Nonsense, the civil war was over long ago, and Mao won.

Oh really? The Chinese civil war is over? Thats news to me, so when was the peace accord signed and what were the terms?

This is just China’s attempt to assert its imperial ambitions over an independent state to which it has no legal claim.

Do you have any idea at all about what you are talking about? Since when has Taiwan been an independent state? As for China’s claim on Taiwan, well that is as bullet proof a claim as you can get.

Taiwan renounced any claims to China long ago (Chiang Kai-shek is long dead) and is perfectly willing to live in peace with China. It’s about time China started acting like a responsible nation and let Taiwan live in peace as well.

Except Taiwan is no nation, as far as China (and 99% of the world’s nations) is concerned, Taiwan is a part of China, and thats the end of that. If Taiwan wants independence, then China is going to have something to say about that.

Taiwan may not be de jure independent, as it is too fearful to declare independence in case it invites a Chinese attack, but it is certainly de facto independent. A simple declaration is all that really stands between it and full statehood.

If you take something from someone without permission, and years later that someone tracks you down and demands you return his property, you think any judge and jury in any civilised society will let you keep what you took just because you had ‘de facto’ control of it?

The declaration of independence is far from as ‘simple’ as you would like to beleive. The PRC is willing to tolarent a self government Taiwan so long as it is still legally a part of China. Any attempt to change that legal status will force the PRC into acting to protect its national integrety.

I’m sure Taiwan desperately wants to hold a democratic referendum on a declaration of independence, except every time the subject is even mentioned China gets on its high horse and threatens all sorts of grave consequences. If you were the Taiwanese government, and you knew that holding such a referendum or just declaring independence outright would likely result in a Chinese attack and the deaths of thousands of your country’s citizens, would you do it?

So you think a provence has the right to make decisions that will affect the entire nation? If you want a referendum, then all CHINESE citizens should be included, and there’s no question which way the vote will go. And it will probably be 95-1 in favour of reunification.

In the current circumstances, the more prudent move is remain quiet and leave the status quo unchanged. This is not due to any lack of Taiwanese desire for statehood, but rather because of China’s militaristic bullying, and it’s time China grew up.

There is no such thing as ‘Taiwanese’, and the desire for ‘statehood’ is a very recent development as a result of government introduced ‘patriotic’ lessons in primary schools and onwards. The Taiwanese national identity and desire for independence is entirely manufactured. In fact, numorous opion polls have consistently shown that the majority don’t even want independence nor reunification. Also, since when has defending one’s vital national interests been ‘childish’ behaviour? :rolleyes:

Because for a couple decades Taiwan was ruled by Chiang Kai-shek’s idiotic dictatorship, which refused to accept that “their” China had moved on. Nevertheless, as I said Kai-shek is dead, and what’s relevant is the here and now.

And how does the death of one man change the legal status of a nation? You need to seperate reality from your own fantasies mate. :rolleyes:

As for China’s legal case for owning Taiwan, I have seen it and to be quite blunt it is utter bull****. They know this, which is why they resort to bluster and threats to keep Taiwan in line, rather than making any sort of legal case before the UN or ICJ.

Lol, what ignarence and arrogence. :rolleyes: Since when have you been made supreme judge to decide what is legal and what isn’t? :rolleyes:

You want to explain using legal terms and examples how the PRC’s claim is ‘bull****’? :rolleyes:

The reason the PRC has never make a case in the UN or ICJ is because according to well established international legal precedent, the PRC-ROC dispute is intirely internal and neither the UN or ICJ have any juristiction.

It also matters not that there has been no ceasefire, because Taiwan was not Chinese land (even though Chiang Kai-shek and others were Chinese citizens). I’m sure you recognise the fact that the mere presence of one’s citizens in another country does not grant you the right to claim that land as your own as a result.

Ha..hahahahahaha! Thats about the stupidiest thing I have heard for a long time. If Taiwan is not Chinese land, then who the hell did it belong to before the Chinese Nationalists fled there? :rolleyes:

It all boils down to China though, and its immature desire to grab hold of Taiwan in order to avenge some past “wrong” when Chiang Kai-shek evaded Mao’s grasp and fled there. It’s time China acted like a responsible modern state, and seeking revenge in that manner is not the way responsible states behave.

That childish statement just shows how precious little you know about…everything. Go read up on some history, please.

Ironically, if China wasn’t so pigheaded, and actually left Taiwan to live in peace while allowing the Taiwanese unfettered access into the Chinese market, the Chinese economy would benefit greatly from the injection of Taiwanese capital and ingenuity. But I’m sure no such rational outcome would have occurred to those currently in charge of China, and obsessed with some illusory notion of “face” and revenge.

Not only do you have no grasp of history, it would seem that current events also escapes you. :rolleyes: It is the Taiwan side that are throwing up barriors to freer market access, in fact, it is a stated government policy for the current regime in Taipei to try and encourage its businessmen to not invest in the mainland. But dispite all this, Taiwan has been the largest source of FDI for China since the begining of the opening up policy, and China is Taiwan’s biggest trading partner.

That, and they follow the money. China, through its actions, has created the farcical situation where one is not allowed to recognise both China and Taiwan at the same time. Indeed, if a country does have the temerity to officially recognise Taiwan, China immediately cuts off all trade with them. In a world where so much of the world’s affordable goods are made in China, most countries are not willing to pay the economic price that would result.

Once again, this wouldn’t be an issue if China would stop its nonsense. Taiwan would be able to declare independence, and countries would be free to recognise both China and Taiwan as separate states, which is what they in effect are.

What wonderland do you live in where nations do not use their economic and diplomatic leverage to get other nations to do what they want? :rolleyes: Its the way the world works, so quit whining about just China.

How many times has the US acted in response to allied requests for assitance?

And how many times have the US irgnored allied requests for aid when it suited it to do so?

Now how many nations has the US invaded with the intent of conquering them? North Korea?

Come on, thats old-fashioned thinking mate, and I think you know it. The provailing opinion for Neocons these days is that you no longer needed to have your flag planted on a patch of land to effectively rule it. You don’t even need your soilders on the ground to rule, there are plenty of natives who would gladly be a puppet leader for you, and they can command local soilders to keep things running the way you like it.

These days, Empires rule via proxies and they wage war in the name of values and beliefs. And in the event that values and beleifs are not strong enough an incentive to convince the masses, they demonise their foes, so that they can say that they attack to ‘protect’ themselves from possible future attack. Just to be doublely safe, its best to also make the people think that the ‘hostile leaders’ are unpredictable berzerkers so that you don’t even need to prove that the ‘foe’ is prepairing to attack, after all, a crazy nut might go bonkers without warning at any time, so its better to be safe rather then sorry.

The worst sanction we could apply against The Dear Leader would be to refuse to take him seriously.

The way things are going, his own people will string him up from a lamp-post one day.

Agreed, and all this huff and puff is probably exactly what he wanted from the missile tests. That and demonstrating to the Amercians that they can hit CONUS, but since they failed miserably to do that, all the attention he is getting is probably taken as a consolation prize by him.

And then the ROK levels P’yongyang. And?

And thats not a trade SK would be remotely willing to make.

Its all a matter of pros and cons for everyone involved.

For the Japanese and Americans, NK imploding would not bother them one bit, in fact, they would probably publicly cheer such a development if not try to cause it proactively. That is why they are being so hardline.

For NK’s immediate neighbours, namely China, Russia and S.Korea, NK imploding would cause them a whole host of potential long term and highly substantial problems. That is why they are not keen to see though action that might push Kim’s already procarious regime over the edge into oblivion. As unpleasent as Kim and his regime might be, toppling them without a viable clean-up strategy could well prove to be a whole lot worse for everyone involved.

Yes, there is discussion whether they can do it in the framework of their constitution. IF they do, it will be because they see it as a matter of self defense. There is an old American saying (about football) “The best defense is a good offense”. So they may rightly (or wrongly) perceive a strike to be in the best interests of their defense. I don’t see the Japanese suddenly becoming an imperialist power.

You have the classic slippery slope canundrum here mate. As soon as you move away from a fundermuntalist stand point, everything just becomes a question of degree, and it will become far more easy to expand what can be defined as legitimate defence. After all, isn’t the invasion of occupation of Iraq and Afganistan being sold to the world as pre-emptive defence? Now the same excuse will be used to push for UN resolutions that could open the door to military action against Iran, and if there is UN resolutions over NK, then you can also add NK to that list. See were this is going?

The whole point is that Japan is not going to change overnight, it has been, and is continue to change slowly but steadily, and if it continues on its present path, then it might very well start going down some old roads again.

Also, there are real question whether Japan couldm pull-off a pre-emptive strike. Yes, they have the airplanes, but what about the weapons/software, ECM/jamming capability, and AWACS-support?
The US could supply some support, but I don’t know if they’s want US help, whether the US would be willing to give it, and if it did, how public it would be.

If Japan wants precision attack capacity, they can get it pretty easily and quickly, what is holding them back is the debat over whether they want such capacity. As soon as it is decided that it is ‘constiutional’ to acquire and use offensive weapons, Japan will get them, one way or another.

My point is, Japan is disussing it…and discussing it in public.
I’ve yet to see Dear Kim do likewise.

My point is that attacking Japan is simply not an option for NK, but the reverse can’t be said about Japan. The only likely scenario where you would see NK missiles heading towards Japan is if the Japanese or Americans attacked NK first. Do you really want to add nuclear weapons to that equation?