China invasion of Taiwan POLL!

Do you want your nation to send troops to defend Taiwan???

  • Yes, and I’m European

    Votes: 17 11.3%
  • No, and I’m European

    Votes: 32 21.2%
  • Yes, and I’m NOT from Europe

    Votes: 63 41.7%
  • No, and I’m NOT from Europe

    Votes: 39 25.8%

  • Total voters
    151
I am Canadian, and unlike Iraq, I think that would be a worthy war to fight. I am sure the Canadian navy could contribute much in the fight, and Canadian soldiers would be useful as well. Our land-based air force probably wouldn't be much use fighting in Taiwan, but perhaps helping to fly defensive patrols around NorthAm would help to free up American resources.

If Taiwan were still a democracy when it was invaded, and the people clearly wanted our help then I would say help.
 
alex994 said:
Luiz, u don't even know how it is there. You've probably never even face starvation or torture, massacres and etc. Compared to the KMT regime, the PRC is a lot more beneficial to the ppl of China, and they're doing better as well...

Of course I never faced starvation or massacre! I'm alive!

If you mean seen starvation or massacres, well I have seen both. Not that it matters for this discussion at all, though.

And history disagrees with you. The Communists produced much more victims then the Nationalists(who were also evil, but not as evil as the Maoists)
 
Sobieski II said:
I am Canadian, and unlike Iraq, I think that would be a worthy war to fight.
Well, honnestly Sobieski. Do you really think it would worth it ?

If China takes control of Taiwan against the will of other nations (which is even harder to believe than America invading Canada), do you really think the new status would be that much different from the one in Hong Kong. By the way, where were you when the chinese invaded Hong Kong ? and then Macau ?
 
The Chinese didn't invade Hong Kong nor Macau.

Anyway, if we look economically and how much we go and purchase from Taiwan, having that in Beijing's hands will certainly give them a higher platform should they ever use to tinker with the trade system between Beijing/Taipei and the US and perhaps other Western nations.
 
The Yankee said:
The Chinese didn't invade Hong Kong nor Macau.

Anyway, if we look economically and how much we go and purchase from Taiwan, having that in Beijing's hands will certainly give them a higher platform should they ever use to tinker with the trade system between Beijing/Taipei and the US and perhaps other Western nations.
As a westerner, I would be less worried about a Taiwan occupied by China than about an Iraq occupied by the US. Of course, reasons are different, but still.

Of course I'm provocating you. But sincerly, what would be the awful events resulting of such an annexion ? You talk about trade. We already trade 10 times more with China than we do with Taiwan. You talk about Democracy. Hong Kong hasn't lost Democracy in joining China.

What are the reasons actually to start your nuclear war ?
 
I personally haven't raised those arguments since that was my first post in the threat after watching it for a while.

I bring up trade because that would more directly affect us much more than democracy in Taipei.

As for Hong Kong....I bet those demonstrators would disagree with you.

I would not start a nuclear war, and even if I started a conventional one (which most likely wouldn't happen because the fleet is guarding Taiwan, so they'd have to attack first), I don't think a first-strike nuclear attack would solve anything.
 
Marla_Singer said:
Well, honnestly Sobieski. Do you really think it would worth it ?

If China takes control of Taiwan against the will of other nations (which is even harder to believe than America invading Canada), do you really think the new status would be that much different from the one in Hong Kong. By the way, where were you when the chinese invaded Hong Kong ? and then Macau ?

If the people wanted help in defending themselves, then it probably means they would also defend themselves. And if that is the case, I doubt it would be the relatively peaceful takeover of HK all over again.

I think that people should be willing to defend other's people freedom, but one has to be wary of when that is really being threatened. In Iraq, invasion was not the answer at all, as liberating a people from themselves never works. However, when a functioning democracy is being invaded, there is a big difference. That IS the ultimate difference. Iraq was apparantly defending democracy ( :crazyeye: ) by invading said country. Taiwan would be in defence of Taiwan.

There are some wars that should be fought, as Munich showed. However, if the Taiwanese were not all that interested themselves in preventing a Chinese takeover, then I see no reason to intervene.
 
Marla_Singer said:
You talk about Democracy. Hong Kong hasn't lost Democracy in joining China.

Why don't you tell that to the hundreds of thousands of HKers that regularly take to the streets because Beijing is slowly tightening the noose around their freedoms.
 
The Yankee said:
I personally haven't raised those arguments since that was my first post in the threat after watching it for a while.

I bring up trade because that would more directly affect us much more than democracy in Taipei.
No. There would be indeed a direct cost to drop Taiwan. However, it wouldn't be a military cost, it would be diplomatical. Indeed, it would severly damage the US status around the globe as sole hegemonious superpower. However, what else to do ?
As for Hong Kong....I bet those demonstrators would disagree with you.
Hong Kong hasn't lost its autonomy in the story. Of course people strongly disagreed with that annexion, and we can understand why, however, the free speech has remained the same. And elections are still organized freely... the problem is mainly about guardianship.
I would not start a nuclear war, and even if I started a conventional one (which most likely wouldn't happen because the fleet is guarding Taiwan, so they'd have to attack first), I don't think a first-strike nuclear attack would solve anything.
What conventionnal war are you talking about ? Do you really think we can attack another nuclear power without having to expect the use of nuclear warfare ? "We are declaring war to you but stay kind and don't defend yourself !!" ;)
 
Sobieski II said:
Marla_Singer said:
You talk about Democracy. Hong Kong hasn't lost Democracy in joining China.QUOTE]

Why don't you tell that to the hundreds of thousands of HKers that regularly take to the streets because Beijing is slowly tightening the noose around their freedoms.
The problem isn't about a noose being tightened. The problem is about guardianships. It feels better to be under a Democracy guardianship than under a One-Party regime guardianship (problem of opacity and corruption, mainly). However, many countries in the world are sallivating in the idea to get the free speech available in HK.
 
But China is eroding HK's freedom, and Taiwan is NOT Hong Kong. I also said that I would only support intervention if the Taiwanese clearly and absolutely were willing to fight the Chinese and wanted help. If it was a 50/50 split, forget about it.
 
luiz said:
Learn to read dude :rolleyes:
He had the support of more people then the KMT, but not of the majority of the people. Jesus, even a chimp can understand what I was trying to say.

wrong. there were very few middle ground citizens. it was a very complete civil war, with civilians joining the communist army en masse. you were also implying that most people didn't support the communists. both your facts and your assumptions were wrong. and there's no need for name calling mr. chimp expert

Says who?
If they are confident of their popularity then maybe they should allow free elections, shouldn't they?

go read some chinese history books before you make a further fool of yourself

Because they are afraid of war.
It's a fact that most people of Taiwai do NOT want to be one with China. Get over it and admitt you couldn't care less.

where are you basing your assumption from? your own chimp researching brain?

both opinion polls and the people i know in taiwan do not support your balatant remarks. they consider themselves chinese, most of them support eventual unification (not with the current government situation, but when the chinese government makes further reforms) over complete separation. Get over it and admit you couldn't know less
 
luiz said:
If the present govt. admitts that Mao was an inhuman monster, then why are those giant and ridiculous Mao posters still in every square of China?

have you even been to china or have you been watching too many cultural revolution films? you'd be hard pressed to find a poster of mao anywhere except that portrait of him at tiananmen square, and at sovenier shops

it's amazing someone who obviously doesn't know modern china very well, insists on spewing uninformed and ignorant remarks
 
When Taiwan was recognized as the legitimate capital of China, it wanted to represent the rest of China too. Now that the capital has been switched to Beijing, Taiwan should still remain a part of China.

luiz said:
Some people here are completely illuded with the nature of the chinese regime.
And you are the expert? :rolleyes:. Some people here can back our statements up, because we've been there or lived there. What are your credentials?
 
Who cares China can invade Taiwan for all I care. Go ahead have fun. It's ot worth sending troops to defend it. The cost outweighs the benefits.
 
luiz said:
And if you care so much about the will of the people, you might as well ask the people of Taiwan how they feel about it. Don't be a hypocrite.

You can ask how they feel, but I doubt China will bend its national law for an interest group, if what the interest group wants is independence.
 
Marla_Singer said:
No. There would be indeed a direct cost to drop Taiwan. However, it wouldn't be a military cost, it would be diplomatical. Indeed, it would severly damage the US status around the globe as sole hegemonious superpower. However, what else to do ?
I agree with you here...though I'm not sure how severely a hit the US would take in world view. However, the US has promised to defend Taiwan...should Beijing attack. As long as Beijing doesn't attack...we have the situation we have now. Think of the fleet as not only a defense for Taiwan, but also a tripwire ensuring American involvement....much like the 37,000 soldiers by the DMZ were in South Korea.

Hong Kong hasn't lost its autonomy in the story. Of course people strongly disagreed with that annexion, and we can understand why, however, the free speech has remained the same. And elections are still organized freely... the problem is mainly about guardianship.What conventionnal war are you talking about ?

Ah, dear Marla, I'll have to disagree with you there. It's slowly "integrating" with Beijing's political structure. Check it out:

From CNN.com


Hong Kong 'ready' for anti-subversion law

September 13, 2002 Posted: 9:30 AM EDT (1330 GMT)

Staff and wires

HONG KONG, China -- Hong Kong says it is ready to pass an anti-subversion law, five years after its handover to China.

In a move that critics have been dreading since 1997, Hong Kong's Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung told reporters Friday the territory must soon enact an anti-subversion law, saying "it is time we must do it."

Hong Kong's constitution requires the government to adopt laws prohibiting acts against the state, including subversion. But critics fear such a law could be used to clamp down on dissent.

Hong Kong officials are saying it is about time the law is passed, but they are denying reports Beijing is pushing the territory to take action.

Under what late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping dubbed "one country, two systems," Hong Kong embarked upon the experiment of the 21st century -- capitalism under the world's biggest communist regime.

But rights activists are concerned the anti-subversion move will limit freedoms in this special administrative region.

"This will be the greatest test of Hong Kong's freedom of speech since the handover," Law Yuk-kai, director of the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor told The Associated Press news agency.

"If the law is intended to find those who say things against Beijing guilty, Hong Kong will be no different from any other mainland Chinese city," Law told AP.
Tighten rules

Under Article 23 of Hong Kong's Basic Law, the former British colony is required to enact laws to prohibit "...any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets..."

Over the last year, Hong Kong has begun to tighten rules on holding demonstrations and banned some prominent dissidents from visiting the territory.

It also prohibits foreign political groups from conducting activities in Hong Kong or local political organizations from forging ties with foreign groups.

The Falun Gong spiritual movement for one, which is outlawed in mainland China, has had to take a lower profile in Hong Kong.(HK prosecutes Falun Gong)

The government has promised a full debate on the issue, but Falun Gong spokesman Kan Hung-cheung fears the laws will target his group.

Meanwhile in June this year, U.S.-based exiled Chinese dissident Harry Wu was banned from visiting the territory for the second time in three months.(Full story)

And the government has delayed moves to expand representative government.(New cabinet players)

A government consultation paper on the anti-subversion issue is expected to be released as early as next month.

Also from CNN.com

Hong Kong defends Beijing ruling

Tuesday, April 6, 2004 Posted: 11:56 PM EDT (0356 GMT)

HONG KONG, China (CNN) -- Hong Kong's chief executive is defending a ruling by Beijing that the central government has the sole power to decide if the territory needs political change.

Beijing officials are expected to visit the former British colony on Wednesday to assure lawmakers and legal experts that the city is not losing its autonomy after the ruling on the scope and timetable of political development.

"[It] has not damaged the one country, two systems principle,'' Hong Kong's Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa said at a press conference.

The National People's Congress (NPC) committee ruling on Tuesday is being seen as the biggest step taken since 1997 to tighten reins over a pro-democracy movement.(China lays down the law in HK)

In the ruling, China's central government says it has the right to amend Hong Kong's law, and it has the deciding power on changes to the territory's political structure.

"A locality has no fixed power," said Qiao Xiaoyang, deputy secretary-general of the NPC's Standing Committee.

"All powers of the locality derive from the authorization of the central authorities."

Beijing officials say there is no cause for alarm in their interpretation of Hong Kong's mini constitution, known as the Basic Law.

The law follows the "one country, two systems" principle agreed upon when Britain handed over its former colony to China in 1997.

Chinese lawmakers were propelled to carry out the interpretations by what they said was a need to end disputes and confusion in the territory amid a rising tide of pro-democracy protests.

Democrats in Hong Kong see Beijing's move as an alarming sign of interference, China expert Willy Lam told CNN. They say it sets a bad precedent and allows China to step in as often as it wants in the territory's internal affairs.

"They have now changed the goal posts," lawmaker Martin Lee, Hong Kong's best-known opposition figure, who has been branded a traitor by Beijing, told The Associated Press.

In Hong Kong, several dozen activists chanted, "Unite and fight back!" as they marched to government headquarters before dispersing peacefully.

Around half a million people rallied in July last year, and a smaller number this January, demanding political change in a city where the leader is handpicked by a committee loyal to Beijing and less than half the legislature is directly elected.

CNN's Marianne Bray contributed to this report.

And the original story - CNN.com

China lays down the law in HK

By CNN's Marianne Bray
Tuesday, April 6, 2004 Posted: 11:30 PM EDT (0330 GMT)

HONG KONG, China (CNN) -- China's ruling that it has the sole power to initiate political change in Hong Kong is seen as the biggest step taken since 1997 to tighten reins over the pro-democracy movement.

In a clear message that China's central government is tightening its control over the rule of law, it has prohibited Hong Kong from initiating change without Beijing's approval.

"The right to amend the law belongs to the National People's Congress," Qiao Xiaoyang, deputy secretary-general of the NPC's Standing Committee, told a press conference.

"The central government has the deciding power on changes of Hong Kong's political structure in the entire process."

Beijing officials say there is no cause for alarm in their interpretation of Hong Kong's mini-constitution, known as the Basic Law.

Chinese lawmakers said they were propelled to carry out the interpretations on how the leader and politicians are chosen in Hong Kong to end disputes and confusion in the territory amid a rising tide of pro-democracy protests.

Before the ruling there was no clear-cut indication of who should initiate reform in the territory, but democrats in Hong Kong had assumed they just needed two-thirds of legislators to agree to move ahead.

The free-wheeling territory of 6.8 million people was given a high degree of autonomy when it was handed over to China in 1997 under the "one country, two systems" formula.

Beijing pledged to keep the special administrative region's capitalist systems and way of life "unchanged" for 50 years.

The Basic Law came into effect at the time of the handover allowing direct elections for the territory as soon as 2008, the year after unpopular Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's term expires.

But the constitution also states Beijing has a final say over any electoral changes, and residents have been watching to see how China interpreted the Basic Law ahead of legislative elections in September.

Around half a million people rallied in July last year, and a smaller number this January, demanding political change in a city where the leader is handpicked by a committee loyal to Beijing and less than half the legislature is directly elected.

While Hong Kong put a controversial anti-subversion law on hold following the mass uprising, in his annual policy speech in January, Tung skirted growing calls for voting rights, disappointing activists who had hoped he would launch public consultations early in the year.

Instead, Tung said any consultations on democracy would be with Beijing first, and established a task force to consult with Chinese leaders.

Playing hardball

n recent months, Chinese President Hu Jintao's administration has played hardball, worried calls for more democracy in the territory will spill over to the mainland.

Beijing is also concerned about losing control over the territory, prompting it to issue rhetoric not seen in decades.

It stressed that Hong Kong's ruling elite must consist of "patriotic" elements and has labeled pro-democracy politicians "unpatriotic."

China's hard stance has cast into doubt Beijing's commitment to reform, and has also strained ties with Taiwan, the United States and the rest of the world. (Beijing jitters)

A visit by outspoken democracy leader Martin Lee to Washington in March rattled Beijing.

The United States has been upfront about wanting more democracy in Hong Kong, with the State Department repeating calls that it supports electoral reform and universal suffrage.

But China has responded by asking Washington to stop interfering in its internal affairs.

Democrats in Hong Kong see Beijing's move as an alarming sign of interference, China expert Willy Lam told CNN. They say it sets a bad precedent and allows China to step in as often as it wants in the territory's internal affairs.

China's tactic of muffling rising calls for voting rights has worked to lower expectations among the population.

Most opinion polls conducted last year showed 80 percent of the population supported universal suffrage by 2007, but now that number has fallen to around 60 percent, Lam said.

Meanwhile only 43 percent of 1,045 people interviewed in a poll conducted by the University of Hong Kong in February said they trusted Beijing, down from 50 percent at the end of December.

Sorry for all that! But at least read some of it!

Do you really think we can attack another nuclear power without having to expect the use of nuclear warfare ? "We are declaring war to you but stay kind and don't defend yourself !!" [/I] ;)
I don't know...it's possible...but not probable. However, in this situation, we're still talking about China attacking for Taiwan. I don't think they have the capability to put nukes in the US...and why would they want to blow away Taipei? I still think it's going to be a huge, fairly conventional war, if it happens.
 
Marla, one more article on the subject that exceeded the 15,000 character limit on the post...so....here, and I rest my case.


This gets deeper with links in every story! CNN.com


World
Beijing jitters over HK democracy push

By Willy Wo-Lap Lam, CNN Senior China Analyst
Monday, February 16, 2004 Posted: 12:06 AM EST (0506 GMT)

(CNN) -- Beijing's nervous and harsh reaction to Hong Kong's democratic aspirations has betrayed the Chinese Communist Party leadership's fears about losing control over the six-year-old Special Administrative Region.

However, President Hu Jintao's administration's playing hardball with advocates of universal suffrage in Hong Kong has cast into doubt Beijing's commitment to the "one country, two systems" model -- and to reform in general.

The hard-line turn taken by Hu and his colleagues could also have a significant impact on China's relations with Taiwan, the U.S. and the Western world.

In statements issued by the official Xinhua news agency last week, Beijing indicated it would dictate the pace of democratization in the Special Administrative Region (SAR), and that Hong Kong's ruling elite must consist of "patriotic" elements.

It has also been revealed that Beijing's opposition to a one-person one-vote system is based on the fear the SAR might emulate separatists in Taiwan and seek some form of "Hong Kong independence."

As a Chinese-run newspaper in Hong Kong put it, Beijing's foremost concern is that the SAR's political structure will ensure that "Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China ... and that the SAR is under the direct jurisdiction of central authorities."

Beijing's tough position is problematic because the current leadership's interpretation of "one country, two systems" is different from -- and much more doctrinaire than -- that of late patriarch Deng Xiaoping, the father of the revolutionary model for re-absorbing Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.

Deng used to consider the SAR concept a fillip to reform in China.

And he often indicated his desire to create "a string of Hong Kongs" along the eastern coast to expedite the country's overall modernization.

And Deng was most lenient about who should be running post-1997 Hong Kong.

He said while "leftists," or traditionally pro-Beijing elements, should be inducted to the ruling councils, the door should not be shut to "rightists," code word for liberals and people with Western values.

In their great leap leftward, however, Hu's top lieutenants on Hong Kong policy have cited only the more orthodox portions of Deng's SAR-related instructions.

For example, while talking last week to a Hong Kong government task force on political reform, these senior cadres quoted a Deng saying in late 1984 that SAR administrators "should be patriotic people, people who love the motherland and love Hong Kong."

"Patriotism" has been interpreted by these officials as unthinkingly toeing Beijing's line.

What these conservative cadres left out, however, was that Deng went on to say that apart from "leftists," there should also be businessmen, civil servants and "rightists" among SAR administrators.

As the late patriarch put it: "Of course there should be leftists [among the ruling elite], but there should be as few of these as possible. There should also be rightists, and the majority [within Hong Kong's governing body] should be people in the middle [of the political spectrum]."

What the patriarch meant was given the experimental nature of "one country, two systems," it was unwise to exclude politicians and intellectuals who might not see eye to eye with Beijing.

Taiwan

Will the controversy over Hong Kong's democratization adversely affect cross-Straits relations?

An important reason behind Beijing's hawkish line on the SAR is to show Taiwan that it will not tolerate the "creeping independence" gambit of President Chen Shui-bian.

However, this strategy will further dampen whatever attraction that "one country, two systems" may have for Taiwan residents.

For example, last week's Xinhua statement pointed out "one country, two systems" presupposed that "'one country' is the premise of 'two systems'," -- and that so-called "self-governing" in the SAR must be implemented under Beijing's authorization.

This is at variance with communist party's long-standing pledge that Taiwan's residents have full autonomy regarding the island's politics and administration.

Beijing-based political sources said the leadership's hard stance was partly based on conspiracy theories the U.S., Taiwan, and to some extent, the UK, were behind alleged efforts by SAR democrats to turn Hong Kong into a "base of subversion against the central government."

The Chinese Foreign Ministry has repeatedly lambasted Washington for trying to influence the SAR's course of democratization, while Beijing-affiliated politicians and journalists in Hong Kong have accused pro-democracy figures there of being stooges of "rightist" and "anti-China" U.S. organizations.

These leftist views, however, have confirmed the perception in many Western capitals that Hu and his colleagues are no different from previous administrations regarding political liberalization.

Yet, it is premature to think Beijing has come to a decision on Hong Kong's political structure.

The Hu leadership seems to be waiting until after Legislative Council elections in September before making up its mind on whether, and when, to grant the SAR a higher degree of democracy.

There is a possibility that if Taiwan's Chen fails in his re-election bid next month, Beijing may adopt a softer approach toward both Taipei and Hong Kong.

The damage, however, seems to have been done. Prior to the recent turn of events, most observers in Hong Kong and the Western world thought of the new leadership in Beijing as a moderate, close-to-the-masses team.

The autocratic if not anti-reformist line that the Hu-led Politburo has laid down for the SAR, however, may spoil this favorable impression for a long time to come.
 
Back
Top Bottom