US constitution. since this is OT here's a link.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

and lastly damn IE, lost a post i worked 45 mins on. (sorry in advance for the grammatical and spelling mistakes didn't have time to type it all over again much less check for those errors)

 

[IglooDame]

yes luiz you are right about stalin, I wasn't thinking about him despite writing his name down. But there is still a key difference between Stalin and Mao. Mao established a unified stable Chinese government after decades of more or less anarchy. Do you think the chinese people would have been better off in the hands of the warloards or even chiang kei-shek? Also there are differences in cultural idealogies. For example Asians tend respect parents and elders more. As a result many Chinese people still respect Mao. If you feel he is a brutal dictator, that's fine with me since i was only trying to help you understand why Chinese people have a different attitude towards him.

@ igloodude
to be real nitpicky, there are two wasy to amend the US constitution. since this is OT here's a link.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

and lastly damn IE, lost a post i worked 45 mins on. (sorry in advance for the grammatical and spelling mistakes didn't have time to type it all over again much less check for those errors)

Do I think the chinese people would have been better off in the hands of the warloards or even chiang kei-shek? Actually, I do - they probably would have killed off fewer than 30 million people.

And regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states, which was my nitpicky point - Congress can't amend the Constitution on it's own.

By the way, Mozilla Firebird is a much better browser than IE6.

 

[Dann]

Not 1 Taiawanese dollar goes to Beijing. Why isn't China stepping over.

What do you mean? All them Taiwanese factories here on the mainland do pay local taxes (which eventually wind up in Beijing).

The only way to have a government act in the self interest of the people is to keep the government permanently in check. That's not me speaking, that's very old knowledge.

Ideally yes. But a representative government that feels like it has the Sword of Damocles hanging over it will end up being very ineffective, and will spend all its energy politicking to ensure its victory in the next election, instead of really working to improve the nation and the people's lives. I speak from experience. I originally came from one such country.

There was high enthusiasm for the Cultural Revolution when the idea was introduced to the public, but now the government won't do it again because the people won't support it.

And the most enthusiasm then was supplied by, surprise surprise, students!

And you have no idea how they hate that period of their history nowadays. An entire generation wasted. Look at any typical corporate office today. You'll find executives in their 20s, 30s, 40s then suddenly jump to the big bosses in their 70s or 80s. Very few people in their 50s or 60s. Because these were the people whose entire generation was robbed of the chance to be educated by this madness.

Do I think the chinese people would have been better off in the hands of the warloards or even chiang kei-shek? Actually, I do - they probably would have killed off fewer than 30 million people.

I wouldn't argue about the 30 million dead but China better off under the warlords? My grandfather fled from China during the 1910s or 1920s precisely because of them. He remembers only a state of anarchy where the only "government" was a bunch of bandits that periodically raids their village. This what you want?

And the Taiwanese themselves certainly didn't feel like they were living in a utopia under Chiang Kai Shek (though he did maintain a very good peace and order situation on the island, maybe even better than today). Only under his son Jiang Jing Guo did Taiwan start to grow economically and start democratizing.

 

[stratego]

@Dann about Cultural Revolution. What you say is true, I hope others would realize it too. People now know that the Cultural Revolution was a big mistake, but it wasn't designed to throw China into chaos. It was designed to try to solve the problem of inequality, and many people at the time, mostly young people were enthusiastic about the idea.

@Dann about the "warlord" post. I didn't make the "I support the warlord" post, IglooDude did. Don't know how that showed up as "Originally posted by Stratego."

 

[Dann]

@Dann about the "warlord" post. I didn't make the "I support the warlord" post, IglooDude did. Don't know how that showed up as "Originally posted by Stratego."

Whoops! Careless cut-and-paste job there. Sorry man. Fixing it right now.

 

[IglooDame]

I wouldn't argue about the 30 million dead but China better off under the warlords? My grandfather fled from China during the 1910s or 1920s precisely because of them. He remembers only a state of anarchy where the only "government" was a bunch of bandits that periodically raids their village. This what you want?

And the Taiwanese themselves certainly didn't feel like they were living in a utopia under Chiang Kai Shek (though he did maintain a very good peace and order situation on the island, maybe even better than today). Only under his son Jiang Jing Guo did Taiwan start to grow economically and start democratizing.

I don't want the warlords to take back China now. But to the specific question of whether a country is better off under 1) an autocratic ruler that allows/causes many millions of deaths, or 2) warlords that allow/cause a state of anarchy leading to many thousands of deaths, or 3) an autocratic ruler that does not allow/cause many millions of deaths or a state of anarchy, I'll take 3), then 2), and I can't imagine 1) being preferable to any other option.

 

[luiz]

However China wishes to deal with one of its province is China's decision. Yes, Taiwan has a self sufficient government, and if you want to define that as independent, its up to you. But, Taiwan doesn't have a seat in the UN, and it doesn't have an embassy with most other nations in the world. Taiwan is not a sovereign nation, it is a part of China.

Yep, I define independence as self-govern.

They're not arrested for their beliefs, they're arrested for their actions. You can not be arrested simply because you're a Falun Gun member, but if you are out in the street obstructing people's path, the police can do something about it. Your country and my country arrest thousands each year for smoking marijuana, etc in a party, why doesn't Amnesty International report on that. They're being arrested for their beliefs.

In my country I can go to the streets and scream "Down with Lula!". A chinese cannot do that. I can take part in a peacefully rally against the government. I chinese can't(In the SEZ they can under certain circumstances, but not in the rest of the country).

China's government is kept in check by their laws and the people. What is to keep Congress from making amendments that would keep them in power. There is nothing in the legal process that would prevent that, because they can make amendments to the constitution. The only thing that stop them from doing it is the respect for people's wishes. It is the same in China's case. The government has the power to change the laws to ignore the people and benefit themselves, but the respect for people's wishes prevent them from doing it. There was high enthusiasm for the Cultural Revolution when the idea was introduced to the public, but now the government won't do it again because the people won't support it.

In Brazil our constitution has "artigos pétreos", that cannot be changed without a coup. They basically state that democracy must respected, that elections must be held and that human rights must be respected. So the Congress cannot peacefully ban elections. In China the Politburo does whatever they feel like.

As for the Cultural Revolutions, it was actually part of Mao's voluntarist madness and scared the crap out of the educated chineses. Nobody in their right mind would support masive indoctrination and elimination of political enemies.

 

[luiz]

What do you mean? All them Taiwanese factories here on the mainland do pay local taxes (which eventually wind up in Beijing).

The american factories in China also pay taxes to Beijing. Is the US part of China?
Fact is factories in Taiwan pay nothing to Beijing, just like factories in the US.

Ideally yes. But a representative government that feels like it has the Sword of Damocles hanging over it will end up being very ineffective, and will spend all its energy politicking to ensure its victory in the next election, instead of really working to improve the nation and the people's lives. I speak from experience. I originally came from one such country.

It works just fine for the US, the whole EU, Australia, NZ, Japan, South Korea, and many other nations.

And the most enthusiasm then was supplied by, surprise surprise, students!

And you have no idea how they hate that period of their history nowadays. An entire generation wasted. Look at any typical corporate office today. You'll find executives in their 20s, 30s, 40s then suddenly jump to the big bosses in their 70s or 80s. Very few people in their 50s or 60s. Because these were the people whose entire generation was robbed of the chance to be educated by this madness.

That's indeed very sad, and just one exemple of the attrocities committed by the CCP.

 

[Dann]

In my country I can go to the streets and scream "Down with Lula!". A chinese cannot do that. I can take part in a peacefully rally against the government. I chinese can't(In the SEZ they can under certain circumstances, but not in the rest of the country).

Hey I can safely scream "Down with Lula!" here too. (Sorry can't resist...)

Well, here technically you CAN apply for a permit to rally against the government. But everyone knows such a permit will NEVER be approved by the local police. So...

The american factories in China also pay taxes to Beijing. Is the US part of China?
Fact is factories in Taiwan pay nothing to Beijing, just like factories in the US.

I know the drill. Lighten up, willya? Just pulling your leg there.

It works just fine for the US, the whole EU, Australia, NZ, Japan, South Korea, and many other nations.

Because these nations are mature democracies, with political leaders who follow the rules (well, sort of), instead of bending them to serve their own selfish interests. The completely insecure government where I came from can't even get rid of slum colonies illegally built right beside railroad tracks, for fear that said dense vote-rich chunk will vote for the opposition next election. Do you understand now why I feel some backbone is needed from government?

 

[luiz]

I know the drill. Lighten up, willya? Just pulling your leg there.

I know. Notice the smile

Because these nations are mature democracies, with political leaders who follow the rules (well, sort of), instead of bending them to serve their own selfish interests. The completely insecure government where I came from can't even get rid of slum colonies illegally built right beside railroad tracks, for fear that said dense vote-rich chunk will vote for the opposition next election. Do you understand now why I feel some backbone is needed from government?

Sure I understand your position. I live in a nation that had the first presidential elections i 1989, after 25 years of military dictatorship.
The militart apologists here(they are very few, but exist) argue that during the military rule we had a higher GDP growth then today in our democracy. And that's true, albeit only partially. But fact is an authoritarian government causes too much harm. We have countless problems created or agravated by the dictatorship, that haunts us untill today.
The politician here are also extremelly crappy, but all in all the nation is much better off now then we were back in the Military years. And Brazil is in no way a mature nation. Much like India, or Mexico, or Chile, I believe that poor nations may in fact experience developemnt together with democracy. Honestly I believe that China would be much better off without the CCP.