China getting uppity over Taiwan again... hardliner invokes the 'N' word

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4...00e2511c8.html

Quote:

---

China ‘ready to use N-weapons against US’
By Alexandra Harney in Beijing
Published: July 14 2005 21:59 | Last updated: July 14 2005 21:59

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, according to a senior Chinese military official.

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the People's Liberation Army, said at an official briefing.

Mr Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University, was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory includes warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” Mr Zhu said. “We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds. . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.” Mr Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned previously that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an authority on the Chinese military, said the specific nature of the threat “is a new addition to China's public discourse”.

China's official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Mr Zhu is not the first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.

Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1999 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan.

“In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei,” Mr Freeman quoted this official as saying. The official is believed to have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff.

The rationale for the new threats is unclear. China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs could not be reached for comment.

Mr Zhu, who has risen from the rank of colonel over the past five years, insisted he was expressing his personal views, and that they did not represent the policy of the Chinese government. Nor was he anticipating war between China and the US.

But he said that, because China did not have the capability to fight a conventional war against the US, the threat to escalate might be the only way to stop a war.

His comments could provide insight into the thinking among some in the PLA amid growing anxiety in Washington about its capabilities. Last month, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, voiced concern about China's military build-up.


Additional reporting by Edward Alden in Washington

---

So now firing on 'sovereign territory' like ships and aircraft merits a nuclear response. It's one thing to bleed the US slowly in a 'low intensity' conflict like Vietnam, another thing entirely to threaten to huck a nuke towards one of our major cities because we don't care for their geopolitical interpretation of Taiwan's status. We may be on the slippery slope of decline into obsolesence and outright wussification but we're not there yet. If the cold war with China ever got hot via the use of nukes they'd fare a hell of alot worse than us. I guess they forgot the lesson Japan learned when they tried the same crap in the East and South East Pacific 60+ years ago.

Really so the Japanese had nukes to threaten FDR with? That's news to me. ~;)
Truth is China needs to threaten to use their nukes. Their amry while huge is mostly poorly trained conscripts. Their are maybe 400 or 500 thousand elire troops that are on a par with US forces. Forces that couldn't easily be replaced if depleted.

Still the smart thing for the PRC to do would get Krazy Kim and the Korean Kommie Klub to have a little party in Seoul. That way the US would be too preoccupied to say boo to who about anything they did in Taiwan. Rather than gesticulate with their missiles.

Shouldn't we judge just how much these comments are meant for internal consumption? I am by no means an expert on Chinese politics, but I can understand how the leaders would need to look tough in the face of international criticism in front of their own people.

Is someone merely trying to make political capital ?

Interesting that the reason the hawk states for the escalation is a surprising one:

Quote:

---

But he said that, because China did not have the capability to fight a conventional war against the US, the threat to escalate might be the only way to stop a war.

---

I always thought that a conventional defensive war on the mainland was a stalemate. I suppose the Chinese have figured out how bad their ships are when one of their best submarines was tracked in Japanese waters.

Quote:

---

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the People's Liberation Army, said at an official briefing.

---

I would immediately bring in the Chinese ambassador and ask for what they are going to do with this loose cannon teaching at their Defence University. And then I would mention things like trade, trade and oh trade. Get rid of him and open up your markets or keep him and go down a few notches in preferred trading status.

Quote:

---

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, according to a senior Chinese military official.

---

They can try.. America has more cababilities in the field of nuclear offense and defense than she lets on.. ~;)

Realy ??

Forgive my ignorance - genuine question - what is nuclear defence ?

Quote:

---

Forgive my ignorance - genuine question - what is nuclear defence ?

---

Popping those puppies before they hit their intended targets.

Although new technology suggests that their internal mechanisms can be stopped, either while on the ground or in mid flight, so there wouldnt even be a detonation.

The US is always one step ahead of the technology it presents to the general public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Really so the Japanese had nukes to threaten FDR with? That's news to me.
Truth is China needs to threaten to use their nukes. Their amry while huge is mostly poorly trained conscripts. Their are maybe 400 or 500 thousand elire troops that are on a par with US forces. Forces that couldn't easily be replaced if depleted.

---

C'mon now. Japan flipped out when we imposed our oil embargo on them. They used it as an excuse to go berzerk in the Pacific and hit us as hard as they could.

True, China needs to play the nuclear card whenever they can but a 'trip wire' nuclear option isn't so cut and dry in this geopolitical scenario. NATO played that ace card during the Cold War when West Germany gave the US the green light to station quick response, medium range Pershing nuclear missiles on its territory. At least then NATO was fully justified because it wasn't rattling its saber about East Germany and Poland being oppressed under Soviet rule. As far as the Warsaw Pact was concerned, if they were geniunely serious about protecting their allies from invasion by capitalist pigs and were not the slightest bit interested in invading the west then there was no need to worry about those Pershing missiles. However China knows the world doesn't buy its bulls--t about Taiwan so they're trying everything possible to work the equation in their favor. Now that China's hardliners have declared their planes and ships as sovereign territory I'm waiting for them to declare that any US forces stationed in or around Taiwan as being an equally aggregious offense and and an act worthy of nukage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I would immediately bring in the Chinese ambassador and ask for what they are going to do with this loose cannon teaching at their Defence University. And then I would mention things like trade, trade and oh trade. Get rid of him and open up your markets or keep him and go down a few notches in preferred trading status.

---

Exactly. We'll have to see how the Chinese government handles this rabble rouser. Although I have no doubt many saber rattling hardliners are exchanging high fives slapping each other on the backs after seeing this story break in the west.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

C'mon now. Japan flipped out when we imposed our oil embargo on them. They used it as an excuse to go berzerk in the Pacific and hit us as hard as they could.

---

Acrually you got it backwards. FDR was counting on the Japanese going to war with the US over the oil embargo. Their is very little I would put past FDR pulling to get the US into WW2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

True, China needs to play the nuclear card whenever they can but a 'trip wire' nuclear option isn't so cut and dry in this geopolitical scenario. NATO played that ace card during the Cold War when West Germany gave the US the green light to station quick response, medium range Pershing nuclear missiles on its territory. At least then NATO was fully justified because it wasn't rattling its saber about East Germany and Poland being oppressed under Soviet rule. As far as the Warsaw Pact was concerned, if they were geniunely serious about protecting their allies from invasion by capitalist pigs and were not the slightest bit interested in invading the west then there was no need to worry about those Pershing missiles. However China knows the world doesn't buy its bulls--t about Taiwan so they're trying everything possible to work the equation in their favor. Now that China's hardliners have declared their planes and ships as sovereign territory I'm waiting for them to declare that any US forces stationed in or around Taiwan as being an equally aggregious offense and and an act worthy of nukage.

---

You realize that the PRC and Taiwan are, like the Koreas, the remenant of an early cold war civil war? China is not full of shit claiming Taiwan is a rebellious province. The allies gave Formousa (Taiwan) to China after WW2, the fact that China split into a commie/crapitalist civil war was and is beside the point. The commies won we have to live with that. The nationalists ceased to speak for China when they were driven out of it. Taiwan belongs to China irregardless of what type of government it has.

Thats like saying the US belongs to the brits :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Taiwan belongs to China irregardless of what type of government it has.

---

Agreed. And the Sudetenland belonged to Germany as of 1933.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Taiwan belongs to China irregardless of what type of government it has.

---

Actually it would work the other way round. KMT used to rule China and Taiwan. Communist China has never ruled Taiwan. Hence KMT has claim to China and Taiwan. The only 'justification' would be based on racial lines that all Chinese must be ruled by Communist China, which I'm sure Singapore would disagree with.

However KMT doesn't even rule Taiwan anymore. Taiwan is a fledgeling democracy now and has the a Green party President. He doesn't claim that China belongs to Taiwan or the other way round.

China is acting like a bully that is being denied someone elses toy. As such the bully should be put in its place. To give Taiwan to China would be the same as giving Yugoslavia to Nazi Germany. In fact it would be worse as this act of appeasement would be done justified not on morals but markets.

Agreed. Their claim over Taiwan is as feeble as it was over Tibet in the 40's.

You don't appease totaliterian regimes, you depose totaliterian regimes.

I actually started a thread along these lines simultaneously. Mine has a poll, but I think I've got the answers I expected/desired anyway, so if you want to merge the other thread in here, that probably makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

Agreed. Their claim over Taiwan is as feeble as it was over Tibet in the 40's.

---

50's, truth is I'm for China's annexation of Tibet. They brought some sembelance of the modern world to a backward hill kingdom. And before anyone says what I'm supporting I already know (in a fair ammount of detail, but feel free to enlighten me if you wish), and I don't care. The PRC is stong and willful enough to have Tibet and they are their fore entitled to it. Even if Tibet hadn't been taken over by China they probably would have had a communist uprising and be as bad off as outer Mongolia is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Actually it would work the other way round. KMT used to rule China and Taiwan. Communist China has never ruled Taiwan. Hence KMT has claim to China and Taiwan. The only 'justification' would be based on racial lines that all Chinese must be ruled by Communist China, which I'm sure Singapore would disagree with.

However KMT doesn't even rule Taiwan anymore. Taiwan is a fledgeling democracy now and has the a Green party President. He doesn't claim that China belongs to Taiwan or the other way round.

China is acting like a bully that is being denied someone elses toy. As such the bully should be put in its place. To give Taiwan to China would be the same as giving Yugoslavia to Nazi Germany. In fact it would be worse as this act of appeasement would be done justified not on morals but markets.

---

See the genis of the PRC claim is that Taiwan was given to the Chinese state. When that mean't the KMT the world was willing and ready to go along with it. When that came to mean the PRC, suddenly their is a huge problem. In one instant it goes from Taiwan is part of China to no it's not your dirty godless commies you can't have it. so saying the PRC has no right to Taiwan is horse shit, their never having ruled doesn't enter into it. Taiwans leaders need to be served 3 scoops of reality flavored ice cream with wake and smell the coffe sprinkles. Their continued health and properity depends on the mood the PRC is in when they take over the place. They need to abandon all hope of independence and settle for Hong Kongs deal, it's the best they're going to get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

50's, truth is I'm for China's annexation of Tibet. They brought some sembelance of the modern world to a backward hill kingdom. And before anyone says what I'm supporting I already know (in a fair ammount of detail, but feel free to enlighten me if you wish), and I don't care. The PRC is stong and willful enough to have Tibet and they are their fore entitled to it. Even if Tibet hadn't been taken over by China they probably would have had a communist uprising and be as bad off as outer Mongolia is now.




See the genis of the PRC claim is that Taiwan was given to the Chinese state. When that mean't the KMT the world was willing and ready to go along with it. When that came to mean the PRC, suddenly their is a huge problem. In one instant it goes from Taiwan is part of China to no it's not your dirty godless commies you can't have it. so saying the PRC has no right to Taiwan is horse shit, their never having ruled doesn't enter into it. Taiwans leaders need to be served 3 scoops of reality flavored ice cream with wake and smell the coffe sprinkles. Their continued health and properity depends on the mood the PRC is in when they take over the place. They need to abandon all hope of independence and settle for Hong Kongs deal, it's the best they're going to get.

---

One of the big reasons we're still there protecting Taiwan is they won't ever get Hong Kong's deal. From day 1, it was always going to be about punishing the Taiwanese for branching off in the first place. There ain't going to be no 'with Malice towards none' reunification, it's going to make Reconstruction look like a walk in the park in comparison. The Chinese (when they'll discuss it at all) are pretty clear on this. Some are in favor of it, some don't like it, but all agree, it will be hell on Earth in Taiwan when the PLA takes over. Look at what they did in Tibet, and Tibet wasn't even a rebellious province, they just resisted 'incorporation' too long. Taiwan's government is viewed as traitors, and any Taiwanese w/ half a brain & some cash should have a 'get off the island plan' when things start going South.

Oh, and by the way, the Chinese are pretty clear that in their minds, Mongolia is a province too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

50's, truth is I'm for China's annexation of Tibet. They brought some sembelance of the modern world to a backward hill kingdom. And before anyone says what I'm supporting I already know (in a fair ammount of detail, but feel free to enlighten me if you wish), and I don't care. The PRC is stong and willful enough to have Tibet and they are their fore entitled to it. Even if Tibet hadn't been taken over by China they probably would have had a communist uprising and be as bad off as outer Mongolia is now.

See the genis of the PRC claim is that Taiwan was given to the Chinese state. When that mean't the KMT the world was willing and ready to go along with it. When that came to mean the PRC, suddenly their is a huge problem. In one instant it goes from Taiwan is part of China to no it's not your dirty godless commies you can't have it. so saying the PRC has no right to Taiwan is horse shit, their never having ruled doesn't enter into it. Taiwans leaders need to be served 3 scoops of reality flavored ice cream with wake and smell the coffe sprinkles. Their continued health and properity depends on the mood the PRC is in when they take over the place. They need to abandon all hope of independence and settle for Hong Kongs deal, it's the best they're going to get.

---

Taiwan was part of Japan and then after WWII KMT acquired it. At no point has Communist China ruled Taiwan.

Your analogy with Tibet is very poor. As is the one with Hong Kong. Hong Kong was leased by Britain and it made a deal with Mainland China that it would have the right to democracy under the parent communist state. Communist China has reneged on those deals.

Maybe PRC should realise that its continued existence relies on it being a faithful trading partner to the west and that attempted invasions of democracies will not be tolerated with appeasement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Oh, and by the way, the Chinese are pretty clear that in their minds, Mongolia is a province too.

---

Ruling a place for 200 or 300 years will give you that attitude. I honestly think that the US trade deal is the only thing keeping PLA forces out of Mongolia. I can't and won't believe for one second that the PRC gives flying fork what the rest of the world thinks of what they do.

Well, they never ruled Indochina, and that's on their radar screen as well. They've never gotten over Vietnam invading & taking their guy out in Kampuchea. The Chinese people are great, friendly, warm and very industrious. But their government seems like it's from another planet. Incredibly expansionist, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they have a few plans for North America (and the rest of the globe for that matter).

Maybe as more & more business tycoons develop, they'll get enough pull to keep the party officials & generals in line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

50's, truth is I'm for China's annexation of Tibet. They brought some sembelance of the modern world to a backward hill kingdom. And before anyone says what I'm supporting I already know (in a fair ammount of detail, but feel free to enlighten me if you wish), and I don't care. The PRC is stong and willful enough to have Tibet and they are their fore entitled to it. Even if Tibet hadn't been taken over by China they probably would have had a communist uprising and be as bad off as outer Mongolia is now.

---

Wow...

I find that really... repellent.

1.25 million deaths. Many under torture.

Still, you're certainly entitled to your "might is right" opinion (as a white male who lives in a first-world country under zero threat of invasion).

I appreciate that you had the guts to speak your mind honestly about it, though...

Well, if you ever visit the Canal Zone in Panama, you'll notice that (literally) about nine in ten of the little restaurants and stores are owned and staffed by recent Chinese immigrants. And there are more coming all the time. I haven't done the research, but I do not believe this is a coincidence.

If you ask me, China is not too likely to take over anything by overt force. They threaten force with Taiwan, the idea being that in ten or twenty years they'll get it peacefully (I find this pretty likely).

Their policy of putting peasants into the towns and cities near the Panama Canal, though to our orthodox thinking it seems baffling, seems to me a perfect way to have an ethnic and economic claim to the area if it should they ever feel a need to "intervene", say, 20 or 30 years down the road.

I say the PRC is patient, and takes Sun Tzu's principles on soft-touch victory literally. Just look how they bribed WJC.

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well, they never ruled Indochina, and that's on their radar screen as well. They've never gotten over Vietnam invading & taking their guy out in Kampuchea. The Chinese people are great, friendly, warm and very industrious. But their government seems like it's from another planet. Incredibly expansionist, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they have a few plans for North America (and the rest of the globe for that matter).

Maybe as more & more business tycoons develop, they'll get enough pull to keep the party officials & generals in line.

---

Most of the PRC territorial assertions are based on this.
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y2...h/china-12.gif

It's a map of Ch'ing (pronounced Qing or Manchu if you prefer) dynasty China before it's weakness (or backwardness) led the european powers and Japan eat it for lunch. As you can see Taiwan, outer Mongolian, and Tibet are all part of the fold. Now I have no idea why the borders of the Manchu dynasty are something to aim for by the PRC but that seems to be their goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

Wow...

I find that really... repellent.

1.25 million deaths. Many under torture.

Still, you're certainly entitled to your "might is right" opinion (as a white male who lives in a first-world country under zero threat of invasion).

I appreciate that you had the guts to speak your mind honestly about it, though...

---

And most of you assume that Tibet wouldn't have had those 1.25 million deaths if they had been independent. You assume that Tibet could have managed it's own affairs with that worhtless theocrate on his throne. Tibet was aching for someone to come along and give it the right good kicking it needed, the PRC just got there before a home grown someone could come emerge.

And BTW might always makes right (no matter how it is cloaked).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Most of the PRC territorial assertions are based on this.
https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y2...h/china-12.gif

It's a map of Ch'ing (pronounced Qing or Manchu if you prefer) dynasty China before it's weakness (or backwardness) led the european powers and Japan eat it for lunch. As you can see Taiwan, outer Mongolian, and Tibet are all part of the fold. Now I have no idea why the borders of the Manchu dynasty are something to aim for by the PRC but that seems to be their goal.




And most of you assume that Tibet wouldn't have had those 1.25 million deaths if they had been independent. You assume that Tibet could have managed it's own affairs with that worhtless theocrate on his throne. Tibet was aching for someone to come along and give it the right good kicking it needed, the PRC just got there before a home grown someone could come emerge.

And BTW might always makes right (no matter how it is cloaked).

---

"if they hadn't done it, someone else would have"
absurd defense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

"if they hadn't done it, someone else would have"
absurd defense

---

Absurd maybe, probably. Can you completely discount it, no. Look no further than Nepal for evidence of what I'm saying.

It doesn't matter a tinker's fart to the dead, the raped, and the tortured what might have happened in a hypothetical "what if?" situation that doesn't involve China.

Their behaviour was deplorable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

And BTW might always makes right (no matter how it is cloaked).

---

No it doesn't only a gutless bully believes that. Might only gives the ability to get away with being an a###hole for longer. However at some point someone else whom is more powerful comes along. So unless you want to pay for crimes with interest, then it is best to set a good example.

Justice may take a while but violent countries find it a lot harder to stay large then ones that are fairer.

The might is right idea makes for a very unstable government, this is what happened in South Vietnam and in the end they collapsed againsts a united North Vietnam.

Also the economic strength of a free country is normally far more better then a despot regime. The only time such a country can do well is by making enemies so that the people pull together rather then tear down the government.

China needs external enemies to distract its people from its poor performance so does Taiwan btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

It doesn't matter a tinker's fart to the dead, the raped, and the tortured what might have happened in a hypothetical "what if?" situation that doesn't involve China.

Their behaviour was deplorable.

---

Well maybe. But you (and those of like minded opion) are throwing around the belief that if China had stayed home they would be alive. Both our positions can't be proved.

And as to their behavior, well the Tibetans wouldn't tow the line. You can hardly expect a murderous despotic regime not to act like a murderous despotic regime when challenged now can you.

Quote:

---

No it doesn't only a gutless bully believes that. Might only gives the ability to get away with being an a###hole for longer. However at some point someone else whom is more powerful comes along. So unless you want to pay for crimes with interest, then it is best to set a good example.

Justice may take a while but violent countries find it a lot harder to stay large then ones that are fairer.

The might is right idea makes for a very unstable government, this is what happened in South Vietnam and in the end they collapsed againsts a united North Vietnam.

Also the economic strength of a free country is normally far more better then a despot regime. The only time such a country can do well is by making enemies so that the people pull together rather then tear down the government.

China needs external enemies to distract its people from its poor performance so does Taiwan btw.

---

I may be those things and more (I'm also violent sadistic and cruel with an abiding hatred for my fellow man). But we're not talking about me. Even free countries need external threats to keep them together. The PRC however has decided to trick it's people. By giving them economic freedom and the ability accumilate wealth. They are using modern conveniences to distract them from the fact that the government is a mirderous despotic regieme. So far it's working. It will continue to work so long as the PLA agrees with them.

Wow. Again, thanks for the honesty.

If you are these things, then I have no interest in maintaining any kind of dialogue with you. You represent that which I am against.

I'm glad it's been civil though... :embarassed:

Fairly standard posturing by China. The Chinese are quite savvy and they keep probing, testing for weakness in US resolve. The important thing is to reaffirm each time that we will do whatever necessary to turn mainland China into a smoking hole if they go after Taiwan. (Technically, with all their underground coal fires they are already a smoking hole, but I digress.) Say things nicely and diplomatically, but remain firm. If we ever fail to respond appropriately, then I suspect the Chinese will carry out their threats vs. Taiwan.

I also get the impression that China uses Taiwan as a way to stir up nationalist sentiment and externalize some enemies. Sort of the same as Iran uses the US as the "Great Satan", or autocratic Arab nations use the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

China knows they can't knock out U.S. nuclear capabilities, so a nuclear fight is the end of China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

Wow. Again, thanks for the honesty.

If you are these things, then I have no interest in maintaining any kind of dialogue with you. You represent that which I am against.

I'm glad it's been civil though... :embarassed:

---

Just because I'm evil doesn't mean I don't have manners (or at least fake 'em real good ~:) ). Beisde we should keep talking, after all keep your friends close and you enemies under constant survelence.

keep your friends close and your enemies closer. China will have few if any allies to support them. North Korea is basically the only country that comes to mind. China's economy is so intertwined with the rest of the world that if they plan on doing something as stupid as they say they are thinking of doing, well, they can forget ever having a strong economy, The world doesn't depend on China's economy as they think we do, quite the latter, such a move now would cause an entire collapse in their infrastructure, A soldier who isn't payed will disband, and I am sure most within the PRC aren't terribly loyal to the cause, there just isn't a better one that comes to mind without getting killed. I would just love to see every country in the world tell China to snuff it. A good ol' fashioned uprising, as well as diseases getting out of control, and famine, this would not be a good move for the Chinese Government... if they value their lives.

You support what China did in Tibet? Shall we remember a few things. Like the ancient and rich culture that was burned to the ground, the shelling of 200,000 people outside the summer palace, the priceless art carted away, the rape and slaughter of thousands, the destruction of the environment. But that's okay because they were more powerful, you know now that I think about it Stalin wasn't such a bad guy.

Quote:

---

They brought some sembelance of the modern world to a backward hill kingdom.

---

Dude that was coming anyway. If you pay any attention that's what the Dalai Lama wanted to do.

Quote:

---

And most of you assume that Tibet wouldn't have had those 1.25 million deaths if they had been independent.

---

And maybe if Versailles had been enforced and Hitler hadn't come to power Godzilla would have killed 7 million Jews. Tibet was doing pretty damn well before China came in.

Quote:

---

worhtless theocrate on his throne

---

Actually he was pushing for giving more power to the people and with the power he had he was trying to modernize the country. Why do you call him worthless.

Quote:

---

Absurd maybe, probably. Can you completely discount it, no. Look no further than Nepal for evidence of what I'm saying.

---

Since when was Nepal ruled by a loved leader who was considered sent by God.
And you admit it is probably absurd, well Roswell is rather absurd, but it kinda coulda happened and can't be completely discouted so...

Quote:

---

And as to their behavior, well the Tibetans wouldn't tow the line. You can hardly expect a murderous despotic regime not to act like a murderous despotic regime when challenged now can you.

---

Well that child did exist near that rabid dog and it is a rabid dog so I think we can forgive it. If your country was invaded and you saw your mother/sister/aunt/grandma raped and your father/brother/uncle/grandpa shot would you tow the line or try and you know fight for liberation?

People defending what China did in Tibet (or Turkmenistan) just really piss me off.

[QUOTE=Papewaio] Hong Kong was leased by Britain and it made a deal with Mainland China that it would have the right to democracy under the parent communist state. Communist China has reneged on those deals. [QUOTE]

Not quite, Honk Kong itself was owned by us after being part of a deal where China gave us the land and we agreed not to kill anymore Chinese, for a while at least. The part that was leased was to the north, we agreed to hand everything back because the vast majority of the workers in British Hong Kong lived in the leased part, and, let's face it, we bottled it. :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

50's, truth is I'm for China's annexation of Tibet. They brought some sembelance of the modern world to a backward hill kingdom.

The PRC is stong and willful enough to have Tibet and they are their fore entitled to it.

---

I would venture to say that you are the only Haligonian with that opinion.

I would also venture to say you are the only Nova Scotian with that opinion.

I would venture, yet again, to say you are the only Canadian with that opinion.

If I may stress the point and venture another venture, I would say you are possibly the only person in the world, outside of the Chinese government, to have that opinion.

Well, there is something to be said for being unique. ~;)

I agree with everything you're saying Red, except did you see the bit about "We're prepared to lose every city east of Xian." That's a hell of a lot. What's more, I can confirm from my own experience, that they're in the process of moving as much industry & R/D out West (Xian, Chengdu etc) as possible. Now it could just be that they're trying to help the West catch up to the rest of the country (the West is very backwards) or maybe they're establishing a buffer zone. Who knows. In general, I don't like this, as it looks to me that their generals are acting on their own, saying whatever they like, w/o regards to what the party actually wants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

You support what China did in Tibet? Shall we remember a few things. Like the ancient and rich culture that was burned to the ground, the shelling of 200,000 people outside the summer palace, the priceless art carted away, the rape and slaughter of thousands, the destruction of the environment. But that's okay because they were more powerful, you know now that I think about it Stalin wasn't such a bad guy.

---

Chinas culture was older and more sophisticated. And Stalin murders were a bit over the top. He killed people for kicks it seems. I can excuse his creating a famines becuase well we all make mistakes, and when your Czar a mistake costs lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

Dude that was coming anyway. If you pay any attention that's what the Dalai Lama wanted to do.

---

Yeah now he does. How long has he been saying that. Sorry but the Dalai Lama was going to go whether the Chinese did it or the Tibetans did it was coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

And maybe if Versailles had been enforced and Hitler hadn't come to power Godzilla would have killed 7 million Jews. Tibet was doing pretty damn well before China came in.

---

No it wasn't. Any nations advancement costs lives, lots of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

Actually he was pushing for giving more power to the people and with the power he had he was trying to modernize the country. Why do you call him worthless.

---

Cause he was a theocrate and are you sure he wanted change then. Just because he does now means nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

Since when was Nepal ruled by a loved leader who was considered sent by God.
And you admit it is probably absurd, well Roswell is rather absurd, but it kinda coulda happened and can't be completely discouted so...

---

When the last king was on the throne, before he was killed by his insane son in a orgy of blood and violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

Well that child did exist near that rabid dog and it is a rabid dog so I think we can forgive it. If your country was invaded and you saw your mother/sister/aunt/grandma raped and your father/brother/uncle/grandpa shot would you tow the line or try and you know fight for liberation?

People defending what China did in Tibet (or Turkmenistan) just really piss me off.

---

That depends on whether the Chinese gave me an opportunity for advancement and a better life. It wold be obvious that all resisting the Chinese equals death, and since I want to live. I'd tow the line.

Quote:

---

(Technically, with all their underground coal fires they are already a smoking hole, but I digress.)

---

Could you expand on that? Ive never heard of those... are there huge coal fires in China?

Quote:

---

No it wasn't. Any nations advancement costs lives, lots of them.

---

Care to explain Sweden? Were did we lost a lots of life during the last 200 years? And we had a lot of advancement during this time.

Quote:

---

Chinas culture was older and more sophisticated. And Stalin murders were a bit over the top. He killed people for kicks it seems. I can excuse his creating a famines becuase well we all make mistakes, and when your Czar a mistake costs lives.

---

As the Chinese culture is the oldest now existing culture on earth I'm assume that we all should skip our culture to use the much more superior Chinese culture? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

That depends on whether the Chinese gave me an opportunity for advancement and a better life. It wold be obvious that all resisting the Chinese equals death, and since I want to live. I'd tow the line.

---

So as long as you (not all of your people) will (possibly) get opportunity for advancement and a better life, by an invasion force, you're willing to surrender everything else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Fairly standard posturing by China. The Chinese are quite savvy and they keep probing, testing for weakness in US resolve. The important thing is to reaffirm each time that we will do whatever necessary to turn mainland China into a smoking hole if they go after Taiwan. (Technically, with all their underground coal fires they are already a smoking hole, but I digress.) Say things nicely and diplomatically, but remain firm. If we ever fail to respond appropriately, then I suspect the Chinese will carry out their threats vs. Taiwan.

I also get the impression that China uses Taiwan as a way to stir up nationalist sentiment and externalize some enemies. Sort of the same as Iran uses the US as the "Great Satan", or autocratic Arab nations use the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

China knows they can't knock out U.S. nuclear capabilities, so a nuclear fight is the end of China.

---

Nuclear war would be also the end US as we know it.I simply cant understand why US is researching anti nuclear missile defence?You cant assume that it would stay as your secret only.I think Nukes are the only thing that has stopped major wars in the world in recent decades. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Care to explain Sweden? Were did we lost a lots of life during the last 200 years? And we had a lot of advancement during this time.

---

Industrialization is a brutal process. It costs a lot in the way of human lives no matter what the nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

As the Chinese culture is the oldest now existing culture on earth I'm assume that we all should skip our culture to use the much more superior Chinese culture? :dizzy2:

---

I didn't say or imply that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

So as long as you (not all of your people) will (possibly) get opportunity for advancement and a better life, by an invasion force, you're willing to surrender everything else?

---

Yes, cause if I resisted they'd kill me. Or failing that make life for me very hard. And that's not for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

Nuclear war would be also the end US as we know it.I simply cant understand why US is researching anti nuclear missile defence?You cant assume that it would stay as your secret only.I think Nukes are the only thing that has stopped major wars in the world in recent decades. :bow:

---

I'm not sure that China could deliver enough warheads for that to be true. Their strategic arsenal is apparently small. And there is a fair chance that we would hit them pre-emptively if they started an attack, obliterating every potential command and control structure. This isn't Russia we are talking about...they don't have a large capability, yet.

The Chinese arsenal is probably small enough, and the warhead path such that nukes could be used to take out individual Chinese missiles over the ocean. (Just guessing.) Chinese nukes that got through would cause horrific damage, but they wouldn't be the same sort of threat as Russia--where the number is such that they simply could not be stopped.

Even such a limited nuclear war would be awful on global scale. I doubt China is crazy enough to force the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I'm not sure that China could deliver enough warheads for that to be true. Their strategic arsenal is apparently small. And there is a fair chance that we would hit them pre-emptively if they started an attack, obliterating every potential command and control structure. This isn't Russia we are talking about...they don't have a large capability, yet.

The Chinese arsenal is probably small enough, and the warhead path such that nukes could be used to take out individual Chinese missiles over the ocean. (Just guessing.) Chinese nukes that got through would cause horrific damage, but they wouldn't be the same sort of threat as Russia--where the number is such that they simply could not be stopped.

Even such a limited nuclear war would be awful on global scale. I doubt China is crazy enough to force the issue.

---

Neither is the US. The Chinese nuclear forces are not the equal of the American force, but they are similar in purpose to the French and British forces. The Americans are not going to trade the major urban centres of the western United States for Taiwan, and the Chinese are not going to trade half of China for it either. Stalemate, in which neither side is willing to go nuclear. The Chinese threats are probably a response to the American doctrine that nuclear weapons used at sea are not part and parcel of a nuclear war. The regional allies such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc will not be too keen on taking the chance that the limited use of naval nuclear weapons, might trigger the theatre use of such weapons.

The DF-31 (Dong Feng-31) has a range of about 5,000 miles, sufficient to hit targets along the entire West Coast of the United States and in several northern Rocky Mountain states. This has a solid fuel motor and is being deployed in a transporter-erector launcher [TEL] which would make it very difficult to take out their nuclear arsenal in a pre-emptive strike. They are developing an improved DF-41with an improved chassis capable of crosscountry and using poor roads. The Belarussian MAZ vehicle used in the Russian SS-20 has been photographed at the DF-31 production facility in Nanyuan, near Beijing, so the Chinese seem to be going ahead with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Neither is the US.

---

I think you are mistaken. Why? Because if China steps over that line, then they have gone mad and have to be confronted, and the sooner the better. It is better to finish such an aggressor in a limited nuclear war while you have massive superiority, than to risk a full nuclear war later. Korea is a study of what happens when you fail to use your superiority in an arm to win.

Quote:

---

The DF-31 (Dong Feng-31) has a range of about 5,000 miles, sufficient to hit targets along the entire West Coast of the United States and in several northern Rocky Mountain states.

---

There are quite a few ways to prevent these from reaching their targets given the massive disparity of numbers and QUALITY of the arsenals--electronics, guidance, capability, command and control, tracking, etc. Pre-emptive strikes are one way. With China's central control, if you can kill or cut off the leadership from their missiles, its over.

I don't see how it is possible to have a conventional war with China in their own backyard...and that means bringing in the nukes. With nukes it is better to give than to receive, so a pre-emptive strike would be the natural course.


On a cheerier note. I think the modernization changes in China are going to transform the govt (against its own will) over the next decade or so. I think the brinksmanship will subside and an understanding will be reached with regards to Taiwan...and Korea. In the meantime, we must remain firm and clear.

Quote:

---

Chinas culture was older and more sophisticated. And Stalin murders were a bit over the top. He killed people for kicks it seems. I can excuse his creating a famines becuase well we all make mistakes, and when your Czar a mistake costs lives.

---

Their culture was older, well isn't that lovely. What right does that give them?

Quote:

---

Yeah now he does. How long has he been saying that. Sorry but the Dalai Lama was going to go whether the Chinese did it or the Tibetans did it was coming.

---

Prove it, show me details of a movement that had enough strength and support to overthrow the standing government

Quote:

---

No it wasn't. Any nations advancement costs lives, lots of them.

---

How many people died developing the internet? How many people died building the superhighways in the '50s?

Quote:

---

Cause he was a theocrate and are you sure he wanted change then. Just because he does now means nothing.

---

Yes I'm saying he wanted change then. Read Freedom in Exile damnit.

Quote:

---

When the last king was on the throne, before he was killed by his insane son in a orgy of blood and violence.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, cause if I resisted they'd kill me. Or failing that make life for me very hard. And that's not for me.

---

Then we have a diffrence of philosophy. I take the die on my feet route, you take the live on your knees. We'll meet in the afterlife and figure out who was happier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I think you are mistaken. Why? Because if China steps over that line, then they have gone mad and have to be confronted, and the sooner the better. It is better to finish such an aggressor in a limited nuclear war while you have massive superiority, than to risk a full nuclear war later. Korea is a study of what happens when you fail to use your superiority in an arm to win.

---

I agree with you regarding what the Americans should do. I just have my doubts that any American administration would trade Los Angelos and San Francisco for a victory against China. To the rest of us it's just California, but to a politician, those are votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

There are quite a few ways to prevent these from reaching their targets given the massive disparity of numbers and QUALITY of the arsenals--electronics, guidance, capability, command and control, tracking, etc. Pre-emptive strikes are one way. With China's central control, if you can kill or cut off the leadership from their missiles, its over.

---

Well I have read a lot about the Star Wars missile defence program and the problems in destroying an incoming ICBM is not an easy one. If the Americans had deployed a system as Reagan wanted then maybe. As it is now, I find it unlikely we could stop them as the missile systems and guidance radars are not in place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I don't see how it is possible to have a conventional war with China in their own backyard...and that means bringing in the nukes. With nukes it is better to give than to receive, so a pre-emptive strike would be the natural course.

---

True! These however are road mobile and must be destroyed within the first 20-30 minutes or they are on their way. Cruise missiles are accurate enough if they have real-time data for targeting and mid-course update, but they are too slow. ICBM's, or SLBM's would give warning to the Chinese of an attack and are not accurate enough, and the problem of updating them where the mobile systems are right now and where they will be in 18 minutes is a problem. It's a hell of a chance and does little to address the use of nuclear weapons against South Korea and Japan.

"Mr. President," he exclaims, "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say, no more than 10-20 million killed, tops!"
Gen. Buck Turgidson

A limited conventional war against China is possible but it is one that neither the US or China could win decisively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

On a cheerier note. I think the modernization changes in China are going to transform the govt (against its own will) over the next decade or so. I think the brinksmanship will subside and an understanding will be reached with regards to Taiwan...and Korea. In the meantime, we must remain firm and clear.

---

Well I hope you are right, but I am not convinced that democracy will mean they are no longer a potential enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

Their culture was older, well isn't that lovely. What right does that give them?

---

Every right. Tibetan culture is sub-Indian, as is Nepal's, Bhutan's, and Thailand's. Even if Tibet is Sinoized there are other areas with like Cultures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

Prove it, show me details of a movement that had enough strength and support to overthrow the standing government

---

Again the Tibetans never had a chance to get pissed off at the Lama. But chances are it would be a Maoist groups like Nepal ended up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

How many people died developing the internet? How many people died building the superhighways in the '50s?

---

Your speaking of western countries with safty standards and practices. I'm talking about industrialization or even the modernization of an agrarian country. These endevors are very costly in terms of lives lost to accidents and mechanical failures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

Yes I'm saying he wanted change then. Read Freedom in Exile damnit.

---

Considering I'll do a happy dance when the Lama kicks it I doubt I'll be reading any book of his.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

Then we have a diffrence of philosophy. I take the die on my feet route, you take the live on your knees. We'll meet in the afterlife and figure out who was happier.

---

I would go for the dying on my feet if their was a chance of the Chinese leaving. In Tibet there was no chance of that. The Chinese feels that the precident of Manchu rule in Tibet is all the justification they need to be their now.

Quote:

---

Industrialization is a brutal process. It costs a lot in the way of human lives no matter what the nation.

---

So it's then worth adding a few million lives on top of that?

Quote:

---

I didn't say or imply that.

---

Quote:

---

Every right. Tibetan culture is sub-Indian, as is Nepal's, Bhutan's, and Thailand's. Even Tibet is Sinoized there are other areas with like Cultures.

---

Quote:

---

Chinas culture was older and more sophisticated

---

Then exactly are you implying?

Quote:

---

Yes, cause if I resisted they'd kill me. Or failing that make life for me very hard. And that's not for me.

---

Well your choise...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

So it's then worth adding a few million lives on top of that?

---

Ofcourse it is. Human life is both cheap and disposable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Then exactly are you implying?

---

That if Sinoization of Tibet completely obliterates the native sub-Indian culture. Then it values really weren't that strong or enduring in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Well your choise...

---

So glad you agree. Always act out of enlightened self-interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Could you expand on that? Ive never heard of those... are there huge coal fires in China?

---

Yes, I've read that they have the largest coal fires in the world. It is estimated that they are losing about 20-30 million tons/yr in coal fires. I've read a little on coal fires in the U.S. and China, but I can't find my print article on the subject at the moment.

Quote:

---

That if Sinoization of Tibet completely obliterates the native sub-Indian culture. Then it values really weren't that strong or enduring in the first place.

---

Because the millions of Chinese people about to pour into Tibet on the completion of a direct railway link won't obliterate it? Oh wait, they will. And one of the most interesting cultures in the world will be crushed by one which destroyed its own in the Cultural Revolution.

How can you possibly think that? Have you ever been there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Your speaking of western countries with safty standards and practices. I'm talking about industrialization or even the modernization of an agrarian country. These endevors are very costly in terms of lives lost to accidents and mechanical failures.

---

Explain Singapore then. It went from fishing village to high tech manufacturer.

Or case in point Taiwan. Sure it has had some brutal moments, but far less then mainland China and it was done better then the mainland has.

Or New Zealand in the last century, it did not have to slaughter millions of its people to create a modern society. New Zealand not only was a very agrarian country it still is, albeit a highly industrialised one.

Modernisation is done best by education. Education is not best achieved by killing ones pupils or teachers for that matter.

The industrialisation of China is not the reason millions died. The stranglehold on the powerbase is what killed millions of people. Brutal rule is not what has modernised China and it is not brutality that is achieving it at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Because the millions of Chinese people about to pour into Tibet on the completion of a direct railway link won't obliterate it? Oh wait, they will. And one of the most interesting cultures in the world will be crushed by one which destroyed its own in the Cultural Revolution.

How can you possibly think that? Have you ever been there?

---

Because I'm Canadian. I live in a country with litteraly millions of culturally french citizens. A unique twist on french culture that dates back 400 years. A culture that still exists as a distinctive group despite over 200 years of it trying to be erased and intgrated into the english derived majority.

Now the PRC (and when I say PRC I mean the government) is trying to dilute Tibetan resistance to their rule and their uniqueness by trucking in Han by the train load. And it will probably work. If the PRC can rig it so that their are as many or more Han than Tibetans in Tibet then they can hold on to the place indefinatly. It's the smart thing to do, it's what I'd do in their place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

That if Sinoization of Tibet completely obliterates the native sub-Indian culture. Then it values really weren't that strong or enduring in the first place.

So glad you agree. Always act out of enlightened self-interest.

---

Well acting out of enlightened self-interest will always kill off the native culture, if the occupiers want to and is brutal enough. Thus all cultures is only as strong as the arms they rely on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

You would make a wonderful Neo-Con. ~:cheers:

---

No I wouldn't. You see I believe in a certain amount of socialized systems. The mob needs it's opiates, and the government needs to be ready and willing to provide them. That way they will love you, and not question (that much of) what you do. Also giving everybody a more even base to start from can show who is stronger and deserving of advancement. Also buisnesses are a long term threat to the stability and properity of any society. They need to be on a very tight, very short leash. Not being able to do anything without government approval.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I don't believe Might Makes right. I forget who said it, but 'tis a good quote:

"War does not determine who is right, only who is left."

---

Bull! War weeds out the weak and foolish. Leaving the best of a society to come home and procreate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Tibet may have been "solved" but it wasn't "Right". Your argument is assuming that it is a form of Natural Selection on the global stage, and you're right. There's Evolution everywhere, from your genes, to the economy, to Geopolitics--Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest are the rule of the day. But what makes us Human is our ability to comprehend these things, and know when they are simply not right.

---

Moral correctness has as many definitions as there are stars in the night sky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Because I'm Canadian. I live in a country with litteraly millions of culturally french citizens. A unique twist on french culture that dates back 400 years. A culture that still exists as a distinctive group despite over 200 years of it trying to be erased and intgrated into the english derived majority.

Now the PRC (and when I say PRC I mean the government) is trying to dilute Tibetan resistance to their rule and their uniqueness by trucking in Han by the train load. And it will probably work. If the PRC can rig it so that their are as many or more Han than Tibetans in Tibet then they can hold on to the place indefinatly. It's the smart thing to do, it's what I'd do in their place.

---

LOL, this is hilarious. Trying to compare French in Canada to what the Chinese have been doing with Tibet. Oh, that's rich. :dizzy2:

I don't know why you guys are trying to argue with lars573. His worldview is one of social Darwinism, a theory that does not share the common bases from which most of us think and reason. If we do not share even the most elementary foundational principles, how can we expect to come to agreement on anything, except by coincidence?

Social Darwinism recks nothing of common values, such as morality, compassion, and respect for others. It gives no thought to beauty, diversity, or freedom, except possibly as means to an ambiguous end. It is cold, ruthless, and utterly devoid of feeling. It is the tyranny of a logic that, while seeming irrefutable, is ultimately myopic and blind.

The fallacies become more and more blatant the deeper one follows the logic. For example, lars573 has observed, as have many, that many people and cultures hold differing views on what constitutes moral correctness. At this, many have thrown up their hands in frustration, claiming that morality is all a sham, and that agreement on it is impossible to reach. This view has about as much merit as claiming that the physical sciences are all worthless, simply because scientists constantly refine and update their theories.

A deeper look at the various moral systems reveals that behind the peripheral differences are common basic principles. For example, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" has been discovered multiple times in different cultures. Do precise definitions on the specifics of what is moral and what is not change gradually over time, and differ from place to place? Absolutely; only a fool would deny it. Does this mean there are no constant, underlying principles do guide moral discovery? Absolutely not. Just as there are physical laws that govern the interaction of bodies in the physical world, there are moral principles that govern relationships between individuals.

I must point out one more obvious fallacy - that is, the claim that war targets the weak and foolish, leaving the strong to prosper. War may target the strong and fit even more easily than it targets the weak. Or do you think it is without thought that governments send their most fit, able-bodied, and intelligent men onto the battlefield, while those less able to fight are left behind? Can we so easily forget the horrors of World War I, when many European nations were denuded of entire generations of young, able-bodied men, dipping into their reserves of old men and children only as a last resort? I admit that my physical condition is such that I would probably not meet the US military's requirements for most positions, while a stronger, more physically fit man might be forced to risk his life instead.

By the basic principles of human decency and any reasonable moral standard, China's aggressive stance toward Taiwan is unacceptable, and any attempt to force Taiwan to accept Beijing's rule should be met with strength. The policies of the Chinese government continue to be determined by deluded men, who turn a blind eye to reality and care nothing for truth. As I have said before, everyone I have ever known from Taiwan heartily opposes a takeover by mainland China. My hope is that even this latest threat by the Chinese government changes nothing, and that Washington continues to stand staunchly by its Taiwanese allies.

Not only because it's in our best interests, but because it's the right thing to do.

I agree on wars effectively killing off the fittest and ablest first. It also tends to weed out the most aggressive and courageous. Can't seperate personality traits from the Darwinism either, although they are often overlooked since physical attributes in nature are far easier to measure.

very well put, Kommodus, and without insulting or belittling anyone, either ~;)
my hat is off to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kommodus

Social Darwinism recks nothing of common values, such as morality, compassion, and respect for others. It gives no thought to beauty, diversity, or freedom, except possibly as means to an ambiguous end. It is cold, ruthless, and utterly devoid of feeling. It is the tyranny of a logic that, while seeming irrefutable, is ultimately myopic and blind.

---

That is why I don't believe in social Darwinism. It's really a good example of why conformity to 1 belief system limits you far too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kommodus

The fallacies become more and more blatant the deeper one follows the logic. For example, lars573 has observed, as have many, that many people and cultures hold differing views on what constitutes moral correctness. At this, many have thrown up their hands in frustration, claiming that morality is all a sham, and that agreement on it is impossible to reach. This view has about as much merit as claiming that the physical sciences are all worthless, simply because scientists constantly refine and update their theories.

---

Morality isn't a sham. But it's not carved in stone either. Morality is a moment by moment case by case ever evolving thing. Clinging to one set of rules in all situations and at all times means eventually you will fail and be destroyed. Look at the Roman catholic church.

Also that is why I can't fault the PRC for annexing Tibet or wishing to end the Chinese civil war by taking Taiwan. It (the PRC) wants to reunite the Chinese nation as they see it. That being China as it is now plus Outer Mongolia, Taiwan, and redrawn borders with Vietnam and India.

I would respond to that but it makes little sense to me.