Sishir, I do know that all countries spy on each other. However, what the US exhibited went far beyond what you would consider routine spy activity, if there is such a thing. For example, the US still flies EP-3's along Chinese waters. And the only reason they don't do it over Chinese territory (as they did up to the late 70's with U-2, F4, etc) is because now the Chinese are far more capable to shoot any of them down. I also think you are simplifying the situation, by a lot. You see, aside from being Chinese territory, Taiwan just also happens to be smack in the middle of a pretty strategically important place. Having a force hostile to the Chinese, backed by a bigger force hostile to the Chinese will always be a thorn. So in other words, it isn't simply about some idiotic flagwaivers and political opportunists. It isn't simply for economic reasons. And it certainly isn't simply political ideology, neo-communism or otherwise. There are real potential threats to the safety and prosperity to China should such situation be allowed to continue. However, you wouldn't be the first to oversimplify the situation. As for Chen, well here's the story. There use to be a pretty bad joke among the Chinese all those flagwaiving TIers, whom also happen to be very pro-Japan (Japan always favoured an independent Taiwan, for obvious reasons). They said that those TIers must be the bastards of Japanese comfort women during WWII. Well, it was just a bad joke until it was proven to be true. The most serious incident involving quite a few old TIers were photographed waving Jap flags, shouting Taiwan independence while wearing IJA uniforms. That pretty much shocked the Chinese and anywhere between 10 - 25% of TIers (depends on who you ask) have some Jap in them. So it started off as a bad joke, but it just ended being bad. Former president Lee Tenghui have 1/4 (or something like that) Jap blood in him and he renewed that tie by attending college in Japan. So you are right, calling Chen a semi Jap b*stard is bad taste on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be true.
Forgot to mention, speaking of letting people choose, there is a Hawaii autonomy petition too, which was blocked by congress. Of course, media in the good ole US of A chose not to report that.
Doing my best Al Pacino voice - I keep trying to get out, but they keep pulling me back in. I wonder if you are actually familiar with the website or just making a claim based on the name, which sounds very... Nationalistic. They have more accurate information than almost any source on the internet. The gentleman who runs the site, John Pike, is certanly not afraid to be critical of American policy when asked by news media. The data pressented on his site is clear and factual, and tries not to mix fact and opinion. The analysis is written from an American, but not an ideological one and not one prone to distortion of facts. Whereas I agreed with your assessment of my source in the past, I would urge you to reconsider in this case. I don't disagree. We spy. They spy. Everybody spies. Nothing wrong with that. If the PRC wasn't attempting to spy on the United States, I would consider it a sign of incompetence. I will even agree with you that the nature of our spying has always been greater on our part, specifically in the form of SIGINT. I would argue that part of that has to do with the fact that we can. U2 flights flew over the Soviet Union until Gary Powers was shot down, at which point they stopped. A reading of the book Body of Secrets by James Bamford details the extensive ways in which the NSA has, over the years, gathered information on everyone, including our allies. Perhaps you have not heard of the USS Liberty intelligence ship, and its destruction by our allies, the Israelis? If the PRC had the means to to the SIGINT that the US does on the US, do you think they wouldn't? Again, reconcile this statement with westernmost provinces of China. There was a state in place (whose name I forget at the moment) that was co-opted into China in Xinjiang. There were peoples there before the Chinese. I don't believe they ever formally agreed to be co-opted by China. In fact, I don't believe that the KMT ever officially gave up any claims on Beijing when they were kicked out by the PLA. I urge you to look at the criteria you are applying in your Taiwan argument. If you apply it across the board, the northwestern 1/3 of China should be made a free state. I'll go back and look at maps if you want me to, but I'm sure that after the Tang dynasty, no land west or south of Gansu was part of China. Isn't there a reason that that's where the Great Wall ends? Regarding educational alterations in Taiwan, that is horrible. The same things happen occasionally in the United States, but such things can be openly protested before the people who lived the history have died. An example would be the lack of African-American history in textbooks, which has been remedied to a great deal through public protest. Could people in China do that? Perhaps today possibly, though I doubt it. I know for a fact, however, that there were a couple of generations of people in the PRC who were "reeducated" over slight transgressions from the official line. The effects of the Cultural Revolution were supposed to erase the old China and make a new one. Just as the effects of American sins linger on, as racism and class difference linger from slavery, so must the much more recent Cultural Revolution's effects linger on the society of China. Regarding Hawaii, I certainly agree that failure to report such a thing, assuming it was significantly large, in the US press is bad. One of my main concerns with the US press is that it is becoming "unified", just under corporate instead of state control. It manifests itself in many instances other than the one you site, and I agree that it is a severe problem right now in the US. I recently heard a talk on C-SPAN to the same effect, regarding the erosion of freedom of the press in the US. Because we have problems, however, by no means justifies the concept of state control of media. I even admit that China is becoming better, and the US getting worse. Relative to our starting points there’s still no comparison. The difference between Hawaii and Taiwan, though, should be clear enough. Hawaii has a number of military bases and US government bureaucracies that are actively working with the centralized government. The leadership of the state operates under the same guidelines of integration as every other US state. Conversely, Taiwan has it's own military forces and doesn't operate under the umbrella that other districts of the PRC follow. They have been operating since 1949 as Taiwan, with their own centralized government & military and conduct international political affairs without even the slightest management from the PRC. My argument, in essence, doesn't depend on "who got there first" or "what was it in the past". The history of the political, ethnic, and cultural map of the world is one that hs always in flux. My argument is that if it looks like a country, then it is a country. The longer it does so makes its country status more legitimate. As has always been the case, countries can annex other countries, but when that happens, it causes great flux in the world. Your arguments remind me of the German claims on the Sudetenland in 1939, which were just as valid on your claim of Taiwan, and have all of the same points in it's favor. He got the land by forceful applications of the same arguments (but obviously later gave it up). If the PRC forcefully annexes Taiwan and does so successfully, then as time goes by it will become theirs. The argument always seems to fall back to "Taiwan is part of China", like a mantra instilled whereby repetition makes it so. The realities of the world would seem to argue otherwise. By the way in your vaguely derisive tone regarding Nixon, I hope you recognize that he did meddle in the affairs of China, and got the PRC into the United Nations, in Taiwan's seat. Realize that the PRC's negotiations with Nixon and his meddling in the affairs of China turned out very favorably for the PRC. Nixon was a stupid buffoon, and was the one who agreed to the "one China" concept. Before that point, most countries either recognized Taiwan or China, and occasionally both (depending on ideology), but nobody (outside of China) thought of them as "one China".
In regards to Global Security, it wasn't as much as their pro-US stance as supposed to their anti-China stance. As for my opinion of them, trying to be as objective as possible, is that they are not as anti-China as the Chinese claim but also not as (let's just say) unbiased towards China as some Americans undoubtedly believe. The truth fall in the middle somewhere. However, that middle ground also often appear more biased than a third party would tend to believe. Generally, when debating politics I try my best to cite third party sources. Do I think China would spy on the US if they had the means to in the 50's? Personally I think yes. However, there always that separation between what I think and what actually happens. And really, the onus is on the US to prove that China in fact, did spy on the US. Anything less than that would be a Shakespaerean "guilty until proven innocent" argument. And if you do happen to prove that China would spy on the US, you would have to follow that up with proving that China would spy on the US, if the US didn't spy on China first. I think that is the key in the Chin case. I mean, really, would the character Chin exist if the US wasn't spying on China in the first place? We can speculate all we want and not get anywhere with it. But like I said, all you need to do is prove that China was spying on the US in the 50's. As for historical grounds of the western provinces, I assume you mean Tibet and Xinjian. Granted, yes there were people in Tibet before the Chinese, however, Tibet opted (for the lack of a better word) to join China during the Tang dynasty. Let me just say the whole deal is very messy business and I'd rather not touch it with a 10 feet pole, however, Tibet was incorporated into Chinese maps far before the Commies took over and had not declared independence since. As for Xinjian, no actually the Chinese did get there first, before the Uighurs. That we can be absolutely certain about. As for the Northwest, again, I recommend brushing up your Chinese history by a bit. First of all, one reason the Great Wall ended was because the relative vacuum of the west. Most direct challenge to Chinese power came from the north and northeast. When the first emperor first built the Great Wall, he envisioned defending against "barbarians" to the north and northeast, not to the northwest. If anything, the lack of a wall to the indicates that China did not encroach on anybody's territory. In other words, China merely grew to fill a vacuum. Also, the Tang dynasty went FARRRRRRR beyond the current boundaries of China. It was already that far during the Han dynasties. I don't have time right now to find the best source, but here is what a google search turned up: Han dynasty: http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/images/hanmap.jpg Tang dynasty: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/china/map/tang.html http://sacu.org/map1.html Qing dynasty: http://sacu.org/map3.html Not the best of sources I know, but I'll provide you with better sources when I find time next week. Just look up the Battle of Talas to get an idea of how far they were from where China is today. Indeed, had it not been for the An Lu Shan rebellion, the landscape of central Asia would be very different than it is today. It would be dominated by Chinese culture instead of "Arabic." Note also that the Han dynasty existed a mere 32 years after the Qing dynasty, which initially built the Great Wall, and they went far beyong Gansu. So once again, I don't think the theory that China pushed others out of western China is true, and this point is the opinion of many historians. Regarding the Cultural Revolution, that part is undeniably Chinese history. But I don't recall too many people other than the Commie mouthpiece try to justify it in any way other than what it was. So in that regard, we'll just have to agree to disagree. As for Hawaii, I don't think whether the existence of US military bases or centralization is relevant. Do you? Mind you, I am not claiming that Hawaii is anything other than a part of America, I'm merely pointing out the inherent hypocrisy present in the situation. If the intention of the US government is to promote democracy and freedom, why not start with its own backyard? Finally, in regards to Taiwan, I say to you what I said to Sishir Chang, you are oversimplifying the situation. Who do you think should decide the future of Taiwan? Those Chinese that just happens to live on the island? Since Taiwan is a part of China and China never gave up the claim, it isn't merely those in Taiwan that decides its future. It is the entire population of China. And the population of China voted in no uncertain terms not to let Taiwan separate. During 1949, when the KMT fled the country, they made off with 95% of the country's national savings, along with countless historical artifacts, national treasures and other gems. Discount the value of all those (which are priceless by the way) at the 12% return you'd get on average over the last 50 years in the stock market, I don't think the people of China would take it too kindly if Taiwan separated. It is analogous to you investing 95% of your total savings in a company and they ran off, leaving bankrupt. So if Taiwan declares independence (note: IF, as I said already, we don't know if it will happen either way), hence declaring not to be part of the nation, then China can logically expect to receive all those back, along with 12% annual compounded interest right? If so make it fast, because I'm sure every Chinese citizen is rubbing their hand in eager anticipation of this. We'd also have to do something about the fact that Taiwan is infesting Chinese territory. Discounting the island at 12% based on current market rates for a perpetuity will do. We'd also have estimate the effect of Taiwan using the Chinese language, violating the "intellectual property" of China. Something along the lines of how accountants allocate overhead will do. The whole Chinese population are the "equity holders." All kidding aside, the Chinese won't allow Taiwan to separate, whatever the price. But I think you get my point. In regards to Nixon, I have no opinion of the man. Quite frankly I couldn't have cared less what he did. Yes, he did meddle in the affairs of China, but he did no more and no less than any other US president before and hence after. Although I should point out, would this Taiwan/China problem exist in the first place if the otehr US presidents before him didn't meddle in Chinese affairs? The answer is no. Either the Commies kick the crap of what's left of the KMT or the KMT make a stand and, as they say "retake mainland." But but admitting it was a Chinese affair you are inherently already admitting that Taiwan is part of China, which is one reason why I don't understand we are having this argument in the first place. Quite frankly I don't think most Chinese cared whether he thought. They don't need Nixon to tell them that Taiwan is a part of China. As for most countries would have thought that Taiwan isn't part of China, that is your speculation. And I'm not gonna touch that.
Racism can be used to "simplify" a great deal. You remind me of the Nazi's looking into what percentage a German might be "contaminated" by Jewish blood, and what percentage might be acceptable to the Reich. Racism can be used to justify all sorts of actions, as you so clearly point out. Keep D&D Civil!!
Whether most Chinese cared what he though or not, that was where the "one China two nations" idea originated. That was when China was given their place in the UN, and all sorts of doors opened because of Nixon & Kissinger's strategic move regarding China. I suggest you watch this documentary and read the declassified documents at the national security archives regarding the issue linked at this page. Most Americans didn't care (or probably even know about) Afghanistan prior to the days after the trade center attacks. Did that mean it didn't matter? Furthermore, it was made an affair of the United States because the Allied powers defeated Japan, who was occupying large portions of China, and were responsible to some degree for the resolution of the affair and the return of the occupied territories, but there was a civil war to define the "legitimate government" to which stuff was returned. If not for WWII, you could have done whatever you liked and the US wouldn't have hitched it's horse to either wagon, but once you've picked your horse, he's yours until the end of the race. Then I apologize, as I’ve always found them and the FAS to be detailed and reliable, full of detailed documentation. I would offer a partial excuse based on the degree of official PRC secrecy (i.e. the hidden identities of the taikonauts and the delayed broadcast of Shenzhou launch until it was successful), and think of the way people view owners of baseball teams. They all claim to be loosing money, but refuse any openness with their accounting. The natural and wise course of action in such a void is to assume the least favorable of options, even though that might not be the case. I think he is trying to provide truth as accurately as he can, and I don't think any bias could be viewed as some sort of vendetta. What you want doesn't matter to me, and what satisfies me is unimportant to you. We are not in a court of law here, either criminal of civil, so the various degrees of "burden of proof" don't apply. I have faith in Chinese ability, and I know what any reasonably managed country would do. Again, there must be a big conspiracy here, because I've seen National Geographic articles (very apolitical which I trust as much as any magazine ever) that state otherwise. A quick web search reveals government sponsored sites which support your position (various Chinese embassy sites), and ones that are clearly biased (Urghur & Turkish) in the other direction. The discussion regarding who was at Taiwan first has revealed the same contradictions. I will accept that I have no valid 1st hand source for a definitive judgment, in both instances, as I know when I reach the limit of my knowledge. I am no archeologist. I would suggest that you at least approach any future information regarding the subject with an open mind given that there seems to be two different, very distinct points of view and both subjects seem to be the types of things that people would fabricate truths about, both PRC, KMT, & those who seek an Urghur state. You are correct. I need to and am doing so. I think that the point that I was trying to make is that the definition of China has varied greatly in the past. Perhaps Taiwan is so close to the core elements that you can't accept its removal, but the shape of China has been plastic in the past. I actually think (as stated earlier) that the Cultural Revolution was done in good faith and, just as I respect the idealism of pre-Stalinist CCCP, and the idealism of the Commune of Paris, I respect the Cultural Revolution's idealism, and accept that it was well intentioned. I simply was trying to state that any divergent points of view from the governement way of thought were removed, and people with slightly different views were subjected to pressures that altered their views. I also look at the history of Stalinist states (which China wasn't, but there were similarities) and suggest that these states have always used media control to alter the perception of history. I therefore suggest that if one wished to alter values and perceptions, the Cultural Revolution would have been the time to do it. Finally, given the size of the undertaking, to suggest that the Cultural Revolution's effects aren't resonating today would seem odd. I'm not the US government. If one believes in ideals, should one abandon them if they transgress? If it were up to me, I'd certainly not suppress their petition. I thought you were trying to relate Taiwan & Hawaii in some tenuous way, which is why my response was made as it was. As far as I can tell, they have been a separate entity for quite a while now. After the October Revolution, no western country would diplomatically recognize the Soviet Union for something like 20 years, but that didn't stop them from being. If every instance of everything like this in the past were held as valid debts and judgments, what do the Spanish owe the Incans? What do Berber Muslims owe the Spanish? What's the interest rate on Greek statues stolen by Romans? With compound interest Italy is screwed. The crown Jewels of Great Brittan were made from diamonds stolen in India. Everybody in history was robbed by everyone else. From the same time period, how much Nazi theft has been repaid. The US settled for pennies on the dollar for taking gold that the Nazi's had taken from their victims. Everywhere hangs art that the Nazi's stole from someone and nobody ever gets anything close to fair compensation when they pursue the claims. If you would like to pursue the claims in international court, I’d wholeheartedly support the effort. That's just silly. Intellectual property law is a silly enough travesty as is without you trying to copyright language. Perhaps the entire world owes untold billions to the British & French, China included, for use of these languages as the language of diplomacy in the past. I can tell you what I see. I see an island that acts in every way like an independent country, and doesn’t subject itself to the sovereignty of another authority. It has diplomats, it has armed forces, it in every way, shape and form fits what I’d describe as a country, and has done so for quite a while. Therefore... When I see an apple, I don't bite into it expecting the taste of an orange. This final ontological argument is the least persuasive because it falls back on the "because I said so" argument. It makes me think of the people (and there are plenty) who still believe that Sadam Hussein had WMD.
Oh so now I'm a racist. Let me tell you this, if they are loyal to their actual country instead of to the one that bred them, we'd have no contention at all. They can live in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, anywhere in China. When the Japs left China, a lot of their brats were left to starve by the IJA. Guess who f*ckin' took care of them? The Chinese. The Chinese housed them, fed them and took care of them when any other country is liable to wring their necks. But what did Chen, Lee Tenghui and those other TI semi Jap bastards do? Well, for one thing, both Lee and Chen after him said that Japan SHOULDN'T APOLOGIZE TO CHINA FOR ITS WARCRIMES IN WWII. He went on to say how China is this and that, how China deserves no apologies. Let me tell you this. If you go anywhere in China and say such a thing, they'd wring your neck, semi Jap b*stard or not. Estimated war dead in China in WWII, 40 million. So spare me your holier than thou self-rightous speech. You want to identify modern day neo-Nazis, guess what, they are in Taiwan. That's where the modern day Asian Al Qaeda are too. As we speak they are coming up with a plan to attack the Three Gorges Dam, that if successful, would kill up to 200 million. Thank god the freakin' Dam isn't made out of paper.
BTW, I've just discovered something interesting. Here is a link to the first page of the official Japanese surrender to WW II The relevent portions of text are: This confused me for a minute, because the Treaty of Potsdam was US, GB & USSR. China wasn't involved and the USSR didn't "agree to it later". Apparently, however, there was a Declaration of Potstam that was a seperate subject from the Treaty of Potsdam. The representitive of China mentioned in the Declaration of Potsdam was Chiang Kai-Shek of the KMT. The legal body that Japan surrendered it's holdings to (including Taiwan) was President of the National Government of the Republic of China, Chiang Kai-Shek. The text of the Potsdam Declaration can be found here.
You reminded me of a repairman who once came over to my house to fix my house's chimney. The guy just can't contain himself and keeping on saying n*gger this or n*gger that. You do know that Jap is a racist term right? Yes, just like that repairman is a racist, so are you. Too bad, you actually has a lot of good points.
I'm well aware what Nixon did. Nevertheless, the question is, did China approach US to act as the mediator? The answer is no and the reasons are obvious. First of all, the KMT won't to invite the US as the mediator, because had the WWII not happened (which allowed the Commies to gain support and basically by not defending the country against the Japs, the KMT lost it), the KMT would have crushed the Commies like bugs. And the Commies can't approach the US to be the mediator because they have no such venue. In other words, the whole picking the horse until the end of the race argument does not apply. Now mind you, you can argue that the Commies welcomed the idea. It wouldn't be true but nevertheless it's an argument. However, the KMT certainly did not. As for returning Japan's war gains, this is why I specifically pointed out that the terms under the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclaimation was "to China," not a government, legitimate or otherwise. It may simply a technicality to you, but an important one nevertheless. In regards to the Uighers, as you know that when we are dealing with history/anthropology, there is a high degree of uncertainty. It isn't an exact science. So rival theories are likely to exist and I welcome them. However, every now and then we come across a pretty convincing theory, back by strong evidence, that really can't be disapproved without an even more convincing theory backed by stronger evidence. As I noted, this is the case here. I am well aware of the Uighers/Turkic claims. However, at this point, the BEST we can say is that they arrived at the same time as the Hans. I should also point out that the Xiongnu were nomadic people with no affinity to a fixed plot of land. Right now the theory is that, the arrived slightly after the Han, left then came back when the dynasty weakened. I should also point out that, history proves that actually the Xiongnu were the ones that initiated the hostilities by raids on Han outposts. So unfortunately, the case just isn't very strong for the Uighers. In the case of both Xinjiang and Taiwan, as I've said, we don't simply make a claim that the Chinese got there first. The reason for that is, when dispute arises (as is the case here), you'd better be able to back it up. And as I've said, the archeological digs we've done so far matches what China claims. I should also note that China is blessed in the sense it developed a written language early. We can learn a lot by both what we can determine ourselves and what those before us found. Certainly, I am not saying that there is no chance for the competing theories to be true. But like I said, we'd need strong evidence to prove otherwise. As for the Cultural Revolution, I really don't want to go too far into whether it was done in good faith, because it was probably the darkest times of modern Chinese history. Certainly, I hope it was done in good faith, as a "school" of people claim. However, realistically I think good faith, is stretching it a little. Mao certainly isn't the sum of all evils as some claim, but there isn't the need to whitewash him either. He's not the devil but he's no saint either. I think that he is power hungry and likely was doing it for less than noble purposes, at least in a part of his mind. Another acceptable answer would be that he was losing his mind (which was actually true). But you really can't claim that he wouldn't have done the things he did if the above hasn't happened. How would we know? So I find it hard to say that it was done all in good faith. The Great Leap Forward, maybe. The Cultural Revolution, probably not. I guess all I'll say about the Cultural Revolution is that it opened the door for political opportunists with complete lack of regards for human life. Spying wise, I think the question is intent and ability. As I pointed out already, how would you or I or anybody else know about the intent of the Commies? Ability, certain later in time was China was just slightly more stable, then maybe. However, I find it hard for a government that just took over a wartorn country, still sorting its own mess of Civil squabble, putting down warlords, preventing looting and other crimes, all the while trying to establish a government could have the ability to build a spy network on a country which they have no former contact with. Any spying, if any, would be at the grassroot level, not yet off the ground. This isn't to doubt Chinese ability. It's just that if they did in fact have this ability, they are very industrious people indeed. As for my interest rate arguement, you'd note that I said I was kidding. However, everything I said still applies. I'd have no problem if Incans do grow powerful enough so that they decide to take what is rightfully theirs, or any other country for that matter. But sorry, if you screw other people, don't expect them not to screw you back. No, technically Taiwan is a province of China, and China is in a state of war. Civil war, to be precise, and has been for the last 56 years. Any conflict would not be the initiation of a new war, as some claim, but a mere continuation of ongoing fighting, as no peace was ever reached (why would there be, a country doesn't have peace treaties with itself). So there's a good trivia question for you. Whether Taiwan is a country or not, I've already said, there is no need for the US (or any other entity for that matter) to recognize Taiwan as part of China. So what I'm saying is that, in regards to anything with legal and binding force, Taiwan is not a country. The US still claims to uphold laws doesn't it? Nobody forces the US to not to call Taiwan country, but should it do that, and war breaks out, don't not expect to get a bloody nose. I think some people tend to underestimate the Chinese resolve to get their territory back. Please don't perceive this as a threat. It is merely a statement of facts.
Form over substance, Chiang was legally representing China and the KMT was legal government of China at the time. They didn't surrounder to Chiang and the KMT, but to the countries. You are right, there is a Treaty of Potsdam, but it did not define the terms of surrender by Japan. Rather, it dealt with what to do with Europe, with the Red Army consolidating their gains in Germany and East Europe, which is why China is not present. It was really tying up some very sordid business, defining borders, such as defining the Oder-Neisse Line between Poland and Germany, dividing what was left of Europe in anything from territory to iron mines, etc. http://www.dingwall.bc.ca/history/main.php3?cat=places&listing=Potsdam_1945 The Soviets initially rejected it because they didn't think they were getting enough (which is true considering they were already holding more than the initial offer). There is also another Treaty of Potsdam, although a bit earlier in history. http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/napwars/coalition3.html Actually that's the one I first thought when you mentioned the Treaty of Potsdam (getting confused in my head). All I can say is, Potsdam is a pretty damn important place.
While you might disagree politically with the members of the Taiwan independence side your concern about the fact that many of them have Japanese blood is straight up bigotry. Further if many Taiwanese were the children of comfort women why is that a reason to distrust them? Do you think those women wanted to become comfort women? These people aren't part Japanese because their mothers wanted them that way but because their mothers were victims of war. Anyway why should that matter? Ancestry doesn't automatically dictate political leaning. For instance even though my parents are ethinically Chinese from Taiwan and Hong Kong I consider myself an American and my national loyalties are to the US and not the PRC or Taiwan. So why even raise ethnicity as an issue other than flat out bigotry? There's no rational reason someone descended from comfort women is any likely to betray or put Japanese interest ahead of Chinese. Especially given that the Japanese society itself which also has a big problem with bigotry wouldn't consider a half-Japanese child of a comfort women to be Japanese to begin with. As for the fear of Taiwan becoming a strategic base for anti-Chinese forces while its true Taiwan does occupy a strategic location but its also true that the PRC is a nuclear power. No country would rationally consider invading Mainland China these days because of the nuclear deterrent and also because of the massive rapidly modernizing military. Further with economic interdependence so high along with the size of the Chinese market no country wants a war that will destroy the Asian economy as a whole. These days its the Japanese who are more afraid of Chinese military and economic might than the other way around.
You'd notice I made a distinction between the TIers and the simple victims of Japanese atrocities. And there is such a distinction. I sympathize with those victims, as well as any of their children, whether in China, Taiwan, Korea, or anywhere else. That's why you'd notice I called it a bad joke. However, as I pointed out, there is such a separation between those simple victims and TIers. I make no generalization about all those victims, in fact, those TIers account for at best, a small portion of them. So when I was calling semi Jap bastards, I suppose I should have specified that I meant exclusively those TIers. However, those TIers who also happen to be semi Jap bastards deserve neither sympathy nor mercy. If they feel a natural affinity (being half Jap and all) towards Japan, I am perfectly fine with that. But not being at least semi loyal to China, and siding with Japan on such an issue that anyone with conscience wouldn't, that's what make them lowlife scumbags. So I'm gonna say, they can get the f*ck out of the country, go to Japan, where they can give blowjobs to the Jap all day if they want. Also, being strategic means far more than invading the mainland.
I'm with tie22fighter, your points are continually obscured by your continued insistance on using racial slurs. And as for Taiwan, if you don't govern it, if you don't collect taxes on the people, if you don't have an army there, then my guess is that it's a de facto independent country, regardless of your claims to the territory. Also, the situation seems analogous to me to Iraq's claims on Kuwait in the Gulf War. Iraq claimed that it was simply retaking a territory that was a natural part of Iraq, dating back to the days of the empire of Babylon. Iraq never accepted Kuwait's right to be an independent nation, either.
"However, those TIers who also happen to be semi Jap bastards deserve neither sympathy nor mercy. If they feel a natural affinity (being half Jap and all) towards Japan, I am perfectly fine with that. But not being at least semi loyal to China, and siding with Japan on such an issue that anyone with conscience wouldn't, that's what make them lowlife scumbags. So I'm gonna say, they can get the f*ck out of the country, go to Japan, where they can give blowjobs to the Jap all day if they want." - MFW2310 That you would post racist rhetoric like this is disturbing. I can only hope that you represent a tiny minority of Chinese citizens. If such feelings were widespread, it would be more than disturbing... it would be frightening. Your oblivious attitude towards just how racist you are, illustrated by your own posts, reminds me of the racism I witnessed in Texas, and other parts of the South, during the '50's and '60's. It hasn't gone away here, but things are far better than they were. The racists have become a very small minority. I hope you represent the same small minority of Chinese who might share your beliefs. I have too much respect for the Chinese people to think otherwise. Keep D&D Civil!!
Acutally there many many Chinese who feel that way about the Japanese. That's what happens when you kill over 30 million people in another country. Hate can be a very powerful thing, people do not foreget easily. That's why government leaders should alwasy think TEN TIMES before starting any war. Look at it this way, how does many Americans feel about the Arabs? How many people died during 911? Can you imagine if close to 10% or your national population was wiped out by Arabs how would Americans feel toward the Arabs.
There is large difference, in my opinion, between harboring anger towards another country that caused your own country to suffer in the past, and being a racist. My wife has Dutch relatives who still have a hard time watching young Dutch people interact with other young Germans... they remember all too well being occupied during WWII, and in at least one case, being in a German concentration camp, in the Netherlands (a camp which we visited) where one cousin witnessed executions of Jews who happened to be Dutch. I understand lingering anger. I don't think it is the same as racism, and I have a big problem with that. Keep D&D Civil!!
Uh uh...there's no rationalizing racism. The Japanese today are not the ones ... or even the same culture or society... that murdered all of those Chinese. A better comparison would be how Jews feel about Germans WRT the Holocaust (a much higher % of their population than 10% was murdered) , and I don't know of any that hold the German people responsible for what took place 50 years ago.
