That certainly would go a long way to ease the tension between Japan and its neighbors. Did you see the demonstration in South Korea where people march up to Japanse embassy and cut off their own fingers to show their anger towards the Japanese government? But this is not going to happen anytime soon.
The term "Jap" is, itself, a slur. So your distinction is international law. Conversely, then, if other countries chose to recognize Taiwan as an independent nation, you would have no trouble with international law being the deciding factor? Or do you only believe in international law when it suits you? If the Iraqi people had viewed Kuwait as part of their country, would that make a difference in the analysis?
Last time I checked, countries didn't choose to recognize Taiwan, neither does international law. You can speculate all you want and it wouldn't make a difference. What matters, as I've said from the very beginning, are the legal and historical justifications and what the Chinese, as legal owners, think. And historically, Iraqis can't claim that they are the legal continuation of the Babylonians. And the Assyrians actually legally occupied at least part of Kuwait before the Babylonians. Last time I checked the Assyrians still exist today, albeit in very small numbers (under 10 million). They have as much claim to the lands in Kuwait as the Iraqis. So already you can see there is a historical contention to regards to the Iraqi claim which simply doesn't exist with respect to Taiwan. Now, if Iraqis feels they are getting the shaft (I can't say I blame them), then they are welcome to challenge the ruling in international court. Your argument already also inherent assumes that Taiwanese want to separate. However, as I cited, a poll conducted by Taipei University shows that they don't.
Well, this isn't alternate history, this is what actually happened. Yes, look at that tiny vassal state Tibet, lol. Their gracious Tang elder brothers must have loaned them the entire northern & western part of their dynasty & their economic lifeline. But then again, like I said, having to look back at thousand year old history in order to justify 20th century invasions underscores how weak one's cause is. By the silly logic that the Chinese use to justify the occupation of Tibet, one could easily make all sorts of ridiculous justifications. Let's see, the Mongols controlled Eastern China for hundreds of years. Therefore, the present day Republic of Mongolia is justified in marching into Beijing and planting the flag, right? Of course not.
I'm not here to promote hatred, rather to help understand why such hatred exists in the first place. A poor analogy let important details slip away. I ceritanly don't believe the whole Japanese population then, let alone now was responsible for what happened. But it's a bit oversimplified to assume such element isn't present in the current Japanese culture, when past wrong doings aren't even recognized. Frankly, part of the onus for People around Asia to change their attitute toward Japan is on Japanese people. What kind of Leaders do they chose. I don't think any JP PM would visit Shrine publicly if there isn't any political support. It would certainly go a long way if they apologize, close the Shrine and do all that.
Not an alternative? OK. Let me say what I see. I see a map, with Tang getting bigger and Tibet getting smaller. That's what I see. Those are the facts. And you or no clue whether Tang got bigger because of the invasion or otherwise. No I don't think the Chinese claim is 100% accurate, but there are proven facts. Such as the fact that there was inter-marriage between the Chinese emperor and the then Tibetan monarchs. Those we also know as facts. Whether Tibet came under the Tang dynasty as an extension of those marriage terms I make to attempt to guess, as the details are sketchy at best. But I do know that the tablets exist. And reading those tablets, I have no reason to believe that Tibet did not accept the Tang terms. Whether they were forced to do it I wouldn't venture to guess. But somehow I feel that you will. Nevertheless, we have proof that the Tang occupied Tibet, the Tibetans accepted to the terms, and no further treaties/whatever reversed that. As for the Mongols, did the Song accept to their terms? If I recall a general, carrying the emperor on his back, jumped into the sea, uttering the words "if the country falls, the emperor shouldn't live either," and Wen Tianxiang refused to surrender until his death. And Sam, what legal justifications do the Mongols have over China?
All these who's where when stuff is a bit silly. It's secondary to any discussion about the issue anyway. The important issue is who's where that is recognized by international community (or law if you wish). Last time I check US recognize TW as part of China, as does most of the countries. The question is only how to unify. Now the puzzling question is, how do you call meddling with other countries unification not meddling-with-internal-affair, unless you are invited?
Sam, There was a long thread about Tibet-China issue if you dig it up, (now that search is on again).
I was at the the national museum in Taipei several years ago and watched a very nationalistic propaganda film which said one of the ROC's goals is to reclaim the motherland. Does such rhetoric still exists today? Are there any possible scenarios for a KMT takeover of China? Does China have the legal authority to invade Taiwan? Wouldn't they technically be deploying troops into their own territory? How would the UN react to something like this? I think the current status quo is something both sides are amenable to and should be maintained. Maybe the positive example of Hong Kong can convince Taiwan that 2 systems (or 3) can exist within one country.
Go ahead and post a link to that poll if you have one, I'd like to see it. Have you ever considered why some Taiwanese don't want to declare independence? Here is a link to a Duke University paper discussing similar polling, in greater detail. It lists poll data collected by the National Chengchi University in Taipei. The results are interesting - 26% unequivocally support independence, and 27% unequivocally support reunification with China. However, when asked if they supported independence if it did not lead to war, 72% of those polled supported independence. It seems to me like the people of Taiwan prefer independence, they're just afraid of Chinese retaliation for the declaration.
You read the map wrong. It in fact shows the opposite. The Tibetans increased their territory towards the end of the 700's, even invading Chang'an in 763. at one point, and controlled the Silk Road until about 850. But then it doesn't matter. Yes Princess/Queen Wengchen did marry King Tsongsengampo at some point around the 7th C. Hell, I even touched Queen Weng-chen's stove last summer, lol. (supposedly it makes you a better cook - which sadly I don't think is a fact in my case). Well, let's see, King/Ruler of Tibet marries Chinese princess - certainly you could say an alliance was formed, but a cession or annexation of an independent Tibet - just from marrying a princess? Sorry but nobody's buying that one. Chinese (and Uiguhur, Tibetan, French, English, Russian, German whatever) royal families married into other royal familes quite often in medieval times - it didn't mean that they inherited the other families' holdings. Yeah, you marry this here Princess, we get all of Tibet forever. Something suggests to me that the Tibetans didn't buy this, seeing as they continued to invade & occupy Chinese territoroy hundreds of years after. Uh? we do? Wey do have an 821 treaty which says China is for Chinese and Tibet is for Tibetans. Not sure what you're getting out of that - or are you referring to the 641 intermarriage? Either way, I'd call your argument a legalistic fig-leaf but even that's overly generous. And there were just as many unsung Chinese who did capitulate. Same as the Chinese over Tibet - none of any consequence..
He who is mighty have the rights. This is the law of the world since the beginning. US can go invade Iraq, police the world, dictate international policy because it is the most powerful country in the world. If one day China reaches the status of the number one super power in the world, does anyone honestly think anyone would do anything if China takes back Taiwan? Not saying China should use force, which I believe is a terrible idea. So time will settle everything, maybe after all the bbs members are gone from this world.
I've looked at your post, and the post of mine that you quoted, and for the life of me, I cannot understand what the heck you are saying. How is that comment from you related in any way to what I posted? By the way, you seem to be obsessed with numbers... that the number of Chinese killed during Japan's attempt to control the country before and during WWII means that other atrocities cannot compare. I would beg to differ. If you watching people being executed in front of you, by people occupying your country, for the sin of being of another religion, one would think it would have a personal impact. If you knew people who were killed by those occupiers, personally, it would have an impact on you. If that happened, and decades later you harbored anger towards the country would did those things, the same country that put you in a concentration camp for trying to escape your occupied country, only to be caught at the Swiss border, it might be understandable. I met someone with those experiences, who admitted that logically, he shouldn't be angry at today's Germans for the actions of those in the past, but that he had a difficult time not feeling that way, regardless. I have far more respect for that person, who was highly educated, by the way, then I do for you, and your rabid racism. I find the attitude of those like you very disturbing. Again, I can only hope that you represent a minority of Chinese. I will continue to believe that you do. Keep D&D Civil!!
That's ridiculous. The Commies fought the KMT up until 49. Did the Commies invade KMT territory? No, it was a civil war. The various religious factions in India continue to fight til this day. Did the factions invade each other? No, it was a civil war. Did Tibet invade China after becoming a part of China? No, it was a civil war. With the princess' marriage, I wouldn't go as far as saying that it was the basis for the declaration for Tibet becoming part of China. However, nevertheless, such a joint declaration exists. Had it not, it would have just been your plain vanilla imperial marriage. But the declaration gave it basis nevertheless. As for the Mongols, as I recall, they were booted out by those Chinese that didn't capitulate a mere 78 years later, along with taking a large portion of their territory. So why say the Mongols can claim a part of China when you can say China can claim the rest of Mongolia (which, last time I checked, aren't a part of China right now). After, many Mongolians did captulate didn't they? The problem with your argument is that you forgot it can be used both ways. Not to mention that you conveniently neglected to mention that the majority of Mongolians (almost 10 times more actually) live in China and are Chinese citizens, having at least equal claim to Mongolia. What legal basis for Tibet being part of China? International law says it is and strong historical evidence suggest it is. As for the 821 treaty, how convenient that you neglected a further treaty in the 1644 (?) where the then Dalai Lama sought out the Qings for protection, giving up the rights of separation, bringing it back into the fold?
Yeah Deckard, don't bother actually reading the posts. Funny how you chose not to notice my distinction between the Japanese, and those semi Jap bastards. Please, find an instance where I said boot the Japanese out of China. And if you can, I'd think there's something wrong with your head. I am not advocating that do whatever it takes to harm the Japanese, which somehow again, you managed to pull out of thin air. But we do expect an apology from Japan, and we are gonna get it from them. For the 40 million dead, we owe them at least that much. It's actually quite amusing that you are not on the tail of those semi Jap bastards for their ridiculous stance but rather chose to chastitise me after twisting my words.
International law? Doubtful. I'm sorry but international law as we know it wasn't even invented considering that you are citing treaties created over 1000 years ago between royal houses that have long died out. While you were googling away, I see YOU omitted that in 1913, when the Dalai Lama declared Tibet independent? Do you have any basis whatsoever think the 5th DL is any more legitimate than the 13th? Look, the problem with my argument isn't that it can be used both ways-- the POINT of my argument is that it can be used both ways, I can cite all sorts of examples of various peoples conquering various territories and other peoples thousands of years ago. The Chinese conquered people, and the Chinese themselves were conquered at least in part by the conquerees (Turks, Uighurs, Tibetans, Mongols, Japanese, etc) many times as well. And there were all sorts of treaties as well, such as the Unequal treaties. None of this provides any justification for the 1950 invasion of Tibet - none at all. They are historical relics that underscore how weak the case is.
Hmmmm, I'm sure glad this survey is based on roughly 1,300 people instead of tens of thousands as the more recent survey shows, not to mention that the China threat theory appears to be as much of an explaination as China not being democratic, according to your own survey; or how the author only tried to test conditions favourable to Taiwan independence. For example, why did they survey that China won't attack, US will help, Taiwan will fight and an oppressive regime remains in place in China instead of China gets democratic, the CCP gets booted out of the door and the country becomes prosperous and powerful. Hey if we can make positive assumptions one way, we can also make positive assumptions another way can't we? When you make a survey, never have strings attached. This shows me that they prefer democracy at best (even that's a simplification), not independence. Alright. But Sam, let's suppose that we are to hold a referendum tomorrow to let Taiwan choose their independence. Making no predictions to outcome, however, should the Taiwanese choose unification, I take it that you would pressure the Taiwanese government to for immediate unification? Or at the very least, boot the TIers not the door? Because you know what's gonna happen don't you? The pro-unificationists will have to defeat every referendum hence after not to separate while the pro-independence people only need one to claim that "the Taiwanese nation has spoken," in other words, they only need to get lucky once. If so I'd like that in writing. Taiwanese independence is a China and Taiwan choice, not Taiwan alone. These TIers are welcome to celebrate their independence, somewhere NOT on Chinese land (Japan perhaps).
Well you see Sam, the 5th Dalai Lama was the legal "head of state," if your theory is to be believed, while the 13th was not. Does that make a distinction? I'd think so. The 5th was the "national" as well as the religious leader where as the 13th is merely the head of a theocracy. I also don't have to google to lecture you about Tibet. As for international law, certainly it can be full of flaws and holes. Nevertheless, at the moment, it favours the Chinese theory. Now, if the Tibetans feel shafted by this law, they are welcome to revisit the law in the UN. Passed or not, if the Chinese veto it, it will at least show them in a bad light. Also, aparently everybody assumes that the Tibetans actually want Dalai back or they want independence. And I mean Tibetans as all Tibetans, not just those loud mouthed ones living in India, whom account for at best 3% of the population. I think the latest gripes of Tibetans in China involve not getting equal opportunities as some ethnic Hans and therefore getting left behind in part of the economic development.
Oh, never fear, I have read your posts in their entirety, as distasteful as that experience has been. And I haven't "twisted" your words. You are doing a fine job of hoisting yourself on your own petard, however, and you may keep twisting in the wind, having put yourself there. Enjoy yourself. I hope someone gets some pleasure out of reading your racist rhetoric. If no one else does, at least you assuredly do.
Oh I see. Then next time somebody calls you a redneck KKK because invariable every American is KKK, don't bother correcting them.
