US won't sell new fighter jets to Taiwan
-
TAIPEI: The United States on Wednesday announced a $5.85 billion upgrade of Taiwan's F-16 fighter jets, leading to a swift rebuke by China even though the deal stopped short of selling new planes.
Taiwanese and US officials insisted that the upgrade would improve the island's defences as it faces a rising China, which has ramped up military spending and has widened its strategic edge over the self-governing territory.
"After the upgrade, the air force's combat capability will be advanced hugely," Taiwan's defence minister Kao Hua-chu told a hastily called press conference in Taipei.
China, which claims Taiwan as its territory and has repeatedly warned the United States not to sell weapons, summoned the new US ambassador to Beijing, Gary Locke, and warned of repercussions.
"The wrongdoing by the US side will inevitably undermine bilateral relations as well as exchanges and cooperation in military and security areas," China's vice foreign minister Zhang Zhijun said, according to the official Xinhua news agency.
Zhang Yesui, the Chinese ambassador to the United States, also lodged a strong protest in Washington, Xinhua said.
The Pentagon formally notified the US Congress of the package for Taiwan on Wednesday, ending prolonged speculation over the extent to which Washington would help modernise the island's air force.
Taipei applied in 2007 to buy 66 F-16 C/D fighters, which have better radar and more powerful weapons systems than its F-16 A/Bs, in response to China's growing military muscle.
The US offer to upgrade Taiwan's existing fleet of 146 US-made F-16 A/Bs falls short of that ambition and is seen by some observers on the island as a "consolation prize".
US lawmakers across party lines had pressed President Barack Obama's administration to sell new jets, saying that the move would both protect Taiwan and create badly needed jobs in the United States.
Republican Senator John Cornyn accused the Democratic administration of kowtowing to China and failing to meet obligations under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which requires Washington to ensure Taiwan's self-defence.
The arms decision "bestows upon Communist China a newfound sway over American national security, and this capitulation should be met with concern by US allies everywhere," Cornyn said.
"Taiwan must have the tools to defend itself against potential Chinese aggression," he said.
Cornyn has introduced legislation that would force the sale of 66 new F-16s. The senator represents Texas, which would be expected to benefit economically from arms production for Taiwan.
However, both the Pentagon and Taiwan's defence ministry said that the upgrade, which would take 12 years to complete, would give the island's F-16 A/Bs a significant boost.
The jets will be equipped with radar capable of detecting Chinese stealth airplanes and may also be armed with precision munition, according to Taiwan's defence ministry.
The Pentagon said that the retrofit of the aircraft, to be led by weapons giant Lockheed Martin, "will greatly enhance the recipient's ability to defend its borders."
"This proposed sale serves US national, economic and security interests by supporting the recipient's continuing efforts to modernise its armed forces and enhance its defensive capability," the Pentagon's Defence Security Cooperation Agency said in a statement.
The Pentagon agency also said that Taiwanese pilots would travel to Luke Air Force Base in Arizona for training in "disaster relief missions, non-combatant evacuation operations and other contingency situations."
Washington recognises Beijing rather than Taipei but remains the primary arms supplier to the island of 23 million inhabitants, providing a source of continued Sino-US tension.
Ties between China and Taiwan have improved since Ma Ying-jeou of the China-friendly Kuomintang party came to power in 2008 on promises of ramping up trade links and allowing in more Chinese tourists.
But Beijing has refused to renounce the use of force against Taiwan even though the island has ruled itself for more than six decades since their split in 1949 at the end of a civil war.
- AFP/de=====================================
all the wayang and the same result.
-
Both Taiwan and China are same origin. Historically, their leaders cherished its people in view of the prayers and memorial for ancestors. Hope that they continue to cherish the people and not ignorantly on the line of political motivation on self glorification. I think taiwan should begin the journey to purchase arm from China or from where China purchased its arm from so as to regain back and develop its close relationship. Through this sincere cooperation, their cordiality and economy will gradually develop and benefit both their people, and the world at large
Together, Taiwan and China can contribute a peaceful balance of super-power for a peaceful world. Lets hope for a blissful cooperation between Taiwan and China. The world is a better place for mutual cooperation between Taiwan and China. Theleaders of Taiwan and China have great teaching like Taoism, Confuciusism and Buddhism, they should learn from them to build a better world for themselves and others. 
-
US need to sell off to pay off their debts.
-
Originally posted by alize:
It is only natural for them to trade with China next door, just as we trade with Malaysia. It does not make them receptive to union with China or lose a Taiwanese identity. I think growing up in a country you would not want it to change into another country.
The closest integration is visitors from both sides enjoying special visa status as Mainland/Taiwan Compatriots or tong bao.
Yiou might note that KMT favours the status quo, the traditional opposition DPP favours independence, and there are no pro-union parties. Both have submitted applications for UN membership, vetoed by China. If there was a significant pro-union percentage, there would at least be a small party by now.
You may say China does not wage war. But the Chinese provinces were counquered and unified in the middle ages. Two non-Chinese regions, Buddhist Tibet and Muslim Xinjiang, were invaded by the communists in modern times. The government makes a show of calling them "Autonomous regions" because making them fully integrated provinces is not politcally acceptable. They make up a quarter of Chinese territory.
While the US has been involved in many wars, their communist opponents came from somewhere (China or USSR). For some reason in these wars, defections seem to be one way and one side's POWs choose to leave their families forever.
China has always been a continental land power, it has to maintain armies rather than navies. This explains why it did not colonise Japan, and the annexation of Taiwan came so late in the 4000 years of Chinese history. For the same reason, the French or Germans had few colonies relative to the UK.
There is no reason two states cannot coexist. If China hates US presence so much, respect Taiwan's safety, both sides will flourish and the US will be without a role in Taiwan. But then Xinjiang and Tibet will be emboldened, and after 60 years of confrontation there will be massive loss of face.
Anyway, all the pro-union arguments here are still based on the will of PRC's and overseas's Chinese population. It's not nice if somebody decides the future of your home for you, just because your colour and culture are the same.
You really sound like a political scholar, 秀��出门，能知天下事。When did China invade tibet and xinjiang ? did China ever try to colonize Japan, or Korea? was french and germans a continental land power and the reason why they have fewer colonies? French colonize indochina, german established settlement in shangdong by land?
Refering to you statement: "the Chinese provinces were counquered and unified in the middle ages," when was the middle ages? China was a country enjoying peace and prosperity for 276 years under Ming dynasty, then the minority tribe, the manchurian took over, and under Qing dynasty for another 264 years. Between this period from 1368 to 1911, where were USA, the UK , Germany, France?
What you thought you have noted about KMT and DPP about independence is not entirely true, you should watch 全民最大党, you can have better picture.
Pro Unity or independence for China is not based on arguments, I fully agree with you that if you are not part of the family, you should not decides their future for them. If you want to meddle, it should be on the basis of 家和万事兴。ä¸�è¦�唯æ��天下ä¸�乱，ä¸äº†å¥¸äººçš„诡计。
-
$5.85 billion just for upgrading! Thats alot of money, maybe US tend to earn more with upgrades than sell Taiwan new planes.
-
Originally posted by ahtansh:
$5.85 billion just for upgrading! Thats alot of money, maybe US tend to earn more with upgrades than sell Taiwan new planes.
The considerations for the US is from which side they make more money, if possible, they want to make money from both sides. This is what all these talk about upgrading is all about.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
You really sound like a political scholar, 秀��出门，能知天下事。When did China invade tibet and xinjiang ? did China ever try to colonize Japan, or Korea? was french and germans a continental land power and the reason why they have fewer colonies? French colonize indochina, german established settlement in shangdong by land?
Refering to you statement: "the Chinese provinces were counquered and unified in the middle ages," when was the middle ages? China was a country enjoying peace and prosperity for 276 years under Ming dynasty, then the minority tribe, the manchurian took over, and under Qing dynasty for another 264 years. Between this period from 1368 to 1911, where were USA, the UK , Germany, France?
What you thought you have noted about KMT and DPP about independence is not entirely true, you should watch 全民最大党, you can have better picture.
Pro Unity or independence for China is not based on arguments, I fully agree with you that if you are not part of the family, you should not decides their future for them. If you want to meddle, it should be on the basis of 家和万事兴。ä¸�è¦�唯æ��天下ä¸�乱，ä¸äº†å¥¸äººçš„诡计。
Your point 1: Yes, France and Germany had fewer colonies because land defensive needs took priority, unlike the UK whose navy could provide for defence and much greater colonisation.
2: PLA invasions of Xinjiang and Tibet took place in 1949 and 1951. If you are not aware, you can look up the invasions. See "Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People's_Republic_of_China" on wikipedia. During the middle ages (referring to about 400-1500), you will find that they had their own governments and were at times independent or under a tributary relationship with China. They asserted independence before the modern invasions. One example is the relationship in the Ming dynasty (1368 - 1644). There is a map of Ming China that excludes Tibet and Xinjiang and a section on "Relations with Tibet". Also I think you will also see a different map for each dynasty.
3: Scholar or not, I hope I have given convincing grounds for Taiwan's right to choose. They do not force Taiwan to be independent. And if Taiwan can choose union, it should be able to choose the terms. I think your stand on Taiwan is based on virtual representation, meaning one group deciding on another's behalf because they are or claim to be similar.
-
Originally posted by ahtansh:
$5.85 billion just for upgrading! Thats alot of money, maybe US tend to earn more with upgrades than sell Taiwan new planes.
It probably costs more. The F-16s were originally Block 50 less air to ground capabilities, packed into a Block 20 airframe to appease China. The extra development incurred extra costs, this upgrade will cost too.
The 14 year old airframe will have to be reset.
This upgrade is expensive, and Taiwan will still have relatively few missiles of all kinds per aircraft. But it adds what is most sorely lacking, dogfight and strike capabilities.
-
day upgraded F 16 A and B in 2000!
S$6 million a piece.
http://sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/161794?page=1
--F 5 upgrade panel
SG upgrade F5 HUD
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
the russian had war with china? if you are refering to the 1969 incident, the scale of the fight was considered a border conflict. The leaders of both sides talked and averted an escalation of the conflict.
The Mongolian occupied china for a period of 97 years. tried to invade Japan but were stopped by the infamous kamikaze. Outer Mondolian became independent, thanks to Russia, were there war?
that's because the situation doesn't allow it, it wasn't in China's interests to start a war then. but when they know its possible to get away with it things like Sino india war starts to kick up.
plus I recalled only ROC claimed mongolia
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
so what do vietnamese think about china rule?
Vietnam became independent from China in AD 938, and its independence was only briefly interrupted by china in Ming Dynasty, around 1500. After that they fought among themselves, from dynasty to dynasty, and later colonized by the French. vietnam still still remember the brief war with China after Vietnamn invaded Cambodia in 1978, guess by then they forgot china had supported them in war with the French and the US. china withdrew from vietnam after the war.
India, clashed with china over disputed territories in 1962, afther offering asylum to dalai lama, and china withdrew from the disputed territory. Since then china only went to war only once against Vietnam in 1978,
but india continued to wage war with pakistan in 1965, 1971 and 1999, and at the same time continue to supplied war materials to the tamil tiger in srilanka. and as you rightly pointed out, nepal is using china to fence off India, so the smaller nations around China, China is a greater friend than a foe against invading powers.
And of course, talking about war with China, we should never forget Japan. China fought war with Japan in China to expand Chinese territory???????????
China is a continental power, and if its mountains and desserts limits its growth, why it didn't expand by sea, to Japan, to south asia? The US and the european are continental power too, why are they expanding all the way to Asia?
We should not judge a person by how big he is, but by looking at how he grow up, and eventually see how talll he stands. There is a lot in history that tells the story.
the vietnamese were suspicious of the chinese aid once it happened, and were determined not to let the chinese stay. they definitely didn't think China was offering anything out of friendship.
no matter how the vietnamese fought among themselves its still non of any foreigner's business. Besides the chinese civil wars were way bloodier.
Nepal's friendship would only last as long as india's there. Once India backs off Nepal would start to China's friendship intolerable. Or when someone finds valuable resources there.
And about Japan, you're just trying to be a prick just to argue the point that China's a big friendly giant.
Japan doesn't share a Land border.
All other cultures weaker then china suffered from sharing one.
-
Originally posted by alize:
So if the PRC's population thinks of union, but Taiwan people don't think so, can they override their will and take it?
You base the argument on unity of insider and outsiders having no place. How do you know the Taiwanese consider themselves insiders?
It's a non Chinese island, the only link is its inhabited by ethnic Chinese.
the Qing took taiwan from Zheng Keshuang and considered it part of China's territory.
-
Originally posted by alize:
It is only natural for them to trade with China next door, just as we trade with Malaysia. It does not make them receptive to union with China or lose a Taiwanese identity. I think growing up in a country you would not want it to change into another country.
The closest integration is visitors from both sides enjoying special visa status as Mainland/Taiwan Compatriots or tong bao.
Yiou might note that KMT favours the status quo, the traditional opposition DPP favours independence, and there are no pro-union parties. Both have submitted applications for UN membership, vetoed by China. If there was a significant pro-union percentage, there would at least be a small party by now.
You may say China does not wage war. But the Chinese provinces were counquered and unified in the middle ages. Two non-Chinese regions, Buddhist Tibet and Muslim Xinjiang, were invaded by the communists in modern times. The government makes a show of calling them "Autonomous regions" because making them fully integrated provinces is not politcally acceptable. They make up a quarter of Chinese territory.
While the US has been involved in many wars, their communist opponents came from somewhere (China or USSR). For some reason in these wars, defections seem to be one way and one side's POWs choose to leave their families forever.
China has always been a continental land power, it has to maintain armies rather than navies. This explains why it did not colonise Japan, and the annexation of Taiwan came so late in the 4000 years of Chinese history. For the same reason, the French or Germans had few colonies relative to the UK.
There is no reason two states cannot coexist. If China hates US presence so much, respect Taiwan's safety, both sides will flourish and the US will be without a role in Taiwan. But then Xinjiang and Tibet will be emboldened, and after 60 years of confrontation there will be massive loss of face.
Anyway, all the pro-union arguments here are still based on the will of PRC's and overseas's Chinese population. It's not nice if somebody decides the future of your home for you, just because your colour and culture are the same.
its not possible, traditional chinese thought goes in a way where you must unite the country, and Taiwan is a thorn in the side as a breakaway province. With CCP recognised as the govt of Mainland it leaves taiwan as nothing more then a rebel province.
its only because of modern society that she has avoided the fate of being invaded.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
You really sound like a political scholar, 秀��出门，能知天下事。When did China invade tibet and xinjiang ? did China ever try to colonize Japan, or Korea? was french and germans a continental land power and the reason why they have fewer colonies? French colonize indochina, german established settlement in shangdong by land?
Refering to you statement: "the Chinese provinces were counquered and unified in the middle ages," when was the middle ages? China was a country enjoying peace and prosperity for 276 years under Ming dynasty, then the minority tribe, the manchurian took over, and under Qing dynasty for another 264 years. Between this period from 1368 to 1911, where were USA, the UK , Germany, France?
What you thought you have noted about KMT and DPP about independence is not entirely true, you should watch 全民最大党, you can have better picture.
Pro Unity or independence for China is not based on arguments, I fully agree with you that if you are not part of the family, you should not decides their future for them. If you want to meddle, it should be on the basis of 家和万事兴。ä¸�è¦�唯æ��天下ä¸�乱，ä¸äº†å¥¸äººçš„诡计。
truth is China did invaded those two places, why else did you think they fell under chinese countrol?
Tang tried to conquer Goguryeo but was betrayed by her korea allies who didn't want the chinese to stay. this was after sui dynasty which also tried to attack korea.
Ming dynasty did not do so as Korea by then already fell into line by accepting China as the big brother in tributary relationships.
But I don't think China colonise places like european nations, they either annex or you submit as a vassal state and offer tribute. if you were to leave Chinese shores, don't expect protection from the emperor if you want to die in barbarian lands.
as for
家和万事兴。ä¸�è¦�唯æ��天下ä¸�乱，ä¸äº†å¥¸äººçš„诡计。
I actually thought it might be better for Singapore if their relationship remains status quote.
-
Originally posted by alize:
2: PLA invasions of Xinjiang and Tibet took place in 1949 and 1951. If you are not aware, you can look up the invasions. See "Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People's_Republic_of_China" on wikipedia. During the middle ages (referring to about 400-1500), you will find that they had their own governments and were at times independent or under a tributary relationship with China. They asserted independence before the modern invasions. One example is the relationship in the Ming dynasty (1368 - 1644). There is a map of Ming China that excludes Tibet and Xinjiang and a section on "Relations with Tibet". Also I think you will also see a different map for each dynasty.
3: Scholar or not, I hope I have given convincing grounds for Taiwan's right to choose. They do not force Taiwan to be independent. And if Taiwan can choose union, it should be able to choose the terms. I think your stand on Taiwan is based on virtual representation, meaning one group deciding on another's behalf because they are or claim to be similar.
I think PRC considered those two actions as reasserting authority, and not invasions.
all states who declared independence recently and succeeded, were all because of backing apparently recently by either Russia or Nato/US.
Who's going to back Taiwan against China now?
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
that's because the situation doesn't allow it, it wasn't in China's interests to start a war then. but when they know its possible to get away with it things like Sino india war starts to kick up.
plus I recalled only ROC claimed mongolia
So much have been exchanged, there are different views how we see events in the past, I don't think we need to change each others views, but you brought out a few statements that can use for reading the current situation.
"the situation doesn't allow it" = what is the situation that will allow China to take military action against Taiwan? I guess it is when some politicians in Taiwan unilaterally declare independence. What would prevent China from taking such action? not the might of the US 7th fleet, and definitely not the majority of the people on the island who would give up their life for the defence of a Taiwan Nation. we will likely see thousands of Taiwanese leaving Taiwan for the US, Australia, and even China, then China will act to prove a point, with the heat of chinese nationalism from the whole China, and many overseas Chinese. that bring us to your next statement,
"it wasn't in china's interest" = a ruin taiwan with a dent in china's reputation in the world is not in their interest. But china will be more interested in the world today as it grows economically, and it will grow militarily to protect its interest. We have to see how they grow!!! to declare them a threat is not wise, unless you are prepared to also build up militarily or form alliance to confront them wherever they are. to ask them to stay out is self defeating, you can't expect them to invest in your country or want a share of their 1.3 billion market and ask them to stay out.
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
the vietnamese were suspicious of the chinese aid once it happened, and were determined not to let the chinese stay. they definitely didn't think China was offering anything out of friendship.
no matter how the vietnamese fought among themselves its still non of any foreigner's business. Besides the chinese civil wars were way bloodier.
Nepal's friendship would only last as long as india's there. Once India backs off Nepal would start to China's friendship intolerable. Or when someone finds valuable resources there.
And about Japan, you're just trying to be a prick just to argue the point that China's a big friendly giant.
Japan doesn't share a Land border.
All other cultures weaker then china suffered from sharing one.
whether it is Vietnam or Nepal, it has never been a choice of a better friends across the border, but a choice of who would help them against the greater foe!! Why Nepal stand along side China and not india? why didn't Ho Chi Min welcome the french and american instead of asking chinese to die along side the vietnamese in all the bombing of north vietnam during the war. what the vietnamese could give china in return?
so who is helping who out of friendship today?? the american, as they do in afganistan, iraq, kuwait....or nato, as they bomb libya?
even without a Land border, Japan invaded and occupied more than half of China, is japan a giant or china a weaker culture? denial of such blatant aggression in modern history is not an argument, but a bigger prick.
China was bullied in the last 100 years even though they were a big country, they are now standing up, and you certainly cannot expect them to disintegrate based on your understanding of their history, and with regards to the cross straits relationship, " its still non of any foreigner's business. "
-
I should point out the Sino-Soviet split almost resulted in nuclear war. The Russians feared an invasion of their vulnerable Far East, the Chinese feared nuclear attack and had a few nuclear weapons of their own.
There was a troop buildup on the border and in the fighting, the Russians repelled the Chinese with big losses.
The status quo remained until a treaty a few years ago.
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
its not possible, traditional chinese thought goes in a way where you must unite the country, and Taiwan is a thorn in the side as a breakaway province. With CCP recognised as the govt of Mainland it leaves taiwan as nothing more then a rebel province.
its only because of modern society that she has avoided the fate of being invaded.
As I have been saying all along with concrete arguments.
Even my JC teacher brought it up for no reason. I told him what I said on page 2 and he had nothing to say.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
So much have been exchanged, there are different views how we see events in the past, I don't think we need to change each others views, but you brought out a few statements that can use for reading the current situation.
"the situation doesn't allow it" = what is the situation that will allow China to take military action against Taiwan? I guess it is when some politicians in Taiwan unilaterally declare independence. What would prevent China from taking such action? not the might of the US 7th fleet, and definitely not the majority of the people on the island who would give up their life for the defence of a Taiwan Nation. we will likely see thousands of Taiwanese leaving Taiwan for the US, Australia, and even China, then China will act to prove a point, with the heat of chinese nationalism from the whole China, and many overseas Chinese. that bring us to your next statement,
"it wasn't in china's interest" = a ruin taiwan with a dent in china's reputation in the world is not in their interest. But china will be more interested in the world today as it grows economically, and it will grow militarily to protect its interest. We have to see how they grow!!! to declare them a threat is not wise, unless you are prepared to also build up militarily or form alliance to confront them wherever they are. to ask them to stay out is self defeating, you can't expect them to invest in your country or want a share of their 1.3 billion market and ask them to stay out.
how should taiwan declare independence? physically it already has de facto independence, and most of the world have already recognised there is only one china and taiwan is part of that, which is something that won't change even if you declare independence tomorrow, no country would recognise taiwan which would only make things worse for taiwan.
China wouldn't even have to invade, the clout it holds now is enough to make the countries whose opinion counts in the UN, abstain or vote in her favour.
China isn't a threat?
tell that to the chinese and they'll probably laugh all the way to beijing. but like you said its a matter of personal opinion. For me, I think it unlikely for a country the size of China to have "friends" especially the size of us, if you believe there's such a thing as friendship between nations of course.
that's like the americans invading in the name of truth justice and the american way. And how they hope to win the friendship of countries with bombs.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
whether it is Vietnam or Nepal, it has never been a choice of a better friends across the border, but a choice of who would help them against the greater foe!! Why Nepal stand along side China and not india? why didn't Ho Chi Min welcome the french and american instead of asking chinese to die along side the vietnamese in all the bombing of north vietnam during the war. what the vietnamese could give china in return?
I'm referring to the modern world, at least within the last hundred years, I think "modern" Nepal felt the pressure from India first and sought a counter balance in china.
Like I said, if India isn't there, china would be the "enemy"
And Ho Chi Min's vietnamese, does that answer anything? I think you roughly understand my line of thought by now but you still insist on asking this type of questions.
Why would a communist country want a nation friendly to USA of her doorsteps?
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
so who is helping who out of friendship today?? the american, as they do in afganistan, iraq, kuwait....or nato, as they bomb libya?
even without a Land border, Japan invaded and occupied more than half of China, is japan a giant or china a weaker culture? denial of such blatant aggression in modern history is not an argument, but a bigger prick.
China was bullied in the last 100 years even though they were a big country, they are now standing up, and you certainly cannot expect them to disintegrate based on your understanding of their history, and with regards to the cross straits relationship, " its still non of any foreigner's business. "
I considered that a blatant invasion, you're the one attaching the media label of "friendship" to it. I don't buy that "friendship war" story.
the americans and brits started arguing about how the americans were winning the bids unfairly as soon as the main fighting's over.
which is why taiwan is favourable condition to me, 2 giants boosting military spending to keep up on one small island. China can't bear to use arms there and US in her economic current condition .
see you're still trying to argue just to be favourable to china?
in a time where there's rampant militarism, and you spot your neighbour in an extreme position of weakness while your armies are ready to go. What should Japan do? She wants the colonies the europeans have.
but the main thing was, China was weak, which was why it happened, the nation's splintered up, warlords fighting each other, not because China's not a horrible neighbour.
No one's ignoring the fact the Japanese were bastards in the war but this isn't about them.
China was bullied in the last 100 years even though they were big? Of course , it was a moment of national weakness, it's not like its the first time it happened, war of the eight princes during Jin dynasty ushered in age of fragmentation , Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period. after Tang.
So?
And why shoud I expect them to disintegrate?
I'm for status quo, not disintegration, disintegration is bad for everyone.
And its a foreigner's business, or should I say the business of all surrounding govts of neighbouring countries once you get things like naval carriers of 2 countries in the vicinity.
-
Originally posted by alize:
As I have been saying all along with concrete arguments.
Even my JC teacher brought it up for no reason. I told him what I said on page 2 and he had nothing to say.
Come again? I don't actually quite get your stand?
I think he wants peaceful unification, I want status quo. What's yours?
-
i hope taiwan and china will unite eventually.
china neednt use force. and i believe they wont. they will if taiwan declare independence.
i believe the status will remain for at least another decade or two.
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
I considered that a blatant invasion, you're the one attaching the media label of "friendship" to it. I don't buy that "friendship war" story.
the americans and brits started arguing about how the americans were winning the bids unfairly as soon as the main fighting's over.
which is why taiwan is favourable condition to me, 2 giants boosting military spending to keep up on one small island. China can't bear to use arms there and US in her economic current condition .
see you're still trying to argue just to be favourable to china?
in a time where there's rampant militarism, and you spot your neighbour in an extreme position of weakness while your armies are ready to go. What should Japan do? She wants the colonies the europeans have.
but the main thing was, China was weak, which was why it happened, the nation's splintered up, warlords fighting each other, not because China's not a horrible neighbour.
No one's ignoring the fact the Japanese were bastards in the war but this isn't about them.
China was bullied in the last 100 years even though they were big? Of course , it was a moment of national weakness, it's not like its the first time it happened, war of the eight princes during Jin dynasty ushered in age of fragmentation , Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period. after Tang.
So?
And why shoud I expect them to disintegrate?
I'm for status quo, not disintegration, disintegration is bad for everyone.
And its a foreigner's business, or should I say the business of all surrounding govts of neighbouring countries once you get things like naval carriers of 2 countries in the vicinity.
Ok, I'm on the same page with you, just a little difference in some perceptions.
mainland and taiwan were de facto independent of each other since 1949, today, despite to the different political government, the two places are closer now than ever, with Taiwanese plants all over China and Chinese tourists all over Taiwan. a status quo will give both parties the chance to develop and be fully integrated over time. any talk of independence would disrupt such peace progression.
Put it another way, I recognize China as one country including Taiwan, one people, one culture, ....however, given the historical background, it is not wise for a quick unification, or by force, and such a unification has no meaning, a political status quo today is probably the best way for the two sides to develop for better coexistance, if a full integration is not possible.