China has keeped in peace nearly 30 years

[ofone]

China has keeped in peace nearly 30 years.As a part of national stratagem,in a long period,China will make a peaceful environment which can help the economy increasing rapidly.
And there is even not any actual reason can lead a war in easten world.
Have you ever think about it's possible that the latest advanced weapons of China such as J-10 or 094 will never be used in a real war until it retired.So what we discuss may be meaningless..........

[kickars]

Meaningless for real soldiers maybe. But very meaningful for us fans!

[FuManChu]

Have you ever think about it's possible that the latest advanced weapons of China such as J-10 or 094 will never be used in a real war until it retired.

I would hope that's the case - certainly when it comes to nuclear platforms.

[RedMercury]

Part of the point of having capability is deterrence and hence peacekeeping.

[FuManChu]

Part of the point of having capability is deterrence and hence peacekeeping.

I question the ability of nuclear weapons to contribute towards peacekeeping, because if two powers have them then it's not unlikely one will decide a war can be fought conventionally (as the other wouldn't want to start a nuclear holocaust). Then if one party gets desperate, there's the possibility of tens of millions of people dying unnecessarily.

The only thing nuclear weapons are actually useful for is to dissuade another nuclear power from using its WMD on you. Even then they can make you a target.

[DPRKUnderground]

Bombs going off in East Turkestan doesn't sound very peaceful to me.

[kickars]

Bombs going off in East Turkestan doesn't sound very peaceful to me.

what the hell are you talking about???:nono:

[BLUEJACKET]

Using one level of analysis, China avoided a major war; but using a different level of analysis, the PRC was involved, one way or the other, in many conflicts since getting the A-bomb: Korea stalemate, India (1962), on Soviet border (1969), Vietnam (1960s-1973, 1979), and internal unrest (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FK16Ad01.html)- Sinkiang is just the latest chapter in this sequence!
Uighur and Turkic peoples uprisings still come up now and then.http://www.swans.com/library/art13/mgc203.html

India, China, Tibet and NEFA (http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=174&page=24)

[Finn McCool]

Don't forget Tibet. There is nothing to call the Chinese invasion of Tibet but agression and conquest.

Other than that, China under the communists has not fought a war except to protect its vital interests and homeland. I don't think its earned its bad reputation.

[eecsmaster]

then what do you call the Indian, British, and American actions in Tibet that directly let to it being trampled under the columns of the PLA?

I digress.

[kickars]

Don't forget Tibet. There is nothing to call the Chinese invasion of Tibet but agression and conquest.

Other than that, China under the communists has not fought a war except to protect its vital interests and homeland. I don't think its earned its bad reputation.

I totally agree with you if the topic of this thread is 'China has kept in peace since its independence'. But sadly the original topic of this thread is 'China has kept peace NEARLY 30 YEARS'!

I know some of you will still say Tibet and Xinjiang still have problems. But they are just internal problems now. So really you can't count them in, can you? Coz they are already parts of PRC now! And at the end of the day we humans are all from Africa, aren't we? If you think Tibet and Xinjiang are still 'not in peace'. Coz they are still occupied by foreigners(Chinese).Then everywhere else in the world (except Africa) are all in wars now!

Anyway, this thread was an good healthy thread until DPRKUnderground made a 'strange' comment. So now it's the time for somebody to close this thread before people get really exited.

[FuManChu]

then what do you call the Indian, British, and American actions in Tibet that directly let to it being trampled under the columns of the PLA?

What actions did such powers make that required the Chinese invasion of the 1950s? CIA support for the Tibetan fighters only occured after China took control in the first place.

[eecsmaster]

this is where modern interpretations come to play.

From the Chinese perspective (which, by the way, is based on cultural norms and has never changed), Tibet was an extension of the Qing dynasty, and therefore, part of whatever party that lays claim to the country. However, the CCP, or the KMT for that matter, did not have the resources (or in KMT's case, did not see the need for such) to solidify its hold on the region.

This was interpreted as a sign of weakness, and well, you know the rest. The ruling class was incited to rebellion, they got weapons from the Indians, the Americans, and the British. Some were even sent to America for military training. Then the Red Horde rolled in and, well, killed a lot of people.

[FuManChu]

this is where modern interpretations come to play.

I think your interpretation is rather questionable. It is a simple fact that China invaded and occupied Tibet. It then exerted an increasingly repressive rule over the people there - they rose up because they were being treated poorly, not because the Chinese leadership was "weak".

[eecsmaster]

about a quarter of the world's population does not agree with you.

And it's simple fact that three countries had hands in the uprising.

BTW, CCP rule in Tibet after 49 and before 56 was very hands off.

[FuManChu]

about a quarter of the world's population does not agree with you.

Lol, so? You know perfectly well that Chinese are far too biased on territorial matters to be regarded as objective. They are fed propaganda by the government as children, with contrasting views rarely allowed in the public domain - what else are they going to think? Besides India is almost as large as China these days - the people there generally take the opposite view.

So the point you're making above is irrelevant - the mob doesn't decide how history should be interpreted.

[Schumacher]

........ Again they would generally disagree with you.

And u know this how ?

[eecsmaster]

I merely offer interpretations. You like to stay on the high horse with no corresponding merit. I assure you, if you want this to turn into a shouting match, I would win.

So please, instead of acting like an ass and a bigot, do offer up some real material, otherwise, piss off.

Oh, the mob you so viciously deny sure as hell decide how history is written. Ever read American history? What the hell do you think democracy is? But let's not get into this.

[FuManChu]

And u know this how ?

I removed the comments before I read your post.

I merely offer interpretations. You like to stay on the high horse with no corresponding merit.

So it's ok for you to offer interpretations but I cannot? Isn't that rather hypocritical?

So please, instead of acting like an ass and a bigot, do offer up some real material, otherwise, piss off.

I could say the same to you, given you haven't offered any "real material" either.

[Schumacher]

Schumacher, how long does it take you to type and post five words? Please check for updates before you reply to a message.
.......

lol, u were quick to change what u wrote weren't u ? Must have realized it looked pretty much like u're making things up again. Or did u change it after I asked for some semblance of proof to back up what u said ?

[FuManChu]

lol, u were quick to change what u wrote weren't u ?

And you still have this inability to check whether people have edited their posts before you reply. It's very easy, do you need me to explain how?

Must have realized it looked pretty much like u're making things up again.

More that I knew there was no source I could present that would satisfy people like yourself and ecc, so there was no point in trying to get blood out of a stone.

[eecsmaster]

I removed the comments before I read your post.



So it's ok for you to offer interpretations but I cannot? Isn't that rather hypocritical?



I could say the same to you, given you haven't offered any "real material" either.

well let's see, a whiteboy from UK who's probably never been to China saying that the Chinese are too biased for anything...

not understand that there isn't any PLA presence in Tibet until after the revolt, which was incited by the aforementioned countries...

pretending to understand internal Chinese history while you don't read a character of Chinese, and can't speak the language...

The reason why I don't offer "real material" is because the stuff I say is true, unlike your highness. I would suggest that you don't pull anymore bullshit on me. I'm not getting a major in liberal arts.

[Schumacher]

And you still have this inability to check whether people have edited their posts before you reply. It's very easy, do you need me to explain how?

More that I knew there was no source I could present that would satisfy people like yourself and ecc, so there was no point in trying to get blood out of a stone.

Most don't flip-flop as much, they usually think before writing something & stick to it. Sorry, I'll know better next time with u.

Yes, I suspected u had no source, no surprises there.

[FuManChu]

well let's see, a whiteboy from UK who's probably never been to China saying that the Chinese are too biased for anything...

What does me being "white" have to do with anything? Your skin-colour doesn't dictate what you understand about a country! That's the sort of argument a kid uses.

And, yes, I have been to China, actually.

Now I see you've completely ignored the point I made, so I take it your silence means you can't disagree with it.

not understand that there isn't any PLA presence in Tibet until after the revolt, which was incited by the aforementioned countries...

Wrong, PLA troops entered Tibet in 1950 - the uprising didn't start until years later.

pretending to understand internal Chinese history while you don't read a character of Chinese, and can't speak the language...

Well, you know, it's funny. It may surprise you, but there are books in English about Chinese history. Amazing I know, but I promise it's true.

The reason why I don't offer "real material" is because the stuff I say is true, unlike your highness.

Hahahaha, so you don't have to produce evidence because you're "right"? Again, that's what children do.

"I don't have to prove I'm right - you prove me wrong!"

Most don't flip-flop as much, they usually think before writing something & stick to it.

Well, geez, if you don't like people using the edit button ask Webby to remove it. But while it's there it's rather petty of you to complain about me using it.

[eecsmaster]

you're right, PLA did have a significant presence in Tibet before 54, my apologies.

"Now I see you've completely ignored the point I made, so I take it your silence means you can't disagree with it."

of course I disagree with it, or else I wouldn't have made a ruckus. They're just as biased as you are.

"Well, you know, it's funny. It may surprise you, but there are books in English about Chinese history. Amazing I know, but I promise it's true."

ever heard of lost in translation? It is inevitable that texts are biased.

"Hahahaha, so you don't have to produce evidence because you're "right"? Again, that's what children do."

so can I expect explicit references from now on?

and I do admit that my statement was rather childish. My understanding of hardwares is much better, I assure you.

[Schumacher]

.......Well, geez, if you don't like people using the edit button ask Webby to remove it. But while it's there it's rather petty of you to complain about me using it.

Let's not argue abt edit button shall we ? Was merely using that to relate to how u often seem to make things up.

[The_Zergling]

Gentlemen, let's rein in the unnecessary banter here. It doesn't matter who somebody is, as long as they can make a point then location, ethnicity, language spoken etc. is irrelevant. Likewise, if the point is null then you SHOULD be able to refute it with facts without resorting to pointless flame-baiting. Frankly I don't see this topic going anywhere constructive. Keep it up and it'll just get closed.

[FuManChu]

you're right, PLA did have a significant presence in Tibet before 54, my apologies.

No problem.

of course I disagree with it, or else I wouldn't have made a ruckus. They're just as biased as you are.

Ecc, when you start saying things like "1/4 of the world's population/1.3 billion people disagree with you", you're going to leave yourself open to criticism of the way those people are educated. Of course not all Chinese are incapable of discussing Tibet - there are many thoughtful people who have looked at the matter from both sides and not just gone with one view.

But you know that China does push a POV very heavily and restricts access to contrary views - that isn't the case in the UK. So let's not try to discuss matters by using points like "X laymen agree with me".

ever heard of lost in translation? It is inevitable that texts are biased.

There is bias in all academic commentary, but that doesn't mean non-local language books can't do a good job on the subject in question.

so can I expect explicit references from now on?

I've already made a specific point on the bit about PLA troops not entering Tibet until after the uprising started.

and I do admit that my statement was rather childish.

I should have been less unpleasant towards you as well.

[ofone]

it seems that most of yours do not have any acknowledges about the territory of qing dynasty which include part of the middle asia,part of Vietnam,whole Mongolia and part of south Siberia.

Tibet and xinjiang to china is just as the north Ireland to UK.and taiwan to china is just as Jerusalem to Israel.
No one can make argy-bargys on this things.

[FuManChu]

it seems that most of yours do not have any acknowledges about the territory of qing dynasty which include part of the middle asia,part of Vietnam,whole Mongolia and part of south Siberia.

Well China has given up its claim to South Siberia and recognised Russian control of it, so territory claimed by the Qing Dynasty isn't relevant any more.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Well China has given up its claim to South Siberia and recognised Russian control of it, so territory claimed by the Qing Dynasty isn't relevant any more.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense watsoever. It is like the difference between American control of Texas and American claims in British Columbia...

[kickars]

Well China has given up its claim to South Siberia and recognised Russian control of it, so territory claimed by the Qing Dynasty isn't relevant any more.

Hi FuManChu, UK has given up India, US, South Africa....... So, does that mean UK's control of Northern Ireland and Falkland aren't relevant any more? No, of coz not! So please everyone just stop talking about politics now! Coz in politics nobody is RIGHT or WRONG!!! Why people can't just understand this simple truth??? Let just talk about pure military from now on!

[FuManChu]

Your statement makes absolutely no sense watsoever.

No, it makes perfect sense. If China has recognised Russian control of land claimed under Qing government, then that means the concerns of the current leadership take precedent over what people back then thought. I never said China can't claim any of those lands - I said harping on about what people thought over a century ago isn't relevant to the discussion.

It is like the difference between American control of Texas and American claims in British Columbia...

I'm British, not American - so funnily enough my knowledge of American territorial disputes is patchy.

Hi FuManChu, UK has given up India, US, South Africa....... So, does that mean UK's control of Northern Ireland and Falkland aren't relevant any more?

If I was having a discussion over British sovereignty issues, I wouldn't drag up claims made in the 19th century to justify my position.

[kickars]

Sure, nobody should talk about things happened 100-300 years ago. Coz that won't do us any good. We should see what we can do best at the moment and in the future. And may I get everyone back to the original topic of this thread? It's about China has kept in peace for NEARLY 30 YEARS! If anyone of you want to talk about Chinese history or even time between 1949 and 1978, then may I suggest you start another different thread under 'Chinese Military History' section. Coz this thread really is about 80s forward China!!!

[Schumacher]

......

I'm British, not American - so funnily enough my knowledge of American territorial disputes is patchy.
.......

It seems your knowledge on Chinese issues is quite patchy as well.

[kickars]

It seems your knowledge on Chinese issues is quite patchy as well.

No personal attack from both sides, please! You will only make the other sides more pissed off!

[Schumacher]

No personal attack from both sides, please! You will only make the other sides more pissed off!

The guy was obviously just playing dumb saying he's not an American to avoid talking abt the American example. I just use the same logic to question his knowledge abt Chinese issues.

[FuManChu]

The guy was obviously just playing dumb saying he's not an American to avoid talking abt the American example.

Schumacher, how many Britons do you think know about that sort of stuff? Why should I know about it? I shouldn't, so quit complaining.

I just use the same logic to question his knowledge abt Chinese issues.

No, you were making a cheap shot and disrupting the thread even more.

[kickars]

Oh well, I've tried my best. Now I give up...

[bd popeye]

Gentlemen, let's rein in the unnecessary banter here. It doesn't matter who somebody is, as long as they can make a point then location, ethnicity, language spoken etc. is irrelevant. Likewise, if the point is null then you SHOULD be able to refute it with facts without resorting to pointless flame-baiting. Frankly I don't see this topic going anywhere constructive. Keep it up and it'll just get closed.

Thread closed

bd popeye super moderator