Plasmatron, I was referring to the fact that an attack from China on Taiwan will have unbearable costs on the world economy, and, in fact, China will have a lot more to loose than to win. In my opinion, the whole Taiwan thing (as all nationalists do) is meant to take people out of the real concerns in China. “The water you drink is bad - who cares, as long as we can be reunited with our brothers in Taiwan…” kind of story. So, TI is only about loosing face (and the possible reaction from the people in China), not about history or Chinese whatever.
mr_boogie,
After eliminating nationalism, you would also have no explanation for the on-going conflict in Kosovo/Serbia, Iraq, Kashmir, or Palestine. In other words, your understanding of the world is very flawed, and you have no place evaluating the Chinese perception of what would be “won” and “lost” in a cross-strait war.
China has fought the United States before, and she’d fight the United States again for Taiwan.
Sorry, Iraq is about the control of the oil, not about nationalism. Kashmir is about the control of the Kashmir wool, which is a gold mine for that impoverished area.
About Kosovo, a single sentence might be enough:
“Milošević survived the immediate aftermath of the war, but the effective loss of Kosovo was a major factor in provoking the popular revolt which overthrew him in 2000. He was subsequently arrested and taken to The Hague, where he died from natural causes in his cell, awaiting trial for crimes against humanity on 10 March 2006.” (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War).
I believe that the CCP has a hot potato in hand, because an attack to Taiwan might mean a world economic crisis that can eventually led to revolt and overthrow. On the other hand, Taiwanese Independence (more like Taiwanese Recognition) could lead to the same path as what happened in Serbia. So, for the CCP, the status quo also means that they can continue to use, on one hand, the Taiwan flag whenever they want, on the other, that they can keep with their economic recovery path.
[quote=“cctang”]
China has fought the United States before, and she’d fight the United States again for Taiwan.[/quote]
goody. let’s cut off our nose to spite our face.
are you somehow saying this is a good thing, mr tang?
Apparently, Lee Teng-hui made some statement this morning, or maybe yesterday, alluding that he didn’t support independence. This is surprising I think. Could we imagine him and Ma working together?
I agree with CC that we have to assume China would be willing to wage a war over Taiwan even if they regretted it. I also think the whole reunification campaign in China is mostly political smoke to keep the flames of democracy from kindling, but this doesn’t mean the people won’t require their leaders to fight such a war should Taiwan declare independence.
TI supporters are in a catch-22. How many among them, if given the power to, would actually go ahead and declare independence?
I’ve long been puzzled why attempts to form third, fourth and fifth political parties always target the vote to the extremes of the KMT and DPP positions. I would think someone would target the middle. This doesn’t have to be status quo either. Options like confederations, or regular referendums in Taiwan on joining (not declaring independence) China could be put forth, even if Beijing rejects them. Given time, Beijing might warm up to a compromise that had taken hold in the public imagination.
I don’t think the USA is in any position to open a 3rd front in their military campaign. So for the next 10-20 years one can effectively rule out USA dominance in the Pacific Rim. Or at least until USA shut down one of the other 2 fronts it is currently fighting. Not to mention North Korea is getting more attention than Taiwan these days.
The KMT seems like they are willing to at least work with the CCP to come to a consensus over the issue.
The DPP on the other hand seems more interested in promoting the concept of unilaterally declaring de jure independence and not actually declaring anything.
Which brings me to question does the DPP lack political conviction to their cause? Or is it because they respect democracy too much? Or is it because it is the KMT fault?
[quote=“urodacus”][quote=“cctang”]
China has fought the United States before, and she’d fight the United States again for Taiwan.[/quote]
goody. let’s cut off our nose to spite our face.
are you somehow saying this is a good thing, mr tang?[/quote]It’s a statement of fact. I’m not here recruiting for the PLA, nor do I expect Forumosa members to take an active role in any such war.
There are obvious, numerous disadvantages to fighting the United States. No one (except maybe military “enthusiasts”) actually look forward to the possibility. But no government can possibly serve the interests of her nation and her people if she’s unwilling to use military force to defend herself. This is as true in Taipei as it is in Beijing.
None of this is new to China. China has plenty of experience, within recent memory, of being forced to choose between trading off territory versus fighting a war. Giving away territory and accomodating international pressure has never given China a moment of security; the relative security that she has today was only won after decades of warfare and military strengthening.
No one familiar with Chinese history, or human nature in general, would argue that she should trust the United States or any other multilateral body to act in her interests.
Heh. :loco:
Kashmir is about control of “wool”? This is why India and Pakistan have fought in Himalayan glaciers? The goat which gives off kashmir down lives in a wide expanse of central Asia, including Mongolia, western China, and Pakistan. Oh, Wikipedia also adds this helpful comment:
Today, little is supplied by the Kashmir State of India , from which its name is derived. The cashmere products of this area first attracted the attention of Europeans in the early 1800s.
As far as Iraq, oil may be the underlying reason behind an American invasion, but it’s not why Iraqis are blowing themselves up in the hundreds, nor is it why thousands are flooding to the area. It’s also not why Irish were blowing up British civilians for decades, nor why Basques were blowing up Spaniards for decades.
[quote]About Kosovo, a single sentence might be enough:
“Milošević survived the immediate aftermath of the war, but the effective loss of Kosovo was a major factor in provoking the popular revolt which overthrew him in 2000. He was subsequently arrested and taken to The Hague, where he died from natural causes in his cell, awaiting trial for crimes against humanity on 10 March 2006.” (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War).[/quote]
I guess you’re unfamiliar with recent Serbian election results:
euronews.net/create_html.php?pag … 2310&lng=1
Your view of the world is remarkably myopic and shallow. Not only are you ignorant of cross-strait affairs, you seem to have minimal knowledge of affairs on your own continent.
cctang, sorry to say, but you did miss the point. When Serbia lost the control of Kosovo, people started to look at things as they where really. Milošević gained power at the cost of Kosovo, and lost the power when people started to understand that the ones being massacred where the Albanians, and not the Serbs.
From answers.com
“Initially opposed to liberalization, he was elected president of Serbia in 1989 and proceeded to transform its Communist party into the nationalistic Socialist party. Milošević called for the inclusion of Serb areas in other republics in a “greater Serbia” as the price for Yugoslavia’s dissolution. He supported Serb forces in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina after the two became independent and was widely blamed for the Serbs’ military aggression and brutal “ethnic cleansing” policies, but he ultimately abandoned the Serbs outside Serbia, signing (1995) a peace accord.”
"A Serbian leader of the late twentieth century. After communism collapsed in Yugoslavia, Milosevic forcibly removed ethnic minorities, including Croatians, Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Albanians in Kosovo. His often brutal methods gave rise to the term ethnic cleansing.
His grip on power weakened during the Kosovo War, and in 2000 he was driven from office by Serbs, who were angered by the corruption of his government, the costly failure of his policies, and his attempt to rig his re-election to office. Soon after, he went on trial for war crimes before an international tribunal in The Hague. "
Sorry about the Cashmere mistake, I retract it to the real wording…
“The Kashmir issue, thus, is both about land and water.” (wikipedia) - don’t see where you put nationalism over here…
So let that be a lesson to all, “Taiwanese Nationalism” will lead to nothing good on Taiwan… :bravo:
df
cctang, neither Chinese Nationalism is… that way, you deprive more the KMT of function than the DPP
or anywhere else.
sdf
Isn’t Taiwanese Nationalism just a subset of Chinese Nationalism. Anyone who has taken the time to study Chinese history can plainly see TI faction aren’t doing anything new in trying to form their own Nation State.
The only thing new is that it is quite entertaining to laugh at TI and TI leaders have very little power to prevent being laughed at.
sdf
^ And of course Hakka and Hoklo leadership on Taiwan over the pass 18 years on Taiwan have been that much better.
Hoklo desire for dominance in Taiwan politics doesn’t equate “Taiwan Independence.” Surely you must have been paying attention to current events over the last 8 years.