hehe, I love this song. I think the original version is the best.
Sidenote: The Evangelion ending song was what got me hooked on Frank Sinatra. Funny that.
Your claim that China is screwed if it goes to war with Taiwan is based on the "fact" that the US will wholeheartedly support Taiwan.
Why do you think that? We have too much of an interest in both to attempt any attack on China, nor Taiwan.
We won't help Taiwan, for the simple fact that we ourselves have too much to lose if we lose China's support and economic relations go down the drain.
China won't attack Taiwan for one reason:
It has the military might to turn Taiwan into Swiss cheese, but it won't, because it wants to integrate Taiwan's industries into its own economy. Assimilate, not annihilate. That's why it wants invasion, rather than a rain of hell.
P.S. - Though military strategy may be your vocation, you fail to consider the bigger economic picture, from the US's point of view. Otherwise, it's a good assessment.
I agree with your views on Chinese history. I'm Chinese, so I'm very proud of my country's history, too.
BUT, China's missed what is commonly known as the Industrial Revolution. That set us back a bit. Though China is now overflowing with new technologies and innovations, it needs the economic support it currently has garnered from foreign powers in order to recreate the booming economy needed to support the implementation of such innovation.
In the short term, it's doubtful that China will control Taiwan. Why? It has the military might and strength of numbers to turn Taiwan into a moonscape, but it doesn't want that. It wants to take over the Taiwanese manufacturing and technological infrastructure intact. It wants invasion, not annihilation. Until it figures out how to go about this without destroying Taiwan's core industries, it's very doubtful that China will initiate any military action.
But hey, there's still hope. In a few thousand years, maybe we'll back on top, but I'll be dead by then, so I don't really care what happens after a couple thousand years.:-)
You actually think that the S is going to take sides in this war? Much less Taiwan's side?! Face it, the Mutual Defense Pact died the instant an American businessman recognized the potential in China's economy.
The US, if anything, will try to prevent the escalation of hostilities across the Taiwan strait. If war DOES break out, it's doubtful that the US will take EITHER side, since its economic interests in both are tremendous.
Thus, China is not attacking Taiwan NOT because it's afraid of the US, but because it wants to take the Taiwanese infrastructure, and not wipe Taiwan off of the face of the planet.
I truly love the gross exaggerations you create in attempting humor. (your second comment)
Try 50 million, and try "a naval fleet in the process of a massive modernization effort."
Last time I checked, China's air force, comprised mainly of Russian MiGs and Sukhois, was something that even the US was concerned about.
P.S. - Even if those 50 million soldiers had just pitchforks, I doubt Taiwan would have an easy fending them off. It has technology, but nothing in terms of numbers. Ths US isn't going to help it actively, because we have too much of an economic stake in China's welfare.
Even though China has more at stake if an economic brick wall were built by the US, the United States still has a GREAT DEAL of economic investment and interest in China. It wouldn't dare provoke China to that extent, and if it threatened economic sanction, it won't be able to follow up on it.
The US has too much invested in both sides to be willing to let the two battle it out.
Check your int'l news about those F-16's. You just might find that they're not exactly what the Taiwanese expected.:-)
Let me say something as almost as far-fetched as your claim that Taiwan has a slightest chance of "taking" China:
China, as a country with a meteoric economic growth rate, is on the fast track to adding a superpower to the global zoo. So far, the US is the sole superpower (Russia slipped an fell a while back) in existence. But, with China's aggressive military revamping and increasing slant towards true capitalism, it's only a matter of time before China becomes a nation whose might will make even the United States regard with a wary eye.
Back to the short term: The US will try everything in its power to avoid a Taiwan-China showdown. Face it, we get massive amounts of imports from both countries, Intel basically LIVES in Taiwan, and AMerican investors regard China as the greatest untapped market in the world.
I believe aggressions between the sides of the Taiwan strait are inevitable. The question is: Will the US be able to stop it? If not, will the US take a side? (the Mutual Defense Pact became just another piece of paper the instant Americans realized they could make money in China)
The effectiveness of the US's Babysitting Pact with Taiwan came to an end when US investors and businessmen discovered that China was the largest untapped market in the world.
On paper, the "Mutual Defense Pact" (or some similar name) is all fine and dandy, but when it threatens the US's supply of cheap consumer goods, the US will regard the treary as just another piece of paper, with no real-world significance.
To come to Taiwan's aid will be disastrous for the US economy. To sit back and watch the fireworks would also be disastrous. (think Intel) Thus, the US, if Bush recovers from the post-Iraq party, will most likely try everything within its power to prevent ANY physical conflict between the two.
Even if there WAS conflict: Do you seriously think that the US will risk initiating a nuclear war? Think of the global repercussions of that. We, the ones who pushed for "nuclear deterrent" launching them against a country with its own nuclear arsenal. Your gallant declaration of "in your face" is a bit rash, I think. You actually believe that the US will risk doing what it tried so hard to prevent during the Cold War.
No, the United States would never allow a first-strike nuclear attack.
Hey, your take in things is exactly what drives world politics.
That's life. Principles of self-interest what the power players follow. Principles of freedom and moral responsibility are what they toy with in their spare time.
IMHO, the results would last well into the long term. China and Taiwan are MAJOR suppliers of goods for US citizens. Bush just raised the steel tariff as proof of that. Him wanting to resurrect a dead American industry through limits of high-volume high-quality steel imports from Chine is proof that the US economy, in many sectors, is DEPENDENT on the welfare of both Chian and Taiwan.
It is not the question of which side the US would take in the matter. I think it's more a matter of: Will the US do everything within its power to stave off war? I think the answer's yes.
I'm only saying that you should look at the country you're living in, the grand, democratic, and just United States, and see it for what it is: just another country, albeit a bit richer than other countries, before spouting off about the terror that China (which the US loves as a trade partner) has wreaked upon Tibet.
I am asking this: You call China terrible, yet deign to say anything about the state of foreign affairs in the country you want to be proud of. Do you really not see your hypocrisy, or do you not WANT to see it?
China's in the news. The attention of the Western world has been riveted upon it for some time (excepting the Iraq situation). Wy have you decided that the current China is a terror upon the Earth which should be wiped from existence?
At what point do YOU call something "terrible"? What's YOUR metric? Your ideals? Why aren't you calling the US terrible, then. Why aren't you calling Britain terrible? That's all I'm saying.
First off, your language weakens your argument. To any educated person interested in an intelligent debate, throwing around phallic references and "murderous" will get you nowhere fast.
About that "murderous Communist regime": Come back to the present. You're stuck in the past. If you're talking about Falun Gong, on that matter I can personally debate against you, if you wish. Provide some evidence for your sweeping generalizations.
Do you seriously think that the United States would dare to use nuclear weapons against China? Oh come on. The US has a massive economic interest in China. Unless the US is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that it can overrun the entire country, make a-billion-and-a-half people like them for invading, and convince those same people that the American soldiers pointing M-16's at them are doing that "for you own safety", the US won't invade.
P.S. - Please explain your rationale (if you have one) behind calling China "an agressive [sic] outsider".
Go look up "Panama" and "Iran contra" in the context of US meddling. Some say we're helping them towards a path of democracy and righteousness (notice how that's coincidentally OUR path), I call it neo-imperialism.
Now you're saying that what China is only PROPOSING is wrong? Wow, the amount of hypocrisy you have astounds me.
Taiwan should decide for itself? Since when has the US let any country decide for itself when
1. we didn't like the probably outcome.
2. we had a financial stake in it.
Defend? The US wouldn't dare attack China, unless it knew that it could overrun China's entirety, make peace with its billion-and-a-half citizens, create a new economy from scratch (since the current economy is tainted with the all-important taboo "Communist" in it), and make those billion-and-a-half citizens accept the fact that the US military is holding them at gunpoint "for their own benefit."
You actually think that the US will dare to risk war with China? China's the world's largest emerging market. The US has vested interests in China. Even if China didn't have nukes, the US wouldn't dare go against China's will.
That raises the questions: If there IS a war, who will the US support? Will the US even fight? The answers aren't as blatantly obvious as you want to think.
So what you're implying, through your fixation on Texas, is that if Texas seceded, the United Sates should just sign the papers, and go "Good luck."?!?! Wow. THat's unbelievable to the point of being ridiculous.
I disagree. The real tragedy is that someone who thinks in such sweeping generalistic terms thinks he/she is right. Not only that, but is arrogant enough to think that their ideals should become world political mantra.
Brutal, communist dictatorship: Yes, that's why American business is viewing it as a gold mine. It's because they utterly CRAVE the overwhelming control that this communist dictatorship imposes upon its people. Of course.
Stop living in the past.
Secret police: Think of a few three-letter US gov't agencies. Now think about what they do. If you still don't know what I'm getting at, go read up on "Stinger".
Forced abortion: No, just a one-child limit. Slightly different. In any case, it's a way of life now. Last time I checked, overpopulation was somethign countries didn't want. China just doesn't want India's overpopulation problem. Know any alternatives, in a primarily agrarian culture, other than mass deportation or the next Holocaust?
Internet censorship: Review your read-up on "Stinger". Then read up on Google's current debacle concerning its extremely comprehensive search engine (which some think is TOO comprehensive).
Tiananmen Massacres: Yes, I know all about those. Modern Chinese refer to that day, June 6, 1989, as "6-4". That's how deeply it's ingrained into our psyches (yes, I'm Chinese). It's not "right", but hey it was also caught on television, which makes it even less "right", right? Go look up a bit on historical massacres. Maybe then you'll see that Tiananmen isn't the end-all greatest-event-in-history that China critics make it out to be.
You also might want to look up some words like "Waco". Well, there goes America's perfect record. Sorry to disappoint you.
As fsmunoz pointed out, Taiwan's history hasn't been cheery all the way. Do you know how the modern Taiwanese gov't came to be. the Guomindang (Kuomintang) fled to the island after defeat in a war with Mao. What does that make them? Exiles? The fact that Taiwan hasn't already been flattened by China says volumes about China's "brutality".
"Every time a tyranny falls, the world becomes a better place." Oh come on. Come back to reality. You think that America's control over world politics is "right" in that light?!?!
Do some research concerning Iran contra, Panama, and the CIA's past "wet affairs". The United States isn't the perfectly democratic, perfectly nice, and perfectly fair country you want to believe it is. Face it. That's life.
P.S. - Define "better". Better for you? Better for the US economy? Better for whom?
To your first statement: What do you make of the new "anti-terrorism" laws that Bush has passed, hmm? It's like John Wayne's final speech at the end of "Unforgiven". "If you TRY to do anything to me, if you have any THOUGHTS of trying to do anything to my country, I will put you in irons, I will..."
Your second comment: Provide some evidence please. I want to know more about this.
Your third comment: Are you talking about the Falun Gong? If you are, and if you haven't witnessed the power of the Falun Gong firsthand, please refrain from making rash statements based upon incomplete information.
Your final comment: So basically, you, famous dead Americans, and an immaterial entity whom Christians have given the name "God" think that people are given the right to independence. Well, for non-major-religion non-Americans, that argument doesn't really hold much water.
Even IF the right to independence were an unalienable right (I'm not going to argue either way), why should a controlling party just say "Hey, let's just sit back, and let them do what they please." Ever heard of the Civil War? Slavery aside (it wasn't the issue at heart), the War was about the South trying to secede, and the North not allowing that to happen. Why isn't the majority of the American population bashing the Civil War, instead of honoring it? It was a war in which the controlling party (the North) wanted to keep the I-have-a-right-to-be-independent party (the South) from becoming independent. Oh wait, are you saying that we should have let the South secede, because they have the right to independence?
Regardless of whether a group has the RIGHT to independence or not, you shouldn't expect that every controlling party should just LET any rebellious elements do whatever they want. It doesn't work that way.
If this is indeed so "terrible", why doesn't the US care about Tibet?
Hey, I'll admit that Chinese control over Tibet may violate your ideals about a country's unalienable rights to self-government, but if it's so terrible, why isn't it making headlines every few months? (Also, as an American, think of Panama, Iran contra, etc. Is the US any better?)
I agree with October_30th on this matter.
What is the "right" to become independent? When were we, the United States, given the right to play God over the world? Everyone has the "right" to become independent. Maine has the right to secede from the US. New South Wales as the "right" to break off from Australia. Does that mean it's "right"?! Really, I thought people these days were wordly enough to consider the possibility that their opinions aren't the Almighty Truth.
If it can't become independent by itself, why should the US be justified in helping it? Oh I know why, because so many American companies are there. Yes, that must be why.
Please explain WHY you think the "would" would be a better place if China were more like Taiwan?
I'd really like to know.
Slashdot Mirror
hehe, I love this song. I think the original version is the best. Sidenote: The Evangelion ending song was what got me hooked on Frank Sinatra. Funny that.
Your claim that China is screwed if it goes to war with Taiwan is based on the "fact" that the US will wholeheartedly support Taiwan.
Why do you think that? We have too much of an interest in both to attempt any attack on China, nor Taiwan.
We won't help Taiwan, for the simple fact that we ourselves have too much to lose if we lose China's support and economic relations go down the drain.
China won't attack Taiwan for one reason: It has the military might to turn Taiwan into Swiss cheese, but it won't, because it wants to integrate Taiwan's industries into its own economy. Assimilate, not annihilate. That's why it wants invasion, rather than a rain of hell.
P.S. - Though military strategy may be your vocation, you fail to consider the bigger economic picture, from the US's point of view. Otherwise, it's a good assessment.
I agree with your views on Chinese history. I'm Chinese, so I'm very proud of my country's history, too.
:-)
BUT, China's missed what is commonly known as the Industrial Revolution. That set us back a bit. Though China is now overflowing with new technologies and innovations, it needs the economic support it currently has garnered from foreign powers in order to recreate the booming economy needed to support the implementation of such innovation.
In the short term, it's doubtful that China will control Taiwan. Why? It has the military might and strength of numbers to turn Taiwan into a moonscape, but it doesn't want that. It wants to take over the Taiwanese manufacturing and technological infrastructure intact. It wants invasion, not annihilation. Until it figures out how to go about this without destroying Taiwan's core industries, it's very doubtful that China will initiate any military action.
But hey, there's still hope. In a few thousand years, maybe we'll back on top, but I'll be dead by then, so I don't really care what happens after a couple thousand years.
You actually think that the S is going to take sides in this war? Much less Taiwan's side?! Face it, the Mutual Defense Pact died the instant an American businessman recognized the potential in China's economy.
The US, if anything, will try to prevent the escalation of hostilities across the Taiwan strait. If war DOES break out, it's doubtful that the US will take EITHER side, since its economic interests in both are tremendous.
Thus, China is not attacking Taiwan NOT because it's afraid of the US, but because it wants to take the Taiwanese infrastructure, and not wipe Taiwan off of the face of the planet.
I truly love the gross exaggerations you create in attempting humor. (your second comment)
Try 50 million, and try "a naval fleet in the process of a massive modernization effort."
Last time I checked, China's air force, comprised mainly of Russian MiGs and Sukhois, was something that even the US was concerned about.
P.S. - Even if those 50 million soldiers had just pitchforks, I doubt Taiwan would have an easy fending them off. It has technology, but nothing in terms of numbers. Ths US isn't going to help it actively, because we have too much of an economic stake in China's welfare.
Even though China has more at stake if an economic brick wall were built by the US, the United States still has a GREAT DEAL of economic investment and interest in China. It wouldn't dare provoke China to that extent, and if it threatened economic sanction, it won't be able to follow up on it.
The US has too much invested in both sides to be willing to let the two battle it out.
Hey, that's business. That's politics. That's life. The world does not follow your ideals. Deal with it.
You might want to be wary of using "crazy" in the future.
"Freedom" is a joke that's thrown around PR meetings to justify our self-serving needs. Try to see through the PR sometimes.
P.S. - I don't think the US would pick a side. It has too much of an economic stake in both regions.
Sorry, did I say "almost as far-fetched", I meant "nowhere near as far-fetched".
Sorry for the blunder.
Check your int'l news about those F-16's. You just might find that they're not exactly what the Taiwanese expected. :-)
Let me say something as almost as far-fetched as your claim that Taiwan has a slightest chance of "taking" China:
China, as a country with a meteoric economic growth rate, is on the fast track to adding a superpower to the global zoo. So far, the US is the sole superpower (Russia slipped an fell a while back) in existence. But, with China's aggressive military revamping and increasing slant towards true capitalism, it's only a matter of time before China becomes a nation whose might will make even the United States regard with a wary eye.
Back to the short term: The US will try everything in its power to avoid a Taiwan-China showdown. Face it, we get massive amounts of imports from both countries, Intel basically LIVES in Taiwan, and AMerican investors regard China as the greatest untapped market in the world.
I believe aggressions between the sides of the Taiwan strait are inevitable. The question is: Will the US be able to stop it? If not, will the US take a side? (the Mutual Defense Pact became just another piece of paper the instant Americans realized they could make money in China)
The effectiveness of the US's Babysitting Pact with Taiwan came to an end when US investors and businessmen discovered that China was the largest untapped market in the world.
On paper, the "Mutual Defense Pact" (or some similar name) is all fine and dandy, but when it threatens the US's supply of cheap consumer goods, the US will regard the treary as just another piece of paper, with no real-world significance.
To come to Taiwan's aid will be disastrous for the US economy. To sit back and watch the fireworks would also be disastrous. (think Intel) Thus, the US, if Bush recovers from the post-Iraq party, will most likely try everything within its power to prevent ANY physical conflict between the two.
Even if there WAS conflict: Do you seriously think that the US will risk initiating a nuclear war? Think of the global repercussions of that. We, the ones who pushed for "nuclear deterrent" launching them against a country with its own nuclear arsenal. Your gallant declaration of "in your face" is a bit rash, I think. You actually believe that the US will risk doing what it tried so hard to prevent during the Cold War.
No, the United States would never allow a first-strike nuclear attack.
Hey, your take in things is exactly what drives world politics.
That's life. Principles of self-interest what the power players follow. Principles of freedom and moral responsibility are what they toy with in their spare time.
IMHO, the results would last well into the long term. China and Taiwan are MAJOR suppliers of goods for US citizens. Bush just raised the steel tariff as proof of that. Him wanting to resurrect a dead American industry through limits of high-volume high-quality steel imports from Chine is proof that the US economy, in many sectors, is DEPENDENT on the welfare of both Chian and Taiwan.
It is not the question of which side the US would take in the matter. I think it's more a matter of: Will the US do everything within its power to stave off war? I think the answer's yes.
I'm only saying that you should look at the country you're living in, the grand, democratic, and just United States, and see it for what it is: just another country, albeit a bit richer than other countries, before spouting off about the terror that China (which the US loves as a trade partner) has wreaked upon Tibet.
I am asking this: You call China terrible, yet deign to say anything about the state of foreign affairs in the country you want to be proud of. Do you really not see your hypocrisy, or do you not WANT to see it?
China's in the news. The attention of the Western world has been riveted upon it for some time (excepting the Iraq situation). Wy have you decided that the current China is a terror upon the Earth which should be wiped from existence?
At what point do YOU call something "terrible"? What's YOUR metric? Your ideals? Why aren't you calling the US terrible, then. Why aren't you calling Britain terrible? That's all I'm saying.
Face facts. Morals mean nothing in politics, nor anywhere else in the real world, for that matter. Personal interests run the show.
First off, your language weakens your argument. To any educated person interested in an intelligent debate, throwing around phallic references and "murderous" will get you nowhere fast.
About that "murderous Communist regime": Come back to the present. You're stuck in the past. If you're talking about Falun Gong, on that matter I can personally debate against you, if you wish. Provide some evidence for your sweeping generalizations.
Do you seriously think that the United States would dare to use nuclear weapons against China? Oh come on. The US has a massive economic interest in China. Unless the US is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that it can overrun the entire country, make a-billion-and-a-half people like them for invading, and convince those same people that the American soldiers pointing M-16's at them are doing that "for you own safety", the US won't invade.
P.S. - Please explain your rationale (if you have one) behind calling China "an agressive [sic] outsider".
Go look up "Panama" and "Iran contra" in the context of US meddling. Some say we're helping them towards a path of democracy and righteousness (notice how that's coincidentally OUR path), I call it neo-imperialism.
Now you're saying that what China is only PROPOSING is wrong? Wow, the amount of hypocrisy you have astounds me.
Taiwan should decide for itself? Since when has the US let any country decide for itself when
1. we didn't like the probably outcome. 2. we had a financial stake in it.
Time to come off that pedestal.
"I hear". That's certainly credible.
P.S. - I hear that Americans are required to masturbate as part of their high school education.
Defend? The US wouldn't dare attack China, unless it knew that it could overrun China's entirety, make peace with its billion-and-a-half citizens, create a new economy from scratch (since the current economy is tainted with the all-important taboo "Communist" in it), and make those billion-and-a-half citizens accept the fact that the US military is holding them at gunpoint "for their own benefit."
You actually think that the US will dare to risk war with China? China's the world's largest emerging market. The US has vested interests in China. Even if China didn't have nukes, the US wouldn't dare go against China's will.
That raises the questions: If there IS a war, who will the US support? Will the US even fight? The answers aren't as blatantly obvious as you want to think.
Cheers.
So what you're implying, through your fixation on Texas, is that if Texas seceded, the United Sates should just sign the papers, and go "Good luck."?!?! Wow. THat's unbelievable to the point of being ridiculous.
Wow. To think that you actually believe your own words. That's amazing.
I disagree. The real tragedy is that someone who thinks in such sweeping generalistic terms thinks he/she is right. Not only that, but is arrogant enough to think that their ideals should become world political mantra.
Brutal, communist dictatorship: Yes, that's why American business is viewing it as a gold mine. It's because they utterly CRAVE the overwhelming control that this communist dictatorship imposes upon its people. Of course.
Stop living in the past.
Secret police: Think of a few three-letter US gov't agencies. Now think about what they do. If you still don't know what I'm getting at, go read up on "Stinger".
Forced abortion: No, just a one-child limit. Slightly different. In any case, it's a way of life now. Last time I checked, overpopulation was somethign countries didn't want. China just doesn't want India's overpopulation problem. Know any alternatives, in a primarily agrarian culture, other than mass deportation or the next Holocaust?
Internet censorship: Review your read-up on "Stinger". Then read up on Google's current debacle concerning its extremely comprehensive search engine (which some think is TOO comprehensive).
Tiananmen Massacres: Yes, I know all about those. Modern Chinese refer to that day, June 6, 1989, as "6-4". That's how deeply it's ingrained into our psyches (yes, I'm Chinese). It's not "right", but hey it was also caught on television, which makes it even less "right", right? Go look up a bit on historical massacres. Maybe then you'll see that Tiananmen isn't the end-all greatest-event-in-history that China critics make it out to be.
You also might want to look up some words like "Waco". Well, there goes America's perfect record. Sorry to disappoint you.
As fsmunoz pointed out, Taiwan's history hasn't been cheery all the way. Do you know how the modern Taiwanese gov't came to be. the Guomindang (Kuomintang) fled to the island after defeat in a war with Mao. What does that make them? Exiles? The fact that Taiwan hasn't already been flattened by China says volumes about China's "brutality".
"Every time a tyranny falls, the world becomes a better place." Oh come on. Come back to reality. You think that America's control over world politics is "right" in that light?!?! Do some research concerning Iran contra, Panama, and the CIA's past "wet affairs". The United States isn't the perfectly democratic, perfectly nice, and perfectly fair country you want to believe it is. Face it. That's life.
P.S. - Define "better". Better for you? Better for the US economy? Better for whom?
To your first statement: What do you make of the new "anti-terrorism" laws that Bush has passed, hmm? It's like John Wayne's final speech at the end of "Unforgiven". "If you TRY to do anything to me, if you have any THOUGHTS of trying to do anything to my country, I will put you in irons, I will..." Your second comment: Provide some evidence please. I want to know more about this. Your third comment: Are you talking about the Falun Gong? If you are, and if you haven't witnessed the power of the Falun Gong firsthand, please refrain from making rash statements based upon incomplete information. Your final comment: So basically, you, famous dead Americans, and an immaterial entity whom Christians have given the name "God" think that people are given the right to independence. Well, for non-major-religion non-Americans, that argument doesn't really hold much water. Even IF the right to independence were an unalienable right (I'm not going to argue either way), why should a controlling party just say "Hey, let's just sit back, and let them do what they please." Ever heard of the Civil War? Slavery aside (it wasn't the issue at heart), the War was about the South trying to secede, and the North not allowing that to happen. Why isn't the majority of the American population bashing the Civil War, instead of honoring it? It was a war in which the controlling party (the North) wanted to keep the I-have-a-right-to-be-independent party (the South) from becoming independent. Oh wait, are you saying that we should have let the South secede, because they have the right to independence? Regardless of whether a group has the RIGHT to independence or not, you shouldn't expect that every controlling party should just LET any rebellious elements do whatever they want. It doesn't work that way.
If this is indeed so "terrible", why doesn't the US care about Tibet? Hey, I'll admit that Chinese control over Tibet may violate your ideals about a country's unalienable rights to self-government, but if it's so terrible, why isn't it making headlines every few months? (Also, as an American, think of Panama, Iran contra, etc. Is the US any better?)
I agree with October_30th on this matter. What is the "right" to become independent? When were we, the United States, given the right to play God over the world? Everyone has the "right" to become independent. Maine has the right to secede from the US. New South Wales as the "right" to break off from Australia. Does that mean it's "right"?! Really, I thought people these days were wordly enough to consider the possibility that their opinions aren't the Almighty Truth. If it can't become independent by itself, why should the US be justified in helping it? Oh I know why, because so many American companies are there. Yes, that must be why. Please explain WHY you think the "would" would be a better place if China were more like Taiwan? I'd really like to know.