Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because the "Taiwanese" lost the civil war, but still managed to plunder the country of their art treasures and gold reserves; hence, the Communists still want payback.
Or they just didn't want to be ruled by the likes of Mao. Given how somehwere around 30 million died due to starvation during his Great Leap Forward beginning in 1958 (More than three times Taiwan's population at the time), I'm thinking they made a pretty smart choice.
Patriotism means many things. In France it means French culture. In Russia it is Mother Russia.
Part of Chinese "patriotism" means not losing territory or face. It is also the reason they freak out about Tibet and have no problem doing bad things to the Urighurs. (yea I know spelling on Urighurs)
For the same reason Lincoln was so damn childish with the South.
I hope you are joking. There is a huge difference between a perpetual union created by willing parties versus a communist warlord conquering as much as he can.
I hope you are joking. There is a huge difference between a perpetual union created by willing parties versus a communist warlord conquering as much as he can.
Wow so many faults in that one little sentence.
-- No union is perpetual.
-- Some parties were unwilling in 1861.
-- The "warlord" happens to be the Generalissimo that fled to Taiwan.
-- And the communists are just trying to defeat every final enemy troop - not unlike what Lincoln and Grant did, actually.
Because the "Taiwanese" lost the civil war, but still managed to plunder the country of their art treasures and gold reserves; hence, the Communists still want payback.
Conversely, the communists that stole almost the entire country while real Chinese were fighting the Japanese realized they missed a spot and want to steal more. Once complete, it's no longer stealing. They already killed off the KMT heroes in country by sending them to Korea to prove their loyalty.
It's a solid communist move. Strike when people are distracted and then kill off the evidence. The original version was killing the entire Tsar family while they were attempting to fight the Germans in WWI. WWII saw the infiltration around the globe. As there's no legitimacy in communist rule, they have to finish killing off opposition.
So long as Taiwan exists, the communists will just be the creepy old dudes that stole a country and killed a ton of people to stay there. Taiwan houses the legitimate elected ruler of China, but unlike the communists, they have no aims to recover what's been lost and must be content with they've been able to hold on to.
In terms of continuous legitimacy, the authentic government of 1 China is exiled in Taipei. That's why Beijing wants to destroy them.
Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the UNION SHALL BE PERPETUAL; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
/ / / / l l l \ \ \ \
The secession of the Confederate States was a breach of the "civil compact" (originally, the Articles of Confederation, amended by the U.S. constitution). Remember, the union was instituted to secure the endowed rights of the people.
Slavery was a revenue taxable privilege under the democratic constitutional government, not under the republican form of government (where all men have endowed rights). The Confederate states could not simply dissolve their governments and retain slavery. But no servant government nor subject citizens have any "right" to secede, since the beneficiaries of the union were the sovereign people.
Chiang Kai-shek (31 October 1887 – 5 April 1975), also known as Chiang Chung-cheng and romanized via Mandarin as Chiang Chieh-shih and Jiang Jieshi, was a Chinese nationalist politician, revolutionary and military leader who served as the leader of the Republic of China between 1928 and 1975, first in mainland China until 1949 and then in Taiwan until his death.
MAO?
Let's see, GREAT FAMINE killed millions. Civil war killed an unknown number (upwards of a million). GREAT LEAP FORWARD did some nasty damage.
How many more were killed by the 'gentle' communist leader and his brave heroes?
43+ million and climbing (if you add in the deaths of the Tibetans who resisted the 'gentle' invasion of their land). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
- - - - -
Annihilation was not the goal of the Union forces.
MAGNANIMITY IN VICTORY MARKED THE CIVIL WAR’S END
Upon news of General Lee’s surrender, General Grant admonished Union soldiers who were firing salutes to mark their victory. “Stop that firing,†he said sternly, “The Rebels are our countrymen again.â€
Lincoln and Grant knew the Confederates were once more part of the union. To be harsh or spiteful, or punish them, or throw the Union's win in their face, was not going to do anybody any good.
Reminds me of Castro's take over of Cuba? Does that not rings bells of similarity to you?
America's boycott of that small island. Attempts at economic destruction. Support of mercenary invasion.
Cuba of course over came obstacles to its survival. A lot with Russian help, but then would Taiwan have lasted without American support?
Taiwan, of course lost most recognition from the seventies onwards, when China's economic growth saw America ditch Taiwan and recognise China. The world followed from that point. Now a handful of very small, mostly islands and the odd African and Latino country are the only ones to continue recognition. (not even sure if any of the latter still do)
Cuba meanwhile has a stack of recognition from around the world.
Cuba should have been annexed by the US. Its prime real estate. Communists mismanage everything. CCP is ruining HK. They would ruin Taiwan too.
I could not explain it better than blisterpeanuts.
Just to throw in a tidbit. When I attended grad school, there were a fair amount of students from both Taiwan and the PRC. And they never spoke to each other or even acknowledged the other existed. Someone from Shanghai would sit next to someone from Taipei an entire semester and never look each others' way.
The only time was when a jovial student from the PRC was giving an oral presentation on economic developments and the future in his country. When it came time to ask questions, some guy from Taiwan- someone who had not uttered a word all semester- asked him when his country would cease threatening Taiwan.
A mild shockwave went through the room and the professor, well versed in this issue, concluded the presentation.
Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the UNION SHALL BE PERPETUAL; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
/ / / / l l l \ \ \ \
The secession of the Confederate States was a breach of the "civil compact" (originally, the Articles of Confederation, amended by the U.S. constitution). Remember, the union was instituted to secure the endowed rights of the people.
Slavery was a revenue taxable privilege under the democratic constitutional government, not under the republican form of government (where all men have endowed rights). The Confederate states could not simply dissolve their governments and retain slavery. But no servant government nor subject citizens have any "right" to secede, since the beneficiaries of the union were the sovereign people.
While I agree that Robert Fisher's butthurt dragging of the Civil War into this thread is nonsense, I'll also point out that the notion that the Articles of Confederation is relevant is pretty weak sauce, particularly concerned the perpetual nature of the union between the states.
Why? Because of the Constitution. The Constitution did not amend the Articles; it scrapped them entirely. Read Article XIII:
Quote:
Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determinations of the united states, in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state.
Note that changing the Articles requires unanimity among the states. Yet the Constitution was enacted without unanimity. Indeed, the Constitution specifically states that it goes into effect upon ratification by 2/3rds of all states. And when the Constitution was ratified by the ninth state (out of thirteen - meeting the 2/3rds threshold) it became effective. To this point, efforts to amend the Articles were so confounded in the 1780s by the unanimity requirement that it was decided simply to proceed with a new pact, thereby tacitly rejecting the Articles as governing law. Madison had addressed this discrepancy in Federalist #40, dismissing it as irrelevant, and in so doing dismissing the Articles themselves are irrelevant. By the time the new federal government had its first elections, swore in a new President, and was up and running, there were still two states that had not ratified the Constitution: North Carolina and Rhode Island. These states were effectively sovereign during the period until they finally joined the Union (North Carolina in late 1789, Rhode Island in 1790). That the Articles had during this interim time been abrogated and utterly rejected demonstrates that they were no longer legally binding in any sense. Nor were they seven decades later, in 1861.
There are solid legal arguments as to the illegality of secession. But a clause in a long-rejected and defunct constitution isn't one of them.
While I agree that Robert Fisher's butthurt dragging of the Civil War into this thread is nonsense, I'll also point out that the notion that the Articles of Confederation is relevant is pretty weak sauce, particularly concerned the perpetual nature of the union between the states.
The American Civil War cannot be more perfect as a parallel to the China situation:
--Both have a renegade situation
--Both weak parties set up new country
--Both strong parties want to "keep the union"
--Both advance to hot civil war
To say only US can defeat the South to keep the union together, but China cannot finish off Taiwan to keep the union together, is double standard.
LET ALONE, China doesn't even need to measure up to the low standard America set.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
