The Main Focus of the Taiwan-China Issue: Historical Rights or Systems of Government?

[Revoltingest]

I will take your listing facts of the
well known and obvious as abject
surrender to my superior Insight
in W. Pacific geopolitical psychoanalytics.

Do you have superior insight....or just
a preference for the Chinese agenda?
We might have different values too.
I'm a non-aggressionist.

 

[Audie]

Do you have superior insight....or just
a preference for the Chinese agenda?
We might have different values too.
I'm a non-aggressionist.

Re your first line, thats,a false
dichotomy, there is no difference.

As for non aggressionarianism, and
freedom of choice, I wish Hk had had the
chance to choose whether to become a
city state like Singapore.

That didn't happen, which is why I am here,
not in HK.

 

[Revoltingest]

Re your first line, thats,a false
dichotomy, there is no difference.

Hah!
You'd tell me that you have "The Truth"?

As for non aggressionarianism...

That sounds like a kind of farming.

...and
freedom of choice, I wish Hk had had the
chance to choose whether to become a
city state like Singapore.

That didn't happen, which is why I am here,
not in HK.

I suspect that we've more in common than
your alignment with China (the planned
takeover of Taiwan) suggests. You dwell in
a place with more liberty than Xi would
allow you.
May you never meet him in a dark alley.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hah!
You'd tell me that you have "The Truth"?

I suspect that we've more in common than
your alignment with China (the planned
takeover of Taiwan) suggests. You dwell in
a place with more liberty than Xi would
allow you.
May you never meet him in a dark alley.

Well, as long as you have luxury of having enough guns on your side, you can do pacifism all you like. But it may turn out that those with guns don't want to carry your dead weight.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, as long as you have luxury of having enough guns on your side, you can do pacifism all you like.

I'm a non-aggressionist, not a pacifist.
Have you missed all my blathering about
owning guns, & having been an engineer
designing weapon systems?

Old Revoltistanian saying....
"Walk softly, & care a big ****** gun with a high capacity magazine."

But it may turn out that those with guns don't want to carry your dead weight.

You truly are clueless about me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm a non-aggressionist, not a pacifist.
Have you missed all my blathering about
owning guns, & having been an engineer
designing weapon systems?

Old Revoltistanian saying....
"Walk softly, & care a big ****** gun with a high capacity magazine."

You truly are clueless about me.

Sorry.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry.

Now, sally forth, & sin no more.
Oh, don't worry...my trigger finger is not itchy.
I believe in peace, calm, hesitance, due consideration,
& giving others a generous benefit of doubt.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm a non-aggressionist, not a pacifist.
Have you missed all my blathering about
owning guns, & having been an engineer
designing weapon systems?

Old Revoltistanian saying....
"Walk softly, & care a big ****** gun with a high capacity magazine."

You truly are clueless about me.

Well, then you are tail and I used to be tooth. Welcome to FUBAR.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, then you are tail and I used to be tooth. Welcome to FUBAR.

To you I'm "tail", eh.
Sounds sexual.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To you I'm "tail", eh.
Sounds sexual.

Look up tail and tooth in a military sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

Look up tail and tooth in a military sense.

"Tail" here is a slang term for the object of one's lust.

Also, your military efforts would evaporate without
those of us who design your tools of war.
BTW, we always hope that our products would be
employed effectively & wisely. Alas, we endure
frequent disappointment.

 

[Audie]

Hah!
You'd tell me that you have "The Truth"?

That sounds like a kind of farming.

I suspect that we've more in common than
your alignment with China (the planned
takeover of Taiwan) suggests. You dwell in
a place with more liberty than Xi would
allow you.
May you never meet him in a dark alley.

Above "Truth" talk is what we in the
biz would reference as being outside
the corners of the page.

I'm not aligned with no ccp
on much of anything especially any
coercive change of status for taiwan.

 

[Revoltingest]

Above "Truth" talk is what we in the
biz would reference as being outside
the corners of the page.

I don't understand this.

I'm not aligned with no ccp
on much of anything especially any
coercive change of status for taiwan.

That I understand.
Good.

 

[Audie]

I don't understand this.

That I understand.
Good.

Conclusion beyond what was warranted
by the text of what I said.
Understandez- vous maintenant?

 

[Revoltingest]

Conclusion beyond what was warranted
by the text of what I said.
Understandez- vous maintenant?

No habla jibberz jabberz.

 

[JIMMY12345]

Most of the time when the subject of Taiwan and China comes up, I see the focus shifting to being about Taiwan's democracy versus China's iron-clad dictatorship. This seems perfectly understandable to me: most people, me included, would much rather live in a free democracy than under a genocidal dictatorship like that of the CCP if given the choice. However, isn't the historical right to the island of Taiwan an equally—if not more—central issue?

If China has no historical right to Taiwan, it seems to me that systems of government and the respective levels of freedom they provide are a red herring in this case: even if China were the world's most prosperous, free democracy, it would still have no right to unify Taiwan under one government. Taiwan's independence doesn't hinge on how much freedom and democracy the Chinese government provides or doesn't provide.

On the other hand, if China has a historical right to Taiwan, the system of government is merely a secondary issue. Many governments oppress a sizable portion of their populations, yet the international community most likely wouldn't recognize or support an independent Nation of Pakistani Atheists or a Republic of Saudi Humanists. The US probably wouldn't allow, say, California or Texas to secede either even if they ran a referendum and gained a majority of votes in favor of becoming their own country.

In your opinion, should the main focus in discussions about the Taiwan-China situation be about each country's system of government, or should it be about historical facts and rights to the island? Of course, the CCP's abusive policies make unification of Taiwan under their rule an even harder sell than it would otherwise be, and democracy and freedom are crucial subjects in the discussion as well. The question isn't whether systems of government should be in the discussion at all; it's whether they should be the main focus thereof.

What would happen if Mao and the Communists lost? If Chiang Kai Shek won and later Democrats were in charge of China I think people would be accommodating as to historical rights.

 

[Audie]

What would happen if Mao and the Communists lost? If Chiang Kai Shek won and later Democrats were in charge of China I think people would be accommodating as to historical rights.

There would have been no issue.

 

[lukethethird]

Most of the time when the subject of Taiwan and China comes up, I see the focus shifting to being about Taiwan's democracy versus China's iron-clad dictatorship. This seems perfectly understandable to me: most people, me included, would much rather live in a free democracy than under a genocidal dictatorship like that of the CCP if given the choice. However, isn't the historical right to the island of Taiwan an equally—if not more—central issue?

If China has no historical right to Taiwan, it seems to me that systems of government and the respective levels of freedom they provide are a red herring in this case: even if China were the world's most prosperous, free democracy, it would still have no right to unify Taiwan under one government. Taiwan's independence doesn't hinge on how much freedom and democracy the Chinese government provides or doesn't provide.

On the other hand, if China has a historical right to Taiwan, the system of government is merely a secondary issue. Many governments oppress a sizable portion of their populations, yet the international community most likely wouldn't recognize or support an independent Nation of Pakistani Atheists or a Republic of Saudi Humanists. The US probably wouldn't allow, say, California or Texas to secede either even if they ran a referendum and gained a majority of votes in favor of becoming their own country.

In your opinion, should the main focus in discussions about the Taiwan-China situation be about each country's system of government, or should it be about historical facts and rights to the island? Of course, the CCP's abusive policies make unification of Taiwan under their rule an even harder sell than it would otherwise be, and democracy and freedom are crucial subjects in the discussion as well. The question isn't whether systems of government should be in the discussion at all; it's whether they should be the main focus thereof.

Nato is looking for another war so they are supplying arms to Taiwan, getting involved by stirring up civil wars appears to be their MO. Now it's Ukraine, tomorrow Taiwan.

 

[Audie]

Nato is looking for another war so they are supplying arms to Taiwan, getting involved by stirring up civil wars appears to be their MO. Now it's Ukraine, tomorrow Taiwan.

Such twaddle.

 

[Revoltingest]

Such twaddle.

It's popular twaddle.