I agree this has been going on for a long time and more than likely there will not be an invasion of Taiwan. China has too much to lose, but by constantly pressuring Taiwan to rejoin China may succeed by offering them a semi-independent state such as Hong Kong. Taiwan would be an enormous economic boost for China, so I doubt we see an end to the reunification pressure any time soon. CHINA-TAIWAN HISTORY The tensions between China and Taiwan find their roots in the 1949 Chinese revolution, when communists led by Chairman Mao claimed control of the mainland. Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek withdrew to Taiwan, with two million refugees, vowing the reclaim the mainland. With the influx of so many refugees, resentment grew between the millions of native Taiwanese and the mainland newcomers. The conflict reached such a point that Chiang imposed a "perpetual" martial law over the island for the next 38 years. Thousands of opponents were executed under his rule, and severe restrictions were placed on civil and political liberties. With the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 U.S. President Harry S. Truman ordered the 7th Fleet into the Taiwan Strait to prevent possible Chinese attack on the island. It was the first time the United States had intervened in the conflict between the island and mainland. The U.S. considered Taiwan a buffer against communist expansion in Asia and provided the island money and military supplies. Calls for independence During the 1960s some native Taiwanese, upset by the rule of the mainland minority, began to call for independence from China. It was during this time that focus shifted from reclaiming the mainland to developing the island itself. But it was also during this period that the U.S. and other countries began improving relations with China as a way to prevent Soviet expansionism. In 1971, the United Nations expelled Taipei's nationalist government in favor of Beijing's. Eight years later, the United States formally recognized the People's Republic of China, severing official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, now under the rule of Chiang's son, Chiang Ching-kuo. The U.S. move meant that America accepted Beijing's "one China" mandate and abandoned its defense pact with the island. Within months, though, the U.S. Congress reinstated unofficial economic ties with Taiwan, including the sale of arms. Democratic movements began to stir on Taiwan in 1979. A rally in the southern city of Kaohsiung turned violent and was crushed by police. The leaders were arrested and later defended by a little-known, but successful, maritime commerce lawyer named Chen Shui-bian. Chen, twenty years later, would become the first non-Nationalist party elected Taiwanese president. Lee Teng-hui becomes president Taiwan dropped its martial law in 1987, only a year before the death of Chiang Ching-kuo. On Chiang's death, Vice President Lee Teng-hui became the first native islander to become president, and in 1990, the National Assembly elected him to a full six-year term. Lee tried to strengthen diplomatic relations with countries around the world, including the U.S. In 1995, he traveled to the United States and met with President. As presidential elections neared in 1996, tensions in the Taiwan Straits reached a new level when China test fired missiles in March. Many in Taiwan said the mainland was trying to influence voting in the election by the show of force. The U.S. responded by sending warships to the straits, in what would become the largest show of naval force since the Vietnam War. President Clinton ordered to aircraft carrier battle groups to patrol the area. The elections went forward as planned and Lee decisively won a second term. The Hong Kong handover In 1997, as Britain prepared to return control of Hong Kong to China, Taiwan conducted live military exercises in the Straits. Experts said it was to demostrate that Taiwan would not quiretly follow the Hong Kong example. The United States began shipping fighter jets to Taiwan that year, and on the island itself the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party won municipal elections. In 1999, President Lee announced that Taiwan enjoyed a "special state-to-state relationship" with China. This statement of implied state sovereignty angered Beijing. Taipei backed away from the position, but talks between the two leaderships were cut off. Democratic Progressive Party This year, as Taiwan prepared for its next presidential election tension over the independence issue flared again. This time, three candidates were running: Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic Progressive Party, independent James Soong Chu-yu and Nationalist Vice President Lien Chan. As the three candidates appeared close in the polls, Premier Zhu Rongji threatened "bloodshed" if the Taiwanese voters "acted on impulse." Though he did not directly say it, the statement was pointed at supporters of Chen, whose party calls for independence. Despite the veiled threats, Chen won narrowly by 310,000 votes, collecting 39.3 percent of the vote. Soong placed second after departing the Nationalist party, leaving Lien in third. For the first time in 50 years, a non-nationalist KMT party leader would take the helm in Taiwan. Some Taiwanese said they rallied behind Chen in the wake of China's threats. Others liked his pledge to defeat corruption. Since the election, Chen has softened his party's call for a sovereign "Republic of Taiwan," and said he will not declare independence unless Taiwan comes under military attack.
are you seriously equating the Nazi regime to the Allies in WWII?? i understand war is a b****...and that people die. but you can't not fight off people like Hitler.
Its probably relevant to note that 'constructive engagement' was Bush Sr.'s policy, which Clinton just continued. So if there is a policy change (which seems to be the case), its Bush Jr. changing Bush Sr.'s policy, not Clintons.
No! I´m saying I think it´s just as bad if a person is killed by a nazi, as a person being killed by "an american freedom fighter". I also happen to think that the single most terrible act of WWII was the US nuking Japan killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Of course I think the nazi regime was horrible and needed to be taken from power. I wish it would have been done some other way though.
I wish I could win the lottery. Still not gonna happen. How exactly would you have stopped the Nazis? Diplomacy? Also, are you one of those people that believes the Holocaust didn't happen? I don't know how someone could say that the US did the worst thing by dropping the bomb. Many lives were also saved by that act.
i wish it could have, too. i would disagree that was the worst...i think the continual horror of the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis was just about as low as humanity has ever sunk.
We didn't stop the Nazis, big bad Joe Stalin did. Russia defeated Nazi Germany almost single handed. While Stalin begged and begged FDR and Churchill to open up a second front, they refused. Stalin is quoted as saying that Churchill wanted the Nazis to fight to the last Russian before a second front would be opened. I think we were on the right side in WWII and that as far as wars go, our side was by far the just side. The good guys. But that does not make up for using Atomic weapons on a people who were negotiating their surrender. Right after Slavery and the Native American Holocaust, it is the darkest mark on our nations history. Regardless of which side we were on. On an entirely different note, I'm sure the deformed and mutated survivors of the the 2 A-Bombs didn't hate us for dropping the bombs, they were probably just jealous of all our wealthy western ways.
Right, Joe Stalin did it all by himself right? No help from the US whatsoever. Enough of that revisionist history. And who helped the most in rebuilding Germany and Japan into stable democracies? Try not to hate the US so much, it might help you to see things objectively.
wowming -- while i have infinite sympathy for those people...we were beginning an invasion of the main island of Japan. my grandfather was in the army and on his way there when the announcement was made about surrender. estimates of casualites at the time were pegged around 1 million...civilian and otherwise. i have also heard it said that the firebombing that all forces did during WWII was much more horrific than the atom bomb effects. but ultimately...we're judging the decisions of men at war some 60 years ago...through all we know today. given what they knew at the time, i would not equate this to the evils of our treatment towards Native Americans or the evils of slavery. We have those things to be ashamed of...but finishing a war we didn't start is not one I put up on the same shelf as those events.
Thanking you for being a voice of reason. It should be news to no one that China has long had the military capability to sink Taiwan if they wanted to. And, that they are powerful enough to make the US think twice about a counter-strike. The US is always upgrading their military equipment as well. Are they publishing alarmist articles about it in China? (ok, probably) What I do find distrurbing is that the Pentagon is couching it in those terms as if to prepare us to start hating on China some more. They did it recently with Cuba as well, saying they had dual-use facilities that could produce bioweapons. Suggestive but not really indicative of anything. I'm not a type to pin everything on Bush, but it seems increasingly apparent to me that he's sending the US into a security dilemma spiral. We arm ourselves to stay ahead of the pack; others like China step up to avoid being totally outclassed; the US feels threatened and arms even more; China gets real worried the US will try something and stocks up more; the US says the Chinese are getting ready to attack and we better do something preemptively or else they'll kill us. This is not a good road to go down.
The worst SINGLE action then. Of course the whole holocaust was even worse. I wish the nazis had been stopped before they came to power, or before they started attacking everybody. There were loads of warning signs for the world. No one did much about it. Try all you want to justify dropping a nuclear bomb, let alone two, on cities full of people. There are things even more horrendous. That´s just not a very good argument. It saved lives. About this I can only speculate. It´s not a justification to me.
Nuking Japan saved American lives. Those sneaky bastards deserve no sympathy for their atrocities. They didn't lose any sleep over the destruction of Pearl Harbor, raping Nanking, annexing Korea and Taiwan, experimenting on live humans, comfort women, and brutalizing the entire Far East. We did the right thing there and saved many people from Japan's inhumanity.
So american lives are more valuble than Japaneese lives? Of course there are japaneese people who think those things they did were horrible. Just like there are americans who think dropping nuclear boms is horrible. And you´re right there are probably japaneese who didn´t/don´t loose any sleep over all those things. Just like there are americans like you who think dropping nuclear bpmbs on cities is ok.
you're aware that the japanese took more than american lives, right? i don't think you're going to find many people who are gung-ho about nuclear weapons, Legendary...but in all honesty, we were attacked. We didn't seek a war. we went on the offensive throughout the Pacific, but we were ultimately defending. relating that to the atrocities of experimenting on people...and the horrors of the Holocaust...I just can't get there conceptually.
In this case of war where it comes down to us or them, then yes, American lives are more important than Japanese lives. Killing innocent people is terrible regardless of nuclear weapons, but we did what was right, which was to end the war with as few casualties as possible. The empire of the sun was raping and slaughtering Chinese to the West, colonizing Korea to the Northwest, beat up the Russians to the North, sneak attacked the US to the East, and pillaged the Pacific to the South. They were a rabid dog that needed to be put down. I feel sorrow for the innocent people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but my sympathy is reserved for the dead servicemen and the victims of the Japanese sword.
Without a doubt the napalming of Tokyo was the single most destructive act of WWII. One hundred thousand or more killed and one million left homeless. However, saving American lives was just one in a myriad of reasons we dropped those Atomic bombs on Japan. As for the nuclear option with China that will never happen, China's nuclear capabilities are at a point which they could inflict severe destruction on the US mainland as well as our allies.
The whole world looks up to us? Haha...what about France? A lot of people dislike us now... especially some Middle Easterns...
In light of the Black History case, I would like to ask all those who are not Chinese to leave this thread. What do you know about Chinese politics? Sarcasm, in case you don't get that.
Sink? Yes. Invade? No. That is a recent push by the PRC as part of their overall strategy to be able to project their power off the mainland (also relevant for their grab of the Spratly Islands oil fields. It would do the PRC little good to wipe Taiwan off the map (by going nuclear) since what they want is the land and Taiwan's cash. As it is they do NOT have the capability to conventionally invade Taiwan. Even without US intervention Taiwan stands an even chance of repelling such an attempt, and with US backing (ie the 7th Fleet) their chances of success are nill. It is the military's job to anticipate and prepare for current and future threats. It is not about 'china hatin.' It is not unrealistic to foresee the PRC being a large security challenge in the future, especially since they are modernizing their armed forces for projection outside its own borders (ie a blue water navy). It needs those capabilities to protect its borders from neither India nor Russia. No doubt Jr. has refocused our foreign policy approach (ie the Bush Doctrine), but taking a hardline approach is a viable foreign policy option and has just as successful record, if not more so, than 'constructive engagement' policies.
