Japan China dispute over islands.

Wang · 23 Aug 2004

sima_yi said:
Yeah, except when Taiwan gets its independence, it is when China invades and destroys it. I doubt any country would come and defend Taiwan; even our government has this one China policy:"there is only one China, and Taiwan is part of China". I don't know how German government deals with China.

sima_yi said:
Even U.S has treaty with Taiwan, but I think when China invades Taiwan, our government won't do a thing about it except some "talks"

China may try a invasion, maybe not. If China tries a invasion then I think your government will do much more then only "talks", because the US has the most powerful military in the world and they put it into real action quite often actually.
And in an interview your president Bush was asked: if the United States has an obligation to defend Taiwan. "Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand that," Bush said in the interview. Asked if his commitment would be backed up with the full force of the U.S. military, Bush replied: "Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/taiwan010425.html
Also if China tries a invasion then it will only show the world how evil the Chinese dictatorial regime is and then China will lose alot of support from other countries.

sima_yi · 23 Aug 2004

I think my country has already have enough troubles in middle east. We don't want to repeat something like Korean War. We have the strongest military, that is fact, but we don't want to waste our people's life meaninglessly. I think when you consider sending a large amount of troops or equipments over sea to have a war against a nation such as China, you would have to think twice.

China may or may not lose support of other countries. Just look at the countries which have formal relationship with China; They all declare that "one China policy" is valid. Just how many nations have formal diplomatic relationship with Taiwan? Most of them consider Taiwan as part of China; at least, that is the policy their governments practice.

We may have a chance to win the war, but there is also a risk to lose it and put U.S into a worse situation like Vietnam. Yes, our government did say such thing like, "We will defend Taiwan...", but we also have a policy of "There is only one China, and Taiwan is part of China."

You can't be certain that we will send troops over sea to protect Taiwan. As I say, a treaty is a piece of paper, if situaion requires it, a nation doesn't have to do everything a treaty or policy says. There are tons of examples back in history about a treaty being 'useless' during war time and crisis.

Wang · 23 Aug 2004

sima_yi said:
I think my country has already have enough troubles in middle east. We don't want to repeat something like Korean War. We have the strongest military, that is fact, but we don't want to waste our people's life meaninglessly. I think when you consider sending a large amount of troops or equipments over sea to have a war against a nation such as China, you would have to think twice.

China may or may not lose support of other countries. Just look at the countries which have formal relationship with China; They all declare that "one China policy" is valid. Just how many nations have formal diplomatic relationship with Taiwan? Most of them consider Taiwan as part of China; at least, that is the policy their governments practice.

We may have a chance to win the war, but there is also a risk to lose it and put U.S into a worse situation like Vietnam. Yes, our government did say such thing like, "We will defend Taiwan...", but we also have a policy of "There is only one China, and Taiwan is part of China."

You can't be certain that we will send troops over sea to protect Taiwan. As I say, a treaty is a piece of paper, if situaion requires it, a nation doesn't to do everything a treaty or policy says. There are tons of examples back in history about a treaty being 'useless' during war time and crisis.

I never said I was certain I said it is most likely and the US president himself pledged to defend and help Taiwan otherwise he probably would not have made such a statement in public.

sima_yi · 24 Aug 2004

Do you also know that our president also pledged to keep his "one China" policy valid? He can say whatever he wants to make China and Taiwan not going to war because I think he definitely doesn't want to get involve into another unnecessary foreign conflict.

Taiwan should wait for the right time to consider independence such as when China has war with ohter nation or nations.

Wang · 24 Aug 2004

sima_yi said:
Do you also know that our president also pledged to keep his "one China" policy valid?

Ofcourse I know that.

sima_yi said:
Taiwan should wait for the right time to consider independence such as when China has war with ohter nation or nations.

The earlier the better!!

4321go · 26 Aug 2004

Wang said:
Ofcourse I know that.

The earlier the better!!

To Wang: I have to be polite in this forum,So I have only one sentence for you:Whether China attack TaiWan depends on TaiWan,splittism =war.

bossel · 27 Aug 2004

4321go said:
To Wang: I have to be polite in this forum,So I have only one sentence for you:Whether China attack TaiWan depends on TaiWan,We hate war,I hope you don't choose the war.

That very much sounds like the robber who told the judge: "I didn't want to shoot! I told the guy to give me his money or I'll have to kill him. He didn't give me his money. It's all his own fault!"

4321go · 27 Aug 2004

bossel said:
That very much sounds like the robber who told the judge: "I didn't want to shoot! I told the guy to give me his money or I'll have to kill him. He didn't give me his money. It's all his own fault!"

If you think the splittism is right,then we'd like to play the role of "robber"

saribengou · 28 Aug 2004

This is very stupid argument. Diaoyu island is belong to China early in ancient time. It's is not belong to US. How can they give it to Japan?

bossel said:
That very much sounds like the robber who told the judge: "I didn't want to shoot! I told the guy to give me his money or I'll have to kill him. He didn't give me his money. It's all his own fault!"

The problem is this guy's money is belong to the "robber". He just want to take back his own stuff.

bossel · 28 Aug 2004

saribengou said:
The problem is this guy's money is belong to the "robber". He just want to take back his own stuff.

You mean, if somebody owes you money & doesn't want to give it back, you would shoot him? Sounds very humane.
Oh wait, not humane, sounds like the Mafia.

saribengou · 28 Aug 2004

so the guy took your money, kill your brother and you will just let him do it, because resist will make you like the Mafia. right? lol what a s*****.

bossel · 28 Aug 2004

saribengou said:
so the guy took your money, kill your brother and you will just let him do it, because resist will make you like the Mafia. right? lol what a s*****.

I see, you have very nice fantasies, really humane. But how does that fit in either your or my example above?
Or, to bring that back into the real world: Who is this "brother" of China that Taiwan allegedly killed?

saribengou · 28 Aug 2004

taiwan is our brother! If we lost taiwan, We lost a brother. <same to diaoyu island>.

BTW, don't distort the motif. The issue is: shall we take back something which belong to us for a long time or just let someone took it away from you without resist. because you want to show that you are not Mafia?

So germany used to do that right? really humane.

PS: I am not a fantasist. The robbery example was made up by someone else.

Omg it's you! lol

bossel · 28 Aug 2004

saribengou said:
taiwan is our brother! If we lost taiwan, We lost a brother. <same to diaoyu island>.
BTW, don't distort the motif.

I think, you're distorting the motif. The robber in court represents the PRC, who shot the guy who owed him money (which is Taiwan). Then you say that the guy who owed you money (IE Taiwan) killed your brother. Now you say Taiwan is your brother. Which means you want to kill your brother because he owed you money & killed himself? Sounds not very logical.

So germany used to do that right?

Used to do what?

PS: I am not a fantasist. The robbery example was made up by someone else.
Omg it's you! lol

OMG! It wasn't me, it was 4321go. I only put his words in another setting.

4321go · 28 Aug 2004

To bossel:Your example does't fit the real matter,real world.
P.S. Do you believe the splittism is fit for China?If so,do you wish Geman(your motherland) balkanize ,just like 200 years ago?If not ,why do you give an example like that----????

sima_yi · 28 Aug 2004

Yes, as I posted before. In the real world, every nation will defend its nation's interests which include preventing its states from splitting. That is why we won't allow Hawaii from splitting NO MATTER WHAT. (you can't seperate egg from a cake once the cake is made)

saribengou · 28 Aug 2004

bossel said:
I think, you're distorting the motif. The robber in court represents the PRC, who shot the guy who owed him money (which is Taiwan). Then you say that the guy who owed you money (IE Taiwan) killed your brother. Now you say Taiwan is your brother. Which means you want to kill your brother because he owed you money & killed himself? Sounds not very logical.

This may not sounds logical to you, because you don't think before you post. We won't kill our brother. That means we wont throw a bomb to taiwan and make the island sink. Taiwan is still there. But if it becomes independent, that means we lost the island(brother). Lost the economic benefits(money)

Now Got it?

bossel said:
Used to do what?

Used to remain silent when somebody robbered you money and killed your bother, because resist will make you like a Mafia.

well since you are a bit weird I think I have to explain more( lol, looks i am a kindergarten teacher now)

In other words. If part of the Germany wants to become independent, all germanys will agree with it. They won't fight for their only Germany, because it will make them like terrorist, Mafia etc. Am i right?

bossel said:
OMG! It wasn't me, it was 4321go. I only put his words in another setting.

You put it in another setting, but your point of view really real makes me laugh.
If part of your nation wants to beome independent state, just let him go.. blablabla..

I wonder what you going to do if this happened in Germany.

bossel · 29 Aug 2004

saribengou said:
This may not sounds logical to you, because you don't think before you post. We won't kill our brother. That means we wont throw a bomb to taiwan and make the island sink. Taiwan is still there. But if it becomes independent, that means we lost the island(brother). Lost the economic benefits(money)

Now Got it?

Nope! Because, as you said, it's illogical. Taiwan is not just an island. What counts are the people upon it. Therefore, if you bomb Taiwan you will kill your "brothers".
I think, what you said pretty much exemplifies your stance: nationalism. You're not interested in the well-being of the people but only in "grandness" of your nation.

In other words. If part of the Germany wants to become independent, all germanys will agree with it. They won't fight for their only Germany, because it will make them like terrorist, Mafia etc. Am i right?
I wonder what you going to do if this happened in Germany.

Nothing. Most people wouldn't like it, but Germany surely wouldn't go to war if eg. Bavaria decided democratically to become independent.

sima_yi said:
Yes, as I posted before. In the real world, every nation will defend its nation's interests which include preventing its states from splitting. That is why we won't allow Hawaii from splitting NO MATTER WHAT. (you can't seperate egg from a cake once the cake is made)

Remember Eastern Europe? Several eggs separated from the cake.
Anyway, Taiwan is a different situation. It is already separated. They have factual independence, what is missing is nominal independence.

sima_yi · 29 Aug 2004

Yeah, it is because eastern europe were invaded by USSR. and I don't think Russian gave them up peacefully. RIGHT? Because Russia has to keep its pride as a nation to crush any separation of state from it ^^. And I was talking about Hawaii and defending a nations interests. Say, if one of your family members (adopted or not) tries to cut half of your house away from you, what do you do? And How many asian or western nations will truely support its independence based on their nations' interests? How many countries formally consider Taiwan a independent nation?

bossel · 30 Aug 2004

sima_yi said:
Yeah, it is because eastern europe were invaded by USSR. and I don't think Russian gave them up peacefully. RIGHT? Because Russia has to keep its pride as a nation to crush any separation of state from it ^^. And I was talking about Hawaii and defending a nations interests.

Ahem, Hawaii's incorporation into the US was not entirely voluntary as well.

Most parts of the former SU separated peacefully, eg. the whole Western part except Kaliningrad (which is a special case, anyway). Problems arose mainly in the Caucasus because for some strategical reasons the Russians didn't want to let them go. The end is open...
Another example of peaceful separation is the former CSSR.

Say, if one of your family members (adopted or not) tries to cut half of your house away from you, what do you do?

Don't see, how this relates. That obviously depends on the ownership situation. If he owns half of the house, he can do what he wants.
If you want to compare that to the Taiwanese situation, you 1st have to define the owner. Is it the people who live there, the government (then, which one) or some supernatural entity?

How many countries formally consider Taiwan a independent nation?

As I said: factual versus formal independence. It's a special situation.

4321go · 30 Aug 2004

bossel said:
Nothing. Most people wouldn't like it, but Germany surely

wouldn't go to war if eg. Bavaria decided democratically to become

independent.

Can you find any PM of Germany have claimed if part of the Germany

separate from it we wouldn't like it but we surely wouldn't go to war

if eg?Bavaria became independent in April 7th 1919 ,but it has been

taken by the throat by the army of govenment in the same year in May

1st.I am quite familiar with your country's history.So you should

familiar with the history of TaiWan Province of China.

In the history,TaiWan has been taken away from China by two country:

Holland and Japan.

Holland colonist take TaiWan as its colony in 1600's.But after they

landed TaiWan for 38 years--In 1662 , Zheng Chengu-gong expelled the

Holland and controlled Taiwan, Zheng Chengu-gongis a great leader of

the soliders of the Ming Dynaster .In 1681, the Manchu won the war

between the Ming Dynasty and the Manchu Dynasty and take control of

Taiwan. And people in TaiWan has lived the same way as the people in

China. They knew how to grow crops, how to build their house, what

kinds of clothes to wear and so on.

But in 1894, Tiawan was given to Japan because the Manchu government

lose the battle between China and Japan. People in Taiwan were very sad

to hear the bad news.......

Fifty years later(1945), TaiWan belongs to the Han people again.

As the loser of civil war (1945-1949)Kuomintang retreat from mainland

and went to TaiWan to go on its rule. http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/china_taiwan.HTM

After PRC enters UN,few and few country accept TaiWan as a country,even U.S.A.

sima_yi · 31 Aug 2004

bossel said:
Ahem, Hawaii's incorporation into the US was not entirely voluntary as well.

Most parts of the former SU separated peacefully, eg. the whole Western part except Kaliningrad (which is a special case, anyway). Problems arose mainly in the Caucasus because for some strategical reasons the Russians didn't want to let them go. The end is open...
Another example of peaceful separation is the former CSSR.

Don't see, how this relates. That obviously depends on the ownership situation. If he owns half of the house, he can do what he wants.
If you want to compare that to the Taiwanese situation, you 1st have to define the owner. Is it the people who live there, the government (then, which one) or some supernatural entity?

As I said: factual versus formal independence. It's a special situation.

About 45% of the people in Taiwan agree that they are Chinese and Taiwanese. 5% agree that they are Chinese. the other 50% agree that they are Taiwanese. so, how do you define the ownership? Can you divide 45% of the land to China? and the other to Taiwanese people? "your family's division" is just an example, I don't know how you can't understand it. I think Taiwan's situation is not very complicated. First of all, if it declares independence now, China will invade no matter what. Secondly, if it keeps its voice of separation lower than Chinese government wants, it may take advantage what China has to offer and wait for the right time to do whatever it wants.

If you declare independence without other countries' support, it is the worst situation for Taiwan. So, you want independence now, get a name on U.N, and have war against China or keep a low profile and take advantages when the right time comes -.-

bossel · 31 Aug 2004

4321go said:
Can you find any PM of Germany have claimed if part of the Germany separate from it we wouldn't like it but we surely wouldn't go to war

It's hard to find a PM in the federal government anyway, we have a chancellor (Bundeskanzler).

if eg?Bavaria became independent in April 7th 1919 ,but it has been
taken by the throat by the army of govenment in the same year in May
1st.

Ahem, I'm talking of Germany today, not 1919.
But, anyway, you should re-attend your German history lessons . The "Rﾃ､terepublik" of 1919 was a socialist uprising without too much popular support. Most Bavarians were against it. Mind you, during democratic (!) elections in January 1919 conservatives & moderate socialists formed the vast majority in the parliament, a Social Democrat became prime minister.
The USPD ("Independent Social Democratic Party", radical socialists) took the leading role in the revolt, but although they declared the Soviet Republic of Bavaria, their influence didn't reach much further than the borders of Munich. Furthermore, it was not so much the central government (though it helped) but the Bavarian government that led the fight against the revolutionaries.

In the history,TaiWan has been taken away from China by two country: Holland and Japan.

It's quite improbable that Holland took it away, it wasn't part of China before the Dutch arrived.

In 1662 , Zheng Chengu-gong expelled the Holland and controlled Taiwan, Zheng Chengu-gongis a great leader of the soliders of the Ming Dynaster .

Koxinga (鄭成功) didn't want to claim Taiwan for the Ming dynasty but was more or less on the run from the Manchus. There was not much left of Ming-China when he arrived with 25,000 followers in Taiwan.

In 1681, the Manchu won the war between the Ming Dynasty and the Manchu Dynasty and take control of Taiwan.

Wasn't that 1683, when the Manchus annexed Western Taiwan?

But in 1894, Tiawan was given to Japan because the Manchu government lose the battle between China and Japan.

Wasn't that in 1895?

After PRC enters UN,few and few country accept TaiWan as a country,even U.S.A.

That's what I would call opportunism (or: sucking up). But, well, as I said, that's the problem of formal vs. factual independence.

sima_yi said:
About 45% of the people in Taiwan agree that they are Chinese and Taiwanese. 5% agree that they are Chinese. the other 50% agree that they are Taiwanese.

Oh, polls, what a nice topic. It all depends on who asks whom, & how the question is formulated. Where did you get that from?
I have another one from 2002 for you: "Of the respondents, 73.2 percent were against "one country, two systems," while 17.3 percent declined to answer the question."

so, how do you define the ownership?

I would say, it belongs to the people who live there. The easiest & fairest way to decide what should be done are democratic elections or a plebiscite.

If you declare independence without other countries' support, it is the worst situation for Taiwan. So, you want independence now, get a name on U.N, and have war against China or keep a low profile and take advantages when the right time comes -.-

As I said, that's up to the Taiwanese to decide.

another ppl · 31 Aug 2004

I don't support separation.
I don't allow separation.

To the best of my understanding,
it is not true that Taiwanese should feel free to do whatever they want.
I don't mind whether they like the communist government or not,
but I do have confidence in saying that they are morally incorrect if they work against the integrity of a nation.
Ppl who work against their nation will not be respected,
n their deeds will be strictly dealt with by the rest.

4321go · 31 Aug 2004

bossel said:
that's up to the Taiwanese to decide,The easiest & fairest way to decide what should be done are democratic elections or a plebiscite

If it is feasible,why didn't the TaiWan Government do it.Oh?It prepareing to do so?Is TaiWan democratic enough?and the people which join the ballot are ingnorent

Japan China dispute over islands.

先輩

engineer

先輩

engineer

先輩

Happy

後輩

Happy

Registered

後輩

Registered

後輩

Registered

後輩

Happy

engineer

Registered

後輩

engineer

後輩

Happy

engineer

後輩

後輩

Happy

Similar threads