China: 'U.S. arms sales to Taiwan have jeopardized China's core interests'

[LaoPo]

I've never had Canadians down as being particularly aggressive. Orange perhaps, but not aggressive.

Who was talking Canada?

There are other closeby neighbors...

LaoPo

Oh, so are you saying that Sarah was right all along when she said she could see Russia from Alaska?

I don't know what other neighbours would want Chinese weapons or could afford the weapons in the amount you referenced.

Maybe you missed my post #24.

If I say "neighbors" I not necessarily mean border-neighbors.

LaoPo

[MJP]

I've never had Canadians down as being particularly aggressive. Orange perhaps, but not aggressive.

Who was talking Canada?

There are other closeby neighbors...

LaoPo

Bermudans?

Throw a dart...?

LaoPo

Bob Marley's got a new ballistic roach missile?

This has come as a deep shock to me and I worry for the children's future.

[geriatrickid]

Maybe you missed my post #24.

If I say "neighbors" I not necessarily mean border-neighbors.

LaoPo

MMkay, but one shouldn't use the word neighbour then. It has a specific definition. Don't make me send you to remedial language class. That's where the kids that eat glue and boogers go.

In any case, your comments on Taiwan, the old Formosa are also unfair. The island had an indigineous population that was distinctly related to Polynesians. When the Chinese showed up, the local natives were forced off their land and pushed away. It is a culture fighting for its survival. Don't forget that it's first long term foreign settlers were Europeans, specifically the Dutch. The Han Chinese that had tried to settle had always been repelled by the local tribes. The presence of the colonial Durch weakened the local tribes and so that when the Chinese in the Qing dynasty decided to go to war with the Dutch and capture the island, the local indigineous peoples could not resist. Then the Qing ceded the island to Japan in 1895. After WWII, the Japanese renounced their control but never stated to whom the island would belong.

Mainland China's attempt to grab the island is no more legitimate than that of the Chinese occupiers of Taiwan now. The issland belongs to its indigineous peoples, not the Han. How can you advocate the crushing of the local population in favour of the mainland Han? Are you advocating the continued destruction of the locals? Shame on you. Shame!!

[LaoPo]

Maybe you missed my post #24.

If I say "neighbors" I not necessarily mean border-neighbors.

LaoPo

MMkay, but one shouldn't use the word neighbour then. It has a specific definition. Don't make me send you to remedial language class. That's where the kids that eat glue and boogers go.

In any case, your comments on Taiwan, the old Formosa are also unfair. The island had an indigineous population that was distinctly related to Polynesians. When the Chinese showed up, the local natives were forced off their land and pushed away. It is a culture fighting for its survival. Don't forget that it's first long term foreign settlers were Europeans, specifically the Dutch. The Han Chinese that had tried to settle had always been repelled by the local tribes. The presence of the colonial Durch weakened the local tribes and so that when the Chinese in the Qing dynasty decided to go to war with the Dutch and capture the island, the local indigineous peoples could not resist. Then the Qing ceded the island to Japan in 1895. After WWII, the Japanese renounced their control but never stated to whom the island would belong.

Mainland China's attempt to grab the island is no more legitimate than that of the Chinese occupiers of Taiwan now. The issland belongs to its indigineous peoples, not the Han. How can you advocate the crushing of the local population in favour of the mainland Han? Are you advocating the continued destruction of the locals? Shame on you. Shame!!

Did I ?

Dont draw any conclusions about something I didn't say.

Shame on you, if you address something to me, I didn't say, nor think nor wrote.

Now, leave the personal attacks out of the discussion, will you please?

BTW: nice there's Wiki, isn't it?

And, about neighbours/neighbors: everybody speaks about neighbours if he/she talks about people, living in his/her own street. It's common language, but, you're picking on me, aren't you...forgetting about the discussion at hand.

Be a big boy!

LaoPo

Edited January 12, 2011 by LaoPo

[WarpSpeed]

Didn't know Russia ever used a nuclear bomb in anger. The US on the other hand......

Neither has the US, it was a DEFENSIVE measure as so may like to continually, conveniently dismiss...

[LaoPo]

Didn't know Russia ever used a nuclear bomb in anger. The US on the other hand......

Neither has the US, it was a DEFENSIVE measure as so may like to continually, conveniently dismiss...

Defensive you say, using nuclear weapons on civilians...defensive ?

Well, the USA has, so far, the record of dropping 2 nuclear bombs, in wartime.

The US also has the record of -still- having the highest number of nuclear weapons next to the highest number of nuclear weapons on foreign soil, ALL over the world.

However, I welcome the steps by the US and Russia to dismantle more nuclear weapons and God forbid they will ever be used...again

LaoPo

Edited January 12, 2011 by LaoPo

[Wallaby]

Defensive? Oh that's a good one.

Get a grip.

[cdnvic]

Can we get back to China/Taiwan?

[geriatrickid]

LaoPao,

Were you not the one that wrote It will be a matter of time before Taiwan (has to) join the mother again in one form or another;

Despite Renbe's statement that Taiwan is a part of China and has always beeen, Taiwan was never a part of China. Your statement describes Mainland China as a "mother" and that Taiwan belongs with its mother. The indigineous peoples are of polynesian ancestory, or more specifically, Austronesian. If there is a "mother" it lies in a much different direction.

How would mainland China make Taiwan more Chinese? Would it employ the standard strategy of transferring millions of migrants into the area to displace the locals as has been done in Tibet or in Xianjiang? This would further disenfranchise and marginalize the indigeneous people.

Why is it when anyone objects to one of your posts you label it a personal attack? There was no personal attack. The claim is both tiresome and is childish.

I do not understand the reference to wikipedia. My textbook in Populations Genetics Biology 212 had a section on how the genetics of populations could be used to prove or disprove links. The history of Formosa is readily available on the net. One need not rely on wikipedia.

In respect to my comment objecting to the incorrect use of the word "neighbour" you claim that I am picking on you. Please understand that if you make an obvious error and it is pointed out, the action is not a case of someonbe "picking on you". You still have it wrong. The word neighbour can be defined in the context of people living on the street but its political definition remains that of describing adjacent or adjoining nations.

Were you not the one that wrote It will be a matter of time before Taiwan (has to) join the mother again in one form or another;

Despite Renbe's statement that Taiwan is a part of China and has always beeen, Taiwan was never a part of China. Your statement describes Mainland China as a "mother" and that Taiwan belongs with its mother. The indigineous peoples are of polynesian ancestory, or more specifically, Austronesian. If there is a "mother" it lies in a much different direction.

How would mainland China make Taiwan more Chinese? Would it employ the standard strategy of transferring millions of migrants into the area to displace the locals as has been done in Tibet or in Xianjiang? This would further disenfranchise and marginalize the indigeneous people.

Why is it when anyone objects to one of your posts you label it a personal attack? There was no personal attack. The claim is both tiresome and is childish.

I do not understand the reference to wikipedia. My textbook in Populations Genetics Biology 212 had a section on how the genetics of populations could be used to prove or disprove links. The history of Formosa is readily available on the net. One need not rely on wikipedia.

In respect to my comment objecting to the incorrect use of the word "neighbour" you claim that I am picking on you. Please understand that if you make an obvious error and it is pointed out, the action is not a case of someonbe "picking on you". You still have it wrong. The word neighbour can be defined in the context of people living on the street but its political definition remains that of describing adjacent or adjoining nations.

Edited January 13, 2011 by geriatrickid

[Scott]

I don't know that anyone is picking on anyone....yet, but it's getting close.

Thanks for the discussion so far, it's interesting.

[LaoPo]

LaoPao,

Were you not the one that wrote It will be a matter of time before Taiwan (has to) join the mother again in one form or another;

Despite Renbe's statement that Taiwan is a part of China and has always beeen, Taiwan was never a part of China. Your statement describes Mainland China as a "mother" and that Taiwan belongs with its mother. The indigineous peoples are of polynesian ancestory, or more specifically, Austronesian. If there is a "mother" it lies in a much different direction.

How would mainland China make Taiwan more Chinese? Would it employ the standard strategy of transferring millions of migrants into the area to displace the locals as has been done in Tibet or in Xianjiang? This would further disenfranchise and marginalize the indigeneous people.

Why is it when anyone objects to one of your posts you label it a personal attack? There was no personal attack. The claim is both tiresome and is childish.

I do not understand the reference to wikipedia. My textbook in Populations Genetics Biology 212 had a section on how the genetics of populations could be used to prove or disprove links. The history of Formosa is readily available on the net. One need not rely on wikipedia.

In respect to my comment objecting to the incorrect use of the word "neighbour" you claim that I am picking on you. Please understand that if you make an obvious error and it is pointed out, the action is not a case of someonbe "picking on you". You still have it wrong. The word neighbour can be defined in the context of people living on the street but its political definition remains that of describing adjacent or adjoining nations.

Were you not the one that wrote It will be a matter of time before Taiwan (has to) join the mother again in one form or another;

Despite Renbe's statement that Taiwan is a part of China and has always beeen, Taiwan was never a part of China. Your statement describes Mainland China as a "mother" and that Taiwan belongs with its mother. The indigineous peoples are of polynesian ancestory, or more specifically, Austronesian. If there is a "mother" it lies in a much different direction.

How would mainland China make Taiwan more Chinese? Would it employ the standard strategy of transferring millions of migrants into the area to displace the locals as has been done in Tibet or in Xianjiang? This would further disenfranchise and marginalize the indigeneous people.

Why is it when anyone objects to one of your posts you label it a personal attack? There was no personal attack. The claim is both tiresome and is childish.

I do not understand the reference to wikipedia. My textbook in Populations Genetics Biology 212 had a section on how the genetics of populations could be used to prove or disprove links. The history of Formosa is readily available on the net. One need not rely on wikipedia.

In respect to my comment objecting to the incorrect use of the word "neighbour" you claim that I am picking on you. Please understand that if you make an obvious error and it is pointed out, the action is not a case of someonbe "picking on you". You still have it wrong. The word neighbour can be defined in the context of people living on the street but its political definition remains that of describing adjacent or adjoining nations.

It's almost touchy the way you write (and honestly feel about, I presume) about the Taiwanese Aboriginals or Austronesian indigenous people, as far as it can be proved that they were the first who landed on Taiwanese shores.

Textbooks about genetics and all other facts about live change on a daily basis, even undiscovered indigenous people around the world, hidden deep in forests of Brazil or even New Guinea.

I won't go into a long debate about this since it doesn't make sense, also since it doesn't belong to the OP article about weapons deliveries from the US to Taiwan; even more since we have to live with facts, not ancient dreams about indiginous people.

The same as you would claim that the Indian indigenous people of America or the Australian Aboriginals would have more rights to the land over the present population.

We have to live with the facts that 84% of the Taiwanese people are of Chinese, including Hakka, descent, whilst 14% are mainland Chinese and 2% indigenous people of various groups; that's 460.000 people on a total of 23 million Taiwanese.

I wrote about the Mother and Daughter since that's the way both parties think and discuss about it, whether one of them is correct, partly correct or not correct at all.

I still believe that Taiwan and China will unite one day but I could be wrong as I have been wrong in my life before, contrary to most TV members of course.

The loud voice the US (and Japan) have about the independence of Taiwan is nothing more than political motivated big talk and an excuse to deliver weapons on a pretty large scale for such a small island country.

And, Japan better keeps it's mouth shut after what ugly war and deaths they've caused on China's mainland (but long forgotten by the west...IF they already knew)....like the Nanking Massacre*

And, I won't bite about your "neighbour/neigbor" discussion since we agree that we disagree. It's quibbling to me although I know you disagree but that doesn't matter to me. I know where I stand and I also know what I meant...but I think you do also...

* http://www.nanking-m...exhibition.html

LaoPo

Edited January 13, 2011 by LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Excerpt from OP article:

The U.S. sold an estimated $6.4 billion worth of arms to Taiwan in January 2010, prompting China and the U.S. to suspend some bilateral military exchange programs, as well as Gates' originally scheduled trip to China.

Maybe the US should learn a little from China* and invest money in the leisure industry in Taiwan, rather than to sell weapons....?

* WikiLeaks: the latest developments

Cables on a Bahamas hotel that alarmed the US

http://www.bahamar.com/ where China financed $ 2.5 Billion

LaoPo

[Ulysses G.]

Why is it when anyone objects to one of your posts you label it a personal attack? There was no personal attack. The claim is both tiresome and is childish.

It is just a tactic to try to paint you as being unreasonable and it is not only used on you. Do not take it personally.

You are certainly correct about Taiwan not being part of China. In fact it has been occupied by numerous nations for centuries and China has no more valid claim than anyone else.

[LaoPo]

Why is it when anyone objects to one of your posts you label it a personal attack? There was no personal attack. The claim is both tiresome and is childish.

It is just a tactic to try to paint you as being unreasonable and it is not only used on you. Do not take it personally.

You are certainly correct about Taiwan not being part of China. In fact it has been occupied by numerous nations for centuries and China has no more valid claim than anyone else.

1. starting a discussion about my word "neighbor" and telling me I'm wrong is indeed childish and quibbling.

2. maybe the 22.5 million Chinese, living on Taiwan, should leave now and leave the island to the 2% or 460.000 indigenous people ?

That would be something, wouldn't it, if the Americans and Australians had to leave also, because of the rights of their indigenous -original- population?

It's nice though that you defend your fellow member; good stuff

LaoPo

[Ulysses G.]

They are Taiwanese, not Chinese as Americans and Australians are not English.

[LaoPo]

They are Taiwanese, not Chinese as Americans and Australians are not English.

There are Afro Americans - Chinese Americans - Irish Americans - Italian Americans, Mexican Americans, Russian Americans, Jewish Americans, Cuban Americans, German Americans and next to that the overwhelming majority of Americans have roots from their parents or grandparents...great grand parents, born somewhere else rather than America (and in Australia the same) and people still talk about the descent and roots where someone comes from, especially in the new world...America

Nothing wrong with that though but you have to accept that America is a growing nation, not by the number of births but by the number of immigrants.

Go and check your figures how many Americans there were in 1800 - 1900 and now; you will be surprised and also check the numbers of birth in the US....

98% of theTaiwanese have Chinese roots, whether you like it or not, the same as there have been thousands of discussions here on this board about Chinese/Thai, even if they have been in Thailand for 4, 5 generations, people here still discuss and talk about Thai/Chinese...not Thai.

It still hasn't anything to do with the arms sales to Taiwan.

LaoPo

[Ulysses G.]

The people who live in Taiwan are no longer Chinese citizens, so what is your point?

[geriatrickid]

Hmm. Part of my family comes from China. All were obliged to leave for other countries subsequent to a poliical change when all "whities" had to go. Does this mean that my relatives born in the USA and Australia are considered Chinese Americans or Chows, despite being caucasian? Or are they just plain old Americans and Australians? So many rules, that one doesn't know what label to affix.

[hammered]

Maybe you missed my post #24.

If I say "neighbors" I not necessarily mean border-neighbors.

LaoPo

MMkay, but one shouldn't use the word neighbour then. It has a specific definition. Don't make me send you to remedial language class. That's where the kids that eat glue and boogers go.

In any case, your comments on Taiwan, the old Formosa are also unfair. The island had an indigineous population that was distinctly related to Polynesians. When the Chinese showed up, the local natives were forced off their land and pushed away. It is a culture fighting for its survival. Don't forget that it's first long term foreign settlers were Europeans, specifically the Dutch. The Han Chinese that had tried to settle had always been repelled by the local tribes. The presence of the colonial Durch weakened the local tribes and so that when the Chinese in the Qing dynasty decided to go to war with the Dutch and capture the island, the local indigineous peoples could not resist. Then the Qing ceded the island to Japan in 1895. After WWII, the Japanese renounced their control but never stated to whom the island would belong.

Mainland China's attempt to grab the island is no more legitimate than that of the Chinese occupiers of Taiwan now. The issland belongs to its indigineous peoples, not the Han. How can you advocate the crushing of the local population in favour of the mainland Han? Are you advocating the continued destruction of the locals? Shame on you. Shame!!

Maybe the US and Australia should be handed back to their original inhabitants then and all the non-indigenous kinds sent "home" wherever that is. Mmmm and then there is south america and various rather weirdly constructed european countries.

Land has always been grabbed by th estrong from the weak. That is why armies exist, to either grab or defend and why resistance groups do too. Nation states the world over are total artificial constructs but they sevre the interest of the dominant economic form right now and so will contiue to exist and change etc as the powerful decide to annexe or to force apart. It has nothing to do with the interests of people and never has

[hammered]

They are Taiwanese, not Chinese as Americans and Australians are not English.

I have never found one person from Taiwan either abroad or in the country who refers to tehmself as Taiwanese. They use Chinese for ationality in my experience. Admittedly I steer well clear of nationalists and people who like to label themselves (incorrectly) as patriots so guess there sould be some found among those extremist groups. I also tend to steer well clear of polticos and career military types too and I guess there may be some in those groups

[cdnvic]

The official name of the country is "Republic of China" there is no official demonym, but of a passport it states nationality as "Republic of China" Usage of Taiwanese and Chinese are both common, and depend often on the individual's politics.