The historical status of Tibet is debatable. Tibet was traditionally a tributary of China, and if Tibet enjoyed independence in the interval between the fall of the fall of the last emperor and Mao’s invasion, it was only because of the weakness of the Chinese state and British intervention.

The 14th Dalai Lama was the absolute ruler of a desperately poor people. It is a Western myth that Tibet was some sort of earthly paradise before the Chinese gradually took over. The truth is that Tibetans were controled and taxed heavily by a Buddhist regime that was just as “undemocratic” and arbitrary as any in history.

The Red Chinese were hardly the liberators of the Tibetan people, but it is also unreasonable to suppose that the Dalai Lama’s rule would have been entirely unopposed.

Taiwan’s first multi-party election occured in 1989 – 40 years after the nationalists fled to the island of Formosa.

Of course, 1989 was a lifetime ago, and China has changed almost beyond recognition. Today, trade matters far more than politics.

Debating Taiwan’s current status is an exercise if futility. There is no longer an ideological and economic gulf between the RoC and the PRC. The simple truth is the residents of the island of Formosa are ethnic Chinese, and in the last two decades Taiwan has become economically interdependent with the mainland.

Very well said!

aint you a part of the same “squad” ?? China this .. China that ,,, OOOhh poor old China !!! China “defended” against Tibet ,, China “defended” against India , China is preparing to “defend” against Taiwan ,,,,, :rolleyes:

Yawn, quite whining and making up crap.

the “history” that you so eagerly and scholarly refer to is nothing but Chinese Communist Propaganda ,,,,,
@ the outbreak of full scale hostilities ,,, China already was in control ofAksai-Chin which was/is essentially an integral part of India and effectively in breach of Indias territorial sovereignity ,,,, and India sending patrols instead of the Army to evict Intruders from its own territory is called aggression and ambushing the Chinese ????

Ha, what BS. All the things I has said can be corroborated with any number of sources, including Indian.

Before hostilities broke out both India and China were on their respective sides of the line of control as decided by the British, but both had territorial claims on the other side of the line. Instead of having a mature, rational discussion with China and try to negotiate a peaceful solution, India arrogantly and unilaterally decided that China was in control of Indian land and tried to forcibly take that land. I guess the stupid PLA should have just shot themselves and saved India the effort instead of resisting this act of wanton aggression. :rolleyes:

i guess the definitions of “defending” and “aggression” seem to be weird either in Mandarin or in the communist party literature ,,,, 😮

Yet more pathetic rantings without a shred of rationality or reason. Just what I come to expect from a member of the goonsquad. :rolleyes:

what claims do you have apart from sino defense or plaboards to back up your claims of Chinese “defense” from India / Tibet ??

The fact that the Indian military attacked Chinese patrols and outposts. Those outposts didn’t magically appear out of thin air kiddo. The British decided where the line of control was, India wasn’t happy with that and attack the Chinese and consequently got their butts spanked.

The fact that the PLA voluntarily pulled back to behind the line of control after it had crushed the Indian army proves beyond any spin you can put on the matter that China did not care for Indian land (the parts the PLA overran were far better land then the arid parts of Tibet that India claims). It was the fact that India refused to negotiate and attacked that struck a nerve. China had just emerged from a century of suffering as a result of foreign nations carving bits out of China, and the PRC was going to be damned before it allows that to ever happen again.

Is this what they teach in Chinese schools? Explains a lot. 🙁

It might be, but I never read them.

Britain never annexed Tibet. A British military mission to Tibet in 1903 was prevented from entering, & turned into a de facto invasion in 1904, which occupied Lhasa. But it withdrew a month later. Britain never claimed Tibet, never governed it nor tried to, & never tried to advance past Lhasa…

But British exploration missions were allowed into Tibet prior because they had a pass issued by Beijing. Beijing might not have directly ruled Tibet with a governor, but it did rule Tibet nonetheless, and Tibet was considered Chinese territory as evident by ancient maps.

The British military mission’s sole purpose was to remove Chinese control and create a buffer state. They cared not for the land because it was essentially worthless, but merely wanted to add an extra degree of security and insulation between China and the Jew in the crown of the British Empire for geopolitical reasons.

If you robbed someone, you still robbed them even if you later discarded what you took.

Its a special branch of history from where he gets his information, its called make believe land.

Ha, you got anything to back up those baseless claims of yours? Or is that just the latest episode of denial tactics? :rolleyes:

Purely because the UK isnt claiming any territory (apart from the malvinas whos population actually have voted to stay in the UK) or having border disputes with most of its neighbours. China is and does.

You speak of history but don’t seem to have much of a clue. China has already peacefully settle most of its land disputes with its neighbors. It has some notable disputes with other nations on some Islands, but then so does the UK. And the chances of war breaking out over those islands are about as likely as another Falklands war. ps, the people living on the Falklands voting to stay means little since they are British colonists who are never going to vote to join Argentina. Holding the vote was just a political excuse by the British more for show then a real readiness to give back the islands.

PPS, there is also Gibraltar that the Spanish are rather upset with the British about.

I also believe a lot of posters over estimate the worlds dependence on China, I for one would not mind if China stoped trading and if industry came back to the UK.
Paying 10 pounds more for a pair of shoes isnt going to hurt.

What you believe and what is the case seem to clash more often then not. Its easy to suggest the preposterous when you have little understanding of the consequences. :rolleyes:

Go read up on economic papers on the role of China. If China suddenly stopped exporting overnight, you’d be hard pressed to find a pair of shoes never mind get it for a measly £10 more.

I am sure the South Africans, Brazilians and Russians would not mind a trade embargo.

And you would be wrong. Yes, parts of their economy would benefit from all the extra work, but the majority would be reeling since they benefit more from cheap Chinese goods then even the west. And as has already been pointed out, also from exports to China.

The world can live without China, just as China can live without the rest of the world. But the consequences to both of such a split would be devastating.

Its sad how people could be so blinded because of the nationalist agendas.

Plawolf and Hell King, Do you actually read other people’s posts before hitting the reply button?

If you had you would have seen that I said that China was neither any better nor any worse than any other major power. I did not say China was worse, I said it was the same.

They all play power politics, and China, or the UK, or France or whoeever tryingto claim the moral high ground over the others is not just foolish, it’s laughable.

Seems like you are the one who can’t read. :rolleyes:

When did I say China has the moral high ground? I merely pointed out that China is getting criticized for modernizing its military when others are not.

Oh, and Plawolf, Tibet was and Taiwan is a nation state.

I understand that these inconvenient facts upset the Chinese nationalists no end, but they are facts.

Tibet, if not invaded by China, would probably still be an independent nation state, similar to Bhutan and Nepal, rather than a colony of China.

Taiwan is independent of China with a functioning, fully-fledged democracy and an independent foreign policy.

Upsetting to those in China who don’t like this state of affairs, but another unpleasant fact none the less.

Ignoring reality that doesn’t match with your perception of reality is not a healthy state of mind.

Unicorn

You understand nothing. :rolleyes:

Tibet had been a part of China for centuries before the British annexed it to use as a buffer between China as its precious India. The China was merely retaking what was stolen from China and the west only have a problem with it because China was communist and so must be wrong in all things.

Taiwan is even further from an independent nation. It is part of China morally historically, culturely and legally.

Those who claim it to be an independent nation have absolutely no case other the claiming that it is not government by Beijing at present. Never mind the complex reasons for it being so.

People who make such baseless arguments seem to understand nor care about nothing but brute power or are just plain anti-Chinese for either racist or nationalist reasons and it is pathetic, I have already refuted every lame excuse people have conjured up, go look them up and stop wasting everyone’s time.

The lack of real information didn’t stop the US from invading Iraq, didn’t?

The US knew all they needed to know, that Iraq was a military push over, thus the costs of war would be low, or so the pentagon thought. Its a totally different ball game with China.

Although the PLA does face the strange paradox that in order to have a reasonable chance of defeating the US, it must keep its capabilities a secret from the US, thus would be unable to enjoy the full benefit of deterrence, which is the PLA and PRC’s best case scenario.

And in the Cold War, didn’t stop from obtaining funds to counter inflated Soviet threats, although the Soviets themselves were helping to inflate those threats.

Except its not the cold war any more. Few in the west actually think that there is a chance of the PLA marching into their capitals if given half the chance, and I think the PLA secrecy preference might be helping to maintain that status.

The PLA is gearing up to fight the US military, of that there is little doubt, but then again, there is little evidence either, so when the pentagon go before congress and demand funds, it give the committees enough wiggle room to deny them without committing political suicide.

However, were the PLA to make it official policy that it is gearing up to take on the US, then its going to be much harder for anyone to deny the pentagon its every wish in the name of national security.

I’m not sure if its working for the PLA, or is actually fooling anyone. And it certainly is not helping the Party at all, especially when the Party officials end up being the last to know about these things.

But party officials don’t need to know. That helps to maintain security and gives the officials plausible deniability if asked about military affairs. There might also be the added benefit that people would eventually stop asking party officials as it is well known that they don’t know anything anyways.

Although there should be better co-ordination between the PLA and the foreign ministry at least, especially when PLA activity might attract international attention.

Oh please, the vast majority don’t give a sh*t one way or the other.

I must ask, what planet are you living on? :rolleyes:

Grow-up

If you act like a petulant child, then others are going to start treating you like one.

And what is your point here? Are you holding this up as something the Chinese haven’t engaged in? Or a purely western thing?

Pointing out just how flawed your rosy view on a peace loving US is.

If waiting several years isn’t reticence, then what is.

Pragmatism. The US does not go marching off to war for the good of humanity, it does so for its own self interest, especially when the costs are high. America likes to think of itself as the hero of the world, but is reluctant to pay the blood price for that honor. That doesn’t make them a bad nation or people, just a normal nation and people who happen to have the strongest military and economy in the world.

So? They are clever enough to chose their wars carefully.

Exactly my point, as a counter to you suggestion that the US might have been willing to enter WWII because of the suffering of the peoples in Asia. It might have plucked American heartstrings, but it never was and never will be enough to convince American to send thousands upon thousands of their young men to die for.

I’ll stress your own word might. And to what aim would the US get involved if it had not been directly attacked or overtly threatened? Does the fact that it took a direct attack on the US not suggest to you a hint a reticence. The govt may have wanted to get involved sooner, but the people didn’t, and in a democracy (however imperfect) that counts for something.

So whats with all the rhetoric about the suffering of the peoples of Asia as a factor in the US’ decision to go to war or about Japanese fears regarding the US entering the war voluntarily? Seems to me you don’t know what your standpoint is other then it being different from mine. :rolleyes:

No, but thanks for asking.:p

Thats good to know, had to check. 😉

It is hard to understand because it is not true! Again the Gulf States? I’m not disputing the fact that these countries (and Iran, Iraq) have something the West wants. So what? They trade. Do you think if there was no oil, the US would up and invade them all for being Muslim?

Shesh, yet more indecision. :rolleyes:

DO you think the US would be so nice to the likes of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar etc if they didn’t have oil? Do you think the US would care any more about the middle-east then it currently does about Africa but for oil? Note that Israel is technically in Asia, and is far from the oil producing part of the middle east.

America, in general, does not trust Muslim nations and would not be supplying them with arms but for oil and other geopolitical reasons.

Sigh, it was an example to highlight why there might be some dissension between Iran and US. Obviously it was too complicated for you.

Maybe if you learn to properly form your arguments, your points might not be so hard to decipher. :rolleyes:

My point was Iran was far from the only Muslim nation that the west distrusts, nor is it even a representative example, and extreme examples are always bad ones, leading me pointing out the error of your ways.

Do you need everything spelled out for you? Or am I just expecting too much from you?

Or perhaps you should reread them and nto just grab the first interpretation that suits your purpose. The written word has to be read with a mediocom of wit….try it some day.

Its hard to find wit in writing produced by those without an ounce of it.

Wait a minute, I included the bad idea bit and restressed it, but now I should’t have even said it! Sorry mate, I’m in the evil west where I can say what I bloody well like (almost!) and I certainly ain’t changing that to please you. If you don’t consider the unthinkable, how do you know its unthinkable?

Still unable to grasp such a simple concept even with an example. :rolleyes:

What you have suggested, while technically possible, have such huge consequences that it will be effectively impossible to implement without some monumental outside factor forcing it upon all involved. Its not about free speech like you want to twist it into, its about bloody common sense and reality. Got forbid they get in the way of one of your excuses. And if you want to rant off a load of brainless crap, be my guest, I couldn’t care less if you make a monkey of yourself, and I reserved the right tell you so if I so wish. Thats free speech, kiddo. Maybe you should understand what you preach.

As for considering the unthinkable, well there are countless ‘unthinkable’ scenarios that while possible, are improbable. Like an asteroid hitting the earth or aliens invading. Are we to consider all those too?

The vast majority of people would realize the absurdity of them and discard them in a millisecond without having to write at length about them. Maybe that is something you can learn in time.

And yours are obviously the shining beacon of wisdom in the dark of course. You make sweeping statements the world and get upset because someone thinks differently. Nor am I going to provide detailed essays on my thoughts, so don’t expect too much depth.

I merely pointed out general trends that anyone with eyeballs and half a brain would realize are true. Go look the word up in a dictionary if you must, but a trend is not a scientific rule that must hold true in all instances.

All you have done is use extreme examples to nit pick and try to find excuses. One really must wonder why you would try so very hard.

Again with the generalisation. Taiwan probably views China as a threat to their peace and a daresay Tibet might have something to say.

You say you have a firm grasp of reading skills, yet you then go on to make statements like these. :rolleyes:

Is it that hard to look up a word you don’t understand? How exactly is ‘restrictive’ a threat to peace? Do you have any understanding of what you are writing?

Also, how is what I said a generalization? And of what? :rolleyes:

Yes, it was most inconsiderate of America to protect an ally wasn’t it? No US did not HAVE to get involved in that war, nor did the Soviets, nor did the Chinese HAVE to have the war, but they did.

Tell me something, when you shake you head, is there a rattling sound? Because I really cannot see how anyone with even half a brain could come up with this kind of drivel. :rolleyes:

Its plainly obvious you have no frigging idea what you are talking about, in fact its quite a feat to pack so many glaring errors in so short a sentence.

It was a CIVIL war. Look it up if you have no idea what it means. No one attacked a US ally. The people rose up against a repressive, corrupt and cruel puppet regime the US supported. Suggesting that the Chinese didn’t have to have the war is like saying slaves don’t HAVE to fight for their freedom or that the US war of independence was just a waste of effort.

And anyone with even the most basic knowledge of events would know that the soviets were never involved. There was very little logistical support never mind direct intervention.

I’m disputing the degreee, not the fact.

Then you are disputing nothing. Japan is perhaps the most westernized non-Caucasian country in the world, even more so then Russia with only South Korea and Taiwan coming close. So they are not the 51st state of the USA, so what? Is that a requirement to be classed as ‘westernized’?

You are just arguing for argument sake, and its a waste of everyone’s time.

Who said anything about world conquest? As for distrust – ever present threat to Taiwan; Tianamen?

Taiwan is a unique situation, and Tiananmen was not the first time a protests has been been put down with violence and death. The Americans did it during Vietnam, Taiwan did it and killed thousands, even the UK has blood on its hands from N.Ireland, yet strangely, they can all be trusted, even immediately after the events, yet China can’t? No no, no double standard or hypocrisy at all.

At the end of the day, its the same old party in control, and with the latter in place, it will take a few more years of the openess before remaining distrust is removed. I think it will go, but not for a while yet.

Well I don’t. Look at poor old Russia. They are far more democratized then China, yet western distrust of it seems to grow ever so coincidently with Russian power.

You need more then openness and some western values to ‘earn’ the trust of the west. You need to embrace western values wholesale and yearn to be exactly like the west in all things. Even then having a noticeably weaker military wouldn’t hurt either.

It had every chance to force the west yield, but it ensured US involvement. How long would the Allies have continued fighting in theatres without US intervention?

Japan had no such chance. The war was over as soon as Hitler gave the order to attack Russia. It was the red army that effectively won the war before D-day by utterly crushing the German army. Without the Americans, the war would undoubtedly have been much longer and bloodier, but there was every little doubt about its ultimate outcome.

With Germany defeated, it was only a matter of time before the allies move on to Japan, who’s army was significantly weaker then the Germans and which was obliterated by the battle hardened Russians when they did declared war on Japan and swept the Japanese Manchurian Army away with easy.

Perhaps if you weren’t so *ahem* abrasive in your approach he may have felt the urge to explain or apologise, but you are hardly likely to bring out the best in anyone.

Unless he happens to be a 5 year old girl it shouldn’t matter. Matt is a big boy and can handle himself without you making excuses for him.

translation=”anything I don’t agree with”

Translation = Only when someone says something immensely silly.

Come on now, its not a difficult sentence to understand. :rolleyes:

you’ve spouted so many emoticons they’ve started to breed 😮 At least they have learnt new skills compared to their parents.

Is this the best your much vaunted ‘wit’ can produce? It doesn’t even make sense. Must say I am disappointed.

To the popcorn crew – sadly the urge to continue is draining out of me, so you’ll left with the one-man show that is plawolf.

If you can’t resist the urge to respond, you can do so in the knowledge that I will not be posting any more replies to you as I have already wasted too much time on a lost cause. So you can have the last word if you must.

Every country has a right to arm and modernize its armed forces, including China. But China should oblige a little by being a bit more transparent and open about its modernization programs, not hiding it too close to the chest. The excess secrecy does tend to foster suspicions with its neighbors. They don’t need to do things like not formally announcing the J-10 until December 27 of 2006.

But the issue to take into account is that Chinese military modernization has a clear and tangible objective, and that is Taiwan. But to have a credible ability to take Taiwan, the PLA cannot ignore the very real possibility have having to go head to head with the US, in a regional conflict at least.

That presents the PLA with a big problem because at present and for decades to come, China simply cannot match the US technologically or economically. Thus if the PLA is too open about how it modernizes itself, then there is a very real possibility that the US would be able to very effectively counter whatever progress the PLA can achieve, thus rendering PLA modernization largely moot.

AT present, because of the veil of secrecy the PLA throws over everything, the US does not have a very good idea of everything that the PLA is doing, and that opens the possibility of the PLA catching the US out by developing weapons and tactics that are tailor made to take on US forces with the added bonus that the US would not be able to train to deal with these new threats.

Of course, you can quite easily see that there is another issue that makes PLA secrecy a must – that the PLA is gearing up to fight US forces specifically. If the PRC or PLA makes that offical policy, then it is likely to spark a real arms race, which is the last thing China wants.

Weighing the pros and cons of having a full-blown cold war-esk arms race with the US to a low intensity half hearted arms race with the likes of Japan, Australia, S.Korea and Vietnam etc, and the vast majority would pick the latter.

Although I agree that China should tweak its policy a little and stop denying the existence of things everyone with an internet connection already know exists. That merely bleeds credibility and adds to the suspicion.