China invasion of Taiwan POLL!

[Ballazic]

Ya your right and Brazil rocks. this war is completly justified. If we let them invade one nation what will be next.

 

[10Seven]

Ya your right and Brazil rocks. this war is completly justified. If we let them invade one nation what will be next.

Unfortunately the USA already invaded Iraq... I can see it now Taiwan - WMD - war for peace - it's beatiful.

 

[microbe]

How many western people really know the history of China-Taiwan and what their own people think about the issue?

Two things are certain:

1. China is almost certainly to invade (let's use the word although the word isn't meant to be used for civial wars) Taiwan if Taiwan declares independence.

2. China isn't likely to invade Taiwan otherwise. It may use economic or diplomatic sanction.

Although Taiwan is small and considered weak, nowadays it's more of a troublemaker and wants to challange China's bottomline.

I bet US wouldn't send troops if Taiwan declares independence and China invades. Not mention other western coutries. No one is going to sacrifice its own people for Taiwan. Defending democracy is just an excuse or dream - US didn't invade Iraq for democracy.

 

[stratego]

Do you think they don't want to vote?
If they don't care about Democracy then what were those people doing in Tiananmen 15 yeasr ago?

And the Chinese government is doing a lot more to provide what the people want now than they did 15 years ago. The Chinese government is making progress towards democracy. But voting doesn't necessary mean democracy and democracy doesn't necessary mean voting.

Think about this situation: You like Jack Hoff, and you vote him into office, then for the next four years you don't pay attention to what he does, what is the difference between that and having a higher official select Jack Hoff into office for you. (People don't care if the official was voted into office, as long as he/she is doing a good job the people are happy)

You still haven't answer my question why so many eligible voters don't vote.

A good job?
The country with the highest number of political prisioners and the least Freedom of Press is doing a good job?

And don't talk about what you don't know. You obviously no nothing about Brazil. Brazil is extremely better off then China.
Brazilian per capita income: U$ 7.700
Chinese per capita income: U$1.100
So the average brazilian is 7 times richer then the average chinese.

China wasn't even noticed on the map 50 years ago. Today, China is one of the most powerful Nation in the world, that's why the regime is doing a good job. I don't see Lula making this leap. I will stop talking about Brazil because I don't know much about it, but that means you'll have to stop talking about China, because you don't seem to know anything beyond what your high school textbook told you. China has the least Freedom of Press?

Democracy is an end in itself, and I shouldn't have to tell you this.
Freedom of Press and Free and general election are the most basic rights of any half-decent nation.

If Berkeley students don't see it that way, then they are a bunch of stalinist-wannabes.

We can agree that Democracy is good. Where we disagree is, you think that democracy is simply having elections, while I believe there is more to democracy than that. While I think that democracy means the government doing its best to provide the people what they want, you think it means having elections. While I think democracy means going to the step of congress and telling them what I want (and most people here may think we're crazy), you think it means having elections. Sorry to tell you this, but the Civil Rights Movement did not start because we elected someone into office, it started because there are people smart enough to realize that democracy doesn't just mean elections.

 

[Zardnaar]

How come its OK for the USA to stop the south leaving the union but not OK for China to use its miltary to reclaimTaiwan?

Not a fan of China but still....

 

[Zarn]

How come its OK for the USA to stop the south leaving the union but not OK for China to use its miltary to reclaimTaiwan?

Not a fan of China but still....

Taiwan is a republic and China split from it... not the other way around. Also, Taiwan doesn't promote slavery.

 

[microbe]

Taiwan is a republic and China split from it... not the other way around. Also, Taiwan doesn't promote slavery.

Naive. War is war. War by democratic government is no different from war by despotic goverment. US launched many evil wars in the name of "liberation", while in fact what it cared was just its own benefit.

China was invaded by western countries around 1900. You think because China was a Monarchy while those countries were democratic, the war was justified?

What a joke.

 

[IglooDame]

Ok, now explain to me why immigrants who come to America don't vote either. And also explain why such a large percent of the population in Democratic nations don't vote either, are they alienated by their government?

Quick answer - because they don't feel the need to; either choice (in our two-party system) is adequate to them.

And the Chinese government is doing a lot more to provide what the people want now than they did 15 years ago. The Chinese government is making progress towards democracy. But voting doesn't necessary mean democracy and democracy doesn't necessary mean voting.

Definition of democracy, from Merriam-Webster:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

So the Chinese government is acting on behalf of the people (though you haven't explained how they know what the people want given that expressing counterrevolutionary opinions can land people in prison there). If on one issue or another, they are not acting on behalf of the people, what recourse do the people have? That is ultimately where power lies - in case of conflict, how does the conflict get resolved? In Iran there are popularly-elected legislative and executive arms of government - but as a group of mullahs can overturn any executive or legislative decision at will, it doesn't qualify as a democracy despite the existence of voting. In China, that the government (according to you, anyway) does what the people want is laudable - but that it does so voluntarily means that it isn't a democracy.

 

[luiz]

And the Chinese government is doing a lot more to provide what the people want now than they did 15 years ago. The Chinese government is making progress towards democracy. But voting doesn't necessary mean democracy and democracy doesn't necessary mean voting.

Yes it does. Not only voting, but voting in a FREE and general election.

Think about this situation: You like Jack Hoff, and you vote him into office, then for the next four years you don't pay attention to what he does, what is the difference between that and having a higher official select Jack Hoff into office for you. (People don't care if the official was voted into office, as long as he/she is doing a good job the people are happy)

Then why did Pinochet fall? He did a terrific job in the economy.
People do care.

You still haven't answer my question why so many eligible voters don't vote.

Well, many don't care.
But some do, and the right to rule your own country is sacred.

China wasn't even noticed on the map 50 years ago. Today, China is one of the most powerful Nation in the world, that's why the regime is doing a good job. I don't see Lula making this leap. I will stop talking about Brazil because I don't know much about it, but that means you'll have to stop talking about China, because you don't seem to know anything beyond what your high school textbook told you. China has the least Freedom of Press?

Brazil 50 years ago was nothing.
We had our period of growth in the 60's and 70's, China is having it now. But rest assured that our economic basis are MUCH more solid then the chinese ones. Brazil was the country that grew the most in the XXth Century. In 1900 we were like Subsahaaran Africa Africa, by 1975 we had the 8th economy in the world.
As for I only knowing what my highschool textbooks told me, I have two commentaries:
-I'm not in highschool
-My highschool textbooks were so communist that they said Cuba was better off then the USA. So I don't pay much attention to them.

And apparently you are the one who knows little about China besides the communist propaganda you must hear in your College. I provided this link 4 times, including in this thread, but since you didn't see it I'll provide it again.
http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=4116
Check the bottom of the list and then tell me how wonderfull the CCP is.

We can agree that Democracy is good. Where we disagree is, you think that democracy is simply having elections, while I believe there is more to democracy than that. While I think that democracy means the government doing its best to provide the people what they want, you think it means having elections. While I think democracy means going to the step of congress and telling them what I want (and most people here may think we're crazy), you think it means having elections. Sorry to tell you this, but the Civil Rights Movement did not start because we elected someone into office, it started because there are people smart enough to realize that democracy doesn't just mean elections.

China has not anything of those things you said.
And yes, FREE and general elections are one of the pillars of democracy, anyone can tell you that. The other pillar of democracy is a free press. China has neither, so it's light-years away from a democracy.
Your definition of Democracy sounds much more like the apology of "Popular Democracies", that are not democratic at all.

 

[Dann]

True, though that's the first time you've put it that way - presumably then Hong Kong's and Taiwan's collective psyche is now so different that they should be different countries?

No. Because China's collective psyche is also slowly transforming into something similar to that of the Hong Kong and Taiwan people.

One day, they will all be identical again.

And BTW, what's your point: that chinses people don't want to rule over theirselves?

In a way, yes! Remember, they've once HAD "democracy" in the form of the republic from 1911 to 1949. And this "democracy" failed them! So don't be surprised if they're not as politically inclined as you.

People who make 200 dollars a year can't possibly have a political opinion.

Oh really? How about the poor and destitute in democratic India, Philippines, etc.? My mother makes even less that that. Does this mean she's not supposed to have a political opinion too? Elitists...

c. the nationalists started the civil war with a much larger army and superior weapons. while the communist army was much smaller and inferior in weaponry. however by the end of the war the communist army swelled (mostly due to peasants enlisting) while the nationalist army crumbled. without overwhelming popular support, the small red army with inferior equipment would never have been able to overrun the larger and superior enemy.

I just want to add something. A significant number of the PLA's equipment then came from defecting KMT troops. Politico-military historians and strategists, think about that.

Mao posters ARE everywhere. Even in Ping-Pong stadiums.
Last week a brazilian Ping-Pong player was defeated by a chinese one in China, and in the stadium there was a gigantic Mao poster.
In the chinese embassy over here they an enormous Mao poster. And so on.

Because it's a city stadium run by the government!

And embassies are by default government buildings!

Hanging a picture of Mao there is just SOP. It doesn't mean anything. The staff don't bow to it as they pass by. It's only the tourists who usually point and gawk.

Brazilian per capita income: U$ 7.700
Chinese per capita income: U$1.100
So the average brazilian is 7 times richer then the average chinese.

No argument there. Congratulations!
But then again, you don't have this many mouths to feed....

China was invaded by western countries around 1900. You think because China was a Monarchy while those countries were democratic, the war was justified?

In that invasion, by 8 major powers no less, most were also monarchies (Britain, Russia, Germany, Austria, Italy and Japan) Only the US and France were democracies.
Try justifying that war.

 

[luiz]

In a way, yes! Remember, they've once HAD "democracy" in the form of the republic from 1911 to 1949. And this "democracy" failed them! So don't be surprised if they're not as politically inclined as you.

The Nationalist government was not democratic at all.
I could use your argumet to prove that Totalitarianism failed the chinese people!

Oh really? How about the poor and destitute in democratic India, Philippines, etc.? My mother makes even less that that. Does this mean she's not supposed to have a political opinion too? Elitists...

Man, do you realise how little 200 dollars a year is? It's less then 20 bucks per month. With that money it's hard enough to survive, let alone have a political opinion! I think you misinterpreted what I said by U$200 a month...

Because it's a city stadium run by the government!

And embassies are by default government buildings!

Exactly my point. The governmet still idolises Mao, and that's bad.

No argument there. Congratulations!
But then again, you don't have this many mouths to feed....

Congratulations? Our per capita income is pathetic. I was just pointing out the real situation of China by comparing it with the screwed-up nation that is Brazil.

 

[romelus]

Defendin the CPP is apology of tyranny.

let me use an example so you understand better

i make the ignorant remark that all brazilans are theives and thugs, because i saw that on tv

you state the fact that most brazilans are not theives and thugs

i accuse you of being a friend of crime

is that fair? can you not see the difference between stating a fact and an opinion?

You provided NOTHING more then an opinion. Where's a reliable link? I can't see one.

if you bothered to read more than one paragraph before you reply you'd see i had stated the evidence

Mao also wanted to eliminate opposition(what bring us back to the inhuman monster thing). But that's NOT the goal of the Cultural Revolution, and is the PROOF that you know little of the subject.
During the CR thousands of young chinese went to the rural areas carrying Mao's "Litte Red Book" to indoctrinate the peasants.

the red book thing is after the initial volley of political fighting, when the cultural revolution spread through the country. the original purpose was to eliminate opposition. this is not common knowledge so i don't blame you for not knowing. if you really want to learn, pick up a book (preferably written by a chinese writer) dedicated to the cultural revolution

There is NO civil war topic!
The topic is: Is China a dictatorship? Does China have rights over Taiwan?

we were debating the whole civil war thing because you brought it up. stay, memory, stay

Claims are not evidence. I don't believe what you say. Prove me wrong

i already did. because what i said was not "claims" they are history. of course, for someone who doesn't know the history, and refuses to believe it's history, that someone needs to go read up instead of questioning the teacher

if a book is too much for you, there's always google.

and i'm still waiting for your civil war evidence to the contrary, and remember, the press freedom link doesn't count

THE SITUATION 50 YEARS AGO MATTERS LITTLE TO DO TOPIC!
IS CHINA A DICTATORSHIP TODAY?
(And you're also wrong about the Civil War, but that's OT)

how is popular support for the communist party 50 years ago relevant to how taiwan people think about independence today?

and you can keep saying i'm wrong, but all the history books say otherwise, and everyone reading is waiting for your evidence to the contrary. so stop yapping about your opinion and bring some facts

Stupid is differen then alienated. Very poor people are alienated, not stupid.
The ones who make U$200 a year are the chinese peasants, not the Taiwanese. The Taiwanese are not alienated, and they don't want unification.

you can try to wiggle out of your poor people have no political opinion statement, i don't like kicking someone who's down, someone else will probably have more to say

no sheet sherlock! i was talking about taiwan poll numbers, and somehow you got chinese peasants involved. and like i said multiple times before. about 80% of them want status quo, less than 5% (about 3% in may,2004 to be exact, down from 6% a while ago) of them want immediate separation. about 17% want immediate reunification.

treat the "keep status quo" as neutral, more people want unification than separation.

this is also in line with my talks with people i know in taiwan, and they know much more than you

Perhaps you should read the platform of the democratically elected president of Taiwan.

see previous poll number from may 2004. and the election is not based on just one criteria. people knew fully well neither choice was likely to just declare independence out of the blue

My paper on Maoist economics has nothing to do with the current situation. It has to do with Mao, that we were discussing earlier.

we were talking about mao posters. your paper still has nothing to do with anything we are discussing

Mao posters ARE everywhere. Even in Ping-Pong stadiums.
Last week a brazilian Ping-Pong player was defeated by a chinese one in China, and in the stadium there was a gigantic Mao poster.
In the chinese embassy over here they an enormous Mao poster. And so on.

look, i was in china just 3 years ago. someone who lives china right now also posted. we both told you, from what we saw with our very own eyes, that mao posters are NOT everywhere.

i know you are not an idiot, but how can you still hold on to your illusions when first hand evidence says otherwise?

let me see what you know. you saw a poster on TV, so you deduce that every stadium in china must have a mao poster.

you saw a mao poster on a government embassy, so you deduce that the government must be posting mao's image everywhere in china.

guess what, you are wrong.

i kinda feel sorry for you, throwing illusions against facts is a pretty futile act.

 

[microbe]

In that invasion, by 8 major powers no less, most were also monarchies (Britain, Russia, Germany, Austria, Italy and Japan) Only the US and France were democracies.
Try justifying that war.

So democratic countries and monarchy countries allied against another country.

Exactly perfactly backed up my point.

It's not about defending democracy or human rights. Never.

 

[The Yankee]

I still see no response to the articles I posted on page 7 of this thread that shows that not everything is free and well in Hong Kong, aside from Dann's compliments and comments on how long it would take for HK to fully integrate into Beijing's political structure (thanks, man!).

So, to anyone saying that Hong Kong, as a microcosm of the PRC, is all free and democratic and enjoys even more rights than the US, shall I just declare victory and leave it at that?

 

[microbe]

So, to anyone saying that Hong Kong, as a microcosm of the PRC, is all free and democratic and enjoys even more rights than the US, shall I just declare victory and leave it at that?

Keep in mind Hong Kong never had democracy under the reign of British.

I agree HK isn't as democratic as USA. It can't be. There are always restrictions consider it's part of China which isn't democratic. China government won't like to see a HK that promotes Taiwan independence, for example. The bottomline is still there.

 

[The Yankee]

I know, but have you read some of the posts that say how free and wonderful Hong Kong has been since the transfer? It almost sounded like trying to give Beijing some kind of moral high ground in all this.

 

[JohnRM]

It should be obvious to any reasonable person that neither China nor the U.S. can claim any moral high ground, nor any government of this Earth, for that matter.

 

[luiz]

let me use an example so you understand better

i make the ignorant remark that all brazilans are theives and thugs, because i saw that on tv

you state the fact that most brazilans are not theives and thugs

i accuse you of being a friend of crime

is that fair? can you not see the difference between stating a fact and an opinion?

The difference is that the CCP is in fact tyrannical.
Or you refuse to read my link about Freedom of Press?

if you bothered to read more than one paragraph before you reply you'd see i had stated the evidence

You claimed it's evidence. I'm asking for real evidence, in the form of a link to a respected entity that clearly states that China is somewhat democratic.

the red book thing is after the initial volley of political fighting, when the cultural revolution spread through the country. the original purpose was to eliminate opposition. this is not common knowledge so i don't blame you for not knowing. if you really want to learn, pick up a book (preferably written by a chinese writer) dedicated to the cultural revolution

It IS common knowledge that Mao wanted to kill political enemies.
But that was not the main goal. Why do you thinks the name is "Cultural" Revolution?

we were debating the whole civil war thing because you brought it up. stay, memory, stay

I made one comment about the Civil War, in which I stated that most chinese supported neither sides. This was confirmed by other posters. You insist in saying that the majority supported Mao. You're wrong.

i already did. because what i said was not "claims" they are history. of course, for someone who doesn't know the history, and refuses to believe it's history, that someone needs to go read up instead of questioning the teacher

I can claim whatever I want to be history.
Proving is a bit harder.
The funny thing is that you said that all I did was provide opinions and no proof, while you provided no proof and keeps claiming to be statin history.

and i'm still waiting for your civil war evidence to the contrary, and remember, the press freedom link doesn't count

And I'm waiting for your evidence. You were the one who said my original claim was wrong. You didn't prove me wrong, and has the nerve to keep asking for evidence. Where is YOU evidence?

how is popular support for the communist party 50 years ago relevant to how taiwan people think about independence today?

Not at all.

and you can keep saying i'm wrong, but all the history books say otherwise, and everyone reading is waiting for your evidence to the contrary. so stop yapping about your opinion and bring some facts

What history books? Provide links.
Stop yapping your opinion and bring some facts

you can try to wiggle out of your poor people have no political opinion statement, i don't like kicking someone who's down, someone else will probably have more to say

Dirt poor people do not have political opinions. Not because they are stupid, but because they're too busy struggling to get some food.

no sheet sherlock! i was talking about taiwan poll numbers, and somehow you got chinese peasants involved. and like i said multiple times before. about 80% of them want status quo, less than 5% (about 3% in may,2004 to be exact, down from 6% a while ago) of them want immediate separation. about 17% want immediate reunification.

Keeping the status quo means keeping Peking out of their lifes.

treat the "keep status quo" as neutral, more people want unification than separation.

Dead wrong. It is the opposite.

this is also in line with my talks with people i know in taiwan, and they know much more than you

Proof?

see previous poll number from may 2004. and the election is not based on just one criteria. people knew fully well neither choice was likely to just declare independence out of the blue

See the result of the election, when a pro-independence candidate was elected.

we were talking about mao posters. your paper still has nothing to do with anything we are discussing

It has to do with the immorality of those posters.

look, i was in china just 3 years ago. someone who lives china right now also posted. we both told you, from what we saw with our very own eyes, that mao posters are NOT everywhere.

i know you are not an idiot, but how can you still hold on to your illusions when first hand evidence says otherwise?

let me see what you know. you saw a poster on TV, so you deduce that every stadium in china must have a mao poster.

you saw a mao poster on a government embassy, so you deduce that the government must be posting mao's image everywhere in china.

guess what, you are wrong.

i kinda feel sorry for you, throwing illusions against facts is a pretty futile act.

I feel very sorry for you.

You can't see that not having elections is bad.
You can't see that posters of a mass-murderer are bad(in whatever number)
You can't see that no freedom of press is bad.

You claim to be stating the truth, but prove nothing. You asl for evidence when all you do is provide opinions.

And I don't even know what's your point. Do you support the CCP?

 

[romelus]

The difference is that the CCP is in fact tyrannical.
Or you refuse to read my link about Freedom of Press?

i was well aware of that link months before you even brought it up here. no need to keep beating the only drum you have. you were accusing me of apologizing for the ccp. however, nowhere did i say anything that's based on opinion and not fact.

how is saying the fact "mao posters are actually very hard to find in china" apologizing for the ccp?

how is saying the fact "3% of taiwan people want separation, while 80% want status quo and 17% want unification" apologizing for the ccp?

did i say anywhere something to the tune of "the ccp is cool, the cultural revolution was right, etc. etc."?

You claimed it's evidence. I'm asking for real evidence, in the form of a link to a respected entity that clearly states that China is somewhat democratic.

you just did a switcharoo of topic right in front of everyone. the evidence i asked you to bring was about your claim that "most people didn't support either side in the chinese civil war"

you still haven't brought any. and this is the 3rd time i'm asking to you state some facts

It IS common knowledge that Mao wanted to kill political enemies.
But that was not the main goal. Why do you thinks the name is "Cultural" Revolution?

that was the original goal, like i said before. obviously it manifested into a lot more than that, but this is OT

I made one comment about the Civil War, in which I stated that most chinese supported neither sides. This was confirmed by other posters. You insist in saying that the majority supported Mao. You're wrong.

let me count your "evidence"

1. one other poster stated his opinion (he didn't provide evidence either) which agreed with yours

i seem unable to find number 2...

this is the 3rd time, bring some facts

about the three points i wrote. you will find them in any good history book. i didn't make things up, you did

but since even google is beyond you, let me throw you a link which took me 2 seconds to find
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Chinese-Civil-War

some quotes

Belatedly, the Nationalist government sought to enlist popular support through internal reforms. The effort was in vain, however, because of the rampant corruption in government and the accompanying political and economic chaos...

In January 1949 Beiping was taken by the Communists without a fight, and its name changed back to Beijing. Between April and November, major cities passed from KMT to Communist control with minimal resistance. In most cases the surrounding countryside and small towns had come under Communist influence long before the cities

that's not where i got my info, which came from history books i've read. but it confirms what i said. you WILL find all the info i mentioned if you read some chinese history books

I can claim whatever I want to be history.

i can't sum you up any better

Proving is a bit harder.

in your case, definitely.

The funny thing is that you said that all I did was provide opinions and no proof, while you provided no proof and keeps claiming to be statin history.

the funny thing is that when i asked you for proof about civil war support, you pointed to the press freedom link

when you asked me for evidence, and saw the evidence i gave. you said it must not be the real history

when i gave you poll numbers in taiwan. you started talking about people making $200 a year having no political opinion

very funny indeed. and that's no sarcasm

And I'm waiting for your evidence. You were the one who said my original claim was wrong. You didn't prove me wrong, and has the nerve to keep asking for evidence. Where is YOU evidence?

actually, i asked you for evidence first. you then asked me for evidence without providing any of your own. i gave you the 3 points, and i've even given you a link (since history that you don't like apparently is not history for some reason).

so for the 3rd time, where is YOUR evidence?

What history books? Provide links.

you know the thing called library, or bookstore? unless brazil doesn't have books you do know what i'm talking about.

i also gave you a link and you can find more on google, but chinese history is not covered in detail on the internet. so the best source is books.

Stop yapping your opinion and bring some facts

it's nice to see you acting like my echo. but i did. where is yours facts? the press freedom index again?

Dirt poor people do not have political opinions. Not because they are stupid, but because they're too busy struggling to get some food.

are you speaking from experience, or do you know how the minds of other people work?

Keeping the status quo means keeping Peking out of their lifes.

it also means keeping independence out of their lives. that's why it's a neutral choice

Dead wrong. It is the opposite.

so aside from history, your math also is quite bad.

what is bigger, 17 or 3?

17% want unification, 3% want separation

do more people support unification or separation?

Proof?

i don't tape record conversations i have with friends. if you are too dense to understand that, you'll just have to take the poll numbers which say the same thing

See the result of the election, when a pro-independence candidate was elected.

bush is against all abortions. he was elected. does that mean the majority of americans is against all abortions?

It has to do with the immorality of those posters.

just admit it, you were 100% wrong when you insisted mao posters are everywhere in china

You can't see that not having elections is bad.
You can't see that posters of a mass-murderer are bad(in whatever number)
You can't see that no freedom of press is bad.

actually, i never addressed those issues. and i do think they are bad

it still doesn't change the facts i brought up.

if you say murderer john doe is wearing a red shirt, when he's actually wearing a blue shirt. i'm not saying the murderer is a good or bad man when i tell you "but that guy is wearing a blue shirt".

You claim to be stating the truth, but prove nothing. You asl for evidence when all you do is provide opinions.

for the 5th time i'll say this. bring your facts aside from that press freedom link, which can support your claim about the majority of chinese not caring which side won the civil war.

also bring your facts which support your claim that more taiwan people want separation than independence

follow the link i gave you for the civil war, but better yet read some books

and since i'm such a good guy, i'll even give you a link about the taiwan poll numbers
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/taiwan/2004/taiwan-040507-cna03.htm

some quotes

A total of 84 percent of the respondents said they want the cross-strait status quo to be maintained and will decide whether to support unification with mainland China or Taiwan independence depending on the situation in the future...

Meanwhile, according to the poll, the percentage of respondents supporting Taiwan independence before long declined to 3.3 percent, down from 6.4 percent recorded in the previous poll.

And I don't even know what's your point. Do you support the CCP?

my point is that you shouldn't make up things that you don't know about. i support facts and history, maybe you should too

 

[Constantine]

In that invasion, by 8 major powers no less, most were also monarchies (Britain, Russia, Germany, Austria, Italy and Japan) Only the US and France were democracies.
Try justifying that war.

Well the boxers attacked diplomats, and the European powers thought the gov't was supporting them, an attack on a diplomat is a casus belli so..... Britan was a monarchy at this point, they had an elected house of commons and head of gov't. Japan was a con. monarchy.