It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Can China Invade Taiwan?
page: 176share:
"Don't let the Central Committee hear you call it that!
As for rebellious provinces...The mainland of China in the guise of the PRC is the rebellious province, not Taiwan.
And how was it TAKEN from you? Who invaded and occupied PRC territory? The Kuriles were taken from Japan, Alsace and Lorraine were taken from France, the Karelian Isthmus was taken from Finland... "
and I don't see how making it bold and bringing to to the attention of NSS would help my case its almost as if you hope I would get arrested. *amuesed*
See the Sino-Japanese war, we had to give it to Japan because they beat us and we were suppsoed to have gotten it back.
The Kuriles while taken from Japan will prbly be given back to Japan one of these days, Alsace and Lorraine were returned.
The Isthmus I don't remember but they supported the Fascist Imperialists and got off lucky.
As for rebellious provinces...The mainland of China in the guise of the PRC is the rebellious province, not Taiwan.
And how was it TAKEN from you? Who invaded and occupied PRC territory? The Kuriles were taken from Japan, Alsace and Lorraine were taken from France, the Karelian Isthmus was taken from Finland... "
and I don't see how making it bold and bringing to to the attention of NSS would help my case its almost as if you hope I would get arrested. *amuesed*
See the Sino-Japanese war, we had to give it to Japan because they beat us and we were suppsoed to have gotten it back.
The Kuriles while taken from Japan will prbly be given back to Japan one of these days, Alsace and Lorraine were returned.
The Isthmus I don't remember but they supported the Fascist Imperialists and got off lucky.
... Why can't I edit a previous post I wanted to add stuff! Either way, I'm stressed, must take... a nap...
*flops down onto a couch*
[edit on 1-11-2005 by The Middle Kingdom]
*flops down onto a couch*
[edit on 1-11-2005 by The Middle Kingdom]
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
So many awesome assumptions...Given that I was born in the country, have lived in 3 states, 4 cities, 2 country towns and an Aboriginal homeland, I've seen more, experienced more and simply know more about it than you do. Tell me, oh wise one, where do I live? Chinawhite, your ignorance is staggering. At no point have I said you don't understand China, because I cannot prove that to be true.
Are you livng in melbourne now?.
Childhood years of aussie culture domainting the average australian faimly?
You seemly know more about the times before the real immigration started. you are living in a out-post(compared to where i am living)
You are completly ignorant to the fact that the majority of australians dont travel 6hours a day to commute to work.
When I lived in central Australia it was a 5 hour drive to Alice Springs and a 13 hour drive to Adelaide. Bendigo, I've dealt with, also Albury-Wodonga. Launceston and Hobart are two hours apart. Austalians drive these distances regularly. The Barossa Valley is more than an hour from Adelaide, people commute that down the highway daily.
From suburban areas where the
Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
"Don't let the Central Committee hear you call it that!
As for rebellious provinces...The mainland of China in the guise of the PRC is the rebellious province, not Taiwan.
And how was it TAKEN from you? Who invaded and occupied PRC territory? The Kuriles were taken from Japan, Alsace and Lorraine were taken from France, the Karelian Isthmus was taken from Finland... "
and I don't see how making it bold and bringing to to the attention of NSS would help my case its almost as if you hope I would get arrested. *amuesed*
See the Sino-Japanese war, we had to give it to Japan because they beat us and we were suppsoed to have gotten it back.
The Kuriles while taken from Japan will prbly be given back to Japan one of these days, Alsace and Lorraine were returned.
The Isthmus I don't remember but they supported the Fascist Imperialists and got off lucky.
Finland were defending themselves against Soviet invasion. Britian was planning to violate Swedish neutrality to help them defend themsleves.
Japan did give Taiwan/Formosa back. Re-read my post. It wasn't taken from you, you being the PRC.
Russi is refusing to negotiate over the Kuriles, in fact they are populating them (or they were).
Not trying to get you arrested, it's just that you apparently don't agree with the stated policy of your government, to the point of contradicting it in writing, just me having a laugh at you while you tell us all how it's a rebellious province and then call it an island nation...
The real world we reside in today dictates that any country can for all intents and purposes can do what they want. In China's case, with more than
one billion men and women, their supply of able bodies to fight off any incoming force is one to be wary of. Being a A. Force Vet. myself, we are no
match for the great Asian force of China especially in their backyard. Even if it were to make it's way over here ( God forgive ), we would be
subjected to one hell of a fight with 'em. Also, with Bush and his hawkish stance of ( taking the fight to them ) would be screwing the pooch if he
were to ever consider military action towards China at all. We must keep in mind that they can overrun us simply with the amount of people and leave
our forces in the DMZ would be mincemeat in a matter of just a few hours if that long.
Assuming we could ever get over to America, your navy will remain top notch for a little whiles yet, you can go back and rest easy now.
I have to install a new fan in my computer I'll comment as soon as I can.
I have to install a new fan in my computer I'll comment as soon as I can.
Originally posted by chinawhite
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I went to school in Melbourne, mate. That's exactly how they talk in the capital of Victoria, we slagged off Joan Kirner (Miss Piggy) and Jeff Kennet.
Sorry mate.
But come visit melbourne now. This isn't your school days 40years ago. australia is a multi-cultural society.
How about this one then?
That looks like a post about living in Melbourne. And would you look at that, not only did you read it, you quoted it and responded to it.
Wake up, China, the country needs you.
So, to recap:
We've proven (that is, you've stated repeatedly) that I am not representative of most Australians and liewise, do not think like most Australians.
Meanwhile we've proven (that is, you've stated repeatedly) that you are representative of most Chinese and also think just like them (all 1 billion +).
You've dismissed everything I've said about Australian slang idioms, Australian geography, Australian population distribution, Australian politics, in fact, anything Australian. Despite the fact that I am Australian, was born in Australia, grew up in Australia and have lived in...oh just go back and read it for yourself. You've also determined, without any proof, that I live somewhere out the back of Burke, presumbly on a cattle station where the children have to go to the School of the Air and our Age Newspapers are delivered once a week by plane along with the mail.
All because of the great knowledge you have gained from living out at Endeavour Hills.
I've dismissed nothing you've said about China that I couldn't back up.
I've dismissed your opinion of what the Taiwanese want, based solely on the fact that you are not Taiwanese and do not live in Taiwan. I have also stated that it is my personal opinion that I can empathise with the Taiwanese because we share a distinctly similar form of government and economy, one which is the diametric opposite of the government in Beijing and an economic policy that they have embraced only within the last to decades and then only in restricted zones, thus allowing some small, coastal areas of China to boom, while condemning the rest of China to initially miss out on the wealth.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!! EEEEEEEEEEEK!
BOTH OF YOU PLEASE STOP THIS CONVERSATION!
ITS POINTLESS!
PLEASE! I Beg you in humility as a humble servant of the people.
You are both right and you are both wrong. there problem solved.
BOTH OF YOU PLEASE STOP THIS CONVERSATION!
ITS POINTLESS!
PLEASE! I Beg you in humility as a humble servant of the people.
You are both right and you are both wrong. there problem solved.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
How about this one then?
That looks like a post about living in Melbourne. And would you look at that, not only did you read it, you quoted it and responded to it.
Wake up, China, the country needs you.
Wake up Howl.
I said come visit melbourne now. I didn't say you never lived here.
Jesus talk about ignorant. God must have blessed you with lots of it
We've proven (that is, you've stated repeatedly) that I am not representative of most Australians and liewise, do not think like most Australians.
Meanwhile we've proven (that is, you've stated repeatedly) that you are representative of most Chinese and also think just like them (all 1 billion +).
I never said i thought like most chinese. only on certain issues. Yes you represent the average australian on some issues but the average australian doesn't have worries about demoracy in taiwan. You ask someone who is a taiwanese and they will say chinese or japanese.(you get what i mean)
But maybe your melbourne education wasn't up to scratch. (i thought english was still english)
You've dismissed everything I've said about Australian slang idioms, Australian geography, Australian population distribution, Australian politics, in fact, anything Australian. Despite the fact that I am Australian, was born in Australia, grew up in Australia and have lived in...oh just go back and read it for yourself. You've also determined, without any proof, that I live somewhere out the back of Burke, presumbly on a cattle station where the children have to go to the School of the Air and our Age Newspapers are delivered once a week by plane along with the mail.
Youv're repeatly tried to prove that aussie slang still exist in melbourne Today which it doesn't. Do you know our modern slang(which we call people we they try talk "aussie" slang)
Its called a BOGON. and from the picture your portraying you are a bogan. But everyone has their own thing and i dont discriminate againest you for that. But a average australian doesn't act like that
Yes i do hvae a picture of bedigo as a cattle station because from my personal experience thats all i saw. Now i would debate you on what bendigo is now because i dont live there but that is my personal opinion about bendigo.
Now please show some edvidence that a average australian travels 6hours a day to get to work.
I have also stated that it is my personal opinion that I can empathise with the Taiwanese because we share a distinctly similar form of government and economy, one which is the diametric opposite of the government in Beijing and an economic policy that they have embraced only within the last to decades and then only in restricted zones, thus allowing some small, coastal areas of China to boom, while condemning the rest of China to initially miss out on the wealth.
Umm. You know so little about chinese or taiwanese polictics and even less about their economic policies.
A SEZ(special economic zone) is a area where compaines pay less tax and other such things. THe areas surrounding the SEZ prosper because of the need for more labour and the development of services.
It you thik that only in the Coast they prosper. go check out some areas of xingjiang or Chongqing. these areas are not even close to chinas coast.
The ROC for a good deal of its existence has been under matrial law. Only during the 80s was it actually changed to the type of government you are thinking of. there have also been many problems with this demoracy. eg. vote buying and their temper tantrums in the house.
Their is a very very big difference in the Pan-blue and Pan-green allanices. Its a lot different from labour or the liberals.
All because of the great knowledge you have gained from living out at Endeavour Hills.
Yes i have.
It is a average australian suburb where the majority of autralians live
[edit on 3-11-2005 by chinawhite]
Sorry MK...
Uh-huh, yeah. You never said it.
Uh-huh. For your edification, I attended one of the three top schools in Melbourne at considerable cost to my parents. One of the joys of a free-market economy. Got the old school tie and all.
English may be English. But Australian slang is not. It's, would you believe it, Australian. Just as, say, what up, dude? is Amercian and bagger, tom, Barney and bubble are all English. Cockney to be exact.
Perhaps you should open Headway up again and do a little revision, because yours is a little, shall we say, lacking.
That's awfully big of you. Hmm, bogan...let me think back into the dim mists of time when I lived in Melbourne 40 years ago...hmmm...Oh, yes, of course. A stone/acid washed jeans and flannel shirt wearing, AC/DC listening, Torana-driving mullet-head. Uggh boots and an AccaDacca t-shirt are just a bonus. In fact, any working-class meathead of whom you have a low opinion.
You know what we call people when they try to talk "Aussie"? It rhymes with Merchant banker.
When was that, 1849? Perhaps you missed the area where 100,000 people are living...
Who said anything about average (and I assume you're substituting "average" for "most") Australians travelling that far. I said Australians did it. I didn't say how many.
Umm, martial law? Really? I never knew that was why I was watching ABC and SBS documentaries about the KMT opening up the electoral process and even removing the seats that still existed for mainland electorates. Gosh, ignorant me.
That labour force wouldn't consist of Nike and Gap factories where the workers are paid slave wages and forced to live in dormitories on-site would it? Or were you talking about the people who can afford Ferraris in Shanghai? In a peasant's revolutionary paradise. I guess it is paradise if you can afford a Ferrari.
Now, the people of Taiwan are completely different to the Eastern Europeans who had their Rose and Orange revolutions to defend their (severely compromised) democracy, aren't they. After all, the decades of repressive martial law they suffered through, despite ecenomic success, have left them completely docile to any repressive, authoritarian regime that comes along, say from Beijing for example, and will accept, without a word of complaint, a sudden shift in their status. Just as the Ukrainians accepted a dictatorial president and a rigged election to put his hand-picked successor in power last year.
Oops. Maybe I don't need to know the Taiwanese personally to be able to see a world-wide pattern of people defending their freedoms against authoritarianism.
I mean, the Uzbeks didn't protest against their dictator, did they? Or the Kazakhs against their dictator, did they? And the southern Iraqis never rose in revolt against their dictator, or the Kurds against the same dictator? And the Chileans aren't continually trying to put their ex-dictator on trial, are they?
Oh, of course Chinese culture means they regard harmony as more important than individual rights. That's why they, still not completely used to the subtleties of democracy, take to each other in fist-fights on the floor of parliament, because harmony is the most important thing they cherish.
No, it is a working class bastion that borders on being socio-economically depressed. Just about that whole eastern end of Melbourne beyond the SE Arterial is. It is one development after another fenced off from the freeway, full of single-brick veneer houses on artificial streets that turn back in on themselves and give no access to the main road. In Adelaide it's called Oakden and Mawson Lakes. In Sydney you'll find it in the outer-western suburbs. These places are the subject of numerous debates into the criminalisation of children and why we breed crime in certain areas. Broadmeadows used to be the factory for these people, now it has shifted.
The wealth is to be found in Toorak, South Yarra and, for really old money, Kew. The original working class slum, Collingwood, is now affordable only to yuppies. The city-centre is full of serviced apartment complexes, including, to my great dissappointment, the old City Square. Thanks Jeff, you elitist snob. Still, what do you expect from a Scotch boy? I mean, what the hell is with those randy red blazers anyway? Still we thumped them at the annual game. Forgive me if I'm talking over your head here, chinawhite, it's an old school thing, I'm sure you understand.
I suggest you use your time in Australia wisely and get out and see a bit more of it. You might learn something.
Originally posted by chinawhite
I said come visit melbourne now. I didn't say you never lived here.
Jesus talk about ignorant. God must have blessed you with lots of it
Originally posted by chinawhite
Originally posted by HowrunnerIV
What, you can't read my posts about living in Melbourne?
I can read them because of never wrote them
Uh-huh, yeah. You never said it.
But maybe your melbourne education wasn't up to scratch. (i thought english was still english)
Uh-huh. For your edification, I attended one of the three top schools in Melbourne at considerable cost to my parents. One of the joys of a free-market economy. Got the old school tie and all.
English may be English. But Australian slang is not. It's, would you believe it, Australian. Just as, say, what up, dude? is Amercian and bagger, tom, Barney and bubble are all English. Cockney to be exact.
Perhaps you should open Headway up again and do a little revision, because yours is a little, shall we say, lacking.
Youv're repeatly tried to prove that aussie slang still exist in melbourne Today which it doesn't. Do you know our modern slang(which we call people we they try talk "aussie" slang)
Its called a BOGON. and from the picture your portraying you are a bogan. But everyone has their own thing and i dont discriminate againest you for that. But a average australian doesn't act like that
That's awfully big of you. Hmm, bogan...let me think back into the dim mists of time when I lived in Melbourne 40 years ago...hmmm...Oh, yes, of course. A stone/acid washed jeans and flannel shirt wearing, AC/DC listening, Torana-driving mullet-head. Uggh boots and an AccaDacca t-shirt are just a bonus. In fact, any working-class meathead of whom you have a low opinion.
You know what we call people when they try to talk "Aussie"? It rhymes with Merchant banker.
Yes i do hvae a picture of bedigo as a cattle station because from my personal experience thats all i saw.
When was that, 1849? Perhaps you missed the area where 100,000 people are living...
Now please show some edvidence that a average australian travels 6hours a day to get to work.
Who said anything about average (and I assume you're substituting "average" for "most") Australians travelling that far. I said Australians did it. I didn't say how many.
Umm. You know so little about chinese or taiwanese polictics and even less about their economic policies.
Umm, martial law? Really? I never knew that was why I was watching ABC and SBS documentaries about the KMT opening up the electoral process and even removing the seats that still existed for mainland electorates. Gosh, ignorant me.
That labour force wouldn't consist of Nike and Gap factories where the workers are paid slave wages and forced to live in dormitories on-site would it? Or were you talking about the people who can afford Ferraris in Shanghai? In a peasant's revolutionary paradise. I guess it is paradise if you can afford a Ferrari.
Now, the people of Taiwan are completely different to the Eastern Europeans who had their Rose and Orange revolutions to defend their (severely compromised) democracy, aren't they. After all, the decades of repressive martial law they suffered through, despite ecenomic success, have left them completely docile to any repressive, authoritarian regime that comes along, say from Beijing for example, and will accept, without a word of complaint, a sudden shift in their status. Just as the Ukrainians accepted a dictatorial president and a rigged election to put his hand-picked successor in power last year.
Oops. Maybe I don't need to know the Taiwanese personally to be able to see a world-wide pattern of people defending their freedoms against authoritarianism.
I mean, the Uzbeks didn't protest against their dictator, did they? Or the Kazakhs against their dictator, did they? And the southern Iraqis never rose in revolt against their dictator, or the Kurds against the same dictator? And the Chileans aren't continually trying to put their ex-dictator on trial, are they?
Oh, of course Chinese culture means they regard harmony as more important than individual rights. That's why they, still not completely used to the subtleties of democracy, take to each other in fist-fights on the floor of parliament, because harmony is the most important thing they cherish.
All because of the great knowledge you have gained from living out at Endeavour Hills.
Yes i have.
It is a average australian suburb where the majority of autralians live
[edit on 3-11-2005 by chinawhite]
No, it is a working class bastion that borders on being socio-economically depressed. Just about that whole eastern end of Melbourne beyond the SE Arterial is. It is one development after another fenced off from the freeway, full of single-brick veneer houses on artificial streets that turn back in on themselves and give no access to the main road. In Adelaide it's called Oakden and Mawson Lakes. In Sydney you'll find it in the outer-western suburbs. These places are the subject of numerous debates into the criminalisation of children and why we breed crime in certain areas. Broadmeadows used to be the factory for these people, now it has shifted.
The wealth is to be found in Toorak, South Yarra and, for really old money, Kew. The original working class slum, Collingwood, is now affordable only to yuppies. The city-centre is full of serviced apartment complexes, including, to my great dissappointment, the old City Square. Thanks Jeff, you elitist snob. Still, what do you expect from a Scotch boy? I mean, what the hell is with those randy red blazers anyway? Still we thumped them at the annual game. Forgive me if I'm talking over your head here, chinawhite, it's an old school thing, I'm sure you understand.
I suggest you use your time in Australia wisely and get out and see a bit more of it. You might learn something.
"More later now I have class. "
hmmmmm .... still waiting .... (cobwebs beginning to form)
LCKob
hmmmmm .... still waiting .... (cobwebs beginning to form)
LCKob
You try to balance a social life, a digital life and a career in the military all at the same time.
Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
You try to balance a social life, a digital life and a career in the military all at the same time.
Reasonable ... okay, no problem.
LCKob
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Uh-huh. For your edification, I attended one of the three top schools in Melbourne at considerable cost to my parents. One of the joys of a free-market economy. Got the old school tie and all.
And which one was that(if you dont mind)
You know what we call people when they try to talk "Aussie"? It rhymes with Merchant banker.
What is it?
When was that, 1849? Perhaps you missed the area where 100,000 people are living...
100,000 people spread over a large area
Who said anything about average (and I assume you're substituting "average" for "most") Australians travelling that far. I said Australians did it. I didn't say how many.
We were talking about who many people travel to bendigo. And the average australian wouldn't travel that far.
Some yes but not a lot that live far away eg 6 hours.
Umm, martial law? Really? I never knew that was why I was watching ABC and SBS documentaries about the KMT opening up the electoral process and even removing the seats that still existed for mainland electorates. Gosh, ignorant me.
ABC and SBS are somewhat bias in nearly every show they make.
Got your education from tv shows?.
What has the color revolutions have to do anything with china and taiwan
That labour force wouldn't consist of Nike and Gap factories where the workers are paid slave wages and forced to live in dormitories on-site would it? Or were you talking about the people who can afford Ferraris in Shanghai? In a peasant's revolutionary paradise. I guess it is paradise if you can afford a Ferrari.
Nike and Gap? i watched the documentry on chinese workers working on oikawa and were forced to live in the dormitories on-site. But oikawa is japanese terrioty and american compaines taking advantage of chinese workers
Im sorry but the majority of chinas slave population are not from the area but migrate to work there for better wages.
dormitories on site? Not all people come by themselves. most people take their families with them, only a X perentage come and work temperory and have to live on site to earn a living.
Slave wages?
That is quite interesting because your slave wages are everyone elses standard. Not everyone in the world lives like a australian.
It seems you have are very very vague view of what china actually makes instead of your sterotype view of asian sweatshops
No, it is a working class bastion that borders on being socio-economically depressed. Just about that whole eastern end of Melbourne beyond the SE Arterial is. It is one development after another fenced off from the freeway, full of single-brick veneer houses on artificial streets that turn back in on themselves and give no access to the main road.
.
OMG this is funny. If i walk for a whole day around endeavour hills i couldn't find one single-brick veneer house.
This only shows how long you haven't been here.
roughly 50% of houses built in endeavour hills is a double story. And 100% of new houses built are double story.
There is a newer area and a older area.
In 1981 there was about 30 houses out here now there is practically no space left.
The wealth is to be found in Toorak, South Yarra and, for really old money, Kew. The original working class slum, Collingwood, is now affordable only to yuppies. Forgive me if I'm talking over your head here, chinawhite, it's an old school thing, I'm sure you understand.
Toorak, South Yarra are not the average australian houses. Not even close.
Yeah you area talking over my head because of the age of your comments
" Charleston, South Carolina, Oct. 29 (CNA) In a ceremony presided over by R.O.C. Navy chief Adm. Chen Pang-chih Saturday, two US-made Kidd-class
destroyers were handed over to Taiwan and made ready to head to their new home base.
Instead of donning his uniform, Adm. Chen appeared at the ceremony in civilian clothes to play down the military significance of his country's acquisition of the two warships.
Contrary to Chen's low profile, his US counterpart in the ceremony, Brigadier-General John Allen, the principal director for Asian and Pacific Affairs, International Security Affairs of the Office of the Secretary of Defense showed up in his uniform, and called on Taiwan politicians be more concerned about the safety of their country and deal responsibly with the Taiwan government's request to purchase a package of arms from the USA.
Allen was referring to the Taiwan government's request to buy US$16 billion worth of arms from the US, which has been blocked by the legislature more than 30 times.
The US general also said the destroyers, the first two of four purchased by Taiwan, would strengthen Taiwan's defense capability and improve its security.
Also present at Saturday's ceremony were David Lee, Taiwan's representative to the USA, and a group of journalists stationed by Taiwan media in Washington.
It has not been announced when The two destroyers, named by Taiwan authorities the Keelung and the Suao, will leave Charleston for Taiwan. "
www.globalsecurity.org...
These are one step down from Aegis destroyers.
Instead of donning his uniform, Adm. Chen appeared at the ceremony in civilian clothes to play down the military significance of his country's acquisition of the two warships.
Contrary to Chen's low profile, his US counterpart in the ceremony, Brigadier-General John Allen, the principal director for Asian and Pacific Affairs, International Security Affairs of the Office of the Secretary of Defense showed up in his uniform, and called on Taiwan politicians be more concerned about the safety of their country and deal responsibly with the Taiwan government's request to purchase a package of arms from the USA.
Allen was referring to the Taiwan government's request to buy US$16 billion worth of arms from the US, which has been blocked by the legislature more than 30 times.
The US general also said the destroyers, the first two of four purchased by Taiwan, would strengthen Taiwan's defense capability and improve its security.
Also present at Saturday's ceremony were David Lee, Taiwan's representative to the USA, and a group of journalists stationed by Taiwan media in Washington.
It has not been announced when The two destroyers, named by Taiwan authorities the Keelung and the Suao, will leave Charleston for Taiwan. "
www.globalsecurity.org...
These are one step down from Aegis destroyers.
Oh, for God's sake...
Just between you, me and the entire ATS community, chinawhite, that detail I'd like to keep private. As was the school.
Come on, chinawhite, you know so much about Aussie slang, you figure it out.
No. It's a city, or did that detail escape you. It's an urban centre, with a GPO (note the G), inner and outer suburbs and all. Remember the bit about it having more tram lines than Adelaide?
No, we weren't, that's the whole point. No numbers were discussed.
Do pay attention. I was being wry and sardonic. I knew full well that for 40 years Taiwan lived under single-party rule backed by a highly politicised military. That's half the irony of the situation.
And of course CCTV is a paragon of free and fair reporting...
No, I didn't get my education from tv shows, but I'll excuse that peice of patheticism.
Oh, dear...
Got your education from tv shows, did you?
Oh, well that's alright then. They're not from that area, it's okay to treat them like slaves.
So, no debunking my assertions, then?
No they don't, that's why it's called the Lucky Country.
Doesn't change the fact that wages of less than $60 a month are slave wages, no matter where you are. Especially when the product will be sold for hundreds of dollars. And, no, my slave wages are not everyone else's standard. Europe, the US, Canada, New Zealand, all describe Chinese garment factory pay rates as slave wages precisely because they are too low.
$1 a day may be a common earnings figure throughout Asia and Africa, but that doesn't make it standard. Why else would the UN have instituted its Millenium Goals poverty-reduction program?
It seems you have a very apologist view of the deplorable conditions so many of your countrymen must endure, precisely because your government is too self-interested and corrupt to help them.
China build knock-off Honda motorcycles, clone computers, fake desigenr goods, real designer goods, "real fake" designer goods, copies of anything Russian military, Huffy bicycles, Levi jeans...
Do you even know what single-brick veneer is?
Obviously not. It means a wood or steel frame with a single layer of brick and plaster sheeting (Gyprock) for the internal surface. Much cheaper than doing double-brick walls, which require much stronger foundations and consequently cost more than twice as much. It has nothing to do with the number of levels a home has.
It has everything to do with the economic situation of the owners. Old houses in Australia are stone or double brick. They are situated on large blocks on long, usually wide, straight streets with large, leafy trees. Those streets have access at both ends. These, funnily enough, are called "leafy suburbs".
New houses in Australia are built cheaply. They are single-brick, they have stud internal walls (plaster over wood frame) instead of solid internal walls, they are built on small blocks in developments that only have four or five access points and fences all around to try and keep the noise of major roads out. They have few shops, instead you must go to places like Knox City to do your shopping. The streets are narrow and twisty, artifically created to keep traffic slow. There are no large trees yet because the developments are too new.
To buy an old house will cost you, depending on city, A$400,000 and up (That's for a small one).
To buy a new house, which might be two or three times the size, will cost you A$150,000 and up.
You can build a "neo-colonial" with three bedrooms, ensuite and separate kitchen and dining for $150,000, inlcuding land. The reason is that it is single-brick veneer with a stone facade. To build a real "colonial" to the same specs with solid internal walls and dressed-stone external walls will run you close to a million.
Yes, that's called urban sprawl.
Yes, I believe that's what was meant by "the wealth".
Really, two days old is over your head? I was referring to private schools and their rivalries, but never mind.
Just between you, me and the entire ATS community, chinawhite, that detail I'd like to keep private. As was the school.
You know what we call people when they try to talk "Aussie"? It rhymes with Merchant banker.
What is it?
Come on, chinawhite, you know so much about Aussie slang, you figure it out.
100,000 people spread over a large area
No. It's a city, or did that detail escape you. It's an urban centre, with a GPO (note the G), inner and outer suburbs and all. Remember the bit about it having more tram lines than Adelaide?
We were talking about who many people travel to bendigo.
No, we weren't, that's the whole point. No numbers were discussed.
Umm, martial law? Really? I never knew that was why I was watching ABC and SBS documentaries about the KMT opening up the electoral process and even removing the seats that still existed for mainland electorates. Gosh, ignorant me.
ABC and SBS are somewhat bias in nearly every show they make.
Got your education from tv shows?.
Do pay attention. I was being wry and sardonic. I knew full well that for 40 years Taiwan lived under single-party rule backed by a highly politicised military. That's half the irony of the situation.
And of course CCTV is a paragon of free and fair reporting...
No, I didn't get my education from tv shows, but I'll excuse that peice of patheticism.
What has the color revolutions have to do anything with china and taiwan
Oh, dear...
That labour force wouldn't consist of Nike and Gap factories where the workers are paid slave wages and forced to live in dormitories on-site would it? Or were you talking about the people who can afford Ferraris in Shanghai? In a peasant's revolutionary paradise. I guess it is paradise if you can afford a Ferrari.
Nike and Gap? i watched the documentry on chinese workers working on oikawa and were forced to live in the dormitories on-site. But oikawa is japanese terrioty and american compaines taking advantage of chinese workers
Got your education from tv shows, did you?
Im sorry but the majority of chinas slave population are not from the area but migrate to work there for better wages.
Oh, well that's alright then. They're not from that area, it's okay to treat them like slaves.
dormitories on site? Not all people come by themselves. most people take their families with them, only a X perentage come and work temperory and have to live on site to earn a living.
So, no debunking my assertions, then?
Slave wages?
That is quite interesting because your slave wages are everyone elses standard. Not everyone in the world lives like a australian.
No they don't, that's why it's called the Lucky Country.
Doesn't change the fact that wages of less than $60 a month are slave wages, no matter where you are. Especially when the product will be sold for hundreds of dollars. And, no, my slave wages are not everyone else's standard. Europe, the US, Canada, New Zealand, all describe Chinese garment factory pay rates as slave wages precisely because they are too low.
$1 a day may be a common earnings figure throughout Asia and Africa, but that doesn't make it standard. Why else would the UN have instituted its Millenium Goals poverty-reduction program?
you have are very very vague view of what china actually makes instead of your sterotype view of asian sweatshops
It seems you have a very apologist view of the deplorable conditions so many of your countrymen must endure, precisely because your government is too self-interested and corrupt to help them.
China build knock-off Honda motorcycles, clone computers, fake desigenr goods, real designer goods, "real fake" designer goods, copies of anything Russian military, Huffy bicycles, Levi jeans...
\.
OMG this is funny. If i walk for a whole day around endeavour hills i couldn't find one single-brick veneer house.
Do you even know what single-brick veneer is?
This only shows how long you haven't been here.
roughly 50% of houses built in endeavour hills is a double story. And 100% of new houses built are double story.
Obviously not. It means a wood or steel frame with a single layer of brick and plaster sheeting (Gyprock) for the internal surface. Much cheaper than doing double-brick walls, which require much stronger foundations and consequently cost more than twice as much. It has nothing to do with the number of levels a home has.
It has everything to do with the economic situation of the owners. Old houses in Australia are stone or double brick. They are situated on large blocks on long, usually wide, straight streets with large, leafy trees. Those streets have access at both ends. These, funnily enough, are called "leafy suburbs".
New houses in Australia are built cheaply. They are single-brick, they have stud internal walls (plaster over wood frame) instead of solid internal walls, they are built on small blocks in developments that only have four or five access points and fences all around to try and keep the noise of major roads out. They have few shops, instead you must go to places like Knox City to do your shopping. The streets are narrow and twisty, artifically created to keep traffic slow. There are no large trees yet because the developments are too new.
To buy an old house will cost you, depending on city, A$400,000 and up (That's for a small one).
To buy a new house, which might be two or three times the size, will cost you A$150,000 and up.
You can build a "neo-colonial" with three bedrooms, ensuite and separate kitchen and dining for $150,000, inlcuding land. The reason is that it is single-brick veneer with a stone facade. To build a real "colonial" to the same specs with solid internal walls and dressed-stone external walls will run you close to a million.
In 1981 there was about 30 houses out here now there is practically no space left.
Yes, that's called urban sprawl.
Toorak, South Yarra are not the average australian houses. Not even close.
Yes, I believe that's what was meant by "the wealth".
Yeah you area talking over my head because of the age of your comments
Really, two days old is over your head? I was referring to private schools and their rivalries, but never mind.
Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
"Ethics is irrelevent, morals are subjective, only the results and the opinions of those comparable to you matter. That is realpolitik. "
Hah, spoken like a true politician ... yes with that species ... morals and ethics don't enter into the equation at all.
As for taking the information out of context, I took it VERBATIM from your posts ... nothing more.
... haha don't like the moral and ethical implications of such a takeover? Find it uncomfortable when it can be compared to rape? Ask ChinaWhite ... or anyone else participating on this thread ... I repeatedly ask the questions and you conveniently duck the question and when you do answer its with indignation and dismissal ... and tacit acknowlegement that the ETHICS may be questionable ... face it, you don't have a justifiable answer ... and saber rattling to "look strong" is ridiculous ... as if Taiwan and the world does not know the capacity of the Chinese mainland. Far more likely this show of force and might is an effort to have Taiwan roll over without a shot being fired ... yes like the threat of that playground bully ... or RAPIST.
hmmmm ... funny can't come up with a straight anwer to my posts ... why is that? Oh thats right ethics be damned ... LONG LIVE REALPOLITIK!
The confederacy? hahahahha ... different beast entirely ... actually a war of ideals with human rights were the issue ... a culture integrated with basic inequalities such as slavery vs. the more progressive and liberal atttitues of the north which SUPPORTED the original intent of the founding fathers.
The civil war was for us like a family ... where the parents set down the ideals for the children to follow ... yet after the parents death, one child goes astray and commits to acts that diametrically oppose the ideals of the parents ... thus the North represents the brother who is tasked with CONTAINING the errent brother and preventing further injustice to those weaker. Yes, blood is thicker than water, but within the context of honorable intent ... the South had to fall in order to preserve the basic ideals which were formulated for the founding colonies ... in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the imperialistic nature of the British Empire ...
Okay with that said ... you want to takeover Taiwan for what reason now?
... hmmm could it be the corrupt nature of this "amoral" child - bent on corrupting the most basic and fundemental human rights accorded to all humans? Could it be to safeguard the world from such sociopathic wickedness (and thus maintain the integrity of Chinese ideals?)
Of course it can't be for the sake of pride or the fact that Taiwan is a financial cash cow ... no ... no ... never that.
LONG LIVE REALPOLITIK!
"...the fact that we're going through so much trouble to do so means that we are actually doing something that is morally correct in a morally bankrupt world of politics."
Oh and it would not have anything to do with the fact that such a conflict would be costly in terms of manpower AND world opinion? Yes, totally altruistic I'm sure.
... oh, and before you vent your spleen on me, please note that besides ChinaWhite and yourself, no other Pro-Invasion poster has attempted an effective rebuttal. ChinaWhite's response was honest ... yours though is at best "politically correct" with a hint of irritation or anger.
... and if it indeed is with anger, then honestly ask yourself, what are you mad at? ... could it be that my questions make it "awkward" to promote your notion of absolute nationalism ... in light of this crowd? Could it be that you find it difficult to JUSTIFY such actions in totality (thus allowing you to toss ethics aside)? Could it be that you wish the rest of the world to turn a blind eye to Taiwan, so that you can "harmoniously merge" with your long lost brothers?
Now, I hand the microphone on to you ... roll cameras .... Middle Kingdom is about to speak!
*clap clap*
I must say your post is beautifully said, it was an well written responce and I'm sure would catch most rhetoric spewing robots off guard.
However lets get some facts straight, the Emancipation Act was only declared AFTER McClellin won a major battle against Gen. Lee, for two reasons, 1. Lee wasn't a supporter of slavery and only fought to defend his home state once he attacked into US territory he wasn't completely commited and made mistakes that he shouldn't have made in another situation. He's moves while brilliant lacked his devotion.
2. He lost 3 cigars which had his battle orders and they fell into the hands of the enemy.
The Emancipation Act was for mostly political reasons, Lincon did EVERYTHING he could to keep England and France out of the war and if Lee won a few more victories England and France who supported the Confederate cause for freedom backed out the minute the Act was declared.
More later now I have class.
The Civil War was not originally about freeing the slaves but about keeping the Union together, putting Federal Power over State Power, and increasing the powers of the President and Congress.
If Lee had won a few more victories against McClellin England and France would have intervened and supported the Confederate cause for "freedom from oppression". ANd Lincoln would not have issued emancipation due for it looking like an act of desparration.
The War of Seccesion was no holy war, it was simply the rich capitalist north ensuring its strength on the expence of the reactionary South. Freeing the Slaves was a political move that with a key crucial victory allowed Lincoln the ability to keep England and France out of the war.
As for the matter of Taiwan, Taiwan has been proven sufficiently by our sources that it has been Historically ours since the 1600's, cultural ours since the same day and politically recognized as ours since (from our perspective 1949) Richard Nixon's "One China Policy" as thus recognized by the UN.
Reuniting with Taiwan would be a great accomplishment, it will ensure our territorial integrety, allow us to project power throughout the mid-pacific, and provide an impressive boost to our economic health and excellerate our drive for Super Power status. Thus it is in Taiwan's best interests to join one day soon, for they will share in the glory as our economic might will be unstopable and our international trade will ensure our prosperity with other nations and allow us to spread our culture and improve relations.
This dream is too important to lose to something as trivial of what some people may or may not want. We could also say that Taiwan are but spoilt children who must be brought back into the household and reconcile past differences.
But nevertheless, should all routes one day fail force is our last resort as it has always been and have exuded a far greater tolerance then other nations such as Russia and America. But War is politics and Politics is War without fighting, it is the nature of the matter that the state is the supreme arbiter of power and it is the Army that keeps and ensures that extension of state power, is geopolitics is politics on the world stage where a state's ability to project power determines postion within the world and it is realpolitik where the state makes decisions based on realism, realities, pragmatism and diplomacy and determines whether the power of the state is sufficient for obtaining clearly visible and cleary obtanable goals.
That is the crux of Clauswitzian thought and has been the thought that has governed all modern parliaments and politburo's since their publications.
No where is the welfare of the people mentioned being important except as a means to an end. If the people are happy then the government can use such happyness to incrase productivity, if they are unhappy then the state must find a way to make them happy.
The decisions the state makes is simply a political juggling of power that in the ends falls back onto the state. This has been true in every system except true communism where power is ultimately in the hands of soviets of workers and peasants.
Originally posted by The Middle Kingdom
This dream is too important to lose to something as trivial of what some people may or may not want. We could also say that Taiwan are but spoilt children who must be brought back into the household and reconcile past differences.
I'm not sure which part of reconcile includes armed hostilities. I guess my copy of the OED is a little out of date.
Of course, we could say China is nothing more than an overgrown bully who needs to be kicked up the arse and sent to bed without tea until he learns good manners.
But nevertheless, should all routes one day fail force is our last resort as it has always been and have exuded a far greater tolerance then other nations such as Russia and America.
Riiight. Let's get back to Tibet and East Turkestan on that one, shall we.
But War is politics and Politics is War without fighting
No. War is politics by other means. And historically those who have attempted this have failed and miserably so. Someone should have told GWB what happened to Benito Mussolini. Or even Lyndon Baines Johnson. Hey we could go as far back as King Guy of Jerusalem if you want.
No where is the welfare of the people mentioned being important except as a means to an end. If the people are happy then the government can use such happyness to incrase productivity, if they are unhappy then the state must find a way to make them happy.
Except perhaps in the US' declaration of independence. I'm fairly certain it says something about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of which the government must guarantee, for no other reason than they are the people's right.
"The Civil War was not originally about freeing the slaves but about keeping the Union together, putting Federal Power over State Power, and
increasing the powers of the President and Congress.
If Lee had won a few more victories against McClellin England and France would have intervened and supported the Confederate cause for "freedom from oppression". ANd Lincoln would not have issued emancipation due for it looking like an act of desparration.
The War of Seccesion was no holy war, it was simply the rich capitalist north ensuring its strength on the expence of the reactionary South. Freeing the Slaves was a political move that with a key crucial victory allowed Lincoln the ability to keep England and France out of the war.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Myth Conception 1. The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery -- most Southerners didn't even own slaves.
This one is almost (but not really) true. In South Carolina, for example, only about 47% of the families owned African American slaves on the eve of the Civil War. So in that sense "most" didn't -- but that tells only part of the story. What did Southerners themselves say about the cause of the Civil War? The South Carolina Secession Convention adopted the Declaration of Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina, written by Christopher G. Memminger of Charleston. In this document the secession of South Carolina from the Union was rested squarely on two factors:
- the North's hostility toward slavery
- the North's refusal to enforce the fugitive slave laws.
In fact, in a 4-1 vote, the convention refused to even consider adding other issues, such as the tariff!
One of delegates, Thomas Jefferson Withers, had earlier written: "The true question for us is, how shall we sustain African slavery in South Carolina from a series of annoying attacks, attended by incidental consequences that I shrink from depicting, and finally from utter abolition? That is the problem before us - the naked and true point."
So the members of Convention pretty clearly realized that they weren't concerned about any issue other than their right to maintain, buy, and sell human property -- African American slaves.
Virginia Senator Robert M.T. Hunter asked, in the Confederate Congress, "If we didn't go to war to save our slaves, what did we go to war for?"
Myth Conception 5: It still couldn't have been about slavery -- look at all the yeoman farmers that fought for the South.
That's true, yeoman farmers did fight for the South. In fact, like most wars, the poor do the bulk of the fighting, and dying. But look at the propaganda that urged them on -- that encouraged them to look at this fight for slavery as their fight. The South Carolina elite had been organizing yeoman farmers into local vigilant associations and minute man organizations during all of 1860 -- all in an effort to win the hearts and minds of poor whites.
As early as 1858 the Charleston Mercury proclaimed: "the free white man here stands above and superior belonging to the master ruling class . . . . He has every reason to make property secure and to perpetuate justice and freedom amongst those of his class." By 1860 the Charleston Mercury was urging its readers to "inform every man (the nonslaveholder as well as the slaveholder) of the deep and vital interests that are involved in our slavery institutions" and readers were warned that they must protect the "rights of freemen" against the "tampering thieves of abolition."
Yeoman farmers were reminded that in property rights -- such as the right to own African slaves -- lay their claim to masterhood and all of its prerogatives. One fire-eater went to great lengths to explain what emancipation of slaves would mean to "the non-slaveholding portion of our citizens," observing that yeoman would then have no rights that weren't also conferred on slaves. "In no country in the world does the poor white man whether slaveholder of non-slaveholder occupy so enviable a position as in the slaveholding states of the South."
Poor whites were told, "The poor man has as much at stake [in slavery] as he who is possessed of hundreds of negroes. . . . He has his all at stake" including his person, his wife, his children. "These two races [white and "negro"] cannot live together on terms of equality."
Yeoman farmers were told that if they didn't fight to support slavery their worlds who tumble down around them and they would be no better than slaves. After a while, when the issue of slavery became more divisive, Southern leaders turned to the idea of "sacred civil liberties" in order to justify the dissolution of the Union.
www.chicora.org...
Conclusion
Although the majority of the American people-- including many moderate politicians like Abraham Lincoln--wanted to avoid Civil War and were content to allow slavery to die a slow, inevitable death, the most influential political leaders of the day were not. On the southern side, "fire-eaters" like Rhett and Yancey were willing to make war to guarantee the propagation of their "right" to own slaves. On the northern side, abolitionists like John Brown and Henry Ward Beecher of Connecticut were willing to make war in order to put an immediate end to the degrading institution of slavery.
These leaders, through either words or action, were able to convince the majority that it was necessary to go to war, and in order to convince them they justified the war with arguments that only indirectly referred to the subject of slavery (i.e., state rights et. al.).
Southern politicians convinced their majority that the North was threatening their way of life and their culture. Northern politicians convinced their majority that the South, if allowed to secede, was really striking a serious blow at democratic government. In these arguments, both southern and northern politicians were speaking the truth--but not "the whole truth." They knew that to declare the war to be a fight over slavery would cause a lot of the potential soldiers of both sides to refuse to fight.
So-was the war about slavery? Absolutely. If there had been no disagreement over the issue of slavery, the South would probably not have discerned a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much less likely to seek "their right to secede." But was it only about slavery? No. It was also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to leave the Union, and--of primary concern to most southern soldiers--the continuation of antebellum southern culture. Although the majority of Southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians--and consequently the underlying cause of the South's desire to seek independence and state rights.
This has been my attempt at providing a brief, balance answer to a complicated subject which has been the subject of many books. For further reading, I suggest Kenneth Stampp's Causes of the Civil War.
members.tripod.com...
The American Civil War originated in a constitutional crisis, precipitated when several southern States "seceded" from the United States, and formed their own federal republic, the Confederate States of America. The Southern belief that they had a right, unilaterally, to secede, can be attributed to the doctrine of State Sovereignty or States Rights. The motivation for the secession was to protect the institution of slavery, as it existed in those southern States, against the anticipated hostility of an emerging non-Southern, antislavery majority. The immediate trigger for war was the election of the Republican candidate for President in 1860, Abraham Lincoln, a moderately antislavery politician pledged to oppose "slavery expansion" -- that is, the admission of additional slave states to the Union. The election of Lincoln was the culmination of a long political struggle over federal policy toward slavery and southern dominance of the federal government.
encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com...
With the emergence by the mid-1850s of the United States Republican Party, which was the nation's first major political party with only sectional appeal, politics became the stage on which sectional conflict over the expansion of slavery in the West was played out. The acquisition of new lands in the 1840s catapulted the nation into civil war.
Before the American Civil War, the Constitution provided the basis to define the terms in which debate over the future of government would continue, and had been able to regulate conflicts of interest and conflicting visions for the new, rapidly expanding nation. Factors that had changed from 1820 to 1860 to bring about civil war rather than the gentlemanly compromises of the Missouri Compromise or the Compromise of 1850 included the rise of mass democracy in the North, the breakdown of the old two-party system, and increasingly virulent and hostile sectional ideologies.
Moral arguments against slavery had long existed, but in the interest of maintaining unity and gentlemanly compromise, party loyalties had mostly kept opposition to that "peculiar institution" personal rather than political. With the rise of the Republican Party (itself bolstered by the panic of 1857) and its skilled politicians and activists, the industrializing North became committed to the economic ethos of free-labor industrial capitalism. The resolution of this sectional conflict – culminating in the American Civil War – was perhaps the nation's principal social revolution, a watershed in the rise of modern industrial society in the United States.
www.answers.com...
__________________________________________________________
As for the matter of Taiwan, Taiwan has been proven sufficiently by our sources that it has been Historically ours since the 1600's, cultural ours since the same day and politically recognized as ours since (from our perspective 1949) Richard Nixon's "One China Policy" as thus recognized by the UN.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
hmmmm … since the 1600’s … (not to change the subject … but do you believe in evolution?) … if so, then consider the fact that the scientific community attributes something on the order of 150,000 years for Homo Sapiens Sapiens … now it that is true … then what is 4-5 hundred years? Not to burst your bubble, but who “owned” Formosa/Taiwan for the previous 145,000 years?? Correct me if I am wrong here, but even the much vaunted history of China is but a drop in the temporal bucket when compared to the timeline for humanity.
____________________________________________________________
Reuniting with Taiwan would be a great accomplishment, it will ensure our territorial integrety, allow us to project power throughout the mid-pacific, and provide an impressive boost to our economic health and excellerate our drive for Super Power status. Thus it is in Taiwan's best interests to join one day soon, for they will share in the glory as our economic might will be unstopable and our international trade will ensure our prosperity with other nations and allow us to spread our culture and improve relations.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Well, reuniting with Taiwan would be an accomplishment no doubt … successful invasions usually are … as for power projection, yes, I suppose it would help somewhat, but it would not be the be all and end all (or at least for your countries sake, I hope not). … but now we come to the crux … Taiwan would indeed boost your economic health and accelerate progress I suppose … but at what cost? Remember, human rights and ideals often fall to political and rationalized expediencies – and before you know it, you are the Borg … or the 21st. century equivalent of an amoral societal juggernaut bent on progress at “all costs”.
“What good is receiving the world if the price is your metaphorical soul?”
_____________________________________________________________
This dream is too important to lose to something as trivial of what some people may or may not want. We could also say that Taiwan are but spoilt children who must be brought back into the household and reconcile past differences.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Unfortunately for you, these “spoilt” children are really autonomous HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE AND SUCCESSFUL adults … who have by circumstance and desire left the cultural nest so to speak. I can’t speak for your culture, but in western cultures, it is acknowledged that parents … as part of a natural cycle … must let go of their children when they grow up.
Its not easy, but imagine if your parents (after you have attended university) … treated you like you were 10 years old … and refused to acknowledge your maturity and place in the world.
… and for the rest of your life, you would then be left to live with the constricted rules of your prepubescent past.
____________________________________________________________
But nevertheless, should all routes one day fail force is our last resort as it has always been and have exuded a far greater tolerance then other nations such as Russia and America. But War is politics and Politics is War without fighting, it is the nature of the matter that the state is the supreme arbiter of power and it is the Army that keeps and ensures that extension of state power, is geopolitics is politics on the world stage where a state's ability to project power determines postion within the world and it is realpolitik where the state makes decisions based on realism, realities, pragmatism and diplomacy and determines whether the power of the state is sufficient for obtaining clearly visible and cleary obtanable goals.
That is the crux of Clauswitzian thought and has been the thought that has governed all modern parliaments and politburo's since their publications.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
So … what you are saying is that might does indeed make right … the problem here as I see it is not the POTENTIAL reality of your statement, merely the fact that you embrace it so readily and without hesitation … power of such magnitude should never be held in such callous regard … that if anything will lead to ultimate conflict between your culture and mine …
___________________________________________________________
No where is the welfare of the people mentioned being important except as a means to an end. If the people are happy then the government can use such happyness to incrase productivity, if they are unhappy then the state must find a way to make them happy.
Even if it means you have to kill them first … or at least some of them? Does this rationale apply to those who “have not seen the light?” So what you mean by “happy” is actually dependant on governmental agenda … and this happiness is merely incidental at best.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Your constant insistence on the use of force (as a last resort) really rings hollow in this argument … because you can’t have it both ways … either power and expedience are your gods or not … Either you justify your civilized assertions or not … it is really up to you … because in the end, actions ALWAYS speak louder than words … especially dogmatic politspeak
… and it seems that we are taking some action in that regard … in the form of recent Taiwanese naval purchases.
___________________________________________________________
The decisions the state makes is simply a political juggling of power that in the ends falls back onto the state. This has been true in every system except true communism where power is ultimately in the hands of soviets of workers and peasants.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Hahahaha … sorry, but TRUE communism does not exist … absolutely egalitarian distribution of goods and services as part of a self sustaining system (where the formative governing body eventually dissolves)
Without a doubt, Realpolitik contaminates my culture as it does yours … but one thing seems clear to me … UNLIKE the situation with Taiwan … our civil war was galvanized by a polarity of the perception of basic human rights ...
LCKob
[edit on 7-11-2005 by LCKob]
If Lee had won a few more victories against McClellin England and France would have intervened and supported the Confederate cause for "freedom from oppression". ANd Lincoln would not have issued emancipation due for it looking like an act of desparration.
The War of Seccesion was no holy war, it was simply the rich capitalist north ensuring its strength on the expence of the reactionary South. Freeing the Slaves was a political move that with a key crucial victory allowed Lincoln the ability to keep England and France out of the war.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Myth Conception 1. The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery -- most Southerners didn't even own slaves.
This one is almost (but not really) true. In South Carolina, for example, only about 47% of the families owned African American slaves on the eve of the Civil War. So in that sense "most" didn't -- but that tells only part of the story. What did Southerners themselves say about the cause of the Civil War? The South Carolina Secession Convention adopted the Declaration of Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina, written by Christopher G. Memminger of Charleston. In this document the secession of South Carolina from the Union was rested squarely on two factors:
- the North's hostility toward slavery
- the North's refusal to enforce the fugitive slave laws.
In fact, in a 4-1 vote, the convention refused to even consider adding other issues, such as the tariff!
One of delegates, Thomas Jefferson Withers, had earlier written: "The true question for us is, how shall we sustain African slavery in South Carolina from a series of annoying attacks, attended by incidental consequences that I shrink from depicting, and finally from utter abolition? That is the problem before us - the naked and true point."
So the members of Convention pretty clearly realized that they weren't concerned about any issue other than their right to maintain, buy, and sell human property -- African American slaves.
Virginia Senator Robert M.T. Hunter asked, in the Confederate Congress, "If we didn't go to war to save our slaves, what did we go to war for?"
Myth Conception 5: It still couldn't have been about slavery -- look at all the yeoman farmers that fought for the South.
That's true, yeoman farmers did fight for the South. In fact, like most wars, the poor do the bulk of the fighting, and dying. But look at the propaganda that urged them on -- that encouraged them to look at this fight for slavery as their fight. The South Carolina elite had been organizing yeoman farmers into local vigilant associations and minute man organizations during all of 1860 -- all in an effort to win the hearts and minds of poor whites.
As early as 1858 the Charleston Mercury proclaimed: "the free white man here stands above and superior belonging to the master ruling class . . . . He has every reason to make property secure and to perpetuate justice and freedom amongst those of his class." By 1860 the Charleston Mercury was urging its readers to "inform every man (the nonslaveholder as well as the slaveholder) of the deep and vital interests that are involved in our slavery institutions" and readers were warned that they must protect the "rights of freemen" against the "tampering thieves of abolition."
Yeoman farmers were reminded that in property rights -- such as the right to own African slaves -- lay their claim to masterhood and all of its prerogatives. One fire-eater went to great lengths to explain what emancipation of slaves would mean to "the non-slaveholding portion of our citizens," observing that yeoman would then have no rights that weren't also conferred on slaves. "In no country in the world does the poor white man whether slaveholder of non-slaveholder occupy so enviable a position as in the slaveholding states of the South."
Poor whites were told, "The poor man has as much at stake [in slavery] as he who is possessed of hundreds of negroes. . . . He has his all at stake" including his person, his wife, his children. "These two races [white and "negro"] cannot live together on terms of equality."
Yeoman farmers were told that if they didn't fight to support slavery their worlds who tumble down around them and they would be no better than slaves. After a while, when the issue of slavery became more divisive, Southern leaders turned to the idea of "sacred civil liberties" in order to justify the dissolution of the Union.
www.chicora.org...
Conclusion
Although the majority of the American people-- including many moderate politicians like Abraham Lincoln--wanted to avoid Civil War and were content to allow slavery to die a slow, inevitable death, the most influential political leaders of the day were not. On the southern side, "fire-eaters" like Rhett and Yancey were willing to make war to guarantee the propagation of their "right" to own slaves. On the northern side, abolitionists like John Brown and Henry Ward Beecher of Connecticut were willing to make war in order to put an immediate end to the degrading institution of slavery.
These leaders, through either words or action, were able to convince the majority that it was necessary to go to war, and in order to convince them they justified the war with arguments that only indirectly referred to the subject of slavery (i.e., state rights et. al.).
Southern politicians convinced their majority that the North was threatening their way of life and their culture. Northern politicians convinced their majority that the South, if allowed to secede, was really striking a serious blow at democratic government. In these arguments, both southern and northern politicians were speaking the truth--but not "the whole truth." They knew that to declare the war to be a fight over slavery would cause a lot of the potential soldiers of both sides to refuse to fight.
So-was the war about slavery? Absolutely. If there had been no disagreement over the issue of slavery, the South would probably not have discerned a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much less likely to seek "their right to secede." But was it only about slavery? No. It was also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to leave the Union, and--of primary concern to most southern soldiers--the continuation of antebellum southern culture. Although the majority of Southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians--and consequently the underlying cause of the South's desire to seek independence and state rights.
This has been my attempt at providing a brief, balance answer to a complicated subject which has been the subject of many books. For further reading, I suggest Kenneth Stampp's Causes of the Civil War.
members.tripod.com...
The American Civil War originated in a constitutional crisis, precipitated when several southern States "seceded" from the United States, and formed their own federal republic, the Confederate States of America. The Southern belief that they had a right, unilaterally, to secede, can be attributed to the doctrine of State Sovereignty or States Rights. The motivation for the secession was to protect the institution of slavery, as it existed in those southern States, against the anticipated hostility of an emerging non-Southern, antislavery majority. The immediate trigger for war was the election of the Republican candidate for President in 1860, Abraham Lincoln, a moderately antislavery politician pledged to oppose "slavery expansion" -- that is, the admission of additional slave states to the Union. The election of Lincoln was the culmination of a long political struggle over federal policy toward slavery and southern dominance of the federal government.
encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com...
With the emergence by the mid-1850s of the United States Republican Party, which was the nation's first major political party with only sectional appeal, politics became the stage on which sectional conflict over the expansion of slavery in the West was played out. The acquisition of new lands in the 1840s catapulted the nation into civil war.
Before the American Civil War, the Constitution provided the basis to define the terms in which debate over the future of government would continue, and had been able to regulate conflicts of interest and conflicting visions for the new, rapidly expanding nation. Factors that had changed from 1820 to 1860 to bring about civil war rather than the gentlemanly compromises of the Missouri Compromise or the Compromise of 1850 included the rise of mass democracy in the North, the breakdown of the old two-party system, and increasingly virulent and hostile sectional ideologies.
Moral arguments against slavery had long existed, but in the interest of maintaining unity and gentlemanly compromise, party loyalties had mostly kept opposition to that "peculiar institution" personal rather than political. With the rise of the Republican Party (itself bolstered by the panic of 1857) and its skilled politicians and activists, the industrializing North became committed to the economic ethos of free-labor industrial capitalism. The resolution of this sectional conflict – culminating in the American Civil War – was perhaps the nation's principal social revolution, a watershed in the rise of modern industrial society in the United States.
www.answers.com...
__________________________________________________________
As for the matter of Taiwan, Taiwan has been proven sufficiently by our sources that it has been Historically ours since the 1600's, cultural ours since the same day and politically recognized as ours since (from our perspective 1949) Richard Nixon's "One China Policy" as thus recognized by the UN.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
hmmmm … since the 1600’s … (not to change the subject … but do you believe in evolution?) … if so, then consider the fact that the scientific community attributes something on the order of 150,000 years for Homo Sapiens Sapiens … now it that is true … then what is 4-5 hundred years? Not to burst your bubble, but who “owned” Formosa/Taiwan for the previous 145,000 years?? Correct me if I am wrong here, but even the much vaunted history of China is but a drop in the temporal bucket when compared to the timeline for humanity.
____________________________________________________________
Reuniting with Taiwan would be a great accomplishment, it will ensure our territorial integrety, allow us to project power throughout the mid-pacific, and provide an impressive boost to our economic health and excellerate our drive for Super Power status. Thus it is in Taiwan's best interests to join one day soon, for they will share in the glory as our economic might will be unstopable and our international trade will ensure our prosperity with other nations and allow us to spread our culture and improve relations.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Well, reuniting with Taiwan would be an accomplishment no doubt … successful invasions usually are … as for power projection, yes, I suppose it would help somewhat, but it would not be the be all and end all (or at least for your countries sake, I hope not). … but now we come to the crux … Taiwan would indeed boost your economic health and accelerate progress I suppose … but at what cost? Remember, human rights and ideals often fall to political and rationalized expediencies – and before you know it, you are the Borg … or the 21st. century equivalent of an amoral societal juggernaut bent on progress at “all costs”.
“What good is receiving the world if the price is your metaphorical soul?”
_____________________________________________________________
This dream is too important to lose to something as trivial of what some people may or may not want. We could also say that Taiwan are but spoilt children who must be brought back into the household and reconcile past differences.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Unfortunately for you, these “spoilt” children are really autonomous HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE AND SUCCESSFUL adults … who have by circumstance and desire left the cultural nest so to speak. I can’t speak for your culture, but in western cultures, it is acknowledged that parents … as part of a natural cycle … must let go of their children when they grow up.
Its not easy, but imagine if your parents (after you have attended university) … treated you like you were 10 years old … and refused to acknowledge your maturity and place in the world.
… and for the rest of your life, you would then be left to live with the constricted rules of your prepubescent past.
____________________________________________________________
But nevertheless, should all routes one day fail force is our last resort as it has always been and have exuded a far greater tolerance then other nations such as Russia and America. But War is politics and Politics is War without fighting, it is the nature of the matter that the state is the supreme arbiter of power and it is the Army that keeps and ensures that extension of state power, is geopolitics is politics on the world stage where a state's ability to project power determines postion within the world and it is realpolitik where the state makes decisions based on realism, realities, pragmatism and diplomacy and determines whether the power of the state is sufficient for obtaining clearly visible and cleary obtanable goals.
That is the crux of Clauswitzian thought and has been the thought that has governed all modern parliaments and politburo's since their publications.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
So … what you are saying is that might does indeed make right … the problem here as I see it is not the POTENTIAL reality of your statement, merely the fact that you embrace it so readily and without hesitation … power of such magnitude should never be held in such callous regard … that if anything will lead to ultimate conflict between your culture and mine …
___________________________________________________________
No where is the welfare of the people mentioned being important except as a means to an end. If the people are happy then the government can use such happyness to incrase productivity, if they are unhappy then the state must find a way to make them happy.
Even if it means you have to kill them first … or at least some of them? Does this rationale apply to those who “have not seen the light?” So what you mean by “happy” is actually dependant on governmental agenda … and this happiness is merely incidental at best.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Your constant insistence on the use of force (as a last resort) really rings hollow in this argument … because you can’t have it both ways … either power and expedience are your gods or not … Either you justify your civilized assertions or not … it is really up to you … because in the end, actions ALWAYS speak louder than words … especially dogmatic politspeak
… and it seems that we are taking some action in that regard … in the form of recent Taiwanese naval purchases.
___________________________________________________________
The decisions the state makes is simply a political juggling of power that in the ends falls back onto the state. This has been true in every system except true communism where power is ultimately in the hands of soviets of workers and peasants.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Hahahaha … sorry, but TRUE communism does not exist … absolutely egalitarian distribution of goods and services as part of a self sustaining system (where the formative governing body eventually dissolves)
Without a doubt, Realpolitik contaminates my culture as it does yours … but one thing seems clear to me … UNLIKE the situation with Taiwan … our civil war was galvanized by a polarity of the perception of basic human rights ...
LCKob
[edit on 7-11-2005 by LCKob]
Without a doubt, Realpolitik contaminates my culture as it does yours … but one thing seems clear to me … UNLIKE the situation with Taiwan … our
civil war was galvanized by a polarity of the perception of basic human rights ...
I should clarify that by adding "inalienable" ....
UNLIKE the situation with Taiwan … our civil war was galvanized by a polarity of the perception of INALIENABLE basic human rights ...
So, when it comes down to it, the major motivator /catalyst for the American Civil war was based on human rights, justice and equity.
This cause, I would argue is not only justifiable, but necessary to our fundemental values, charter and world view.
To paraphrase from the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" ...
Bailey: (upon releasing his "prize of combat")
"I have been a slave or near enough to one that I will not promote the practice or see it furthered."
Now, once again, your reasons for mandating Taiwan back?
Q: You have a right to Formosa/Taiwan due to cultural /historical ownership ...
A: No human or societal institution perpetually "owns" land and resources ... we are at best temporary tenents holding on to the "hill" for as long as circumstances allow ...
Q: Incorportating Taiwan would give you numerous advantages ....
A: No doubt it would ... but who pays the price and what is this price to human rights and global relationships? The terms "Bully" "Rapist" "Conquerer" have been used as arguably effective descriptors for the use of
"force as a last resort" ... especially when dealing with a weaker opponent ... so with that said lets add "opportunistic" to the string of descriptors ...
Q: Just because you want it back ... pride? ... cultural prossesiveness? ... as an exampe?
A: A key trademark of an adult vs. a child is the differentiation of the concepts of "wants/desires"-"needs/imperatives" vs. "rights to"
1. You (China) "want or desire" Taiwan ... but "wanting" alone does not merit "the right to". Humans want and desire many things ... but that alone does not mean that they can take it ... this mentality only works for babies (literally).
2. You (China) "need" Taiwan ... perhaps and perhaps not ... still immaterial to "the right to" A starving man needs food, but does that mean he has the right to take it from another? The example is debatable because the issue is life or death ... but in the case of Taiwan is it life or death ... in a word NO.
China will keep on going irregardless of the Taiwan issue.
3. China has a "right to" Taiwan ... No, as stated before, 500 years of occupation does little to convince me of perpetual ownership ... our planet (at best guess is something like 5 billion years old ... present land mass configurations in the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS .... humans have been around for about ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND YEARS ... China has had a viable civilization for about FIVE THOUSAND YEARS ... recognition of Fomosa for FIVE HUNDRED YEARS ... circumstantial separation ONE HUNDRED YEARS
land mass x (Formosa) has existed - use GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALE 10's of millions of years.
The geological age of this area is the oldest in Taiwan and it is also an area with the most active earth movement - the fast rising of highland. Geological activity roughly 80-90 million years ago
So lets say that for arguments sake that the island was around for the round figure of ONE HUNDRED MILLION YEARS give or take FIVE THOUSAND YEARS ... (+/-)
(note that these figures are very ballpark for conceptual purpose not absolute historical accuracy)
Tenency or occupation for FIVE THOUSAND YEARS let alone FIVE HUNDRED YEARS ... DOES NOT grant perpetual ownership ... a 100 year occupancy holds the same weight as far as rationales go ...
Your lease is up ... and your ex girlfriend is the new "Owner" of an apartment at "Green Earth" Apartments ( now under new management) ...
Option 1: You can go over and talk to her to see if a deal can be made for the both of you to co-own that apartment (reconcile - where you are the boss)?
Option 2: ... Because you are so powerful, you could break in and by main force take over the apartment (with all its possesions) ... along with forced subjugation of the new "owner" ... meanwhile trying to placate the manager by "keeping it quiet" ... after all we can't be bothering the other tenents can we?
... all in the name of "reconcilliation" .... rather onesided
... for the greater good of the "Chinese" people ... your faction
... and despite the fact that such attentions are not wanted .... for their own good - they just don't know it
... but mostly because you can .... no explanation needed - hah ... no justification either for that matter.
LCKob
[edit on 7-11-2005 by LCKob]
I should clarify that by adding "inalienable" ....
UNLIKE the situation with Taiwan … our civil war was galvanized by a polarity of the perception of INALIENABLE basic human rights ...
So, when it comes down to it, the major motivator /catalyst for the American Civil war was based on human rights, justice and equity.
This cause, I would argue is not only justifiable, but necessary to our fundemental values, charter and world view.
To paraphrase from the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" ...
Bailey: (upon releasing his "prize of combat")
"I have been a slave or near enough to one that I will not promote the practice or see it furthered."
Now, once again, your reasons for mandating Taiwan back?
Q: You have a right to Formosa/Taiwan due to cultural /historical ownership ...
A: No human or societal institution perpetually "owns" land and resources ... we are at best temporary tenents holding on to the "hill" for as long as circumstances allow ...
Q: Incorportating Taiwan would give you numerous advantages ....
A: No doubt it would ... but who pays the price and what is this price to human rights and global relationships? The terms "Bully" "Rapist" "Conquerer" have been used as arguably effective descriptors for the use of
"force as a last resort" ... especially when dealing with a weaker opponent ... so with that said lets add "opportunistic" to the string of descriptors ...
Q: Just because you want it back ... pride? ... cultural prossesiveness? ... as an exampe?
A: A key trademark of an adult vs. a child is the differentiation of the concepts of "wants/desires"-"needs/imperatives" vs. "rights to"
1. You (China) "want or desire" Taiwan ... but "wanting" alone does not merit "the right to". Humans want and desire many things ... but that alone does not mean that they can take it ... this mentality only works for babies (literally).
2. You (China) "need" Taiwan ... perhaps and perhaps not ... still immaterial to "the right to" A starving man needs food, but does that mean he has the right to take it from another? The example is debatable because the issue is life or death ... but in the case of Taiwan is it life or death ... in a word NO.
China will keep on going irregardless of the Taiwan issue.
3. China has a "right to" Taiwan ... No, as stated before, 500 years of occupation does little to convince me of perpetual ownership ... our planet (at best guess is something like 5 billion years old ... present land mass configurations in the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS .... humans have been around for about ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND YEARS ... China has had a viable civilization for about FIVE THOUSAND YEARS ... recognition of Fomosa for FIVE HUNDRED YEARS ... circumstantial separation ONE HUNDRED YEARS
land mass x (Formosa) has existed - use GEOLOGICAL TIME SCALE 10's of millions of years.
The geological age of this area is the oldest in Taiwan and it is also an area with the most active earth movement - the fast rising of highland. Geological activity roughly 80-90 million years ago
So lets say that for arguments sake that the island was around for the round figure of ONE HUNDRED MILLION YEARS give or take FIVE THOUSAND YEARS ... (+/-)
(note that these figures are very ballpark for conceptual purpose not absolute historical accuracy)
Tenency or occupation for FIVE THOUSAND YEARS let alone FIVE HUNDRED YEARS ... DOES NOT grant perpetual ownership ... a 100 year occupancy holds the same weight as far as rationales go ...
Your lease is up ... and your ex girlfriend is the new "Owner" of an apartment at "Green Earth" Apartments ( now under new management) ...
Option 1: You can go over and talk to her to see if a deal can be made for the both of you to co-own that apartment (reconcile - where you are the boss)?
Option 2: ... Because you are so powerful, you could break in and by main force take over the apartment (with all its possesions) ... along with forced subjugation of the new "owner" ... meanwhile trying to placate the manager by "keeping it quiet" ... after all we can't be bothering the other tenents can we?
... all in the name of "reconcilliation" .... rather onesided
... for the greater good of the "Chinese" people ... your faction
... and despite the fact that such attentions are not wanted .... for their own good - they just don't know it
... but mostly because you can .... no explanation needed - hah ... no justification either for that matter.
LCKob
[edit on 7-11-2005 by LCKob]
new topics
-
New Disney Star Wars Films Failing Test of Time?
Movies: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
Mass UAP events. DC. Machester Airport, UFOs over sub base in CT, Nuke bases.
Aliens and UFOs: 16 hours ago, 15 flags -
population madness
New World Order: 16 hours ago, 5 flags -
New Disney Star Wars Films Failing Test of Time?
Movies: 10 hours ago, 4 flags -
The Cost of True Discipleship—Count the Cost
Religion, Faith, And Theology: 14 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Are there any good shows
Television • 69 • : Coelacanth55 -
New Disney Star Wars Films Failing Test of Time?
Movies • 15 • : Lazy88 -
Anyone like the Scorpions?
Music • 22 • : texas thinker -
WATCH LIVE: US Congress hearing on UFOs, unidentified anomalous phenomena
Aliens and UFOs • 153 • : vance2 -
Results of the use of the Oreshnik missile system in Dnepropetrovsk
World War Three • 262 • : Oldcarpy2 -
Trump Presidential Transition Team will not use GSA or Government entities to come to DC
US Political Madness • 21 • : matafuchs -
The Party of Peace - Trump Cabinet Picks Targeted with Death Threats
US Political Madness • 48 • : matafuchs -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3414 • : CarlLaFong -
population madness
New World Order • 20 • : AlroyFarms -
V.P. Kamala Harris releases a video and nobody understands why
US Political Madness • 101 • : DontTreadOnMe