the duch were in that battle too!

@Worn,

fine

Just wanted to know what you meant by stopped.

> If China wanted to win hearts and minds it would make offers to those nations to 'rejoin' it with advertising why joining it would be superior to their current standard. <

lol. I don't know man, but this is HILARIOUS to read after knowing you want to kill off all drug traffickers.

That's it? So the Chinese would advertise to the people in an area and then fight for control from the current controller of the region? Otherwise you are suggesting that the Chinese government would go to these other countries and say "please give us back our land....we can look cute and everything if that helps?". If Cuba asked nicely to get Guantanimo Bay back, you think the US would go "well, coz you asked nicely, here ya go" NO! Tibet is different, but there has been many treaties signed throughout the history between the British, China, Tibet, and India (British Indies). If a group of people want to seceed from a nation, are they then able to slap a sticker on their gate, raise a new flag, and call their new territory a seperate nation? Hell, I have decided as a citizen of Western Australia, it is now called "Awesomestan!" and all citizens are awesome. It just doesn't work that way. In fact, how do you go about the secession of a certain region? Throw a dummy spit and set yourself on fire? How this is doing nothing but insighting public unrest (something which many people are unhappy about when it happens in the US, ie. Occupy Wall Street). Tibet however is a seperate issue and should be focused on seperately. I was referring more to wars with Russia and India (which does involve Tibet again, but still). Also, your idea that "advertising" as to why it is better to be part of the whole would be then construed as "propaganda" by people just like you Flint. No matter what method they used, it would be critisized by others solely because they dislike China as a whole and looking for something to get upset about. Like I said before, work out what you DON'T actually like about the Chinese and stick to that instead of trying to slap a bunch of random bits of information together and make a generalisation.

Also, the topic of this post is China's likelihood to go to war, and I still maintain that it is very low. Although they have started to look outwards economically, they are still very much inward looking and care more about what happens at home than they do outside their borders (this is evidenced by their actual defence budget spending)...

the fact is, if we had stayed isolationism, the rest of you would be sucking sour kraut... or eating lamb guts.

"Taiwan wishes to be seperate right now. It is the last lands held by the origional Government. They have been seperate for some DECADES now. They do not harbor thoughts to invade China, but China harbors thoughts to invade them. Why can you not say China should leave them alone except to offer friendship and peace?"

Say what? Ok, so Taiwan has never been entirely seperate for DECADES now, in fact their "independence" has been rejected even by the UN. Furthermore both PRC and ROC both have claims over the whole of China including Taiwan. In fact, due to the closing economic relations between the 2, the Chinese offered the same deal to Taiwan as they did to Hong Kong, 2 systems 1 government (which basically means that Taiwan is responsible for their local policy whilst Beijing handles foreign affairs).

"Their salt water navy growth defies that claim.
That's projection of force."

Any armed force can be considered a projection of force if you feel that a nation has the intention to use it (at which point there has been no supporting evidence of that, except your "claims" of land grabs which haven't been backed up by much at this point...you are putting the effort of research back on to me). The US has an even larger navy, does that mean they seek to use it for conquest? I pointed out the military budget for a reason, because more money is spent on internal defence than is spent on the navy, army, and airforce combined.

Furthermore, and I did bring this up before, the Chinese made it harder to wage any large scale war due to the 1 child policy. Unless they are going to send a bunch of 60+ year olds into war, then any lose will ripple back home and be detrimental to the Chinese population. The government knows this, the world knows this, everyone knows this. The Chinese is not able to send millions upon millions of youths into war because it will lead to a massive shortage back home. But sure, lets just say for a second, we can send all of those boys without a wife into war, this doesnt change the very nature of China. They have always been inward looking. You think that they built a giant wall to invade the Mongols? Every example you have provided is a border dispute, and I will get more into that later, but I am sure that there is a counterclaim/another side to these stories.

This kind of behaviour led to the Cold War, "they are building forces, they are going to attack us". The Chinese military budget will always be lower than the US budget in the near future at least, but hey, continue your paranoia.

"Ok so I read the wall of text on this page (for the love of debate Wornstrum please use paragraphs)."

I could say the same to you, Mr "I like to write 1 sentence paragraphs"...I was writing my "paragraph" in a hurry damn it, I shouldnt even be on the forums! X(

Also, I will write more on this at some point in the near future (I know I cherry picked a bit, the Tibet issue should really be left to a different forum to discuss, because it does detract from the topic of the thread, but I am happy to try to debate that...I do like a challenge ) but I do have an essay to finish as well as write (in Chinese) another essay on something else I haven't even looked at, and this is all on top of my regular homework, so I AM swamped at the moment...Also for the record, I am writing about China's One Child Policy so if you would like to also talk about that in a different thread, I willing to engage on a discussion in there...

> ~Wornstrum~ wrote:

> Also, there is a reason I am learning Chinese early

I will be highly regarded by our new overlord for the ability to liason with you peasant liberalists! My only demand, I want to govern Australia...mwahahahaha

hahha

"I for one, welcome our new Chinese Overlords."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoda_Track_campaign

better get to Wiki Primo, they don't mention you Dutch

BTW any student of the Pacific War up to Midway would have a new appreciation for war morale and would probably holler at news anchors who report "heavy casualties" in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Surely the Cuban government had the right to negotiate a naval base lease for Guantanamo Bay?  What if the USA were to tell China, "yeah we agreed to borrow the money at interest, but we are needy and we tell you to suck eggs, no bond payment to you"  would you cheer our exercise of sovereignity?

"They still have 90 bazillion people"

And of them up to 26% will be over 60 years old in 2040. That is over 400 million old people (that is alot of zimmer frames...wait, I should get into the zimmer frame business in China!!!!)

"~Wornstrum~, for your appeal to the UN as a deciding factor in "independence," I hate you."

I did mention that the UN also doesn't recognise the independence, and as you stated, you only read partial comments of my post. I also mentioned the historical nature of Taiwan and China, with Taiwan not necessarily seeking independence but to seek international recognition that they are the legitimate ruling party of China. If you are going to make fun of select comments, please also read the other information also before you question my man-hood (which sounds more of a challenge to demonstrate the substance of my testicles...)

"They still have more able-bodied young men than anybody else. And they're much less inclined to care what number they have left than anybody else."

Well from a very local view, yes, they would care. In fact, people are already caring now. Shanghai is a perfect example where the 1 child policy was relaxed due to...NOT ENOUGH CHILDREN! (I had to emphasis that because it is very un-Chinese, don't you think? ) This only highlights the actual shortage of the children in these cities. Furthermore it has already started to negatively affect society as the first generation of single children have actually started to reproduce, and areas are already feeling that pinch. As population increasingly ages, it actually means that China will care just as much as the potential population lose of its people as other developed nations (since the fertility rate is about the same as developed nations).

This is by no means the ONLY reason stopping them, but it certainly is a contribiting factor for any nation, and since China's population is just as, if not more, fragile compared to developed nations. I also wish to point out that you only called me names and presented no counter argument except to say it was wrong, maybe next time add to the discussion/debate or refrain from trying to be the schoolyard bully

"Surely the Cuban government had the right to negotiate a naval base lease for Guantanamo Bay?  What if the USA were to tell China, "yeah we agreed to borrow the money at interest, but we are needy and we tell you to suck eggs, no bond payment to you"  would you cheer our exercise of sovereignity?"

I haven't had a chance to look at it, but I heard/read that Tibet originally did sign a treaty legitimising China's occupation of Tibet. Using that very same logic, Tibet is then part of China and you can pack up your protest banners and go home (that is if it is true, I do want to check that out). Also, such an action would be detrimental to the US, and furthermore that is the risk that China takes when accepting US debt, doesn't it? I wouldn't cheer such an action though, but also I have not cheered China's actions here, but more to offer an alternative perspective to issues. I wonder also how much persuasion and influence the US has done for its "leases"? I do know that the US has been very forceful in a few of its treaties (which was the reason the US got kicked out of NZ!), and have certainly used their influence to gain their own ends (2002 free-trade agreement between Australia and the US for example. Entire thing was one-sided).

Again, don't have that much time to research this....stop distracting me! X(...answers will be forthcoming when I get some free time to grab some sources for you all!

"I disagree with the 'hey you invaded, you killed our army, here is a peice of paper since I do not want to die that says "all good" for you my new maseters'

Dali Lama

^
|
|
|
That is proof this is incorrect and is propoganda."

That is no more proof than me saying that the Chinese is already our masters, and the US has a giant wall around it to stop people from escaping to North Korea. Unless you have ACTUALLY looked at the treaty Flint, or have researched the conditions surrounding or within the treaty, I find it quite funny that you proclaim I am incorrect. I also wish to point out that "Tibet" through the persuassion of the British did sign other agreements, which by the way are NOT disputed (by I do want to get into that at another time).

Also, you disapproved of Xeno doing this exact practice, if I am to take your word that you are right, perhaps Xeno is also correct and we should all be listening to his theories?

I am a government in exile from Australia, does that give me legitimacy to rule?

"Were you the leader of Australia pre-invasion?
Were you part of the Governments executive branch and/or in line of succession with those above you captured by the invaders?
If no to both then go away )P"

Then any native has legitimate claims for land grabs then? Aboriginals in Australia could very well claim that, and then demand independence. Indians could very well state that they want to seceed then. Like I said, the treaty, and the surrounding nature of the treaty need to be examined. Furthermore, are we also going to dispute the southern areas of Tibet that were handed over to India? I mean, you are only attacking 1 small part of a larger issue here, and it is mostly because you dislike the government. Your claims have no weight, and that is exactly what I am stating, you are no better than the supposed claims of propaganda. Without any basis for the claims, or any ACTUAL evidence to back it up, you are just propagating your own ignorant opinions....

I keep stating I am busy, but hey, just keep posting your one liners...I do not have the patience or time to deal with it...I am out