Has your country ever invaded other country or been invaded?

merquiades

Senior Member
English (USA Northeast)
Yes, I've often noticed the striking parallelism between Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan.
Russia and China are destined to become partners. Claims to territory based on historical links or geography is not a popular idea in the western world today and pretty much rejected outright. That even goes for places like Gibraltar and the Falklands/Malvinas.
 
Last edited:
  • henter

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    I have no intention to put elderly people down. That Pelosi is an exception. I don't regret throwing shade at her or slagging her off. I don't want to dissemble my national identity. I'm Chinese. Therefore, I think I have the duty to speak for China and savage her for trying to sow the seeds of division between Chinese mainland and that island called Taiwan, which is and will be part of China forever.

    For all Taiwanese secessionists' strenuous efforts to secede from China and strident criticisms of One-China policy, there is no denying that Taiwan is part of China. Even Taiwanese TV networks have produced dramas featuring Chinese history and ancient fairy tales. The so-called Greens have two TV networks in Taiwan, both of which support the ruling DDP. Yet the two networks have produced dramas that tell TV viewers how the Qing dynasty ruled this island called Taiwan, particularly a story featuring Jiaqing Emperor and his adventure in Taiwan. Beyond that, Tsai Ing-wen herself once said she's Chinese.

    Chinese is my native language , so I'd like to dwell on it in Chinese if you guys don't mind. I take exception to what merquiades said here. So If he also speaks Chinese, then I'd like to reason with him in Chinese. If he doesn't know anything about Chinese culture or doesn't even speak Chinese, then he would be well advised to study Chinese first before banging on about the need for a shifty politician like Pelosi to protect that island.

    I'm told that her husband stands accused of making fistful of money with her wife's help. Fox News and the Newe York Times all claim that Pelosi has furnished her husband with investing tips related to chip stocks. And Taiwan's TSMC happens to be the biggest chip-maker. Another game-changer in this field is ASML.
     
    Last edited:

    zhg

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    Claims to territory based on historical links or geography is not a popular idea in the western world today and pretty much rejected outright.
    There is nothing to claim here. It is a simple fact that Taiwan IS a part of China.

    The One China policy refers to a United States policy of strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan. It "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China" and "does not challenge that position."(Wiki)
     

    Pedro y La Torre

    Senior Member
    English (Ireland)
    The problem for you, henter, is that Englishmen in the American colonies were British until they weren't. The notion that English colonists constituted a separate nation was a laughable thesis in 1700. It was considerably less amusing by 1800 and today you'd be seen as a crackpot if you maintained that Americans and Britons were one nation.

    Can the Chinese Communist Party compel loyalty in Taiwan given all that has occurred since 1949? Who knows? How many people are you willing to kill to achieve it is also the question that Putin had to answer, and the final result is not yet in.
     
    Last edited:

    henter

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    There is nothing to claim here. It is a simple fact that Taiwan IS a part of China.

    The One China policy refers to a United States policy of strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan. It "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China" and "does not challenge that position."(Wiki)
    The problem for you henter is that Englishmen in the American colonies were British until they weren't. The notion that English colonists constituted a separate nation was a laughable thesis in 1700. It was considerably less amusing by 1800 and today you'd be seen as a crackpot if you maintained that Americans and Britons were one nation.

    That's circumstances for you. Can the Chinese Communist Party compel loyalty in Taiwan? Who knows? How many people are you willing to kill to achieve it is also the question that Putin had to answer, and the final result is not yet in.
    I also raise an objection to what Putin is doing in Ukraine. Some of my Chinese fellows have scolded me for not siding with Russia as well. Like it or lump it, Taiwan is not Ukraine. The KMT fled to that island after Mao's troops vanquished Chiang Kai-shek's troops. Chiang Kai-shek himself insisted that Taiwan is part of China just like mainland China when he was still alive. He was even thinking about dispatching his troops to mainland China to beat out Mao's troops. To his consternation, even his American consultants tried to dissuade him from taking risks. In effect, Chiang Kai-shek even rationalized his futile attempts to make a comeback by suppressing the local dissidents scornful of him. Some dissidents formed the party called the DDP in Taiwan after the KMT decided to go easy on them.
     
    Last edited:

    Pedro y La Torre

    Senior Member
    English (Ireland)
    As a wise man once said, that was then and this is now. The Taiwanese themselves will decide if they are Chinese like everyone else or not. The experience of Hong Kong would hardly entice people to plump for an SAR model within the People's Republic of China. Of course, if mainland China decides to compel Taiwan by force, all bets are off.
     
    Last edited:

    merquiades

    Senior Member
    English (USA Northeast)
    There is nothing to claim here. It is a simple fact that Taiwan IS a part of China.

    The One China policy refers to a United States policy of strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan. It "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China" and "does not challenge that position."(Wiki)
    It may have been a simple fact in 1949 but that is no longer the case. 73 years is a long time, a lifetime for most people. There are many differences nowadays between the two countries and more are likely to develop.

    The people living in Taiwan will decide what their future will be, whether that is unification or a lasting break with mainland China.
     

    Bonjules

    Senior Member
    German
    Can the Chinese Communist Party compel loyalty in Taiwan given all that has occurred since 1949? Who knows? How many people are you willing to kill to achieve it is also the question that Putin had to answer, and the final result is not yet in.
    The similarities and differences are interesting indeed. In both cases it seems to me that the leaders would tolerate/have tolerated the development of a separate identity as long as they could maintain the idea and appearance of the 'breakaway part' recognizing and respecting the historico-cultural ties and not actively opposing or denying them.
    Never under-estimate the 'thymotic sensibilities' of statesmen/leaders, especially of the ones that feel insecure to begin with
    (China though looks a lot more confident and self-assured these days). Their disregard probably has triggered as much conflict
    historically as plain/brute power considerations; aspirations of empire or past glory thrive when you feel disregarded, brushed aside (not 'respected') or outright threatened.
    The Ukrainian leadership was of course keenly aware of that as they were aware of the probable consequences (they were quite obvious, weren't they) and chose to play up the game nonetheless (the Taiwanese seem to be a little more cautious, but apparently not much).
     

    Pedro y La Torre

    Senior Member
    English (Ireland)
    Unfortunately for the PRC, there's no Crimea-type area that is eager to return to the motherland, which they could then utilize as a base for further operations. It makes perfect sense that the PRC is leery of engaging in a seaborne invasion of Taiwan for it would probably end in disaster (then again, like the old Soviet Union, China can afford to sustain heavy casualties).

    The Chinese authorities appear to have been caught off-guard by this; there were pictures doing the rounds yesterday of Chinese tanks driving along beaches on the shore opposite Taiwan and, later, driving into the sea. An obvious (and pretty stupid) publicity stunt.
     
    Last edited:

    zhg

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    It may have been a simple fact in 1949 but that is no longer the case. 73 years is a long time, a lifetime for most people. There are many differences nowadays between the two countries and more are likely to develop.

    The people living in Taiwan will decide what their future will be, whether that is unification or a lasting break with mainland China.
    This is still the case nowadays. Any country that has an established relation with PRC or ROC, including the US, has agreed that "there is only one China in the world, and Taiwan is a part of China".

    Because Taiwan is a part of China, the people living in Taiwan could not decide the future of the Island alone. Its fate remains to be determined by all the Chinese people together from both sides of the Strait. Believe it or not the reunification will happen, it is only a matter of how and when.
     
    We must not forget that Pelosi is welcome in Taiwan. All reports show that the president, the government and the Taiwanese people are besides themselves with glee.

    Peking is not going to seduce the Taiwanese with their war games and harsh discourse. They need to show them why they should want to be Chinese. Taiwan has been in the western sphere since 1949. They didn't go through Communism and their mindset is different. They don't want to be China. At the moment, Pelosi gets cheers, not Xi Jinping.

    There are thousands of westerners in Taiwan, both visitors and residents. Pelosi wasn't alone on her plane either. She is just one woman of many. So she supports Taïwan. She's far from the only one.
    China has a lot of work to do in Taiwan. We cannot shout "one China" and hope to take the island with the snap of a finger. China must merit Taiwan's interest and today it has pushed Taiwan further away. If that were Pelosi's intention then she was indeed successful.
    The terrible things happening in Hong Kong aren't going to sway the Taiwanese opinion toward China either. They'd have done better staying British.

    I don't think China could enter the beauty contest you propose--unless the US flag starts to fly over Beijing.
    Taiwan is subsidized and militarized by continuing billions of US aid. Two billion a year has just been proposed. U.S. Republicans want billions for Taiwan military aid to counter China For a population a bit more than New York State's.

    There are wealthy private corporations and and a wealthy pro-US elite, since the 1950s. Indeed this elite governed by military dictatorship, KMT (US backed) till around 1990, when some sort of democratization began. If you want an analogy, consider S. Vietnam, under Diem around 1960. He was supported and his army bankrolled by the US. So realisticaly was there going to be a fair contest as you describe where the people vote Diem or Ho chi minh?

    Consider British outposts like Falkland's or Gibraltar. Could Argentina or Spain (respectively) woo them back?

    Taiwan is like a US aircraft carrier parked 100 miles off the coast. Its denizens (the crew, so to say) are living at a high, subsidized standard, better than China and most of Asia. What will the Chinese mainland government contemplate? Consider the US response since 1950s when a *single island* off its coast became controlled (they said) by a distant power. Perhaps you remember a US sponsored invasion. A foreign outpost just offshore is not going to be tolerated by a great power. Just as Russia will greatly oppose the Ukraine becoming a US ally and stationing US missiles at the Ukraine-Russia border.
     

    Pedro y La Torre

    Senior Member
    English (Ireland)
    A foreign outpost just offshore is not going to be tolerated by a great power. Just as Russia will greatly oppose the Ukraine becoming a US ally and stationing US missiles at the Ukraine-Russia border.
    Of course it won't. Only the deluded and the bought priesthood believe that the United States will stand idly by while a peer competitor emerges and threatens its dominance (and that dominance is not predicated on democracy, human rights or whatever other talking points are spouted by the likes of Mike Pompeo, Tom Cotton or Nancy Pelosi). It is still US national security policy to prevent the rise of a true peer competitor. Indeed, Russia, China and the US are fundamentally similar in this regard and always have been. War between the US-led bloc and China is highly likely at some point in the future. These nuclear-armed imperialist powers remain a grave threat to us all as they seek to muscle each other out of the way in a bid for regional or global supremacy.

    And when examining what China has done, the evidence is clear: while the nation obviously wants to be a major power in East Asia, and while it hopes to one day conquer Taiwan, there’s little to suggest that, in the short term at least, it aims to replace the United States as the regional, let alone global, hegemon. Neither China’s increased military budget (which pales in comparison to the United States’ $800 billion) nor its foreign development aid (which is not linked to a recipient country’s politics) indicates that it desires domination. In fact, Chinese leaders, who tolerate the presence of tens of thousands of troops stationed near their borders, appear willing to allow the United States to remain a major player in Asia, something Americans would never countenance in the Western Hemisphere.

    Ironically, liberal internationalists are imposing their own goals for hegemony onto China. Their commitment to armed primacy—a commitment that has led to war after war—threatens to increase tensions with a country that Americans must cooperate with to solve the real problems of the twenty-first century: climate change, pandemics, and inequality. When compared with these existential threats, the liberal internationalist obsession with primacy is a relic of a bygone era. For the sake of the world, we must move beyond it.

    Empire Burlesque, by Daniel Bessner - Harper's Magazine
     
    Last edited:
    Top