• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Taiwan is a historic complex to Chinese

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Proletariat
The Chinese are imperialists plain and simple. At least 1/3rd of their land was taken after 1950. There is no negotiating with these people. I really think America will eventually be involved in some sort of conflict with them in the future.
Click to expand...

exactly...

and ur name is chinadefender, oh please...If taiwan wanted to become a part of China, then by popular sovereignty, would of done so. I wonder if the US will get into the conflict. If that is true, then this is going to be hell on earth with weapons nowa days. But just remember China man....the chinese only has so much coastline....meaning several nukes or mini nukes and you lose all port cabability. Then the US's manufacturing might and 6 carrier fleets will take care of rest. Sure your a land power NO DOUBT. But do you own the sea? How can you say that most people in Taiwan want to be a part of China again? Then why did it not happen already?

And you say anandtech is sensored? This is private property, they can ban you if they want. Thats universal law, not to hinder freedom of speech but to keep it decent. Thats why schools have dress code, some more strict than others because its about decency, i see people complain about dress codes but in the end it keeps the school from looking like trash. What if flame wars on these forums start and people cussing all the time? Your brain washed like the rest of North Korea. Only 30% of your people live in cities, the rest are still farmers that make 3-4 american dollars a month. If you want to take taiwan back, your just going to start a war. Im not sure if the US will keep its word to the treaty made that says it will "defend taiwan." Someone will have to do more research on that.
 
Originally posted by: Chinadefender

---------------------------
As far as I know, Canadan gov send back all gov officials born in Quebec to attend the referendum.
And if the Quebec referendum does not result in that way, who knows what would happen? At least people knows what Amercans did after the South's "democracy".
I remember at least Presient Clinton said in public that US will not accept referendum independence in Quebec. And Canada has passed the law of fobidding Quebec could be independent via referendum only in Quebec.

So China try best to encourage the so-called three direct links and try best to achieve peaceful reunification. But if Taiwan refuse it and even held unilateral referendum, I bet the peace cannot be maintained.
Click to expand...

I think that you are mistaken regarding the government's actions regarding government officials, if only because they could have voted by mail-in ballot, and so that would have made no difference.

The Clarity Act states that in the event of a solid majority, with a clear question, the government would negotiate separation with Quebec. Also, the supreme court has stated that the government would have a constitutional obligation to recognize an unambiguous "Yes"to a separation vote.

Our governement does not openly defy the Supreme Court of Canada. That's what the rule of law means.

And I would like a link to see exactly what Clinton said. I cannot see the US not recognizing independence if the government of Canada did so.

You say "peace cannot be maintained," but what you mean is "the PRC would wage war." Don't use passive language to avoid responsibility.

And every geopolitical, ideological event arises from complex historical events. Don't try to make the Taiwan separate from the rest of world events.

I am, however, surprised by your knowledge of Canadian affairs. Your language makes me think that you are Chineese born, if not living there currently. I'm surprised our domestic affairs have hit the radar over there.

Oh, and Anandtech is private property. Anand has the right to cencor here. Our governments do not, and that makes all the difference. I think it's good of him to let us wankers have a little corner of the tech world to exchange bitter, petty insults.
 
en🙂 Nice chatting

I think that you are mistaken regarding the government's actions regarding government officials, if only because they could have voted by mail-in ballot, and so that would have made no difference. ......I am, however, surprised by your knowledge of Canadian affairs.
------------------------------
Yup. The secession issue is all over the world. It is an interesting bla, bla....

I just heard from my friend in Canada about this referendum. He said Canada gov give those many officials born in Quebec holidays and send them back by free coach. They attended the referendum and also try to persude their neighbours and relatives to stand with the federal gov. It is the reason that Canada gov encourage them to be back to Quebec.

I heard about the Clarity Act. I find the full context there

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-31.8/whole.html

What u said about the Supreme Court is true. But I find this is much more important

------------------------------
WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that democracy means more than simple majority rule, that a clear majority in favour of secession would be required to create an obligation to negotiate secession, and that a qualitative evaluation is required to determine whether a clear majority in favour of secession exists in the circumstances;

WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that, in Canada, the secession of a province, to be lawful, would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, that such an amendment would perforce require negotiations in relation to secession involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada, and that those negotiations would be governed by the principles of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and the protection of minorities;

WHEREAS, in light of the finding by the Supreme Court of Canada that it would be for elected representatives to determine what constitutes a clear question and what constitutes a clear majority in a referendum held in a province on secession, the House of Commons, as the only political institution elected to represent all Canadians, has an important role in identifying what constitutes a clear question and a clear majority sufficient for the Government of Canada to enter into negotiations in relation to the secession of a province from Canada;

AND WHEREAS it is incumbent on the Government of Canada not to enter into negotiations that might lead to the secession of a province from Canada, and that could consequently entail the termination of citizenship and other rights that Canadian citizens resident in the province enjoy as full participants in Canada, unless the population of that province has clearly expressed its democratic will that the province secede from Canada;

---------------------------------------------

So I understand that the unilateral referendum of Quebec is not accepted as valid, right?

If Quebec was separated in the way of unilateral referendum of Quebec, what would happen?
My friend told me that many Canadians, many parties said they would not accept the outcome if the referedum said "no" to remaining in the federeal Canada.

I said "peace cannot be maintained". This is not a vague language.

Just as the so-called anti-secession law said "........employ non-peaceful means "

It does not necessarily mean WAR. perhaps blockage, or something like that.
 
The Chinese are imperialists plain and simple. At least 1/3rd of their land was taken after 1950.
----------------------
enh...:disgust:

Illiterate words......

Know nothing about world history and do not care about it.

In fact US took new Mexico State via war and betray.

 
sorry, theres gotta be a statute of limitations on these kinds of claims. china just needs to ah heck off with its threats.
basic facts are this, china is a tyranical dictatorship trying to bully a free democracy. it is unacceptable.

if the communists think they represent the people, then give them free press, freedom of speech, freedom of opposition and organization, free and fair elections, human rights etc etc.. what the hell are they afraid of huh?
 
Originally posted by: Chinadefender

WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has stated that democracy means more than simple majority rule, that a clear majority in favour of secession would be required to create an obligation to negotiate secession, and that a qualitative evaluation is required to determine whether a clear majority in favour of secession exists in the circumstances;

WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that, in Canada, the secession of a province, to be lawful, would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, that such an amendment would perforce require negotiations in relation to secession involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada, and that those negotiations would be governed by the principles of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and the protection of minorities;

WHEREAS, in light of the finding by the Supreme Court of Canada that it would be for elected representatives to determine what constitutes a clear question and what constitutes a clear majority in a referendum held in a province on secession, the House of Commons, as the only political institution elected to represent all Canadians, has an important role in identifying what constitutes a clear question and a clear majority sufficient for the Government of Canada to enter into negotiations in relation to the secession of a province from Canada;

AND WHEREAS it is incumbent on the Government of Canada not to enter into negotiations that might lead to the secession of a province from Canada, and that could consequently entail the termination of citizenship and other rights that Canadian citizens resident in the province enjoy as full participants in Canada, unless the population of that province has clearly expressed its democratic will that the province secede from Canada;

---------------------------------------------

So I understand that the unilateral referendum of Quebec is not accepted as valid, right?

If Quebec was separated in the way of unilateral referendum of Quebec, what would happen?
My friend told me that many Canadians, many parties said they would not accept the outcome if the referedum said "no" to remaining in the federeal Canada.

I said "peace cannot be maintained". This is not a vague language.

Just as the so-called anti-secession law said "........employ non-peaceful means "

It does not necessarily mean WAR. perhaps blockage, or something like that.
Click to expand...

Umm. . .did you read that closely? Well, two language barriers working here, legalese and English, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. 🙂 And legalese makes even less sense than English.

It said that the government will not enter into separation negotiations unless there was a clear democratic vote in "that province." If there is a clear vote, then the government has an obligation to negotiate.

The vote is unilateral in that it only occurs in that province. That province's government decides when and whether a referendm will take place. It is that province's government that will act on the results of the referendum.

It is not unilateral in that it is the federal government's position that they have a say in what that question is. That is a point of some controversy here.

If push came to shove, and the Quebec government had another referendum without the federal government's input on the question, whether or not that question was valid would be a decision that would be made by the Supreme Court of Canada. And if the SCC decided that the question was not vague, then the federal government would be ordered to negotiate separation in good faith.

That's the difference: We will decide this issue in the courts, and the polling booths; not with gunboats.

Can it be done entirely unilaterally by Quebec? No. But we recognize the legitimacy of the will of the people as represented by the electoral process.

Are there some that disagree up here? Sure there are. Is there a single political party that is in opposition to the basic principles outlined by the supreme court? Well, there is one: The Bloc Quebequois, the separatist party.

There is not a single federalist political party (that has a seat in parliament, at least) that doesn't realize that a separation vote in Quebec means that we have to recognize their wishes.

That entire document says that with a clear question on the ballot of a referendum, a province has the right to seccede. That means that we will not take any non-peaceful action against them.

I'm glad that you cleared up that last question for me though. Would you support Chineese invasion of Taiwan in the event of a seccession?

Perhaps the Chineese government should take a page from the Canadian government, and outline the conditions under which they would recognize the legitimacy of a similar vote in Taiwan. I'm sure that even the Taiwanese Nationalists would like to find a way that would be fair to both parties. That would give their movement more legitimacy.

If issues of travel and other unfairnesses you mentioned were cleared up, and the Taiwaneese people still voted for separation, would you support their independence?
 
Thanks a lot for your explanation.

I think perhaps I understand it but did not express clearly.

This Act said the Federal gov should enter into separation negotiations if there was a clear vote in Quebec, right?

However, firstly, whether or not the vote is regarded as "clear" or valid, is decided by the SCC, one of the three federal institutions, right?

-----------------------
Can it be done entirely unilaterally by Quebec? No. But we recognize the legitimacy of the will of the people as represented by the electoral process. -
----------------------------------------
I belive it is a respect. But it seems that this respect cannot settle practical things.

If the SCC judged that the vote is not clear and valid, but people in Quebec insist that it is valid, what could be done then?

Secondly, about negotiation

The Act reads:------------
the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that, in Canada, the secession of a province, to be lawful, would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, that such an amendment would perforce require negotiations in relation to secession involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada,
---------------------------------

Question: if some provinces and the federal government insist that Quebec cannot be separated, but people in Quebec do not think so. Negotiations broke. What could be done then?

Then perhaps back to the first question, judged by the SCC? If SCC judged in the way against secession (think of possibility🙂 ) because it is regarded as not clear and democratic, does it mean that Quebec must obey it or not? Quebec must belive the SCC is just and fair, not standing with the Federals?

Therefore, I have to say this act actually uses a vague, tiring, time-costing way to disregard the validity of unilateral referendum of Quebec.😉


And nice chatting. I am not a law major and English is not my mother tongue. It can really improve my mastery in English.:laugh:
 
No, it seems that your comprehension was perfect, my mistake.

I think that in general Quebecers do think that the SSC is just and fair. By tradition, 1/3 of the members of the court are francophones. Also, the original reference by the court decision regarding this issue was widely thought of as being fair on both sides. And I can see your concern regarding what would happen after a referendum. If the SCC were to strike down a question after the separatists won a referendum, things in Qubec could get nasty. Which is why the federal government would likely challenge the question prior to the referendum, so that it could be edited.

The point that an amendment to the constitution would be neccessary is valid, especially since we need unanimity among the provinces in order to do so.

The entire reason for all this procedural gameing is to avoid actual conflict without surrendering too many of either side's interests. You are right in thinking many clauses of this federal law have been designed to throw up obstacles to a seccessionist vote. But you forget that no part of this law has yet to be tested in the courts. Many parts may be found to be invalid, especially since many clauses have taken the original words of the court and pushed them slightly in favour of the Federal Government.

One final thing: This vague, tiring, costly process is positively speedy and efficient compared to an outright occupation and guerilla war. We understand that these methods are at the end of the day the only alternative to such a situation.

I would finally like to point to the last peaceful seccession that I am aware of, that of Norway and Sweden. Considering their current success, and friendly relations, I can only think that peaceful negotiation is the vastly superior method to approach these situations.

I too have enjoyed this exchange, and hope it continues.
 
Originally posted by: Chinadefender
The Chinese are imperialists plain and simple. At least 1/3rd of their land was taken after 1950.
----------------------
enh...:disgust:

Illiterate words......

Know nothing about world history and do not care about it.

In fact US took new Mexico State via war and betray.
Click to expand...

Damn excuse me! We took/stolen/ripoff 100% of our land! All ya mexicans, indgens and Canadians come get em back if you can! 😛

Ignore that Proletariat dude, he's just a grumpy Indian that's still hang up on the brits once ruled them, Pakistan and Bangladesh left them and the PRC beated them in 1962.
 
Originally posted by: WalkingDead
Originally posted by: Chinadefender
The Chinese are imperialists plain and simple. At least 1/3rd of their land was taken after 1950.
----------------------
enh...:disgust:

Illiterate words......

Know nothing about world history and do not care about it.

In fact US took new Mexico State via war and betray.
Click to expand...

Damn excuse me! We took/stolen/ripoff 100% of our land! All ya mexicans, indgens and Canadians come get em back if you can! 😛

Ignore that Proletariat dude, he's just a grumpy Indian that's still hang up on the brits once ruled them, Pakistan and Bangladesh left them and the PRC beated them in 1962.
Click to expand...
Actually I'm white.

Chinadefender - I know the US took Mexico but that doesn't give you the right to take anything you want in the current century. Why don't you stop the genocide/assimilation in Xinjiang and Tibet? America does not participate in such things anymore.

Edited: After I didn't feel like smashing WalkingDeads face in.

 
Yes. Kibbo, I belive most Chinese would also prefer peace like you. I also belive most people in the world think so.🙂

I also think the vague way cannot settle problems finally, but can really moderate immediate conflicts. It is not useless, but cannot settle problems finally. The real way is to advance communication and mutual understanding.

So I do not think the Chinese gov did wrong in this aspect. They said they would advance the economic, cultural, people-to-people exchanges, and they really had done a lot. The economic ties between the two sides are getting much closer, and at least people in Taiwan could freely go to mainland. This has brought many practical benefits to people between the two sides

Chinese gov also said they would negotiate with Taiwan about political issues on the basis of the one-China principle, and negotiate about non-political issues (in fact this has been done) if Taiwan did not accept this basis.

The so-called "one-country, two systems" also claims that Taiwan could maintain its own social system, taxation system and even army. I think it is really out of sincerity. Perhaps those separatists regard it as a trap, but they had not said or done anything for maintaining peace and advance communications. However, China still maintain its patience and passed the law that China would not use non-peaceful means unless the possibilty of peaceful unification was lost. (quite vague there😛)

And for Proletariat:laugh:, u said ?but that doesn't give you the right to take anything you want in the current century?. Surely this can not. Most Chinese would insist that they just want to unify the unfortunate island which was ceded in history and left over from China's civil war of the late 1940s

There are really some genocide/assimilation in Xinjiang and Tibet. After all, people there have begun to enjoy better living standard. I think similar things happen in many places all over the world. I have said the secession issue is an interesting bla all over the world.

And if u said why not stop it? Enh, the secession is a very complex problem to many countries, including many democratic ones, and some non-democratic ones as you hated.
U said that America were not puzzled with this any more. Yes! Because yankees 😉has taught it to all Americans that what is ?one Nation under God, indivisible? by fire and cruelty. It was because Sherman was so cruel that he "would let all children and old, men and women cannot think of independence for 200 years".

So perhaps in 2060?s US will also think of this question :laugh:
 
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: WalkingDead
Originally posted by: Chinadefender
The Chinese are imperialists plain and simple. At least 1/3rd of their land was taken after 1950.
----------------------
enh...:disgust:

Illiterate words......

Know nothing about world history and do not care about it.

In fact US took new Mexico State via war and betray.
Click to expand...

Damn excuse me! We took/stolen/ripoff 100% of our land! All ya mexicans, indgens and Canadians come get em back if you can! 😛

Ignore that Proletariat dude, he's just a grumpy Indian that's still hang up on the brits once ruled them, Pakistan and Bangladesh left them and the PRC beated them in 1962.
Click to expand...
Actually I'm white.

Chinadefender - I know the US took Mexico but that doesn't give you the right to take anything you want in the current century. Why don't you stop the genocide/assimilation in Xinjiang and Tibet? America does not participate in such things anymore.

Edited: After I didn't feel like smashing WalkingDeads face in.
Click to expand...

Really? Well you seem to be interested in Indian actors and other things about it, well at least thats what I saw the other day and other things. Ok well, nvm ... im off to watch some Conan O'Brien .....
 
Originally posted by: Proletariat

Actually I'm white.

Edited: After I didn't feel like smashing WalkingDeads face in.
Click to expand...


Most of the white guys don't even know what the hack is Aksai Chin and let along rant over it. Did I got on your nerve? Just because the indian doesn't have the ballz to reclaim that high ground, don't take it off on me.

I think India should set an example for the PRC by giving up on Kashmir and stop beating up Nepal and Bangladesh.

Why don't you stop the genocide/assimilation in Xinjiang and Tibet?
Click to expand...

I propose the EU and India take in all of those if they really care that much.
 
Ok so people who were unhappy with the communist takeover of China tried to leave. They fled to an island. And now China is chasing them down saying, no, you can't go there we own that place too. Wherever you go you are Chinese still and that place will be part of China. So we have Chinese people living all over the world, does that mean China is going to take over the world? How far will China chase its wayward sons and daughters? Some Chinese have fled here to America to escape communism. Come get them back, China.
 
Yeah man, that is a gross oversimplification.

Taiwan is where the Nationalist government of China went after the Revolution. For decades they claimed to be the legitimate government of China, even though they had no power on the mainland whatsoever.

That's why Nixon's visits to China in the '70s were so important; they were the first formal recognition of Biejing as the legitimate government in China.

It's only been recently that Taiwan has relinquished its claim on all of China and has had a growing independence movement.

To recap: 20 years ago Taiwan thought of itself not only as part of China, but as the seat of government of China. They claimed not only membership, but ownership.

And, uhh, the Nationalists weren't exactly happy fuzzy puppies during the war. Painting them as innocents "fleeing communism" only spits on the graves of the people they killed.

Wow, man, your grasp of international affairs is about as deep as President Bush's.
 
Originally posted by: Chinadefender
If your Taiwanese counterparts voted overwhelmingly in favour of seccession, would you accede to their wishes?
-------------------------------
Just as Americans did in 19th century.😎
Click to expand...

This is a retarded strawman argument between two completely different situations. It misses the slavery issue AND the north didn't wait 60-70 years to continue staking their claim on a defacto sovereign territory.

What would be a closer example is if the UK came back to the US today and said "we want new england back". Tough sh*t, the time has passed.

Sorry, but you'll have to forgive Taiwan for not wanting to be taken over by a bunch of commies, complete with organ harvesting prisons.
 
Enh. 🙂

You dragged issues about slavery, but I have to say you missed the history and math. Hope u not to disdain them.


the north didn't wait 60-70 years to continue staking their claim on a defacto sovereign territory.
---------------
not true. At most about 50 years. And as kibbo said, the quarrel about Federal legitimate govement continued after the 1950. Even now, although many separtionists did not like it, the constitution in Taiwan still insisted that its gov represented not only Taiwan, but also the whole mainland

And about slavery, I hope I did not miss something.

Firstly, some slavery states joined the North in the civil war and still maintained slavery for a long time after the war.

Secondly, Lincoln said for many times that he did not want end the present slavery in the South. He just hoped the South did not spread the slavery to the new states or got separated out of the Fedearl states. The South was not satisfied with it and thought they have the right to be independent as long as they hope so. (Actually before the war the United States did not explain clearly whether single state had the right to be separated.) Many people in North opposed slavery because they found it disturbed the industry and turned US as a single raw material supplier for UK. Do not think many of them are so nobile and kind. In the long negotiation with the South, they even suggested sending all slaves back to Africa and making some compensation to slave-owners. Unluckily the poor Federal cannot pay so much and persuade the South. (The South was quite richer than the North at that time!)

Thirdly, even in the South after war, Afr-americans did not enjoy much more practical benefits than before. The JimCrow Laws and many barriers still maintained the unjustice until the Civil rights movement.

The war is not fought for abolishing slavery, just for punishing secession actions. Slavery is a major cause for conflicts. But if you said the North fought for abolishing slavery, you are thinking too highly of Yankees. (very rude word at that time ):disgust:

And finally back to the present world. Many many people in Taiwan had automatically moved to mainland China , a big prison, because of evil sirens and paid tax to the commies:laugh:


And I also need to remind you that the anti-session law was just suggested not by some commies like you said, but by an old overseas Chinese who moved to UK many years ago..

It seems that some guys just cannot distinguish ideologic quarrels from the historic complex I mentioned.

But just hope you not let this influence your judgment based on history and math.
 
Originally posted by: Chinadefender

And I also need to remind you that the anti-session law was just suggested not by some commies like you said, but by an old overseas Chinese who moved to UK many years ago..

It seems that some guys just cannot distinguish ideologic quarrels from the historic complex I mentioned.

But just hope you not let this influence your judgment based on history and math.
Click to expand...
Oh really, so some old overseas Chinese moved to UK many years ago get to decide the fate of 22 million people in Taiwan eh? It seems that you just do not understand that whatever in the past history between Taiwan and China, or what happened in US 150 years ago or what may or may not happen in Quebec, Taiwan is a unique place and unique situation. It does not matter what a few people in a government that do not represent the 1.2 billion Chinese people say (yeah I am talking about those elite communist that wasn't elected by the Chinese people), the majority of the 22 million people in Taiwan should decide the fate of Taiwan, that's how a civilized and democratic society work.

Chinese government and people like you is always gonna say Taiwan belongs to China, and I have no doubt that China will attack Taiwan if Taiwan declares independence, that's not the point. What rest of the world needs to understand is that past history doesn't matter, but the will of the people do. It's just like when America declare independence from England, England can make all kinds of claim how American are immigrants from England and so on and so forth. Just like British Gov., Chinese government won't give Taiwan up easily because that would be a slap on their face. I also understand that if Taiwanese really want independence, there will be some price to pay.

But the choice for the rest of the world is, do you choose to take side with those that oppress the will of people or those that try to exercise their will. (or just pretend you don't understand the issue and take the side that has the power and money......)
 
This is a retarded strawman argument between two completely different situations. It misses the slavery issue AND the north didn't wait 60-70 years to continue staking their claim on a defacto sovereign territory.

What would be a closer example is if the UK came back to the US today and said "we want new england back". Tough sh*t, the time has passed.

Sorry, but you'll have to forgive Taiwan for not wanting to be taken over by a bunch of commies, complete with organ harvesting prisons.
Click to expand...



:thumbsup: :beer:

Don't forget that the Union actually DID rule over the Southern states. The same cannot be said in regards to the communists and Taiwan.
 
US is the lone super power in the world. Whatever the US says the world listens. With that in mind, let us look at the issue of Taiwan-China...

The American position is clear, as has been reiterated by all administrations since Nixon. Any cursory research will show that:

When China and the U.S. formally established diplomatic ties in 1979, the communique had the following words: "The United States of America recognizes the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan . . . . The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China."

In a later joint Communique, America stated that: " The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. "

The syllogism is clear:

1. The Taiwan question is to be determined by the Chinese on both sides of the Straits.

2. All Chinese recognize ONE CHINA, and Taiwan as part of that CHINA.

3. Taiwanese are not Chinese if they do not support ONE CHINA, and therefore has no say at all.

The US has spoken. Taiwanese are Chinese. Taiwan is a part of China. The Taiwan independence movement is a result of true trouble makers wanting to start a war.
 
Seems to me that Taiwan has been VERY INDEPENDENT for a long time now - Tell me HOW China has helped Taiwan OR Hong Kong EVER...

Why should Communists be allowed to murder people who wish to remain in a Democracy?
 
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Yeah man, that is a gross oversimplification.

Taiwan is where the Nationalist government of China went after the Revolution. For decades they claimed to be the legitimate government of China, even though they had no power on the mainland whatsoever.

That's why Nixon's visits to China in the '70s were so important; they were the first formal recognition of Biejing as the legitimate government in China.

It's only been recently that Taiwan has relinquished its claim on all of China and has had a growing independence movement.

To recap: 20 years ago Taiwan thought of itself not only as part of China, but as the seat of government of China. They claimed not only membership, but ownership.

And, uhh, the Nationalists weren't exactly happy fuzzy puppies during the war. Painting them as innocents "fleeing communism" only spits on the graves of the people they killed.

Wow, man, your grasp of international affairs is about as deep as President Bush's.
Click to expand...

no fuzzy poppies, but its hard to beat 40million dead from mista mao.

simple fact is the commies never achieved total victory,and as such have no claim on taiwan.

 
en......... Lovely weekend.🙂

--------------------------------------------
The syllogism is clear:

1. The Taiwan question is to be determined by the Chinese on both sides of the Straits.

2. All Chinese recognize ONE CHINA, and Taiwan as part of that CHINA.

3. Taiwanese are not Chinese if they do not support ONE CHINA, and therefore has no say at all.

The US has spoken. Taiwanese are Chinese. Taiwan is a part of China. The Taiwan independence movement is a result of true trouble makers wanting to start a war.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mansnake's words is logic, based on reasonable facts.

And for Rchiu,

Rchiu insists that a few people in a government that do not represent the 1.2 billion Chinese people say. It's his/ her opinion. If fact, we can conclude that any business or politics agreemeets with China may become invalid some day 😉 So should really worry about it.:laugh:

And he said about so-called Taiwanese' will. So we can also conclude that the current constitution in Taiwan with obvious evidence saying Taiwan cannot be secessioned, is also invalid.:laugh:

And the current fact is that many people in Taiwan are eager to move and have moved their home to mainland China, the commie prison as some guy said. So we can also conclude that some people in Taiwan are born to be stupid and weird.🙂

Enjoy your weekend and start with a new week. And continue this bla bla... Really interesting🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top