Taiwan/China/US (1 Viewer)

[Panda Bear]

my eyes!

my beautiful eyes!

 

[berry580]

my eyes!

my beautiful eyes!

You like it, don't you?
But it's ok, you don't have to lick your monitor. LOL

 

[Panda Bear]

nah nah..

just tooo much reading

 

[leetom]

I agree totally with both of your statements, but with the second one- Do you see US troops out of the Pearl Harbour (Hawaii)?

I mean, it's really weird how US pushes this "I support China by selling Taiwan weapon" crap when, on any objective examination, the ROC are nothing more than Chinese rebels that had US supported in WWII and Chinese civil war and now they continue to supprt them while their claim to be with the Chinese (NOT US dog versions= Xxxxxxx).

Well thats a thing of the past now, you really should head about how effective the U.S. S.F. was against the Iraqis (in both war)

How can you campare Iraq's ability to defend itself against that of China's? So the US was able to walk over everything the Iraqis sent their way, but how many Iraqi soldiers do you think fought for Saddam? Very few. I'd say those who bothered to even fire on the Americans were doing so to defend Arabian pride.

If China wanted to psyche her troops up to fight the US, it would take only one quotation from the various cool things Mao has said during his time-
"Victory for the People's Heroes!"
and with that, the Chinese people would fight till the bloody end.

Does anybody know a girl who was at Melbourne airport earilier this week?

 

[leetom]

china should be at least 6 counties n e way
1. Tibet
2. East Turkistan
3. Manchuria
4. North China (capital Beijing)
5. Middle China (capital Shanghai)
6. South China (caiptal GuongDong)

I like that. China needs to break up into smaller states because she's just too bloody big. She can't provide for everybody- how can anybody keep records on a billion people? North China, where the current government would belong wouldn't be happy though because the amount of money Shanghai rolls in every year shits on the amount Beijing turns over.

 

[leetom]

I like your thinking Yep Mao would be turning in his grave ~~ You can think what ever you want about this guy but he was the what changed China from a country of poverty to what it is today ~~ A very powerful socialist power (Well personally I fell its more socialist then communist.)

You can support Americans and their ideology all you want and hate commuism as much or as little as you want ~~ but I'm a Chinese and I have no doubt in my mind, as does alot of other Chinese that if it wasnt for communism I'd be in some getto country town, probably a farmer why the nationalist will be controlling the country and exploiting the poor just as they did before communism which was why it was formed in the first place ~~ for equality ~~ although not perfect or as most pure ideaologist would have wanted it ~~ it was alot better then what it could have been.

On TiB's second point ~~ no there wont be a nuclear war ~~ China will not initate a nuclear war cuase of MAD (if you dont know what that stands for, then head for the books, history really is a great subject) ~~ Anyways China has god aweful airforce but have spent quite a bit in buying state of the art French war plaines and heavily discounted old Russian Migs and as every day pass the Difference in American and Chinese superiority shortens especially econoically.

If Jony Kerry win the election then America will cut massive funding to their military ~~ ~~ and the rest hasent happened yet.

How can China possibly be more Socialist than communist? In an ideal Socialist state you can VOTE for who you want. Does either Mandarin or Cantonese have a translation for the word 'vote' or 'to vote'?

I would say today's China is a communist state gone horribly, horribly wrong. The current government only use Mao and everything he did for China against the Chinese people as they make out that any revolt against the current government would be a revolt against Mao. It's not though, the Chinese should take to the streets. In fact, I'm going to go to China and incite a revolt. Communist states walk a thin line between harmony and corruption and sadly, it only takes one power hungry indiviual to ruin everything the people work so hard to establish.

 

[leetom]

i dunt know whether i should laugh my head off or be deeply disturbed.

What's there to be disturbed about?

by the way, earlier this week I got a roll of film developed. I'm too poor to afford a digital camera. Anyway, it was just numerous shots of me. Called it the 'Tom Lee experience'. It was really good, but I left it on the train so if anybody comes across I'd be thankful.

TiB, do you think we have a chance together? I think you're a few years older than me but that doesn't matter.

 

[berry580]

How can you campare Iraq's ability to defend itself against that of China's? So the US was able to walk over everything the Iraqis sent their way, but how many Iraqi soldiers do you think fought for Saddam? Very few. I'd say those who bothered to even fire on the Americans were doing so to defend Arabian pride.

If China wanted to psyche her troops up to fight the US, it would take only one quotation from the various cool things Mao has said during his time-
"Victory for the People's Heroes!"
and with that, the Chinese people would fight till the bloody end.

Does anybody know a girl who was at Melbourne airport earilier this week

Your totally off the track, mate.

Some guy claimed the US soldiers were poorly trained, stupid, etc according to a Vietnamese (possibly from the Vietnam War in the 70's), and what that Vietnamese had seen then and what US soldier are now is totally different. This can be told by US S.F's effectiveness against Iraqi troops. Regardless they're fighting for Saddam or not, they were up against the Americans, and I believe they do want their lives (which motivates them), but in the end they still lost in an alarming ratio, suggesting US soldiers are indeed trained (relatively) well and on top of that, they're also obviously well-epuiped.

I like that. China needs to break up into smaller states because she's just too bloody big. She can't provide for everybody- how can anybody keep records on a billion people? North China, where the current government would belong wouldn't be happy though because the amount of money Shanghai rolls in every year shits on the amount Beijing turns over.

EDIT:-
Do you even think what you said makes sense?
If you think it does, think again.

China is too big? Well its hardly the world's biggest country.
Can't provide for everybody? So you think India can?
Anybody probably can't keep records of a billion people, but computers can.
Even the United States of America wouldn't be happy if Russia took over America's position in Saudia Arabia.
Get the point? But in the end (according to your last post), your 'intelligence' told you China 'needs' to be broken into smaller states.
I tell you what? You think like a typical British/American politician.

 

[leetom]

Your totally off the track, mate.

Some guy claimed the US soldiers were poorly trained, stupid, etc according to a Vietnamese (possibly from the Vietnam War in the 70's), and what that Vietnamese had seen then and what US soldier are now is totally different. This can be told by US S.F's effectiveness against Iraqi troops. Regardless they're fighting for Saddam or not, they were up against the Americans, and I believe they do want their lives (which motivates them), but in the end they still lost in an alarming ratio, suggesting US soldiers are indeed trained (relatively) well and on top of that, they're also obviously well-epuiped.

EDIT:-
Do you even think what you said makes sense?
If you think it does, think again.

China is too big? Well its hardly the world's biggest country.
Can't provide for everybody? So you think India can?
Anybody probably can't keep records of a billion people, but computers can.
Even the United States of America wouldn't be happy if Russia took over America's position in Saudia Arabia.
Get the point? But in the end (according to your last post), your 'intelligence' told you China 'needs' to be broken into smaller states.
I tell you what? You think like a typical British/American politician.

Would a well trained military force succeed in killing 9000 civilians before they even managed to reach the enemy's capital? Would a well trained military use bombers to flush out a few militants in a residential area? Do you remember 'brave' Private Lynch? Her brilliant training served her well didn't it? Couldn't even load her weapon in a firefight! She broke under pressure and hid in her transport while her comrades were slaughtered.

If you rate the effectiveness of the US military based on their success in Iraq alone that's pretty unfair. How many Iraqis actually stood their ground and fought? Sure, the Americans are well trained when it comes to sorting thousands of deserters and surrendering soldiers.

I've thought about what I said and I think it to be a reasonable and sensible (though highly unlikely) solution to China's people-management problem. China splitting up into several smaller independant nations (that's what I meant by 'states') would partially solve China's people-management problem as she would not have to maintain jurisdiction over such a large amount of land and such a large amount of people.

As far you vast array of questions at the end, I will answer them for you.

Yes, I do believe China to be too big as she is clearly unable to provide aduquate facilities and services for all her citizens.

Not the biggest country in the world? Geographically, no. But she's still huge. I don't even have to look it up to know that the number of people to square kilometre in China is still MASSIVE.

That's right, China can not provide for everybody.

No, I do not think India can provide for everybody. In fact, it is well known that India cannot provide for all of its citizens.

I can imagine how unhappy the US would be if all of its assets in Saudi Arabia mysteriously seemed to belong to the Russians the next day.

As for the point you're trying to make, no, I do not get it. What point are you tring to make? Does anybody else understand what point he's trying to make?

My 'intelligence' told me that China 'needed' to break up into smaller states? No, my limited knowledge of the current situation in China has led me to think that breaking up into smaller, independant states (countries) would be beneficial for the Chinese people. Forgive my use of the word 'need'. Perhaps sometimes in the future China will be able to provide for all of its billion+ citizens.

I think like a British/American politician? Read the other stuff I've contributed to this thread.

 

[scoff]

Hey Leetom,
interesting angle on the break into smaller states stuff. Leaving aside the whole nationalistic kerfuff a la "all Serbs must live in Serbia" or a potential Chinese equivalent, have you read anything on "optimal currency areas"? This was abig topic when the EU introduced the Euro, as some economists claimed that even the US is too big to be an optimal currency area.

Basically, the approach says that, given we have different industries etc in different parts of large countries, broad economic policies that target one area may be inappropriate for another. For example, if Silicon Valley is overheating, cranking up interest rates (and hence the currency) may slow down the valley economy and inflation therein, but such dampening behaviour may be inappropriate for the North East steel belt.

Same sort of logic works in Europe. Germany was in recession due to absorbing the former DDR, but stimulationary policies applied, if across the EU, at that time would have disadvantaged countries like Portugal.

This seems to suggest that breaking China, at least economically, can be good. Recessionary regions (say "the west") can allow their regional currency to sink, and they would thereby become more competitive vis-a-vis the coastal regions; investment and job creation would be the natural market response. The people on the coast will then get cheaper stuff, those inland will get jobs.

 

[berry580]

Would a well trained military force succeed in killing 9000 civilians before they even managed to reach the enemy's capital? Would a well trained military use bombers to flush out a few militants in a residential area? Do you remember 'brave' Private Lynch? Her brilliant training served her well didn't it? Couldn't even load her weapon in a firefight! She broke under pressure and hid in her transport while her comrades were slaughtered.

Did the US army kill 9000 civilians?
If thats the case, Mr. Bush has a lot of explanations to do, or he would just blame it all on the army despite billions of dollars spent on training each year.
But as far as I'm concerned, I personally did not hear about those 9000 Iraqis killed by US forces.

If you rate the effectiveness of the US military based on their success in Iraq alone that's pretty unfair. How many Iraqis actually stood their ground and fought? Sure, the Americans are well trained when it comes to sorting thousands of deserters and surrendering soldiers.

Well the fact is, unlike maths, you can't 'prove' things like these.
But common sense tells us. How much funds has been put to US train soldiers?
How much have other countries spent?
I don't know which country has used their defence budget the most effeciently, but I'm more than sure America's fillingness to spend should be enough to outrun countries with slight higher training efficency.

I've thought about what I said and I think it to be a reasonable and sensible (though highly unlikely) solution to China's people-management problem. China splitting up into several smaller independant nations (that's what I meant by 'states') would partially solve China's people-management problem as she would not have to maintain jurisdiction over such a large amount of land and such a large amount of people.

Splitting China (or ANY country) up will only bring war. History repeats itself, and the more people like you exist, more likely it'll repeat again.
Split up China is a solution to China's people-management problem? Well as far as I'm concerned, no problem is bigger than warfares, and you can save your theories for your OWN country. If your a Chinese, stay out of China.

Yes, I do believe China to be too big as she is clearly unable to provide aduquate facilities and services for all her citizens.

Regardless in whatever condition a country is, a united country is ALWAYS better than a divided one. Ever heard of- Unity is power'? Besides, the PRC does NOT directly control the whole of China in one go, they're also like Australia and has different level of governments (i.e A federal and local governmemnt), and if this federal government is broken down, and turned into a few different governments, then each new government will receive less revenue but have more expenditure (e.g building excessive infrastructures (when all combined compared to a united government), but this problem would be eliminated when united).

Not the biggest country in the world? Geographically, no. But she's still huge. I don't even have to look it up to know that the number of people to square kilometre in China is still MASSIVE.

Is America big? And how come it doesn't have this 'people management problem'?
If America can do it, China can too. But instead, you suggested China to be divided so it will be weak and never get up again. Nice suggestion mate.
I can see how people help people now.
The British about 200 years ago sell opuim to people the China, and now the Americans demolish civilian houses down, control their oil revenues to help the Iraqis.

I love this world as much as how much I love you.

That's right, China can not provide for everybody.

China can not provide for everybody now, but China's economy is now growing and problems like these are gradually being solved. The problem is being solved in a slow pace, but dividing China would bring this pace to a negative, as war would be on it way.
So you prefer war than this temporary problem.

No, I do not think India can provide for everybody. In fact, it is well known that India cannot provide for all of its citizens.

So you congradulate a bronze Olympic medalist before a gold Olympic medalist.

I can imagine how unhappy the US would be if all of its assets in Saudi Arabia mysteriously seemed to belong to the Russians the next day.

And can't imagine how unhappy China would be if all of its assets in China mysteriously seemed to belong to Chinese traitors/American d--- s---ers the next day?

My 'intelligence' told me that China 'needed' to break up into smaller states? No, my limited knowledge of the current situation in China has led me to think that breaking up into smaller, independant states (countries) would be beneficial for the Chinese people.

The word 'limited' that you've use had explained alot.
Please, don't try do trigonmetry before doing primary level plus & minus maths.

I don't how your theory is suppose to work, but either way, this theory of your's has been proven too many times in history to be a disaster.

Forgive my use of the word 'need'. Perhaps sometimes in the future China will be able to provide for all of its billion+ citizens.

Thank you.

As for the point you're trying to make, no, I do not get it. What point are you tring to make? Does anybody else understand what point he's trying to make?

I'm trying to point out you're trying solve a problem by bringing idiotic solutions.

 

[Jago]

can anyone summarise whats been happening in this thread? cbf'ed reading 4 pages of people breaking up quotes, that just hurts my eyes.

P.S. war in china = bad. Just wait till all my relatives are all over here thx.

 

[berry580]

can anyone summarise whats been happening in this thread? cbf'ed reading 4 pages of people breaking up quotes, that just hurts my eyes.

P.S. war in china = bad. Just wait till all my relatives are all over here thx.

Very sorry about that.
But answering it bit by bit with quotes makes me feel more organised.

In summary- Some guy suggested China 'needs' to be separated into a few countries (a 'Taiwan example' isn't enough), so that it'll 'benefit' the Chinese. (He has a great aim :uhhuh: )
And I suggest that his theory would bring more trouble more than benefits (to the Chinese).

Another part of the discussion is that he believe US soldiers ain't well train because a Vietnamese war veteren from the Vietnam War era said so.
And I suggested modern US soldiers are relatively well train as can be seen in both Gulf Wars. And he claimed all the Americans could do is kill civilians and guard P.O.W's. And said its quite hard to prove if a soldier is 'well trained' or not, but judging by the money spent on them, it must be assumed they're well trained.

 

[Frigid]

firstly i believe because of the close economic ties between the three countries, the threat of war is a small one even if political brinksmanship is tested to its limits.

secondly, regards the suggestion that we ought to break up china into smaller states (as if the current government would allow that), think about this - there is obviously a HUGE socio-economic divide between the cities and the countryside - so say, compare the areas of guangzhou and north-west for example. therefore, if china is broken up into smaller city-states, the economic rift will become greater because there will be no socio-economic support from a centralised government. as a result, the poor will get poorer and the rich will become richer.

the crux, in my opinion, of any issue relating to china is that of her copious population: how can a country support 1.3 billion people (reported, so obviously the real number is somewhat greater) with a GDP growth rate of 9% (reported, but some economists estimate growth is as high as 13%).

when i went to beijing and guangzhou recently, what i observed is that the large population problem causes all other problems: the necessity of strict government control to maintain stability (hence the need for a firm single govenment), the gigantic rift between rich and poor (i mean com'on, the 9.8 million RMB Bentley was sold on the first day of the recent Beijing Auto Show, but i see disabled kids begging in the streets of Xi Dan, Beijing), population aging because of one-child policy (less young people, more old people), corruption (a recent example might be the bad-bad government officials who stole olympic money!) et alia... too many people = too many social problems *le sighe*...

basically i'm saying that the China issue is not as simple as it seems (it is not *just* an ideological issue). i would like to think that China just needs more time to sort out her problems and in time, due to economic integration and dependence, the question of taiwan will be solved of its own accord.

in the end, like people, it is prosperity and money that nations seek, not the maintenance of a single ideology.

 

[...]

from the white house, apparently Gong Zi Man (however u spell him, the "retired" president pf china) stated that the taiwan/china issue will be solved before 2020..

woah

 

[truly-in-bliss]

i think taiwan is gonna go independent during the beijing olympics.. cuz they think they wont get attacked cuz china wants the whole internaitonal reputaiton thing..

and yes my eyes too... i am gonna go drink some shots and come bk and read this....

and jimmy... best wishes for ur grandad *hug*

 

[Jago]

Very sorry about that.
But answering it bit by bit with quotes makes me feel more organised.

In summary- Some guy suggested China 'needs' to be separated into a few countries (a 'Taiwan example' isn't enough), so that it'll 'benefit' the Chinese. (He has a great aim :uhhuh: )
And I suggest that his theory would bring more trouble more than benefits (to the Chinese).

Another part of the discussion is that he believe US soldiers ain't well train because a Vietnamese war veteren from the Vietnam War era said so.
And I suggested modern US soldiers are relatively well train as can be seen in both Gulf Wars. And he claimed all the Americans could do is kill civilians and guard P.O.W's. And said its quite hard to prove if a soldier is 'well trained' or not, but judging by the money spent on them, it must be assumed they're well trained.

haha china separated....yeah right. The americans are trained very well, but the australia SAS owns them hard. That's a fact. The SAS is the best trained in the world. I read something about that a while ago. Google if you don't believe me.

 

[berry580]

haha china separated....yeah right. The americans are trained very well, but the australia SAS owns them hard. That's a fact. The SAS is the best trained in the world. I read something about that a while ago. Google if you don't believe me.

Yeah, I have heard about the news over Australian Special Forces were rate the best in the world. But I thought it was the Delta Force, not the SAS..... (or did memory serve me wrong?)

 

[Jago]

I seem to recall it being the SAS, not 100% though.

 

[leetom]

Frigid, I do not think that needing to maintain stability amongst China's large population is reason enough for the one-party system. I think that if the Chinese people were allowed to vote for a second or third party, services and facilities would arrive for impoverished Chinese more quickly than the current government promises. The Chinese are an ordely people, I do not think Chinese society would be destablised if the people were allowed to vote for their preferred government.


The people would vote for a party that promised to attend to China's poverty problem. (Well, such a party would at least win an election as poor peasants are the overwhelming majority). Then, to retain power, a party will have to prove that they are indeed doing something to resolve the problem. The people will choose to remove a government that neglects their needs and award a government that attempts to help them.

As a result, the major parties would be doing their very best to please the peasants which would greatly hasten the effort to aid poor Chinese. The one party system results in waves of currupt officials because they know that there's no risk of them being ousted from office, no matter how disgrunteld the people are. (I think the guys who were stuffing their pockets from money set aside for the olympics best represents this).

To the guy with breasts in his avatar, I hope you learned something from this post. I critisise Frigid's post in a civilised manner and I think he will respond in an equally civilised manner. I do not claim Frigid isn't any good at trig just because I don't agree with what he has posted. I do not enjoy being told I wouldn't stand a chance with trig after the hours I have put into my Mathematics course (preliminary). Also, I doubt girls are attracted to a guy with a pic of tits in his avater. I would suggest replacing it. Would you be attracted to a chick if she had a picture of a dick in her avater?

Scoff, I don't know of 'optimal currency areas'. It sounds like a good idea though. Sorry, I'm just a yr 11 radical with no solutions to anything.