Reading that, I can see which I think has been brainwashed, and it isn’t the people of the RoC :rolleyes: Nothing quite as enjoyable as a xenophobic rant against the Japanese eh? If the PRC is so peaceful why not just say to the RoC, make your own choice, independence or unification, rather than threatening annihilation if they have the audacity to think they should decide their own destiny? :confused:

Patients is not one of your virtues I see. :rolleyes:

Quite right, I have no patients, that sort of thing tends to be left to medical people in this country anyway, what would I do with a bunch of patients?

Well if you could construct a logical argument I may be able to understand what you’re going on about, but you’re all over the place. If the PRC has no intention of invading then they are not a threat, if they are a threat then they could invade, I’m trying to work out how they can be a threat at the same time as not having any desire to invade.
And why should Taiwanese independence trigger a war anyway? They’ve basically been independent for 60 years so why should the PRC consider they have a right to declare war if the arrangement is formalised if the Taiwanese ever decide to do so? :confused:

Kind of like asking whenever a politician talks that one. I think you’re pretty mixed up, one minute the PRC is a threat to Taiwan, the next minute the RoC isn’t threatened by the PRC, the next minute they need Harriers, then they don’t need them as the PRC will not invade, I wish you’d make your mind up. How comes you think the PRC is a threat to Taiwan then say they have no intention of invading then? And how comes you seem to think the RoC is not preparing plans to counter a PRC attack?

What, so you’re saying the PRC can “legalise” a PRC invasion of Taiwan, sabre rattle at regular intervals, use the issue as a relief valve for domestic unrest (kind of like the Junta’s use of the Falklands issue to divert people from domestic failings) and Taiwan shouldn’t have defensive contingencies to cover war with the PRC? Can I ask you, just what are defence plans supposed to cover? Should Taiwan perhaps base it’s defence planning on war with Peru or something? And any defence staff worth it’s own existence will consider all potential threats to their areas of responsibility, obviously they have to prioritise but they still have to plan according to threats.

There has been a lot of debate over mission creep for the Nimrod fleet, even to the point of using it as a quasi-strategic attack platform by integrating cruise missiles.

There is a real issue in Afghanistan in that many NATO countries are either refusing to honour their committments, or only doing so on condition their troops won’t be expected to fight. Now if countries want to stay out of the war fair enough, but say so, the hypocrisy of supporting it whilst making sure they stay out of it is what i think stinks. Also raises the question over what worth NATO has when it’s members won’t back up their empty rhetoric with action. As things are American, British, Australian, Canadian and Dutch troops are doing the dirty work whilst other countries either won’t send resources they offered or their troops are sitting in quiet areas where there is no chance of a fight.

Worth remembering that a frighteningly high proportion of wars are started over reasons (national ego/pride, political populism, need to divert attention from domestic problems, dynastic fall out, political miscalculation etc.) that later historians look back on as ridiculous and very often all of the logical, rational factors act against war yet fail to prevent war (WW1 for instance), so I really wouldn’t get too complacent if I was Taiwanese.