Setting limits on weapons for China

[Aardvark]

You sound as though he was a wonderful hero who was beloved by his people, yet was beaten by the horrible Mao.

 

Nothing i posted makes Chang Kia Shek sound like a wonderful hero. Although i do think he was less repugnant that Mao Tse Tung.

 

No, not at all. No matter what you think of Mao, he was the head of China. Chiang was a ruthless cutthroat. Or, do you think that he was a hero?

 

Head of China? No more so than Chiang Kai Shek.

 

 

Cute. You think that your speculation is obvious fact, such that you can come to such a ridiculous conclusion. Please cite evidence that the communist record in Taiwan is worse than that of Chiang. In fact, demonstrate that any communist leader, including Mao, was worse than Chiang. Do not bring up Mao's later years, but his earlier years, when he competed with Chiang.

 

Your demands of which pieces of evidence of which periods of history i may consider are weird. I have no intention whatsoever of being bound by your demands. The fact remains that the communist record in mainland China is significantly worse in terms of human rights than that of the Nationalists in Taiwan. Ordering me to ignore Maos later years doesn't change that.

 

I see. You have selective definitons for words like stolen. I wonder what your definiton is. The U.S. supported an evil person in taking Taiwan, when said person had zero chance of holding on to Taiwan without continued support from the U.S. If this is not stealing, then what do you call it, liberation?

 

Providing support to the Nationalists means that Taiwan was stolen? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

As for calling Chang Kai Shek an evil person, i'll do you the favour of ignoring such childish nonsense.

 

 

 

Talk about completely irrelevant, this statement surely qualifies. Have you ever talked with people from Taiwan who were there or whose parents were there when Chiang arrived?

 

I went to school with some of them.

 

He was brutal and repressive. He murdered hundreds of thousands of natives. They despised him. He gave them zero power over their own lives or over the government. Zero. Do you refute this? Now you are claiming that because 50 years later those native Taiwanese who survived Chiang's army have the right to vote that all of his ruthlessness and the U.S. support that enabled it are just water under the bridge. I don't mind if you consider this, but hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

 

Yes, the nationalists were hard. To talk of them murdering hundreds of thousands of natives is an absurd untruth.

 

The natives, who included a large number of Han Chinese to start with, have done a lot better than other ethnic minorities in mainland China. Better an indigenous person in Taiwan than a Tibetan. For you to claim that any past brutalities means that the USA should not now defend democratic Taiwan against aggressive attack by China is moronic.

 

 

How cute. The pot calling the kettle black. How quaint of you. Because I spoke of one person and not of another' date=' then I am a horrible person for ignoring Mao. Let me see. You think that Taiwan should be defended because the U.S. stole it fair and square. Isn't that calling the kettle black?

[/quote']

 

You are the one who accused me of being one sided in discussing Chinese history and yet you ignored Mao Tse Tungs existense whilst condeming Chiang Kia Shek.

 

And no, i do not believe that Taiwan should be defended because it was stolen. Don't deliberately misrepresent my opinions, that is dishonest.

 

I stated that Taiwan should be defended from external aggression because it is a democracy and as such entitled to the right to exist and be defended.

 

 

How cute. You did not mention the Vietnamese. What is wrong with you? Should I discount all of your points just for that reason?

 

Your grasp of logic is weak. I mentioned Tibet and Inner Mongolia as examples of ethnic peoples who have suffered under the rule of the Peoples Republic of China. My not mentioning Vietnam has no relevance to that at all.

 

Does hyperbole get you somewhere with your friends? What a joke. Your defense is cliches like the pot calling the kettle black and childish attacks such as moronic. Can't you defend your statements without getting so upset and out of control?

 

You are the one who is resorting to repeated childish comments, deliberate misrepresentations, irrelevant diversions and factually incorrect statements.

 

If you can find any factual arguments with my description of the current Chinese regime then please let us all see them. I'd be very happy to debate them.

 

Unfortunately you don't appear capable of engaging in adult dialogue at present.

[Cadmus]

I mentioned Tibet and Inner Mongolia as examples of ethnic peoples who have suffered under the rule of the Peoples Republic of China. My not mentioning Vietnam has no relevance to that at all.

I thought that we might hold a conversation. I guess that I was wrong. You post your ridiculous opinion, and defend it using childish words such as moronic and other foolish dribble. The citing above is an example of your bull. You provide 2 examples of ethnic peoples who have suffered. I mentioned Vietnam, considering how much damage Chiang Kai Shek did to Vietnam for whatever benevolvent reason you think he might have had for being so cruel. You say with righteous indignation that your not mentioning Vietnam has no relevance, but my not mentioning Mao is the at the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

Your arguments are so loaded with emotional crap that it seems that you can't think straight. When challenged, you spit out childish defenses, rather than attempting to defend your point of view. A few childish cliches don't spice up your lack of ability to make a point. I guess that that makes sense, considering how emotional your argument is in the first place.

 

There is no point in continuing this conversation, as you have nothing to say, but can only attempt to bully me into conceding that your argument is obviously morally right. What a joker you are.

[TimeTraveler]

I don't know much of the history of China but I have been following this thread learning a little.

 

No offense Cadmus but it really seems to me that you jumped on Aardvarks opinions with alot of insults rather than information as to why you think his opinions were off base.

 

I don't know whos opinions are closer to the reality but can we keep this thread going with information rather than bickering, I was enjoying reading the information presented.

[Cadmus]

No offense Cadmus but it really seems to me that you jumped on Aardvarks opinions with alot of insults rather than information as to why you think his opinions were off base.

Perhaps so. He came out with the pharse moral bankruptcy, demonstrating extremel distaste for the government in China 50 years ago. I find such terms to be non-conducive to a conversation. I think that I did challenge his views. Perhaps he felt that I was not challenging his views, but him. He continued with words like moronic and irrelevant, which are signs of a lack of desire to discuss. It is a very interesting topic, and it is clear just from the demonstration here that there is more than one side to it.

[Sayonara]

I thought that we might hold a conversation. I guess that I was wrong. You post your ridiculous opinion, and defend it using childish words such as moronic and other foolish dribble.

Having just caught up with this thread, I think that you seem to be the one making the most aggressive, personal and condescending replies.

 

China is ruled by a corrupt, totalitarian regime that deliberately propagates intense nationalistic feelings as a means of maintaining control. That policy can very easily be directed to external military aggression.

For extra fun, swap "China" with the names of other countries.

[Ophiolite]

Aardvark, thank you for saving me the bother of replying to Cadmus's inaccurate statements. I agree with everything you have written. (That may be a first!)

Sayonara, the substituting of other countries names does tend to run out of steam after you have used the couple of obvious ones: but that doesn't reduce the fun.

[Aardvark]

Aardvark, thank you for saving me the bother of replying to Cadmus's inaccurate statements. I agree with everything you have written. (That may be a first!)

 

A pleasure, i always enjoy discussing China (even if it has to be with someone like Cadmus) as it is such a very special, fascinating nation which i have a great deal of respect and admiration for.

 

The knowledge that i can find some common ground with you just adds to the pleasure, what is the world coming to?

 

 

Sayonara, the substituting of other countries names does tend to run out of steam after you have used the couple of obvious ones: but that doesn't reduce the fun.

 

Indeed, that's a list that could extend quite a long way.

[Cadmus]

Aardvark, thank you for saving me the bother of replying to Cadmus's inaccurate statements.

I am sorry if you think that it would be a bother to defend anything that you say. Please join in your mutual admiration society with those who seem to share your views. It is much easier, as you have said here. It is much easier to call someone's statements inaccurate in this offhand manner as you do without saying it to my face, because then you would have to put some substance behind your words. Sorry for asking you to do such a difficult thing. Please don't let me interrupt, but get back to your mutual admiration society.

[Cadmus]

A pleasure, i always enjoy discussing China (even if it has to be with someone like Cadmus)

You did not want to discuss with me. That is the problem. You have a viewpoint, and anything else is moronic. You made statements that are beyond challenge. How do you consider tis discussing?

[Sayonara]

Stop having hissy fits or you'll all be sent to China.

[Aardvark]

You did not want to discuss with me. That is the problem. You have a viewpoint, and anything else is moronic. You made statements that are beyond challenge. How do you consider tis discussing?

 

 

If you would post reasoning, evidence, logic or any kind of factually based observations then i would consider it a discussion.

 

I look forward to any factual contradiction to my posts or to any factually based arguments you wish to raise.

 

Still waiting.

[Aardvark]

Stop having hissy fits or you'll all be sent to China.

 

Better than Coventry i suppose.

[Cadmus]

If you would post reasoning' date=' evidence, logic or any kind of factually based observations then i would consider it a discussion.

 

I look forward to any factual contradiction to my posts or to any factually based arguments you wish to raise.

 

Still waiting.[/quote']You have already stated that anything that does not conform to your gibberish is moronic. Now you are saying that you are still waiting for me to conform to your gibberish so that we can have a discussion along the lines that you find valid from your point of bias, which is the only bias that is valid in the world. You have long to wait.

[Sayonara]

Actually, he appears to have been very specific and exclusionary when identifying what he sees as being moronic.

It is dishonest to claim that he calls "anything that does not conform to [his] gibberish moronic".

[coquina]

Actually' date=' he appears to have been very specific and exclusionary when identifying what he sees as being moronic.

It is dishonest to claim that he calls "anything that does not conform to [his'] gibberish moronic".

 

Perhaps a "Hissy Fits" should be created so those who are bent on arguing with each other without regard to the subject of the thread can do it elsewhere?

[Sayonara]

That sounds like some amount of work to me

[TimeTraveler]

So what is the deal with the US, China and Taiwan? I keep hearing that war word relating to this and I don't know much about what is going on in this situation. Anyone want to give me a briefing on why China wants Taiwan so bad, why Taiwan doesn't want China so bad, and why it is important to the US? And is war with China a possibility?

[Pangloss]

Well it's important to China because they consider it their territory (and because it's like Hong Kong -- a major source of capitalist revenue). It's important to the US because it's a democracy (not to mention a major trading partner, albeit a much smaller one).

 

The US has always treaded a fine line here, trying to be protective but at the same time not go so far that it looses China's trade. That's why we don't officially recognize Taiwan as a separate country. China's approach has been to push its level of trade with the US so far that the US will ultimately find it to be too expensive to support Taiwan. Both nations have been moderately successful with these approaches to date, basically postponing the problem.

 

It's creeping back into the news because of things that have come up in both Taiwan and in China. Taiwan made a few waves recently (not sure if I can recall why offhand -- something about a new flag or a declaration perhaps). China passed a new anti-secession law obviously intended as a finger-wagging move aimed at Taiwan (like an authoritarian government needs a law to stop secession).

 

China lacks the military capability to do anything about Taiwan other than lob missles at it, which of course would be pointless. So at the moment there's no real fear of actual conflict. The struggle is entirely political in nature.

[Cadmus]

Well it's important to China because they consider it their territory (and because it's like Hong Kong -- a major source of capitalist revenue).

I think that the first reason that you gave is far more important than the second. The second reason is a valuable plus, but not the driving factor. China feels that Taiwan was stolen with the support of the U.S., and feels that Taiwan should be reunited with the mainland.

 

The president of Taiwan, Chen Shui-Bian, is very pro independence.

[Ophiolite]

I just noticed your response to my post.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite:Aardvark, thank you for saving me the bother of replying to Cadmus's inaccurate statements.

 

I am sorry if you think that it would be a bother to defend anything that you say.

I shall defend everything I say until I see an error in it, at which point I shall condemn it with equal vigour.

Please join in your mutual admiration society with those who seem to share your views.

I have often, perhaps even generally, been on the opposite side of an argument to Aardvark. You can find an example earlier in this thread. I believe we were both surprised to find ourselves in the same position. I trust we have mutual respect, but admiration - that's a bit strong.

It is much easier, as you have said here. It is much easier to call someone's statements inaccurate in this offhand manner as you do without saying it to my face[/b'], because then you would have to put some substance behind your words.

This is a public forum. You have read my words. I did not express them in a pm to Aardvark. I declared my opinion openly. The substance behind my words (calling your statements inaccurate) lies in Aardvark's post. He said what I would have said, probably more precisely than I would have said it. Did you really want a paraphrase?

Sorry for asking you to do such a difficult thing.

Not difficult, merely pointless, as noted above.

Please don't let me interrupt, but get back to your mutual admiration society.

I think we covered that point.

[Ophiolite]

China feels that Taiwan was stolen with the support of the U.S.' date=' and feels that Taiwan should be reunited with the mainland.

.[/quote']That is not how the Taiwanese feel, as I am sure you know.

[TimeTraveler]

Thanks Pangloss for the background information. I appreciate you taking the time to share your knowledge. I know I could have looked it up and researched it myself, but it's easier to just ask someone who knows who can summarize it in a few minutes rather than me spending a number of hours trying to learn it. So again I appreciate the help!

[Asian Guy]

The support of selling advanced weapons to China would depend on whether one like's the U.S.A. or not. If one does like the U.S.A., then you would want America to remain the sole world power and this can only be done by starving China. On the other hand, if one does not like the U.S.A., then allowing China to develop militarily, economically, and scientifically would create a balance of power between the U.S.A. and the rest of the world, thus preventing America from acting unilaterally and with impunity against the rest of the world. So, it all depends on whether you like America or not.

[Skye]

Or it could be that people don't like China.

[Pangloss]

I can't imagine why not. Fascinating country and culture.

 

A nation full of people who generally recognize society as an entity, complete with its own set of rights and obligations (as opposed to just obligations), and with a high level of significance that can be compared and contrasted with the individual. A culture in which how governance takes place is actually of secondary importance compared with whether the government is "getting the job done". The ultimate extreme of recognizing the importance of "daily life" over the "media circus".

 

Absolutely fascinating.