Carthage and Rome signed peace treaty...in 1985

In case you don't know.

When Carthage and Rome finally signed a peace treaty - in February 1985 - Ugo Vetere, the mayor of Rome, seemed deeply moved by the still existing traces of the catastrophe at Carthage - which he described as "blackened by fire." The catastrophe, he said, "... should be regarded, not just with curiosity, or with a love for archeology, but... with the eyes of those who wish for and... work for peace today."

More at http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issu...t.carthago.htm

Do you also know there's one country that involved in WW1 but, it signed peace treaty few years after WW2 ended?

History is really interesting:medievalcheers:

It gets worse then that. There's still no formal peace treaty between Japan and Russia, I believe.

This is the best part:

Quote:

---

"May... the example of Carthage and Rome further the cooperation between peoples, and the understanding between men," said Carthage Mayor Chedly Klibi, who is also head of the Arab League.

---

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

It gets worse then that. There's still no formal peace treaty between Japan and Russia, I believe.

---

Or between us and N. Korea for that matter too.

Well, I know that Montenegro declared war on Japan during Russian-Japanese war in 1905. They signed a peace treaty only a few years ago...

After the Napoleonic Wars, a certain village in Britain stayed at war with them and I think Russia for a while.

Quote:

---

There is a curious apocryphal story that Berwick is (or recently was) technically at war with Russia.

The story goes that since Berwick had changed hands several times, it was traditionally regarded as a special, separate entity, and some proclamations referred to "England, Scotland and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed". One such was the declaration of the Crimean War against Russia in 1853, which Queen Victoria supposedly signed as "Victoria, Queen of Great Britain, Ireland, Berwick-upon-Tweed and all British Dominions". However, when the Treaty of Paris (1856) was signed to conclude the war, "Berwick-upon-Tweed" was left out. This meant that, supposedly, one of Britain's smallest towns was officially at war with one of the world's mightiest powers– and the conflict extended by the lack of a peace treaty for over a century.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwick...with_Russia.3F

:bow:

Ok, this is interesting...

Post more, I wanna find out.

I seem to recall that the Netherlands and Portugal are still formally at war; also, we're also still formally at war with one of those obscure island groups to the North of the island of Great Britain.

The Aussies are at war with the british, we always will be!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warluster

The Aussies are at war with the british, we always will be!

---

I bet our head of state can beat your head of state. :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on

I seem to recall that the Netherlands and Portugal are still formally at war; also, we're also still formally at war with one of those obscure island groups to the North of the island of Great Britain.

---

According to wikipedia, a peace treaty has been concluded in 1985, and anyway it appears that the Dutch embassador wasn't authorized to start a war in the first place.

Hmm I do believe that Aussies are somewhat no longer capable of taking at us with a bat. Or indeed at the kiwis, which shouldn't be too hard as they're just a bunch of flightless birds.

KMT+CPC are at war.

(Taiwan and China for those who don't know)

I though China didn't recognise Taiwan as a nation, how can they be at war then?
Unless they just regard it as an internal conflict against some rebels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

KMT+CPC are at war.

(Taiwan and China for those who don't know)

---

Does KMT still claim legitimate government of the whole of China? I've heard stories about the government in Taipei, at least in the early stages, reserving offices (positions) that dealt with the mainland, as if they were still the established government there.

The fact that Carthage was destroyed by the romans makes the signing of the treaty a complete nonsense. Probably more a PR stunt, done to attract tourists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Does KMT still claim legitimate government of the whole of China? I've heard stories about the government in Taipei, at least in the early stages, reserving offices (positions) that dealt with the mainland, as if they were still the established government there.

---

They used to take seat in the UN Security Council on behalf of (entire) China.

But that's a long time ago and now Taiwan doens't even have a seat in the UN. And if I'm not mistaking at late more and more Taiwanese are inclined to give up their claims on China or even their independence. (thought I read that in an article somewhere that the whole independence wasn't very popular with the younger generations)

Polls show that in recent years, the trend is more pro-independence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Does KMT still claim legitimate government of the whole of China? I've heard stories about the government in Taipei, at least in the early stages, reserving offices (positions) that dealt with the mainland, as if they were still the established government there.

---

They stopped using maps claiming the whole of China (plus Tibet, Mongolia, and sizeable portions currently belonging to Pakistan, India and Burma) back in 2004.

As to the entire political status of Taiwan thing: the Kuomintang and the so-called "Pan-Blue Alliance," a front of political parties affiliated with the once-single party, are leaning towards reunification (the One China, Two Systems idea of Beijing's; the KMT party leadership even visited the mainland a while back), while the current ruling party and its affiliates, the so-called "Pan-Green Alliance," lean towards Taiwan independence.

The People's Republic of China is strongly opposed to this last idea, because it would essentially allow the island to be recognized internationally, join the UN, and all of that without the PRC being able to do one bloody thing about it without invading (unlike now, where it uses its economical attractivity to force, say, Western nations to not recognize the ROC if they want any trade relations with the PRC) -- which would likely solicit an immediate response from the U.S. and allies in a now-legitimized counterattack.

Why the KMT won't support it? That's simple: it'll lose the last vestiges of its lost power and heritage on the mainland (the flag, complete with party symbol; the name, Republic of China; etc.). Plus, it's a mainlander Chinese versus Taiwan Chinese thing, too. The island majority is obviously scared of a PRC military (both conventional as well as unconventional, that would be nuclear) response; the crucible would likely be a diplomatic game in assuring Western support before declaring the ROC to be the Republic of Taiwan.