china/taiwan news


Status
Not open for further replies.

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
This is wrong analogy. If the USSR advanced into European countries, it would be naked invasion against other sovereign countries and the invaded countries would fight them with all they had. The USSR did not have the will to launch such offensive. On the other hand, when Nazi Germany invaded the USSR, the Russian people made huge sacrifices to fight against the Nazi. I'm pretty sure you're very familiar with that part of the history.

The notion that the US's "credibility" would be on the line and would be "kicked out of Western Pacific" is ludicrous and is argued to deter China's inevitable unification of Taiwan. Weighting someone's credibility, even that of the almighty U.S.A., against Chinese territory and sovereignty is way out of proportion. That once China unifies Taiwan, the US would have to get out of Western Pacific (what does that even mean?) is weird logic. We're not talking about China invading Japan here, which is totally different from China recovering Taiwan.

So you're confusing Taiwan, a legitimate territory of China, with Europe or Japan, both of which are independent sovereign countries of their own.
The only authoritative treaty on the matter is the WW2 Peace Treaty signed in San Francisco in 1951. I invite everybody to read it.

As to importance of Taiwan to US national interests, here is a perspective from 1950:

Memorandum on Formosa, by General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, Commander in Chief, Far East, and Supreme Commander, Allied Powers, Japan
top secret
[Tokyo,] 14 June 1950.

[... omitted first 7 chapters]

Formosa represents a political area of no less importance to western ideology than other areas in the Orient. The Taiwanese are a homogeneous racial group who as individuals have resisted the intrusion of foreign blood. Although Formosa was promised to China as a consequence of World War II this promise was given in consonance with a political situation entirely different than that which now exists. There is every basis from a moral standpoint to offer to the Taiwanese an opportunity to develop their own political future in an atmosphere unfettered by the dictates of a Communist police state. In view of the moral implications, as well as the geographic proximity of this area to other endangered peoples on and near the periphery of China, the future status of Formosa can well be an important factor in determining the political alignment of those national groups who have or must soon make a choice between Communism and the West.

There can be no doubt but that the eventual fate of Formosa largely rests with the United States. Unless the United States’ political-military strategic position in the Far East is to be abandoned, it is obvious that the time must come in the foreseeable future when a line must be drawn beyond which Communist expansion will be stopped. As a means of regaining a proper United States posture in the Orient it is apparent to me that the United States should initiate measures to prevent the domination of Formosa by a Communist power. I am equally certain that it would be a fundamental error with regard to any part of the Orient to fail to take appropriate measures in those areas still open to our influence.

At this time I am unable to recommend the exact political, economic and military measures which should be taken to prevent the [Page 165]fall of Formosa either into the hands of a potential hostile power or into the hands of a power who will grant military utilization of Formosa to a hostile power. It is my firm conviction that a realistic estimate of requirements can only be based upon a physical survey of the area made by experienced military, economic and political observers. I concur whole-heartedly with the recommendations made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 23 December 1949 to the effect that the Commander-in-Chief Far East should make an immediate survey of the need and extent of the military assistance required in Formosa in order to hold Formosa against attack. Although this recommendation was apparently not acceptable at the time to the National Security Council, I note that the Joint Chiefs reaffirmed this recommendation on 4 May 1950.
11.
Formosa has not yet fallen to Communist domination. There are conflicting reports as to the capability and will of the Chinese Nationalist Forces as now constituted and equipped to prevent either the military or political conquest of the island of Formosa. I cannot predict what the cost may be of preventing Communist domination of that island, although I have advised the Joint Chiefs of Staff what the cost may be if such an event transpires. I am satisfied, however, that the domination of Formosa by an unfriendly power would be a disaster of utmost importance to the United States, and I am convinced that time is of the essence. I strongly believe that the Commander-in-Chief Far East should be authorized and directed to initiate without delay a survey of the military, economic and political requirements to prevent the domination of Formosa by a Communist power and that the results of such a survey be analyzed and acted upon as a basis for United States national policy with respect to Formosa.

Douglas MacArthur
 
Last edited:
You are smart enough to understand this is a poor analogy. Nationalism is not innate. It’s an idea, and a relatively new one at that. Compared to Europe, it appeared quite late in China. There was no shortage of Chinese people who were more than happy to work for the British as guides and transport workers during the Opium wars and even as late as the Boxer uprising.
Of course, unlike you, I'm smart enough to understand that you put forth a poor analogy. Survival is the strongest instinct of all, so when China was at its weakest and everything seemed hopeless, to have some mentally weaker people sell away national interest for a pittance of a personal gain is normal. And also, some people did it because they are sick criminals and can only be analyzed by criminal or abnormal psychology. I am talking about the majority of people, normal people. Finding minorities that are the exception does not challenge a trend.

You are still so lacking in basic operations that either by incompetence or by active avoidance, you fail to grasp that people all over the world have pride in where they come from. People are proud of their country, their province, state, city, hometown, even street and according to you, they're all brainwashed. I find it highly laughable that one with such little common sense as you can even try or pretend to study international relations. It is like someone who cannot grasp the concepts in high school biology touting that he is highly learned in biomedical engineering.

You clamor about your wokeness, but you’re just asleep at wheel.
Well, looks like most of the people here say you're the one driving on the opposite lane... and then telling other's they're "asleep" or "driving improperly"... wow, I just realized how typical Western you are LOL

I grew up in a country at war. I can assure you there is nothing glorious about war. It’s an ugly affair, with confused people on both sides, often acting out as animals.
I will not take your assurance seeing as how you think that all of those who fight for their country are brainwashed and need to wake up. I can only assume you have not partaken but are, once again, ratting off tales from tertiary sources as God-given truth.

People like you disgust me.
Likewise, and everyone here about you, what a coincidence! I guess everyone here who has demonstrated independent thought by rejecting the dogma taught to us in various Western nations are wrong and you, the person who grew up in the West brainwashed by the West to tout their lines exactly, are right, eh? LOL

I listened to both sides. I studied the matter from three sides (PRC, ROC, US), and continue to do so.
You don't even possess the common sense to be at a level where you can learn international affairs. You're stuck on, "why would anyone fight for their nation?" You could travel the world and be no better than one who is deaf and blind at your level. But you only travel to places that tout the lines that you believe in because you feel mentally safer there, eh? LOL

But you see, that’s the thing. I am conditioned to look at the world from an individual’s perspective. You take the collective approach, seeking strength in group identity, never once letting slip the opportunity to reinforce your position as that shared by 1.4bn Chinese. That’s why I cannot take you nor your wokeness seriously. You just come across as a drone and an emotionally immature person.
Oh, I see, because I grew up in the US from age 6 and independently came to realize that China's ideology is superior from my own college experiences, I am a drone and immature and not woke... and because you grew up in a Western nation, believe the Western line 100%, and have travelled to places that believe or encourage its citizens to believe the same, that makes you an individual thinker, right? LOLOL The brainwashing is strong with this one o_O

My country won its independence through war. I know more about it than you can imagine.
What a bunch of fools who died fighting for someone else's orders, eh? Don't they have other, better interests to pursue? Wake up! LOLOL

And just so we know that you debate in good faith rather than as some figure hiding in the shadows while others stand proudly in the light, what country might that be?

If you weren’t blinded by racism you would’ve at least bothered to read a few pages of the book and then marvel at the stupidity of what you just wrote.
See, I'm the primary source. My family and friends are the primary source. I live the China experience. If a foreigner wants to know about China, he can ask me, not the other way around. Secondary and tertiary sources are derived from primary sources, not the other way around. You're probably so twisted in your understanding of free thought, common sense, and international politics because you're in a system where secondary sources get their info from primary sources, then tertiary sources from secondary sources, then primary sources from tertiary and secondary sources, and then the cycle continues until your mind has no idea what's what hence your poor debate points. There are far too many pieces of real valuable information to read for me to read for me to get involved in that garbage that you pretend is learning.
 
Last edited:

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
Of course, unlike you, I'm smart enough to understand that you put forth a poor analogy. Survival is the strongest instinct of all, so when China was at its weakest and everything seemed hopeless, to have some mentally weaker people sell away national interest for a pittance of a personal gain is normal. And also, some people did it because they are sick criminals and can only be analyzed by criminal or abnormal psychology. I am talking about the majority of people, normal people. Finding minorities that are the exception does not challenge a trend.
I think you are way off the mark there. Perhaps you should read a bit more about that epoch of Chinese history, but take off first your nationalistic lens.

See, I'm the primary source. My family and friends are the primary source. I live the China experience. If a foreigner wants to know about China, he can ask me, not the other way around.
What narcissistic drivel. You lived most of your life outside of China, by your own admission. Why would I ever ask you anything about the China experience? LOL
I have much better sources: people who actually live there and whom I can talk with.

You know, I’ve met your kind before. We have immigrants who grew up in the US like yourself who pride themselves in their nationalism but don’t know jackshit about our country nor its history. How sad.
 
I think you are way off the mark there. Perhaps you should read a bit more about that epoch of Chinese history, but take off first your nationalistic lens.
It's what you think vs what everyone else here thinks... Perhaps you should stop quoting black and white films and 1950's documents. The world lives in the now, not in history, and China moves into the future faster than anyone else. Perhaps you cling to history because you yearn for a time when China was weak, but unfortunately for you, time doesn't move backwards. My lens is my personally-developed vision and filter forged from my experiences and independent thought, not like yours which was given to you by your society. Unlike yours, it's too valuable to take off.

What narcissistic drivel. You lived most of your life outside of China, by your own admission. Why would I ever ask you anything about the China experience? LOL
Ah, I thought you would say something like that. The China experience pervades to all Chinese people all over the world. Just by being Chinese, we can experience it, but we are balanced, as we also experience the mainstream environment in which we live. We are actually the type of people to talk to for making comparisons as we know both sides.

Example: A black man grew up in California, but lived in Detroit for 2 years. A white man grew up in Detroit. Who understands the black experience in Detroit? Perhaps the black man, but never the white man. Yet you only read, eat and drink the words of the white man... hence your inability to make valid points or learn at all...

I have much better sources: people who actually live there and whom I can talk with.
I have actually lived and spent time in China, but according to you, your sources are all saying pretty much the same thing as me and the other guys here, eh? LOL

You know, I’ve met your kind before. We have immigrants who grew up in the US like yourself who pride themselves in their nationalism but don’t know jackshit about our country nor its history. How sad.
And who does "we" refer to? What nationality, which any proud person would eagerly divulge, but a person who lives in shame trying to pull others into his misery would continue to hide? LOL

And I've met your kind before too (many of them in America), pretending to be enlightened but you actually don't know jackshit about anything at all... Your kind often get angry, generically telling others that they don't know jackshit (as a defense mechanism to when your incompetence/ignorance is revealed) when they've actually been educating you the whole exchange... how morbid and self-defeating.

What a disappointing short post that failed to address virtually all of my points... but that's pretty much what I can expect from such a person as above...
 
Last edited:

plawolf

Brigadier
I think we are all getting a bit too heated and personal, making the last few pages hardly worth reading. Maybe we should all try to stick to the actual facts instead of getting off track with toxic and unproductive (not to mention inaccurate) characterisations of individuals or peoples.

Drudging up history is also a bit pointless imo, as any and all historical arguments have already been made, on both sides, any number of times already. Also, I think both sides can agree that no legalistic or historical argument, however factually sound and eloquently put forward, would be able to convince China to give up its claim on Taiwan, or for Taiwan to embrace reunification, so really, what is the point the repeating the same old lines for the Nth time?
 

weig2000

Junior Member
The only authoritative treaty on the matter is the WW2 Peace Treaty signed in San Francisco in 1951. I invite everybody to read it.

As to importance of Taiwan to US national interests, here is a perspective from 1950:

Memorandum on Formosa, by General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, Commander in Chief, Far East, and Supreme Commander, Allied Powers, Japan
top secret
[Tokyo,] 14 June 1950.

[... omitted first 7 chapters]

Formosa represents a political area of no less importance to western ideology than other areas in the Orient. The Taiwanese are a homogeneous racial group who as individuals have resisted the intrusion of foreign blood. Although Formosa was promised to China as a consequence of World War II this promise was given in consonance with a political situation entirely different than that which now exists. There is every basis from a moral standpoint to offer to the Taiwanese an opportunity to develop their own political future in an atmosphere unfettered by the dictates of a Communist police state. In view of the moral implications, as well as the geographic proximity of this area to other endangered peoples on and near the periphery of China, the future status of Formosa can well be an important factor in determining the political alignment of those national groups who have or must soon make a choice between Communism and the West.

There can be no doubt but that the eventual fate of Formosa largely rests with the United States. Unless the United States’ political-military strategic position in the Far East is to be abandoned, it is obvious that the time must come in the foreseeable future when a line must be drawn beyond which Communist expansion will be stopped. As a means of regaining a proper United States posture in the Orient it is apparent to me that the United States should initiate measures to prevent the domination of Formosa by a Communist power. I am equally certain that it would be a fundamental error with regard to any part of the Orient to fail to take appropriate measures in those areas still open to our influence.

At this time I am unable to recommend the exact political, economic and military measures which should be taken to prevent the [Page 165]fall of Formosa either into the hands of a potential hostile power or into the hands of a power who will grant military utilization of Formosa to a hostile power. It is my firm conviction that a realistic estimate of requirements can only be based upon a physical survey of the area made by experienced military, economic and political observers. I concur whole-heartedly with the recommendations made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 23 December 1949 to the effect that the Commander-in-Chief Far East should make an immediate survey of the need and extent of the military assistance required in Formosa in order to hold Formosa against attack. Although this recommendation was apparently not acceptable at the time to the National Security Council, I note that the Joint Chiefs reaffirmed this recommendation on 4 May 1950.
11.
Formosa has not yet fallen to Communist domination. There are conflicting reports as to the capability and will of the Chinese Nationalist Forces as now constituted and equipped to prevent either the military or political conquest of the island of Formosa. I cannot predict what the cost may be of preventing Communist domination of that island, although I have advised the Joint Chiefs of Staff what the cost may be if such an event transpires. I am satisfied, however, that the domination of Formosa by an unfriendly power would be a disaster of utmost importance to the United States, and I am convinced that time is of the essence. I strongly believe that the Commander-in-Chief Far East should be authorized and directed to initiate without delay a survey of the military, economic and political requirements to prevent the domination of Formosa by a Communist power and that the results of such a survey be analyzed and acted upon as a basis for United States national policy with respect to Formosa.

Douglas MacArthur
I've already responded to you about this San Francisco Peace Treaty before. You're just repeating this non-sense.

From a legal standpoint, PRC, which governed the vast majority of the population and territory of China then (and now), was not invited to, and did not attend this conference. Therefore any articles related to China in the treaty were void and invalid. Period.

From a practical and historical standpoint, if this treaty had any meaning when it comes to China, why didn't any countries (of any importance) recognize Taiwan as independent country, including the US itself? Countries don't just comply with China or any other countries because it claims a piece of territory as its own. It's very simple: Taiwan has been part of China's territory and there are no legal grounds against it.

From a realistic standpoint, any sovereign country can recognize Taiwan as an independent country and Taiwan authority can certain declare its independence from China - mind you it's still part of China under its constitution. If that happens, China will defend its sovereignty and territory with any means necessary, much like what the US did to the Confederate during the American Civil War.

So what exactly are you arguing for? There have been no legal, no historical, and no practical grounds for a case for Taiwan independence. All that is left is the TI and its supporters' bravery/guts/foolishness to declare so. They're free to do so as long as they can face the consequences.

In fact, as things stand now, PRC is waiting for a casus belli.
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
Perhaps you cling to history because you yearn for a time when China was weak, but unfortunately for you, time doesn't move backwards. My lens is my personally-developed vision and filter forged from my experiences and independent thought, not like yours which was given to you by your society. Unlike yours, it's too valuable to take off.
I bring up history because I am a history geek. Before you accuse the Chinese people of the 19th century as being desperate, mentally weak or traitorous because by abetting the British they undermined Chinese national interests, you should realize first that the Chinese state at the time was the Manchu emperor. All people living in the Great Qing Empire, his slaves. The idea of a Chinese nation state for the Chinese people was not yet awake in their minds.

The majority, the subjugated and oppressed Hanren through time brooded deep resentment towards the banner people. The privileged military class. The revolutionary Zou Rong wrote:

"Although it has been over two hundred years, the Manchus stick with the Manchus and the Han stick with the Han; they have not mingled. Clearly there is a feeling that a lower race does not mingle with a noble one."

"What our compatriots called court, government, and emperor, we used to call Yi, Man, Rong, Di, as well as Xiongnu and Dada. Their tribes lived beyond Shanhaiguan and fundemantally are of a different race from our illustrious descendants of the Yellow Emperor. Their land is barren; their people, furry; their minds, bestial; their customs, savage."



I think we are all getting a bit too heated and personal, making the last few pages hardly worth reading. Maybe we should all try to stick to the actual facts instead of getting off track with toxic and unproductive (not to mention inaccurate) characterisations of individuals or peoples.

Drudging up history is also a bit pointless imo, as any and all historical arguments have already been made, on both sides, any number of times already. Also, I think both sides can agree that no legalistic or historical argument, however factually sound and eloquently put forward, would be able to convince China to give up its claim on Taiwan, or for Taiwan to embrace reunification, so really, what is the point the repeating the same old lines for the Nth time?
Yes, you are totally right. I will not spend more time responding to ad-hominem attacks. I sadly see that I also engaged in them.
 
Last edited:

Temstar

Junior Member
Registered Member
These outsiders will never understand us. We feel this way because we have 5000 years of history with many highs and even more lows. A unified China will prosper whereas a divide China will suffer no end. He does not know our 100 years of embarrassment caused by the West and Europe yet he attacks us for never wanting that to happen again. To prevent such suffering from ever happening again, hundreds of millions of Chinese are willing to lay down their lives to fight and die for our country, Taiwan included. This outsider won't do the same nor will the US. It takes a Chinese to know a Chinese or at least someone who went deep into our history. That man has neither and he haves the courage to question us.
Nah plenty of non-Chinese people can understand China, I've seen westerners who can explain the internal workings of CPC better than most Chinese. It's however difficult to do so from just reading books, you do have to live in China for a while and be immersed in the culture.

The problem is people who do that and start to see the Chinese view get labelled as having drank the Chinese koolaid or "brain washed" and their voice gets discounted back home. So it's still not possible to have a civilised discussion.
 

Crang

Junior Member
Registered Member
I have a bachelor's degree in psychology. I decided to revisit my notes. As you know the DSM-5 is the psychologist's Bible. Under the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, let's take a look at Max Demian.
  • Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (exaggerates achievements and abilities) (self-avowed history geek)
  • Preoccupied with dreams of unlimited power, success, physical attractiveness, and love (themes of dominance)
  • Holds the belief that they are of special or high status and can only be understood by similar people or should only associate with those people (or institutions) (talks about how he escapes the enchantment of indoctrination 'red pilled' unlike us)
  • Has a need for excessive admiration (duh)
  • Possesses a sense of entitlement and expects favorable treatment or compliance (tries to win every argument)
  • Exploits other people to achieve personal goals (tries to dominate every participant in this forum)
  • Lacks empathy regarding the needs and feelings of other people (constant logical fallacies of character attack)
  • Is envious of other people or thinks other people envy them (definitely thinks others need to learn from him)
  • Has arrogant behaviors and attitudes (admits it himself when he said he should stop a few pages earlier)
I don't know about you, but I was taught in psychology class to run away from this kind of people as quickly as possible, and that's what I'm going to do.

I'm a psychologist, so when someone accuses me of being a creepy stalker, I just see it as something interesting to analyze.

Also I recall from my classes that someone suffering from NPD is often aware of his disorder (Max admits he has been arrogant in attacking others from a few pages before). However, there is nothing he can do about it, and maybe only a psychiatrist can to some extent alleviate him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top