Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Which part of the history that I summarized is mendacious? All I see is an inability to face up to the historical facts so you had to resort to ad-hominem attacks instead.

The only piece of history that you brought up, was the alleged 1992 consensus. Unfortunately for your argument, the DPP has continuously since 1992 denied the existence of such a consensus, and has reiterated that position as early as this year:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


That you believe how a few semi-official representatives were actually representing the whole of ROC in a shadowy meeting and achieved a "consensus", while at the same time the president of ROC Lee Teng-Hui made a firm rebuttal of any consensus being reached, is demonstrating a complete lack of refined and precise understanding of how democracies operate.
That only proves how delusional the DPP is and how untrustworthy a dual-political party democracy can be. I had once said this before: dealing with a dual party democracy is like dealing with someone who has multiple personality disorder. How can the DPP deny that it exists? It was a meeting, a joint statement was made, written down, and signed. There is a 1992 consensus; denying it because they want to worm out of it is like trying to worm out of a commitment to become vegetarian by saying vegetables no longer exist.

There is no question whether it exists; the issue is which side should rule China, although both sides agreed that the mainland and Taiwan are both parts of China.

From wiki:

The 1992 Consensus was the outcome of a November 1992 meeting in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
between the mainland China-based
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(ARATS) and the Taiwan-based
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(SEF). Three months before the meeting, the Taiwan side (on 1 August 1992) published the following statement in respect of its interpretation of the meaning of "One China":

"Both sides of the Taiwan Strait agree that there is only one China. However, the two sides of the Strait have different opinions as to the meaning of 'one China.' To
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, 'one China' means the 'People’s Republic of China (PRC),' with Taiwan to become a '
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
' after
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, on the other hand, considers 'one China' to mean the Republic of China (ROC), founded in 1911 and with de jure sovereignty over all of China. The ROC, however, currently has jurisdiction only over
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Taiwan is part of China, and the Chinese mainland is part of China as well."
 

Gatekeeper

Captain
Registered Member
Taiwan was never in its history governed by the CCP, nor has the CCP ever held any sovereignty over that territory. A quick review of history shows that the first government on the island was established by the Dutch (who ousted the Spanish from their colony in the north), who were subsequently ejected by Koxinga, whose descendants in turn were defeated and the island annexed by the Qing, who in turn ceded the island to the Japanese, who in turn relinquished their sovereignity of the island in the Treaty of Taipei, wherein "Japan renounced all claim to them [Taiwan and the Penghu Islands] without specifying to what country they were to be surrendered". Since then, ROC has exercised sovereignty over the island.
WOW" what a revisionist tripe!

Frankly, I'm astounded by your ignorance, though I'm not surprise!

There are so many western MSM in your assertion, I don't even know where to begin.

Before we even move on with these, I need you to make one thing clear, so theres no mistake this time.

1st and formost, are you suggesting the PRC through the CCP have no claim on Taiwan in international law, because they have never RULED Taiwan before.

Words of advise, and I'm being helpful to you by typing in capital the key words. Think long and hard, do research and talk to your co- members here if you have to before you answer that one.
 

Gatekeeper

Captain
Registered Member
The USA has been doing a good job deterring PRC's invasion of Taiwan ever since the outbreak of the Korean war and the sailing of the 7th fleet through the Taiwan strait in 1950.
Isn't this typical! You took my quote out of contex, and trying ti score points from it.

The whole post was about the west defending Taiwan COMES AT A COST!

And if that cost exceed the benefits, the west Will Drop Taiwan like a lead ballon, just like the last two times it tried.

Sailing shinny brand new toys up and down Taiwan strait doesn't come with much cost, so my points holds.

Please do not try to distort the message!

Also, if you think sailing up and down Taiwan strait sends a message, then you admit that all the "freedom of navigation" "innocent pasage" is bunch of lies and excuses to the world, because at the end of the day, it is flexing muscle, and being provocative!

The dame accusation the west label China with. Hypocrisy at its best!
 

Gatekeeper

Captain
Registered Member
That only proves how delusional the DPP is and how untrustworthy a dual-political party democracy can be. I had once said this before: dealing with a dual party democracy is like dealing with someone who has multiple personality disorder. How can the DPP deny that it exists? It was a meeting, a joint statement was made, written down, and signed. There is a 1992 consensus; denying it because they want to worm out of it is like trying to worm out of a commitment to become vegetarian by saying vegetables no longer exist.

There is no question whether it exists; the issue is which side should rule China, although both sides agreed that the mainland and Taiwan are both parts of China.

From wiki:

The 1992 Consensus was the outcome of a November 1992 meeting in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
between the mainland China-based
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(ARATS) and the Taiwan-based
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(SEF). Three months before the meeting, the Taiwan side (on 1 August 1992) published the following statement in respect of its interpretation of the meaning of "One China":

"Both sides of the Taiwan Strait agree that there is only one China. However, the two sides of the Strait have different opinions as to the meaning of 'one China.' To
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, 'one China' means the 'People’s Republic of China (PRC),' with Taiwan to become a '
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
' after
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, on the other hand, considers 'one China' to mean the Republic of China (ROC), founded in 1911 and with de jure sovereignty over all of China. The ROC, however, currently has jurisdiction only over
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Taiwan is part of China, and the Chinese mainland is part of China as well."
I think we are wasting time, he only read and comprehend what he wants to. It's a case of selected rationale.
 

Gatekeeper

Captain
Registered Member
That's a rather obtuse, crass and mendacious statement. 1992 Consensus laid out that both sides of Taiwan strait recognize there is only one "China": both mainland China and Taiwan belong to the same China, though each side can interpret their own presentation of what one China means. UN, including the four other veto powers, recognize PRC as legitimate ruler of China, based on one China principle, which , given the still ongoing Chinese civil war, is to be understood as there may be two governments, but only one China.
Western powers have long meddled in China's internal affairs and still would like to have China weak and divided. Thus, the poisonous words of treason spread far and wide in MSM. Those rather dull minds like the perfect specimen quoted in above preclude the delicate and yet complex historical perspectives, instead falling back on boiler plate cliche thus clearly showing the lack of precise and refined understanding of the matter they foolishly try to comment on.
Words fails me. Here he is arguing the TOSS, when his very own government, be that Belgium, UK or the EU, USA. ALL recogised the ligitimate ownership of Taiwan.!

Yet, he still try and produce verbal tripe on this forum, which not only saying we, on the China side is wrong! BUT, his very own government that he and his people help elected through their much loved Democratic system is also WRONG on their views on Taiwan. Gee, theres really no hope!
 

Max Demian

Junior Member
Registered Member
Has it ever occurred to you @Gatekeeper, @zgx09t that the people living in Taiwan at the end of WW2 saw the KMT as occupiers rather than brethren? Need I remind you that in 1945 ROC occupied Taiwan on behalf of the Allied Powers, as a foreign territory.

Are you familiar with the February the 28th incident? Even Mao at the time called for an independent Taiwan. Sounds funny today, doesn't it?

The historical truth is that the people of Taiwan were denied their right of self-determination (and the US bears responsibility here, as it was the US military government who was the legal overlord of Taiwan at the time of Japanese surrender). But there is still room to rectify this.
 
Has it ever occurred to you @Gatekeeper, @zgx09t that the people living in Taiwan at the end of WW2 saw the KMT as occupiers rather than brethren? Need I remind you that in 1945 ROC occupied Taiwan on behalf of the Allied Powers, as a foreign territory.

Are you familiar with the February the 28th incident? Even Mao at the time called for an independent Taiwan. Sounds funny today, doesn't it?

The historical truth is that the people of Taiwan were denied their right of self-determination (and the US bears responsibility here, as it was the US military government who was the legal overlord of Taiwan at the time of Japanese surrender). But there is still room to rectify this.
Mmmmmmm what a refreshing view! I never looked at it that way before!

Yes, the aborigines! Very very important people; it's an absolute travesty when land just gets robbed from the aborigines and we should certainly make that right, wherever it happens.

So... I'll tell you what: USA and Australia go ahead and demonstrate how to return land to the aborigines, and then we can talk about how to resolve it in Taiwan. M'kay? I PROMISE, and I think speak for Xi and all of China, that if the US would kindly return its lands to the Native Americans and all move back to Europe, ironically turning into the new Mexicans of the EU, the PRC will let Taiwan be as it pleases. Sound good? I knew we could solve this in a civil and amicable way!
 
Last edited:

Jura

General
here's what I 'preserved' in the US Thread while this thread had been closed:

The US Wants to Sell Taiwan the Wrong Weapons
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Experts Say Arms Sale to Taiwan Answer Defense Needs, But Spur New Questions
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


follow the links if interested, I won't repost the texts, because I recall I personally disliked the first one (LOL)
 

Top