Because Taiwan is one of those Cold War commitments that the US keeps, just like our commitment to stick it to Castro until the day he dies. It's an oversimplification, but it saves me a lot of time writing.
yeh. but shouldn't US be a world savior guarding the "freedom" of all people as HS claims? Why treat Tibet differently? Isn't Tibet in the Map of ROC, the Taiwan government anyway?
Originally posted by michecon ...It's always easy to critisize, just like against US. ... What can China do right anyway? ....Well, China is a communist country anyway, why not take a free shot? The same people criticising China for encouraging the study of Han Chinese in some Rural Tibet region where education is backward forget that US require English teraching in ANY public school. There's even an article on NYT sympathizing China on this. ... Relax michecon, we're just discussing. I feel no compulsion to take shots so I know I'm not taking shots. I don't have a problem with China. IMHO, China's problem is it's government. Looking at Hong Kong, one could only imagine what your country's economic might would be if it had been democratic and capitalistic for a number of decades. I can be openly critical of my country when we make mistakes. It certainly appears that China may have made some mistakes in Tibet, even if it's 'owned'. I'm not attacking, just trying to get to the truth (if that's possible).
That says a lot Actually Tibet.com is far more moderate in their opinions than many other sites that cover the subject. I find this interesting. That is exactly the line the Party gave as an excuse to occupy Tibet. Do you also support the policies of relocating mass waves of Han Chinese into Tibet? Why was that done? Could it be to increase a weak political case for occupation? Do you feel the policies of the PRC 1950-1970s under Mao were 'just.' Are you a defender of the 'cultural revolution?' And by supporting this version you are admitting Tibet was 'governed' by someone other than the sitting Chinese government. Oops. You could leave a province where the only people who want you are the Han Chinese you imported after occupation. The problem is that token gestures do not replace autonomy. You seem to defend the decisions of Mao quite vehemently. I wonder if you are happy that China is moving away from his philosophy? Considering the Chinese have killed millions and millions of their own citizens in the last fifty years, it is hard to doubt the claims of those occupied under the PRC's boot. If we could have put the Seventh Fleet between the PRC and China we very well may have. Unfortunately, it just wasn't feasible because of geography.
Sorry for the late reply. I won't let you hog the fun Michecon. Since my reply is too long, I devided it into several sections. 1. Vietnam War The purpose of the Vietnam War was to prevent the N. Vietnam from taking over the S. Vietnam, "to delay Communism from taking over for ten years." is a laughable excuse. The limitations you listed such as fighting long distance wars should be conquered if you assert ridiculously that USA is the Savior of the World. Regardless of the "edge" in battles (of course there should be with superior weaponries), the Vietnam war was still lost. The factor in deciding a war's outcome is to see if it served the original political purpose, which is to contain, ahem *not delay*, communism from taking over Vietnam as a whole. It's not about nit-picking who fares better in single battles. It's in this very aspect that the American army failed miserably. 10 years and 50000 casualties and they still couldn't get the job done. I know they tried hard and I'm glad to see that communism to be halted for a little while as I am on their side, but from pure military point of view they sucked period. The Vietnam war was a military failure as well as a political failure. Ten years fruitless bitter fighting, thousands of lives lost meaninglessly, retreat and communism roaming free in Viet, and you say it¡¦s not a military failure. Delusional. The savior of the world should be able to beat any country. The USA is not the savior of the world as she couldn¡¦t beat Vietnam. End of story. You withdrew the troops as you got stuck in Vietnam, now your lesson from the VW is that you should stuck in there longer so you can win? The lesson of the Vietnam war is that the USA got beaten because they thought they, capable of being the savior of the world, can march into a small country, wipe the enemy out and come out the next week. In short, they lost as they were overly confident, as a result of their superiority complex, something you have in common. Had the USA been more prudent and prepare the war at the highest magnitude from the beginning, that ensures defeating the enemies quickly instead of inadequate initial input which dragged herself into a prolonged guerilla warfare, the outcome would be different. The reason of thousands of American lives wasted there is exactly what you are proposing here, the over confidence from the savior of the world mentality that causes one to lose prudence and perspective. 2.The Savior of the World Typically the USA is blind to turmoil in the world when her interest isn¡¦t concerned, tell me how many lives of innocent Palestinians and Israelis have the USA saved in the ME, savior of the world? The statement of US military presence as the lynchipin of world stability is hardly justifiable, it¡¦s a lame excuse used to justify the expensive overseas spending to the tax payers. Saying Japan will develop nuclear weapons without the American army bases is a laughable assertion that shows a lack of grip on Asian politics. Japan is already engaging in military expansionism. It¡¦s having nuclear weapons is not contingent on the presence of American army. Japan is not developing nuclear weapons as there¡¦s no need to and it¡¦s against their constitution. North Korea and China can¡¦t or is not willing to sabotage their relationships with Japan. North Korea can¡¦t pose a real threat to any country unless they can feed themselves. China wouldn¡¦t allow North Korea to mess with S. Korea and Japan as China has extensive business interests in those two countries. North Korea can¡¦t afford to go against China¡¦s will and face enemies on its both borders. China makes billions of dollars off trading with Japan each year, China gains nothing from confrontation with Japan. China is devoted to having a good relationship with Korea and Japan. Claiming China is a military threat to Japan is baseless and is one of the usual China haters¡¦ tricks to perpetrate the China=aggressor image . 3. The Taiwan issue Taiwan is part of China, China has the right to point missiles to any territory within her border to any rebels as she wishes. Trying to call that as aggression is lame. That equals saying one¡¦s being an aggressor for picking up a gun against robbers. To once again(as you did repeatedly in this and other threads), calling China as an aggressor to Taiwan, while conveniently omitting vital facts, such as China¡¦s promise to not use force unless provoked, and that Taiwan will be allowed to retain status quo and become self governing once upon rejoining China, shows your true colors as either an ignorant observer or a bona fide warmonger perpetrating China hate. Quit playing word games to replace passive usage of force for self defense with aggression, quit trying to make China as the next big new enemies for your warfare appetite. I said in a previous thread in which you took part in before about these details on China and Taiwan, including the historical background, China¡¦s military poise as passive measure to keep the Taiwan independents from going overboard and China¡¦s promise to respect Taiwan¡¦s democracy and freedom, but obviously those details hit a wall and bounced back¡V which seems is what your mind is made of. The China detractors are completely blind to the fact that China only uses forces as a last resort in the Taiwan situation, and China is now relying on economic and cultural ties to take back Taiwan peacefully, which is doing just fine. Your words are cotton and are mostly excuses to sell weapons to Taiwan. In case of war indeed breaking out on Taiwan, the USA wouldn¡¦t give a damn to Taiwan. Mark my words. There¡¦s no real motive for the USA to get involved in the righteous deeds of China taking back Taiwan. It¡¦s hard to accuse China invading Taiwan when you acknowledge for the past 50 years that Taiwan is part of China, as it means you were either a fool who didn¡¦t know about Taiwan, or a liar that sacrificed your conscience to pamper China. Why don¡¦t you be easier on yourself and just admit the historical fact that Taiwan is part of China, and that Taiwan is currently ruled by a government that claims it is the real legitimate government of China. BTW, for the record I¡¦m not saying Taiwanese are land robbers but those independents are. 4. The war hawk mentality The most important of all, proposing that the military presence in Asia is to counter the alleged Chinese aggression is to suggest that China is currently the enemy of USA. Such baseless thoughts are irresponsible, extreme, radical and dangerous. It¡¦s not surprisingly the common stance of China haters. Your military views are based on the old cold war mentality. The cold war is over and you should stop making new enemies for the Americans. If you keep viewing China as an aggressor and enemy, manage to make others believes so, and Americans act accordingly in a hostile manner towards China. I can tell you for sure that one day China will become an enemy of the USA even if she doesn¡¦t want to, thanks to your and your comrades¡¦ efforts. Maybe that¡¦s what you want, but not the case with the sensible American and Chinese people. The NATO was established to contain communism, after the downfall of the communism the NATO is busy finding new purpose to justify its existence. The same goes for ex intelligence personnel and national defense contractors etc. who made a nice living out of confrontation who are missing the good ole days. Now we¡¦ve got people like you spreading paranoia and trying to make phantom enemies with BS speculation and biased media materials. How much do they pay you, officer Hayestreet? 5. The Tibetan issue The reason I brought out the anti-China propaganda factor is that China detractors always use Tibet to exemplify China as a threat and aggressor, which is exactly what you were doing, while once again, gasp, conveniently omitting vital facts that Tibet was a self governing region of China since the Qing dynasty, and that Dali Lama's predecessors were rulers over Tibet under the consent of Chinese emperors. Tibet is an integral part of China, but I guess the anti-China and biased media products such as the movie "Seven years in Tibet" wouldn't tell you that. The articles you listed are one-sided as it fails to acknowledge to basic fact that Tibet¡¦s historical ties with China. One comes off with an impression that Tibet was an independent country invaded by China, which is the opposite of truth. Tibet spun out of the control of the Qing dynasty like other provinces of China, but China hasn¡¦t acknowledged its independence. The reestablishment of the Chinese central government after the Qing dynasty calls for uniting previous provinces of China, Tibet was one part of such reuniting program. The Chinese government has treated Tibetans with respect, actually the government of China treated all minority races with respect, contrary to what the western media promoted. 1.The Chinese government imposes one child policy to the Han race, the majority race of China(I¡¦m of Han race too.) but allows two children for every family of minority. 2.To improve Tibetan and minority races educational level, each minority student is given free points enrolling university, some minority students complained about this, saying that it make themselves feel like idiots given special treatment, LOL. 3.Over 70% of government officials in Tibet are Tibetans, this shows a mutual trust between the Chinese and Tibetans. Would you hire Iraquis as government officials if they are the subject of your aggression? Clearly not. 4.Tibet was one of the most backward region on earth under Dali Lama's ruling. What do you expect when your rulers are a bunch of monks who know nothing of management and construction? We are talking about religious ruling in medival age here-the prime reason for the so called "Dark Ages" in Europe. Now the Tibetans enjoy much better lives than before. They are still poor, but we've been making progress. Adding the fact that the majority leaders in the central government are of the Han race, that they sacrificed their own privileges to the minority race, I would take such ¡§aggression and oppression¡¨ any day. Just something the Western media and websites such as ¡§Tibet.com¡¨ would never tell you about. If I keep whipping out extremely one lopsided opinions based on biased reports like you do, I can make anyone look bad too. China has always been the silent defendant to all these BS. Thanks to the internet that there is finally some balance in the crucifixion of China. What drove Hitler and Germans to commit the bloodcurdling crime they¡¦ve done? Superiority complex. What makes racists unacceptable? Superiority complex. In conclusion, it¡¦s warmongers with superiority complex and self-attached importance that make people turning their backs on each other and the world a distasteful place. As an extension to this truth, a peaceful and friendly relationship between China and USA is vital for people of both countries and the stability of the world. Not some big guns and confrontation as you claim. As long as you place gun and cannon above communication and mutual understanding I don¡¦t see how you can be possibly having a positive value to anyone, your society, your country, and your world.
For those who expressed their interests in Tibet. Here is an objective article on Tibet from a neutral source, the Microsoft Encarta 99's Tibet section. Some redundant parts are omitted for the sake of keeping it concise. I.INTRODUCTION Tibet, province-level administrative region of China, located in a high-mountain area in the southwestern part of the country. It is officially called the Tibet (Chinese Xizang) Autonomous Region (TAR). Throughout its long history, Tibet at times has governed itself as an independent state and at other times has had various levels of association with China. Regardless of China’s involvement in Tibetan affairs, Tibet’s internal government was for centuries a theocracy (state governed by religious leaders), under the leadership of Buddhist lamas, or monks. In 1959 the Dalai Lama (spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism and at that time the head of Tibet’s internal government) fled to India during a Tibetan revolt against Chinese control in the region. China then took complete control of Tibet, installing a sympathetic Tibetan ruler and, in 1965, replacing the theocracy with a Communist administration. III THE PEOPLE OF TIBET The population of the TAR was 2,196,010 at the time of the 1990 census, yielding an average population density of 1.8 persons per sq km (4.7 per sq mi), the lowest of any region in China. Because the 1990 census was the first properly conducted count, population figures for Tibet prior to that date were largely imprecise estimates. Experts believe that before Chinese Communists began controlling Tibet in the 1950s, the region’s population was declining due to illness, poor pre- and postnatal care, and a sizeable proportion of men becoming celibate monks. It is estimated, however, that the population has nearly doubled since that time, as a result of better health care, increased availability of food, and relative political stability. A Ethnic Groups and Languages The majority of people in Tibet are ethnic Tibetans, and the largest minority are Han Chinese, China’s majority ethnic group. According to the 1990 census, 3.7 percent of Tibet’s population was Han Chinese; however, this and other population figures are believed to be incomplete, as they do not include the much larger number of Han who have come to Tibet looking for work opportunities and have not officially registered as residents. The large number of Han has exacerbated already tense relations between Tibetans and China’s central government over governmental policies in Tibet. There are also smaller populations of ethnic Lhoba, Moinba, Deng, Xiaerba, and Hui (Chinese Muslims). Most people in Tibet speak Tibetan, a language of the Tibeto-Burman subfamily of Sino-Tibetan languages. Various dialects of Tibetan are spoken in different regions. Putonghua (Mandarin) Chinese, China’s official language, is also used, particularly by Han Chinese, government agencies, and most commercial enterprises. People can request the use of Tibetan within the legal system. Little Chinese is heard in Tibet’s rural areas. B Religion Historically, religion permeated every aspect of Tibetan life. The only educational system was religious, all cultural and intellectual activities were centered around religious beliefs, and the heads of government were Buddhist monks. However, from 1966 to 1972, during the Cultural Revolution, religious practice in Tibet was completely curtailed. Bands of Red Guards, youths loyal to Chinese leader Mao Zedong, destroyed temples and other religious structures in Tibet, and persecuted monks and nuns.(P.s. the same thing happened in everywhere in China during that period, not exclusively in Tibet.-Panda) Today, Buddhism is practiced widely in Tibet. Many monasteries and other religious buildings have been rebuilt, and monks and nuns are once again openly practicing their religion. Tibetan Buddhists are expected to recite prayers and mantras regularly, prostrate themselves at religious shrines, make offerings to temples and monasteries, and participate in various other religious rituals. Tibetans also enjoy a number of religious and cultural festivals, including Lohar, the Tibetan New Year; Monlam, which celebrates the victory of Buddha over his opponents; Sakadawa, which celebrates the anniversary of the birth, death, and enlightenment of the Buddha; and the Butter Lamp Festival, which commemorates the death of Tsong Khapa, the founder of the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism. However, the Chinese government still enforces various restrictions, which many Tibetans deeply resent. These include a limitation on the number of clergy and the number of religious buildings. Moreover, police agents are assigned to the monasteries to prevent political activities. At times, the government also outlaws the public display of the Dalai Lama’s picture. C Education Prior to the 1950s there was no formal educational system in Tibet and very few people were literate. Most Tibetan monks were taught to memorize religious scriptures rather than read them. The Chinese introduced secular, formal state schooling in 1952. By the mid-1990s there were more than 3000 schools in Tibet and the literacy rate was estimated at about 50 percent. Tibetan is the language of instruction in lower grades, shifting to Putonghua in later years. In the mid-1990s Tibet had four institutions of higher learning, all located in Lhasa: Tibet University, the Institute for Nationalities, the Agricultural and Animal Husbandry College, and the Tibetan Medical College. D Way of Life Since assuming control in the 1950s, the Chinese Communist administration has improved Tibet’s transportation infrastructure. Furthermore, Tibet’s economy has grown and diversified. As a result, Tibetans in urban areas now enjoy considerably more material benefits in the form of food, clothing, housing, technology, and entertainment. Far less improvement has occurred in rural areas. Modern conveniences have also allowed for a wider dissemination of traditional culture. Tibet has a number of professional opera and theatrical troupes, which perform throughout the region and elsewhere. There are Tibetan-language television and radio programs, as well as newspapers and books. In spite of these material changes, however, Tibet remains one of the poorest regions in China, particularly its rural areas. In the mid-1990s the average annual per capita income for city dwellers was about $120, while rural people earned about half that amount. Although the Chinese government contributes subsidies to help offset Tibet’s low standard of living, controversy has developed over who benefits from this aid. China’s central government has admitted that more money has gone to better the lives of Chinese officials and workers in Tibet than the lives of Tibetans. Throughout most of Tibet’s history, women were treated as second-class citizens. Although the Chinese government legalized the equality of women in the 1950s, everyday practice continues to lag far behind the law. In the mid-1990s a small number of Tibetan women held positions in local government, higher education, and the arts. IV ECONOMY Subsistence agriculture dominates the Tibetan economy. Arable land, concentrated mostly in the river valleys, is limited in area. The principal subsistence crops are barley, wheat, buckwheat, rye, potatoes, and various vegetables and fruits. Cotton, soybeans, walnuts, tea, and hemp are grown as commercial crops. Livestock raising is the primary occupation of the Tibetan Plateau region. In addition to sheep, cattle, and goats, the herds include camels, yaks, horses, and other beasts of burden. Some coal mining takes place in Tibet. The region’s manufacturing sector has expanded since 1959 but remains limited to small-scale enterprises producing such goods as textiles and electrical equipment. The production of local handicrafts constitutes a major supply of income. Craft items include woolen carpets, fabrics, aprons, quilts, clothing, furniture, wooden bowls, gold and silver jewelry, and Tibetan hats. There are no railroads in Tibet. The road system, which did not exist before 1950, has grown to about 22,000 km (about 14,000 mi). A trans-Tibetan highway now runs from west to east. Other highways connect the region with Xinjiang and Qinghai to the north, Sichuan to the east, and Nepal and India to the south. Tibet has two commercial airports; the more important one is located near Lhasa. Since the 1980s tourism has become an important source of revenue in Tibet. Most visitors stay in the Lhasa area, although Xigaz?and the base camp of Mount Everest are also popular sites. V GOVERNMENT Tibet is officially an autonomous region of China, which means that an ethnic Tibetan heads the regional government. In reality, however, major decisions are made by the central government in Beijing. Ethnic Tibetans comprise about 70 percent of government cadres (administrators) in Tibet. The most powerful officials in Tibet, including the head of the local Communist Party office, are typically Han Chinese. VI HISTORY Prior to the 7th century, when Buddhism was introduced into Tibet by missionaries from India, the history of the region is unclear. Buddhist missionaries developed an alphabet for the Tibetan language and initiated translations of Buddhist sacred texts. They also conducted a relentless struggle against Bon, the indigenous religion of Tibet, which was based largely on shamanism (seeShaman). In the period of Buddhist penetration, which led to the development of Lamaism (Buddhism characterized by hierarchical organization of lamas, or monks), Tibet was a strong kingdom. Toward the end of the 10th century the kingdom began to disintegrate, eventually splitting into a number of small principalities. Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan incorporated the area into his empire in 1206. In the 15th century the Mongols named the head of the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism the Dalai Lama (monk with an ocean of wisdom) and in the 1640s they granted him political power in Tibet. A Chinese Control In the 18th century Tibet came under the control of China. However, in the course of the following century, Chinese authority diminished steadily. Meanwhile, British colonial officials in India, including administrator Warren Hastings, attempted to secure a foothold in the region. These efforts proved unsuccessful, mainly because of Tibetan resentment of an unsuccessful Nepalese invasion of Tibet in the 1790s, which the British had supported. In 1904 the British, who were alarmed over purported Russian influence in Tibet, invaded the region. At that time, Tibet had considerable autonomy under Chinese authority. In 1906 the British and Chinese governments established an agreement by which Britain recognized the Chinese Empire as Tibet’s suzerain power (state that controls another state’s international affairs). The agreement also provided for the Chinese government’s payment of a large indemnity to the British, who subsequently withdrew their troops. In 1907 the British and Russian governments concluded an agreement pledging noninterference in Tibetan affairs and acknowledging Chinese suzerainty. B Nominal Independence Following the revolutionary overthrow of China’s Qing dynasty in 1911, Tibetans reasserted their independence and began expelling all Chinese officials and troops from the region, which they accomplished by 1913. That year representatives of Britain, China, and Tibet met in Simla, India, to discuss Tibet’s status and borders. The representatives reached a tentative agreement that provided for a region known as Inner Tibet to become part of China proper and for Chinese suzerainty over an autonomous Outer Tibet, located further west. Despite British and Tibetan acceptance, the Simla agreement was never ratified by the Chinese government, and China later repudiated the convention, refusing to abandon its claim to all of Tibet. Relations between China and Tibet grew increasingly strained, culminating in 1918 in an armed conflict in eastern Tibet. Later that year, the British helped negotiate a truce between Tibet and China. Subsequent efforts to resolve the dispute were unsuccessful. C Reincorporation into China In October 1950, little more than a year after the Communist Party had gained control of mainland China, Communist troops invaded Qamdo (Chamdo) on Tibet’s eastern border. To rally the Tibetans against the advancing Chinese force, the regent, governor ruling for the 15-year-old 14th Dalai Lama, invested the Dalai Lama with full authority. However, in May 1951 the Tibetan government capitulated, signing a treaty that gave the Dalai Lama power in domestic affairs but ceded control of foreign and military affairs to the Chinese government. The treaty also provided for the return from China of the 12-year-old Panchen Lama—the Lamaist spiritual authority—whose predecessor had gone into self-imposed exile in 1923 because of monetary and political disputes with the 13th Dalai Lama. Chinese military units reached Lhasa in October. The Panchen Lama arrived there in April 1952. The Chinese made efforts to improve communications in Tibet. They completed airfields in various parts of the region and constructed military highways. A purge of anti-Chinese officials in Tibet was reportedly carried out in early 1953. The following year, the Indian government recognized Tibet as part of China and withdrew the troops it had stationed at two Tibetan trading posts. Under the terms of an agreement signed in 1955, India ceded to China its control of telephone, telegraph, and postal systems in Tibet. D Tibetan Revolt In 1954 the Dalai Lama was appointed to a nominal position in the Chinese government. In 1956 a committee was established to prepare a constitution for Tibet as an autonomous region of China; the Dalai Lama was named chairman and the Panchen Lama first vice chairman of the committee. Guerrilla activity against the Chinese regime broke out in areas of Sichuan Province where ethnic Tibetans were living. The Dalai Lama, who was visiting India at the time, threatened not to return to Tibet. The Chinese government announced that the socialist transformation of Tibet would be postponed, but the rebellion in the east was not contained. Nevertheless, the Dalai Lama voluntarily returned to Lhasa. The rebellion grew with the aid of the United States Central Intelligence Agency until March 1959, when it flared into a full-scale revolt in Lhasa. (P.s. clearly such revolts are fueled by Dalai Lama and capitalistic countries - Panda) The rebellion was to last until 1971, but after 1959 it was more a nuisance to the Chinese government than a real threat. Meanwhile, the Dalai Lama fled to India, where he established a community of Tibetans. The Chinese made the Panchen Lama the acting head of the region. On October 21, 1959, the United Nations (UN) approved a resolution deploring the suppression of human rights in Tibet. A similar resolution was passed on March 9, 1961. These resolutions occurred at a time when the UN was preventing China’s Communist government from membership in the organization. Tens of thousands of Tibetans fled Tibet after the Chinese invasion. Most settled in India. (P.s. I'd fled too if I was under Communism, but it doesn't mean Tibet isn't part of China.-Panda) Others took refuge in the Himalayan kingdoms of Nepal and Bhutan. In 1965 Tibet was formally established as an autonomous region of the People’s Republic of China, and the Communist government announced that the region would undergo steady socialist reorganization. Contributed By: A. Tom Grunfeld
Lots, actually. If Israel had not had US support they well could have been overrun by INVADING Arab countries. At a later point, once Israel had developed their nuclear capability, US security guarantees may well have stopped Israelis from nuking Syria et al. Also in return for US support Israel has stayed their hand on many an occasion where they may otherwise have done much more damage to Palestinian areas. And I'll also point out that its the US everyone has turned to ensure peace in the middle east, which we've helped come a long way (see Camp David Accords). But its interesting that you divert the point to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My point was based on US presence in the Persian Gulf. About which you say...zero. Nice tactic. Its the same one Saddam is using now. Really? Well, this story is from June 3, 2002: "Revisions to Japan’s constitution, now under debate, could open the door to Japan possessing nuclear weapons, according to a high-ranking Japanese official." Or try this one: "...the overwhelming nature of American military predominance in East Asia discourages competition; why enter a race you cannot win or win only at excessive cost? China and Japan, in contrast, are far more evenly balanced. Absent an American military presence, it is all too easy to imagine a debilitating and dangerous arms race developing between Tokyo and Beijing." (Joe Barnes, Research Fellow, James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, Rice University) It must be hard to be China. All this aggression from all sides! Being constantly under threat from India, Vietnam, Russia, Japan, the US, and even Taiwan and Tibet, LOL! WHO is being delusional? See above. Strange. If that is true then why (and HOW with starving a population) did N Korea launch ballistic missles into Japan territory? And HOW is N Korea able to develop a nuclear program with starving people? Probably the same way China did, let your own people die while hoarding resources for outward aggression. Apparently the Japanese do not feel that way, as they are concerned about your outward aggression. Both China's expansion of blue water naval capabilities as well as their aggression towards Taiwan and towards the Spratly's. And if financial concerns were the main issue holding China back then you wouldn't be messing with Taiwan, since they are your largest investor. Sure. The same way China should be able to point missles at Siberia and say they used to control THAT territory. Or maybe even Moscow? Or maybe the Italians can invade North Africa and the UK and say 'that used to be our territory.' Or England can invade 2/3 of the world and say 'you used to belong to us.' To call it anything but aggression is silly. Yes, its very generous of the PRC to say they won't attack Taiwan as long as Taiwan does what China wants. Such a peaceloving government. Yes, those who criticise Chinese policy are obviously blind, lol. Well, in '96 when we put American lives at risk by sailing the Seventh Fleet into the Formosa Straits, what was that? Oh yeah, it was the PRC backing down their threatening overtures against Taiwan. No doubt the US has played power politics by opening relations with the PRC to balance the USSR. but since we've be a guarantor of Taiwan's security for over fifty years, I hardly think that constitutes 'sacrificing our conscience. I don't think Taiwan should have to worry about Chinese threats of forced reunification. I don't think those born and breed on Taiwan owe some debt of alleigance to the PRC. Personally, I'd be happy to see the two reunited. Although it would be much better if the PRC agreed to adopt Taiwan's governmental system. I understand that you feel China has never been aggressive, and is just picked on by other powers. However, I have also pointed out and documented instances of Chinese aggression. China has threatened to invade Taiwan, it has invaded disputed territories in the Spratly's, it has invaded Vietnam, it has invaded Tibet. It is spending billions on new weapons systems specifically designed for OFFENSIVE operations. None of those are consistent with the '5 Norms' nor are your claims that everyone is out to get China realistic. Hopefully the PRC as we know it will not be around much longer. As the old guard dies off and new forces take hold, as democratic decision making increases I hope we will not be enemies. But the current actions of the PRC are not indicative of that future. The current drive for military superiority of an offensive nature does not make this outcome probable. As such the US will stay engaged in East Asia as a guarantor of peace in the region. If China wants to test that, so be it. I wish that it were so. As it is there are enemies out there. The communist regime in the PRC may be one of them. It depends on how quickly your system changes and how much aggression you press on with. And I wouldn't have any problem working for a defense contractor or RAND or the Heritage Foundation or whatever. My views are not constructed by those sources, only reinforced. I didn't see that movie. Was it good? As I said before, if every country that 'used to control' (which may not even be the case with Tibet) a territory tried to take it back, the world would be a much more dangerous place. It is kind silly to say 'back in the Qing dynasty...' Well, guess what. In the 50s you didn't control Tibet. They had their own government. The PRC invaded and has violently repressed Tibetans ever since. I find it interesting that you don't seem to support the hardline communists, and yet you try at each turn to justify their decisions. Where is YOUR conscience? You mean contrary to what anyone not still under the PRCs control says, including the Tibetans. Let's look at some of these policies... "The gender specific torture methods against Tibetan women in prison included laceration of nipples, electrical cattle prod forcefully inserted into the vagina, besides wrapping electrical wires around breast and body. Tibetan women in Tibet are subjected to forced sterilization, contraception and abortion. Unauthorised pregnancies have to deal with fines and denial of privileges, including the right to education and employment of the illegitimate child. This cohersive birth control policy laid down by the Chinese government poses a critical threat to the survival of Tibetans." (DECCAN HERALD Sunday, November 26, 2000) Nice figure. Clearly misleading however: "...the Tibet Autonomous Region Religious Affairs Bureau had issued regulations that restricted leadership of management committees of temples to "patriotic and devoted monks and nuns." To bolster loyalty to the party, the Government stepped up efforts to ensure that party cadres in Tibet, over 70 percent of whom are ethnic Tibetans, adhere to the party's code of atheism." (SaveTibet.org) And i'll point out that the 30% that are Han dominated more than likely control policy, and they weren't even there before PRC attempts at cultural genocide by importing Han Chinese into Tibet after the occupation. I would call Mao's rule the 'Dark Ages.' So NO i don't think that's an improvement. From your previous posts, you don't think the Cultural Revolution was a good thing, so why are you supporting it now? Just to be disagreeable? In the PRC you don't have any choice. Interesting that in the Taiwan threads you've said 'why don't Taiwanese come back and help change China,' and in this thread you say 'its all Western lies.' Of course it would be better to cooperate instead of confront, but your picture of the PRC is skewed. The actions of the PRC do not necessarily match the ambitions of the people, which I believe are peaceful. When they are, I don't think we'll have a problem. I moved this to the bottom since it seems pointless. This doesn't seem to be resolvable. I point out that every military engagement was 'won' by the US, and you say since S Vietnam fell it was a military failure. Not sure how it can be a military failure when the military never lost a battle, lol. It was a political failure. Nope. The lesson is that extreme limitations placed on the military by politicians is undesirable. It is the main reason the US is now obsessed with having a clear goal before we intervene. Sorry, but you are wrong. The reason S Vietnam fell is that the US military was not allowed to fully pursue the war in N Vietnam. In fact, N Vietnam was seriously considering stopping their move on S Vietnam, but stayed on course due to the political upheaval in the US, which they eventually felt would cause a US withdrawl.
Cohen, I'm not pointing at you. I'll be the first to be critical of Chinese government. I'm just tired that anti-China drone will always point to Communist when discussing issues about Tibet and Taiwan. They don't even know the other side's story well, but they think they don't need to cus it's communist. In fact, China will not be "communist", if not for the wars western powers inflicted on from Ching, if not for teh cold war b/w Washtinton and Moscaw, if the government Wanshington is so fond of "keeping the promise" was not so corrupt. history maybe different If Washington Diplomats could talk to Mao before they withdraw from Nanjing, Beijing was pushed in some way to the arms of Moscow. Long history, all kind of shades....
LOL...I was against the government in 89, let along cultural revolution Just because Tibet was "autonamous" then and now doesn't mean China invaded Tibet. How about Mongolia, no love for them? LOL. And you mean US doesn't want to do or doesn't have capability of defending freedom where 7th fleet can't reach? Think! Sorry I don't have time or interest to argue with you point by point. All I have to suggest is to read a bit more about international law. get an official Map of ROC, your model Chinese government, if possible. You'll suprisingly see Tibet and sparkly there. Go to Tibet, talk to some real people there. If you are really convinced that its communism's fault, read again the US history, whatever happaned to American Indians under superb US constitution?
Hmmm. I've read quite a bit about international law. I've seen maps of the area. Neglecting an answer by saying 'I don't have time but you're wrong' is not persuasive. And I'll point out there is plenty of information available on the internet from PEOPLE IN TIBET and their version is most dissimilar to yours. The only version I can find that fits your explanation are those copied word for word from the CCP press releases.
A: "All I have to suggest is to read a bit more about international law." B: Hmmm. I've read quite a bit about international law. A: get an official Map of ROC, your model Chinese government, if possible. ......... B: I've seen maps of the area. ......... I'd rather stay unpersuasive then.
edit... michecon, i think you have a wealth of information to share, as well as a different perspective from my own. i also can understand a vigorous defense of your homeland (if that's not assuming too much). my perspective on the Taiwan issue is that the PRC would have already moved militarily to retake the island if they had the capability. since they do not the PRC lobs missles and 'conducts excercises' to intimidate Taiwan's decisions when they contradict the PRCs goals. i think the arguments you make about the PRCs actions in Tibet would be akin to me saying 'native Americans were backwards and so we needed to take over to put them in schools and build roads,' which i don't think you'd find persuasive. international law is a funny thing. first it is not static, it is constantly in flux. second, it is constantly written and rewritten according to the political dynamics of different situations. saying 'read more international law' is not conducive to further discussion. i also find it interesting that you say you're a critic of the government, and yet defend every decision they've made. i find that to be contradictory and confusing. in each case we've discussed (war with vietnam, india, USSR, tibet issue, taiwan issue) you consistently say 'you are China hating' or you don't know anything about the issue, which is simply unrealistic considering the nature of the CCP. in the past I have had the opportunity to participate in US/China policy forums, and have myself been a proponent of lifting technology restrictions (things like dual use technologies that could be used for civilian or military purposes) in order to engender a cooperative spirit between our two countries. however, i believe the PRC plays power politics better than most countries, and often disingenously maintains a posture of 'we only want peace for all, and we only want growth for all' while enacting policies contrary to those goals. you seem to take those statements are writ (like the 5 norms). i do not think that view is factually correct. i look forward to your insight in future posts, even if we must avoid each other.
Thanks. Got to treasure my hard earned appreciation May as well be true before Korea War. Not any more. Misile? the Government just don't want Taiwan takes on the road of independency (which US agree), but it miscalculated the Taiwan politics. CCP beauracrats isn't the smartest in the world Somewhat similarity, except Tibet was a part of China, but the vast west wasn't a part of US. Of course, America today isn't its past self, much better. But at least it shows US isn't always on the moral high ground. Agreed. hew, hard to come by May I add that its mostly written by power nations, although small nations increased their voice over time. Nations are on different devoloping stages, but the most developed ones have the most say, which is unfortuantely for some nations . I have plenty criticism in my drawer, including Tibet policy. But I'll keep them there Let me review my points so far: vietnam: active defence mixed with goal to curtain Soviets. There was Vietnamese cleansing of ethnic Chinese and border disputes prior to war. Tibet: All I waas saying all along was "there's no such a thing as Chinese invasion of Tibet". India: not an expert. Given US and USSR's power play in the sub-continent and India's unfriedlyness to its neighbours, I won't just call China a aggressor before I see all the facts. Taiwan: It's part of one China, although there is a current political entity there as a result of the past civil war. See my posts elsewhere for more. USSR: never said anything. PRC does play power politics sometime, especially through alliance with the other powers. It was a matter of survival. however, PRC stays focus on its own boundaries not meant to change other nations' course(except a few cases during the extreme leftism period) and doesn't issue whitepaper for other countries domestic affairs. Stay tuned
Sorry, almost forget to thank you for that. BTW, you may just have inevidently given away military secrets and where middlesex is on a BBS
