A Paper Dragon: China's armed forces

Redhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
578
Likes
263
Western countries, mostly.
Ah, the genius is at it again. Trying to bait me and tease me into responding to this absurd assertion and fall into his trolling trap. Well, genius, all I can say is, it worked. Here I am responding to your ridiculous assertion. Now, go home! And good night!
 

J20!

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,748
Likes
1,541
Country flag
The True History of Taiwan

So, where is the requirement to 'peacefully' amalgamate people into the Han China (Communist China) who are not Han?

As far as the One China policy, nations are questioning the same, India included, now that the true hegemonic character of Communist China is slowly being recognised. The fact that the US is cocking the snook and arming ROC is hardly an indication of a successful campaign of the PRC, I will say.

A NATO like invasion on Taiwan will bring the world upon China like a ton of hot bricks and international outrage would make China a pariah. It is hardly a comfortable feeling for the money worshipping Chinese of Communist China. It would be catastrophic in fact for China.
Sometimes during your frequent "China is evil" rants, you tend to confuse ethnicity with nationality.

Yes, a significant portion of Taiwanese are ethnically diverse from the Han population in China. But they still identify themselves as CHINESE. If you didn't realize it, China, much like many diverse nation-states is ETHNICALLY diverse, even on the mainland.

Taiwan has been a part of the Chinese state since the time of the Qing dnasty in 1683, as your own source articulates. Even after it and the Diaoyutai's were siezed by Imperial Japan in 1895, Taiwan itself was returned to the Chinese state following Japan's WWII defeat. Not even Japan or India - despite your assertions otherwise - disputes that.

The bottom line is that Taiwan is a part of the sovereign Chinese state - whether the losing side of the Chinese Civil war fled there or not - which is why the One-China policy is accepted almost unanimously world-wide.

Expansionism implies a claim over territory that has never been under a country's administraion, control or sovereignty. That is not the case with Taiwan, nor is it the case with the Diaoyu islands.

And your selective demonization is telling. The Ryuku's where an Independent Kingdom that did homage to the Qing govt before Imperial Japan's aggressive expansion. They are even more ethnically divergent from the Japanese than is the case WRT Mainland-Taiwan; and they haven't been under Japanese administration as long as China's 3 century rule over Taiwan/Formosa.

If China has no claim over Taiwan as you say, then Japan has no claim over Okinawa and the Diayutai's.

The US selling weapons to Taiwan despite its commitments in the 3 communiques just goes to prove my point. IT IS US POLICY TO KEEP CHINA DIVIDED BY SUSTAINING A RIVAL, SUBSERVIANT RoC GOVT ON TAIWAN, regardless of the economic or diplomatic damage in Sino-American relations.

Either way, the PRC's cross-straights policy will always be to work towards a long-term goal of a Chinese reunification through diplomatic, economic or military means.

Keeping Taiwan from declaring independence through PLA readiness is a shrewd strategy towards buying time for a non-violent re-unification. All the while allowing China's economic and military might to grow annually to a point where Taiwanese or US resistence would be delaying the inevitable.

All this is plain to see if you are a true scholar of history. But your "I-Hate-China" blinkers won't let you see it.
 

redragon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
956
Likes
58
Country flag
When Chairman Mao said USA is a paper tiger, No one in USA cared. This is the atitude my dear fellow chinese should have, no need to argue with Indians.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Sometimes during your frequent "China is evil" rants, you tend to confuse ethnicity with nationality.

Yes, a significant portion of Taiwanese are ethnically diverse from the Han population in China. But they still identify themselves as CHINESE. If you didn't realize it, China, much like many diverse nation-states is ETHNICALLY diverse, even on the mainland.

Taiwan has been a part of the Chinese state since the time of the Qing dnasty in 1683, as your own source articulates. Even after it and the Diaoyutai's were siezed by Imperial Japan in 1895, Taiwan itself was returned to the Chinese state following Japan's WWII defeat. Not even Japan or India - despite your assertions otherwise - disputes that.

The bottom line is that Taiwan is a part of the sovereign Chinese state - whether the losing side of the Chinese Civil war fled there or not - which is why the One-China policy is accepted almost unanimously world-wide.

Expansionism implies a claim over territory that has never been under a country's administraion, control or sovereignty. That is not the case with Taiwan, nor is it the case with the Diaoyu islands.

And your selective demonization is telling. The Ryuku's where an Independent Kingdom that did homage to the Qing govt before Imperial Japan's aggressive expansion. They are even more ethnically divergent from the Japanese than is the case WRT Mainland-Taiwan; and they haven't been under Japanese administration as long as China's 3 century rule over Taiwan/Formosa.

If China has no claim over Taiwan as you say, then Japan has no claim over Okinawa and the Diayutai's.

The US selling weapons to Taiwan despite its commitments in the 3 communiques just goes to prove my point. IT IS US POLICY TO KEEP CHINA DIVIDED BY SUSTAINING A RIVAL, SUBSERVIANT RoC GOVT ON TAIWAN, regardless of the economic or diplomatic damage in Sino-American relations.

Either way, the PRC's cross-straights policy will always be to work towards a long-term goal of a Chinese reunification through diplomatic, economic or military means.

Keeping Taiwan from declaring independence through PLA readiness is a shrewd strategy towards buying time for a non-violent re-unification. All the while allowing China's economic and military might to grow annually to a point where Taiwanese or US resistence would be delaying the inevitable.

All this is plain to see if you are a true scholar of history. But your "I-Hate-China" blinkers won't let you see it.
Ethnicity normally is the deciding factor for Nationality.

That apart, now if this (appended below in quote block) is the case, then where is the ethnicity or claim for common nationality?
In 1756, the annual report came out with 660,147 men and women surrendered, they were aboriginal. In 1782 the population that surrendered was up to 912,900 and then 2.54 million in 1893. This 2.54 million was mentioned in the 1993 Chinese White Paper which treated them as Chinese. This was totally wrong, they were of Taiwanese origin. They grew as time went by. Their population was 6 million in 1943, and 21.5 million in 2000, among them, some are the offspring of Dutch or Chinese hybrid.

The pure Chinese came in 1949~1954 period, when Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan with 0.94 million Chinese refugees, among them, only 0.21 million were female. Therefore, even if all female Chinese refugees married with male refugees, they could only create 0.42 million pure Chinese couples producing pure Chinese offspring, the rest 0.52 million had to look for Taiwanese to marry, thus Taiwanese blood occupied more than half the so-called Chinese. The population of Taiwan in 2000 is about 23 million, the pure Chinese are not more than 5%, about 95% of Taiwan's population today carries aboriginal blood. Some have 100% aboriginal blood, some have 10%, mostly have more than 50%.
Your selective interpretation of the True History of Taiwan, conveniently glosses over and articulates that Taiwan was a part of China under the Qing rule.


Further, history states that parts of Taiwan were ruled by the Dutch (1624-1662), Spanish (1626-1642), Zheng Chenggong (Koxinga) and his heirs (1662-1683), and a part by Qing Dynasty China (1683-1895). Thereafter, the whole of the island was under Japanese control for half a century (1895-1945), and after World War II, it was taken over by the Republic of China (ROC).

So, shouldn't the Dutch claim it is theirs?

And have you forgotten that Taiwan was given to Japan by the Qing government in 1895 as a trophy of the First Sino-Japanese War?

So, shouldn't the Japanese claim it is theirs?

You may also read this undermentioned link adds another dimension for you to realise how false is your claim that Taiwan is a part of China.
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/61650/jyl_2.pdf?sequence=3

Therefore, where was it a part of China? The Japanese came in thereafter and so should the Japanese claim that the Taiwan is theirs?

And by your logic, KMT was the last which took over Taiwan. Therefore, should it not be KMT's?

So, where is the right of Communist China claiming Taiwan is theirs?

As far as the KMT is concerned, the True History of Taiwan clearly indicates how the ethnicity still remains Taiwanese and that the KMT Chinese are usurpers and not real Taiwanese.

But then I understand your desire to twist history as Communist China always does to prove something radically false as true.

Another fantasy that the world has all recognised the 'One China' Policy. India has repudiated it and US in a sleight of hand refutes it in practice. One pampers the golden goose since it lays eggs. China is laying eggs now and so one pampers to make carry on laying eggs.

Like what happened to dismantle the USSR, the US and the West will dismantle Communist China. Already, the US and the West has exploited the Chinese insatiable desire for money. They are indeed dividing China by 'engine-ing' the destruction of China through creating great disparity between the haves and have nots.

I do not hate China, I hate the fudge that the Chinese are past masters at. China, per se, has many a great aspect that one applauds, but one cannot applaud their are of deception and reconstructing history to suit their needs.

Imagine how malleable the Chinese are in their conviction. When Mao was alive he was 100% right and people cheerfully encouraged the red Guards to massacre the population and destroy manuscripts and historical evidence.

But once he died, they parroted that Mao was 75% right and 25% wrong.

That is how the Chinese abandon principles with the slight sway of the wind and that is how they change their history to suit the moment.

Is such a lack of principle something to be lauded?

How can one hate a country and the good achievements they have contributed through their history?
 
Last edited:

Redhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
578
Likes
263
Ray said:
Imagine how malleable the Chinese are in their conviction. When Mao was alive he was 100% right and people cheerfully encouraged the red Guards to massacre the population and destroy manuscripts and historical evidence.
The acts of deliberate destruction, outside of war, of historical Chinese artefacts and objets d'art during the Cultural Revolution, many of them dating back millennia, were acts of national vandalism unprecedented in their scale since the Middle Ages and truly indicative of the brain death of a people. Cultural Revolution was cultural and social insanity, and criminal insanity, at that.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
The acts of deliberate destruction, outside of war, of historical Chinese artefacts and objets d'art during the Cultural Revolution, many of them dating back millennia, were acts of national vandalism unprecedented in their scale since the Middle Ages and truly indicative of the brain death of a people. Cultural Revolution was cultural and social insanity, and criminal insanity, at that.
But a cleverly crafted insanity to divert attention of the chaos that Mao had landed China in. It saved his bacon.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
When Chairman Mao said USA is a paper tiger, No one in USA cared. This is the atitude my dear fellow chinese should have, no need to argue with Indians.
No one cared in the USA.

But those in China cared.

Of course you cannot argue when the mirror of truth is directed at your face.
 

J20!

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,748
Likes
1,541
Country flag
Ethnicity normally is the deciding factor for Nationality.

That apart, now if this (appended below in quote block) is the case, then where is the ethnicity or claim for common nationality?[/B

Your selective interpretation of the True History of Taiwan, conveniently glosses over and articulates that Taiwan was a part of China under the Qing rule.


No its NOT!
Your premise is completely bogus! If ethnicity defines nationality then how would you define ethnically diverse nation-states world-wide? INDIA, Myanmar, Turkey, China, Indonesia, Brazil etc etc etc are all made up an ethnically diverse populace.

If every ethnic group in the populace where to declare independence solely based on ethnicity, India for one, would not exist as a nation state. That applies to a vast majority of the countries of the world, let alone migrant countries like the USA or Australia. What about the aboriginal populace in those countries, and others? Again, why are you not as critical of Japan's administration of Okinawa/the Ryuku's based on an imperialist invasion in the 1870's if you are so opposed to China's 1683 based claim to Taiwan?

Further, history states that parts of Taiwan were ruled by the Dutch (1624-1662), Spanish (1626-1642), Zheng Chenggong (Koxinga) and his heirs (1662-1683), and a part by Qing Dynasty China (1683-1895). Thereafter, the whole of the island was under Japanese control for half a century (1895-1945), and after World War II, it was taken over by the Republic of China (ROC).

So, shouldn't the Dutch claim it is theirs?
A key measure (among many) of sovereignty is duration of control over the territory and populace. The Dutch conquered then controled Formosa for 38 years. China ruled and administered Taiwan for more than 2 centuries. Japan forcibly took control of the territory and where bound by the San Fransisco Treaty after WW2 to return it to China.

The RoC govt doesn't just claim to be the legal govt of Taiwan, they claim dominion over all of Mainland China, including of-shore territory like the Diaoyutai Isands, the 9 dash line in the SCS ( including the Spratlys and Paracels ). Even the RoC does not dispute that Taiwan is a Chinese territory, what they claim is the right to rule China as a state. The PRC govt is the recognized legitimate govt of China, or do you dispute that FACT as well?

The KMT lost control of China during the civil war, they have no claim on pieces of Chinese territory. The PRC govt has excercised control over China longer than the RoC existed on the mainland and has more international recognition than the RoC ever had. The only factor sustaing the RoC as an entity has always been the strategists in Washington. That is beyond doubt.

And have you forgotten that Taiwan was given to Japan by the Qing government in 1895 as a trophy of the First Sino-Japanese War?

So, shouldn't the Japanese claim it is theirs?
That's a "nice" way of putting a war of conquest. So Alscaice an Lorraine were "given" to Germany by France? Didn't France retake control over these territories after WW1 just as control of Formosa was ceded back to China following the defeat of Imperial Japan by the Allied forces of WW2? You're splitting hairs to push a ridiculous argument. Japan seized all the major Chinese territories in the East China Sea, including small Islets like the Diaoyu's. There were no "trophy" awards. They annexed Taiwan as spoils of the Sino-Japanese war.

You may also read this undermentioned link adds another dimension for you to realise how false is your claim that Taiwan is a part of China.
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/61650/jyl_2.pdf?sequence=3

Therefore, where was it a part of China? The Japanese came in thereafter and so should the Japanese claim that the Taiwan is theirs?

And by your logic, KMT was the last which took over Taiwan. Therefore, should it not be KMT's?

So, where is the right of Communist China claiming Taiwan is theirs?

As far as the KMT is concerned, the True History of Taiwan clearly indicates how the ethnicity still remains Taiwanese and that the KMT Chinese are usurpers and not real Taiwanese.

But then I understand your desire to twist history as Communist China always does to prove something radically false as true.

Another fantasy that the world has all recognised the 'One China' Policy. India has repudiated it and US in a sleight of hand refutes it in practice. One pampers the golden goose since it lays eggs. China is laying eggs now and so one pampers to make carry on laying eggs.
There's a reason it was called "Imperial" Japan. They seized territory from almost every Pacific country of the day, including Korea as a whole, the Ryukyu Kingdom, Russuan Far East territory, the Phillipines etc etc. If they returned Korea, the Philipines et al, who are you and Uncle Sam to decide that China will not get back its territory lost to the Emperor's murderers?

The One China policy is also different from the "One China" principle (一個中國原則/一个中国原则), which is the principle that insists both Taiwan and mainland China are inalienable parts of a single "China".[3] A modified form of the "One China" principle known as the "1992 Consensus" is the current policy of both the PRC and ROC governments. Under this consensus, both governments agree that there is only one sovereign state encompassing both mainland China and Taiwan, but disagree about which of the two governments is the legitimate government of this state.
One-China policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over 160 countries recognize the PRC as the sole govt of China, with the UN adopting reolution 2758 in 1971. Your "opinion" on the matter carries 0 weight over the world consensus. The fact that India has diplomatic relations implies its recognition of the PRC's governance of China. If that were not the case, China would not have diplomatic relations with India, just as it is with Swaziland or a few small Carribean island nations.

US policy may be to keep China divided and to sustain its lackey RoC govt in Taiwan, but that is purely down to geo-strategic calculations to maintain US supremacy in Asia and globaly. Even so, they "acknowledge" China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan in the Joint Communiques.

The US has and will work towards regime-change in China and a containment policy failing that as is made abundantly clear in Daniel Elsburg's Vietnam War-era Pentagon Papers. Why? The PRC is the only foreseable rival for US military hegemony and influence in the Pacific.
 
Last edited:

Redhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
578
Likes
263
J20! said:
That applies to a vast majority of the countries of the world, let alone migrant countries like the USA or Australia.
If you are going to digress this much from the OP, I'll digress even further on the subject of the identification of nationality of foreign immigrant communities in a "migrant country" like Australia.

Despite the best efforts of leftist multiculturalists, many immigrant communities in Australia are considered foreign communities living in Australia rather than adoptive Australians or part of the wider Australian community.

For example, Arab Moslems born in Australia define their identity this way: first, they identify themselves by their religion, Moslem; second, they identify themselves by their race, Arab; third they identify themselves by their parents' or other antecedents' nationality, Lebanese, Egyptian, etc.; fourth and last they may, or may not, identify themselves as Australians, even though they were born in the country entitling them to Australian citizenship.

Many Australians consider these sorts of people to be "paper Australians," that is they are Australians on paper but not in fact. As they don't actually identify and consider themselves Australians in the first instance and have little loyalty to the country, we don't consider them Australians in the true and full sense of the term. They are nothing more than Australian-born foreigners resident in the country. Several other foreign immigrant communities are similar to Arab Moslems.
 
Last edited:

J20!

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,748
Likes
1,541
Country flag
If you are going to digress this much from the OP, I'll digress even further on the subject of the identification of nationality of foreign immigrant communities in a "migrant country" like Australia.

Despite the best efforts of leftist multiculturalists, many immigrant communities in Australia are considered foreign communities living in Australia rather than adoptive Australians or part of the wider Australian community.

For example, Arab Moslems born in Australia define their identity this way: first, they identify themselves by their religion, Moslem; second, they identify themselves by their race, Arab; third they identify themselves by their parents' or other antecedents' nationality, Lebanese, Egyptian, etc.; fourth and last they may, or may not, identify themselves as Australians, even though they were born in the country entitling them to Australian citizenship.

Many Australians consider these sorts of people to be "paper Australians," that is they are Australians on paper but not in fact. As they don't actually identify and consider themselves Australians in the first instance and have little loyalty to the country, we don't consider them Australians in the true and full sense of the term. They are nothing more than Australian-born foreigners resident in the country. Several other foreign immigrant communities are similar to Arab Moslems.
How does that support Ray's ridiculous point on ethnicity? Could the - for eg. - Australian Arab Muslim community declare Independence from Australia solely on the basis of their ethnic diversity from the majority?

Ethnic minorities exist in most nation-states, but that does not = sudden Independence movements. If that were the case Catalonia in Spain, the Kurds in Turkey, the Scotts in Brittain, the Okinawans in Japan etc etc would have declared Independence decades ago and the resulting wars would have been catastrophic for those countries. Would India as a nation state survive if all its ethnic minorities decided to form Independent states?

People here get "tunnel-vision" when it comes to issues affecting China, forgetting that issues like ethnic diversity and separatism are global phenemenon not unique to "evil communist" China.
 

Redhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
578
Likes
263
How does that support Ray's ridiculous point on ethnicity? Could the - for eg. - Australian Arab Muslim community declare Independence from Australia solely on the basis of their ethnic diversity from the majority?

Ethnic minorities exist in most nation-states, but that does not = sudden Independence movements. If that were the case Catalonia in Spain, the Kurds in Turkey, the Scotts in Brittain, the Okinawans in Japan etc etc would have declared Independence decades ago and the resulting wars would have been catastrophic for those countries. Would India as a nation state survive if all its ethnic minorities decided to form Independent states?

People here get "tunnel-vision" when it comes to issues affecting China, forgetting that issues like ethnic diversity and separatism are global phenemenon not unique to "evil communist" China.
Read what I wrote at the beginning of the post. It has nothing to do with Ray's post and very little to do with yours. If you are going to go so far off the thread's original post about the article on the PRC's armed forces, I'll write on any topic or subject I damn well like on here. After all, I started the damned thread.
 

J20!

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
2,748
Likes
1,541
Country flag
Read what I wrote at the beginning of the post. It has nothing to do with Ray's post and very little to do with yours. If you are going to go so far off the thread's original post about the article on the PRC's armed forces, I'll write on any topic or subject I damn well like on here. After all, I started the damned thread.
I'm not a moderator dude. Post whatever you like on YOUR "damned" thread. But you quoted MY post, in the middle of a discusion with Ray over China's claim to Taiwan and its related millitary posture towards Taiwan.

Either way, I'm not going to discuss Muslim Arab communities in Australia, as I know next to nothing about that topic. If you want to discuss it with yourself...

By all means... Continue.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
No its NOT!
Your premise is completely bogus! If ethnicity defines nationality then how would you define ethnically diverse nation-states world-wide? INDIA, Myanmar, Turkey, China, Indonesia, Brazil etc etc etc are all made up an ethnically diverse populace. '
If every ethnic group in the populace where to declare independence solely based on ethnicity, India for one, would not exist as a nation state.
Ethnicity is important and that is why China has 'manufactured' ethnicity with Sinicisation. If ethnicity was not important, would there be any requirement for 'Sincisation' making all non Han accept being Han by coercive and other means?

Where there is no ethnicity, and in the nations mentioned by you, are there not terrorist/ militant organisations that are in conflict with the Nation and the major ethnic group? True, they still remain Nations, but Nations in turmoil.

China that claims to have 92% Han has rebellion from those they have not been able to convert to Han as in Tibet and Xinjiang.

So, ethnicity matters, even though you do not wish to see reality.

That applies to a vast majority of the countries of the world, let alone migrant countries like the USA or Australia. What about the aboriginal populace in those countries, and others? Again, why are you not as critical of Japan's administration of Okinawa/the Ryuku's based on an imperialist invasion in the 1870's if you are so opposed to China's 1683 based claim to Taiwan?
As above.

Was Okinawa ever Chinese?

The first history book of Okinawa is Chuzanseikan (Mirrors of Chuzan), which was compiled by Sho Shoken (向象賢) (1617–1675), also known as Haneji Choshu (羽地朝秀). In this and other books, the story is told of a Japanese samurai, Minamoto no Tametomo (源 為朝?, 1139–1170), who fought in the Hogen Rebellion of 1156 and fled first to Izu Island and then to Okinawa. He settled down with the sister of an anji and sired Shunten, the first king of Okinawa.

A key measure (among many) of sovereignty is duration of control over the territory and populace. The Dutch conquered then controled Formosa for 38 years. China ruled and administered Taiwan for more than 2 centuries. Japan forcibly took control of the territory and where bound by the San Fransisco Treaty after WW2 to return it to China.

The RoC govt doesn't just claim to be the legal govt of Taiwan, they claim dominion over all of Mainland China, including of-shore territory like the Diaoyutai Isands, the 9 dash line in the SCS ( including the Spratlys and Paracels ). Even the RoC does not dispute that Taiwan is a Chinese territory, what they claim is the right to rule China as a state. The PRC govt is the recognized legitimate govt of China, or do you dispute that FACT as well?

The KMT lost control of China during the civil war, they have no claim on pieces of Chinese territory. The PRC govt has excercised control over China longer than the RoC existed on the mainland and has more international recognition than the RoC ever had. The only factor sustaing the RoC as an entity has always been the strategists in Washington. That is beyond doubt.
If you, yourself, claim that A key measure (among many) of sovereignty is duration of control over the territory and populace, then it is KMT's alone and not of Communist China.

PRC's claim is over Mailand China, by your principles that you have mentioned. It is not PRC's right to claim Taiwan, which has no historical link at all to China as has been mentioned before.

That's a "nice" way of putting a war of conquest. So Alscaice an Lorraine were "given" to Germany by France? Didn't France retake control over these territories after WW1 just as control of Formosa was ceded back to China following the defeat of Imperial Japan by the Allied forces of WW2? You're splitting hairs to push a ridiculous argument. Japan seized all the major Chinese territories in the East China Sea, including small Islets like the Diaoyu's. There were no "trophy" awards. They annexed Taiwan as spoils of the Sino-Japanese war.
It is time you boned up on history and not the fairy tales of Communist China. Taiwan was given as a 'trophy' to the Japanese when the resoundingly trashed the Chinese and the Chinese sued for peace.



There's a reason it was called "Imperial" Japan. They seized territory from almost every Pacific country of the day, including Korea as a whole, the Ryukyu Kingdom, Russuan Far East territory, the Phillipines etc etc. If they returned Korea, the Philipines et al, who are you and Uncle Sam to decide that China will not get back its territory lost to the Emperor's murderers?
Japan may have been imperialistic. But then what is China doing? Being a pussy cat?

Who are you fooling?

One-China policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over 160 countries recognize the PRC as the sole govt of China, with the UN adopting reolution 2758 in 1971. Your "opinion" on the matter carries 0 weight over the world consensus. The fact that India has diplomatic relations implies its recognition of the PRC's governance of China. If that were not the case, China would not have diplomatic relations with India, just as it is with Swaziland or a few small Carribean island nations.
Who are you fooling?

Heard of something called 'political expediency'?

Diplomatic relations are essential in today's world. Hence, there are such equations.

US policy may be to keep China divided and to sustain its lackey RoC govt in Taiwan, but that is purely down to geo-strategic calculations to maintain US supremacy in Asia and globaly. Even so, they "acknowledge" China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan in the Joint Communiques.

The US has and will work towards regime-change in China and a containment policy failing that as is made abundantly clear in Daniel Elsburg's Vietnam War-era Pentagon Papers. Why? The PRC is the only foreseable rival for US military hegemony and influence in the Pacific.
US will win.
 

Redhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
578
Likes
263
"Damned" is correct when used adjectivally. "Damn" is correct when used adverbially. Thus, "damned fool" but "damn right". Many English speakers, particularly Americans, cannot tell the difference and so use "damn" both adjectivally and adverbially.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
"Damned" is correct when used adjectivally. "Damn" is correct when used adverbially. Thus, "damned fool" but "damn right". Many English speakers, particularly Americans, cannot tell the difference and so use "damn" both adjectivally and adverbially.
How correctly put.

"Damned" is an adverb.

But to many it is a second language and hence the disconnect.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
The PRC is the only foreseable rival for US military hegemony and influence in the Pacific.
The difference is that the US is not 'conquering' areas, while the PRC is.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
The PRC is the only foreseable rival for US military hegemony and influence in the Pacific.
The difference is that the US is not 'conquering' areas, while the PRC is.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top