Genesis
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2013
- Messages
- 4,597
- Reaction score
- 24
- Country
- Location
First let me just say, while this is a direct result of some media's portrayal of China, I don't wish to attack anyone. Let me just say, for all those that says the Communist party has brainwashed Chinese about Tibet, Xinjiang, SCS, ECS, let me ask you, which country has willingly broke part of its country off?
Also consider this, anyone who thinks they can convince the Chinese public about any of the aforementioned topics is pretty much saying they can convince China to give up the Chinese Dream. Which if you can do that, I'm staying the hell away from you, cause you might sell me a time share.
Catherine the Great, Annexer of Crimea
Crimea was clearly annexed by the Tsars of Russia, and transferred to Ukraine during the Union, while I take no sides and couldn't care one way or the other, I must say hypocrisy is really at its height, for the same powers that demand the return of Crimea, due to Crimea being part of current Ukraine, but demand the release of Tibet and Xinjiang. Which I'm fine with, power should be the final deciding factor, but it's funny how some handled the "spying" incident of RIMPAC.
References: Russo-Turk war that resulted in the annexation of Crimea and the official "hand over" of Crimea.
Search Russo turkish war
Search Crimea hand over by Soviet Union
Now let's get to the main topics, international norms. International norms, some say China is a revisionist country and thus destabilizing. They are only half right, China isn't revisionist by nature, progress is, but the ultimate effect of it is indeed destabilizing, for the outcome would be a change to the international norm.
US deployed Carriers during the third strait crises
China of old complied with some treaties and tolerated certain things that a strong nation or a irrational nation wouldn't have. For example, while I won't go as far as to say America forced China to do certain things, it was plain that China should consider trade interests first.
The Iran ship incident, the bombing of Embassy, the Strait crisis, the WTO requirements, and more.
Now America did what it did for the interests of its nation and perhaps also a little arrogance, but when you are responsible for everything it's hard to say what could have been, for all we know those things could have been worse. Iran got chemical weapons and could have used it, blame on China, China and Taiwan got into a war and destroyed Taiwan and possibly part of China, China joining WTO with lose restrictions and thus become less effective, all could become true, of course hindsight is 20/20. So let's not go that route.
Though the bombing was, well, at least a little unnecessary, but maybe it's incompetence and an accident who knows.
I'm not saying now we could do as we please or should declare war on all those that wronged us, I am saying, can we at least be in the discussion when things like this happen. We don't have to act exactly like America would, but I would like to be seen as an equal and not some thug that you are punishing and rewarding based on your mood.
Can we not be treated like your pet that needs discipline cause you don't like what we are doing, that's not asking too much is it.
BTW, for a nation that's been at war, for forever, you would think he knows what not peaceful is. If we ever start a war, then at least part of that be at least truthful. The I'm not touching you thing is annoying, but not violent. Shooting people in the face is.
Reference:
Search China and the world trade organization
Searching bombing of Chinese embassy at Belgrade
Search Yinhe incident
Search Third Taiwan Strait Crisis
Chinese spy ship lurks around U.S.-led Pacific naval drills - The Washington Post
Just Chilling, Playa
Now China is strong, it doesn't give it the right to do illogical things, it doesn't matter what it is or who has done it before. Do I agree 100% with the claims? Not really, but do I think they are greed and insane? No. China's claim to those islands have legitimate historical backing and while you can argue how they apply to today's world, you cannot argue their existence.
For example the Diaoyu islands were lost during Sino Japanese, if they weren't why did Japan say the annexation was implied. Why didn't Japan say the annexation of Tokyo was implied in the treaty. You can only annex what isn't yours.
The only thing you could say is that they were not mentioned in the SF treaty and thus open to interpretation. However, US didn't invite either ROC or PRC to the treaty, this is like I'm fighting a case, but at the final hearing I was not invited and present my opinions.
On the other hand, if the hand over of Taiwan was in fact to include the islands during the first treaty, shouldn't the hand back of Taiwan also include those islands. I mean you don't return a stolen bag with half the cash and call it done deal.
I understand the reasons for not inviting China, but you have to say this treaty isn't the world's fairest treaty, and since we never ratified it, why should we abide it, I mean not only that we didn't even partake in the discussion, how is this different than rape, you forced it on us and then say you are destabilizing. If we make a treaty between China and Ronald Mcdonald that says all Mcdonalds are now independent countries without talking to America, would that be valid?
References
Search First Sino Japanese war.
Search San Fransisco Treaty
To be Continued.....
Can't post any links, apparently, so yea.
Also consider this, anyone who thinks they can convince the Chinese public about any of the aforementioned topics is pretty much saying they can convince China to give up the Chinese Dream. Which if you can do that, I'm staying the hell away from you, cause you might sell me a time share.
Catherine the Great, Annexer of Crimea
Crimea was clearly annexed by the Tsars of Russia, and transferred to Ukraine during the Union, while I take no sides and couldn't care one way or the other, I must say hypocrisy is really at its height, for the same powers that demand the return of Crimea, due to Crimea being part of current Ukraine, but demand the release of Tibet and Xinjiang. Which I'm fine with, power should be the final deciding factor, but it's funny how some handled the "spying" incident of RIMPAC.
References: Russo-Turk war that resulted in the annexation of Crimea and the official "hand over" of Crimea.
Search Russo turkish war
Search Crimea hand over by Soviet Union
Now let's get to the main topics, international norms. International norms, some say China is a revisionist country and thus destabilizing. They are only half right, China isn't revisionist by nature, progress is, but the ultimate effect of it is indeed destabilizing, for the outcome would be a change to the international norm.
US deployed Carriers during the third strait crises
China of old complied with some treaties and tolerated certain things that a strong nation or a irrational nation wouldn't have. For example, while I won't go as far as to say America forced China to do certain things, it was plain that China should consider trade interests first.
The Iran ship incident, the bombing of Embassy, the Strait crisis, the WTO requirements, and more.
Now America did what it did for the interests of its nation and perhaps also a little arrogance, but when you are responsible for everything it's hard to say what could have been, for all we know those things could have been worse. Iran got chemical weapons and could have used it, blame on China, China and Taiwan got into a war and destroyed Taiwan and possibly part of China, China joining WTO with lose restrictions and thus become less effective, all could become true, of course hindsight is 20/20. So let's not go that route.
Though the bombing was, well, at least a little unnecessary, but maybe it's incompetence and an accident who knows.
I'm not saying now we could do as we please or should declare war on all those that wronged us, I am saying, can we at least be in the discussion when things like this happen. We don't have to act exactly like America would, but I would like to be seen as an equal and not some thug that you are punishing and rewarding based on your mood.
Can we not be treated like your pet that needs discipline cause you don't like what we are doing, that's not asking too much is it.
BTW, for a nation that's been at war, for forever, you would think he knows what not peaceful is. If we ever start a war, then at least part of that be at least truthful. The I'm not touching you thing is annoying, but not violent. Shooting people in the face is.
Reference:
Search China and the world trade organization
Searching bombing of Chinese embassy at Belgrade
Search Yinhe incident
Search Third Taiwan Strait Crisis
Chinese spy ship lurks around U.S.-led Pacific naval drills - The Washington Post
Just Chilling, Playa
Now China is strong, it doesn't give it the right to do illogical things, it doesn't matter what it is or who has done it before. Do I agree 100% with the claims? Not really, but do I think they are greed and insane? No. China's claim to those islands have legitimate historical backing and while you can argue how they apply to today's world, you cannot argue their existence.
For example the Diaoyu islands were lost during Sino Japanese, if they weren't why did Japan say the annexation was implied. Why didn't Japan say the annexation of Tokyo was implied in the treaty. You can only annex what isn't yours.
The only thing you could say is that they were not mentioned in the SF treaty and thus open to interpretation. However, US didn't invite either ROC or PRC to the treaty, this is like I'm fighting a case, but at the final hearing I was not invited and present my opinions.
On the other hand, if the hand over of Taiwan was in fact to include the islands during the first treaty, shouldn't the hand back of Taiwan also include those islands. I mean you don't return a stolen bag with half the cash and call it done deal.
I understand the reasons for not inviting China, but you have to say this treaty isn't the world's fairest treaty, and since we never ratified it, why should we abide it, I mean not only that we didn't even partake in the discussion, how is this different than rape, you forced it on us and then say you are destabilizing. If we make a treaty between China and Ronald Mcdonald that says all Mcdonalds are now independent countries without talking to America, would that be valid?
References
Search First Sino Japanese war.
Search San Fransisco Treaty
To be Continued.....
Can't post any links, apparently, so yea.
