China's SCS Strategy Thread

[abc123]

That's the Western connotations attached to the word, not the definition.

If you think of the CPC as having earnt the connotations attached to "regime", then by all means, use it. I, on the other hand, think the DPP earns its use as much, if not more, than the CPC. On politics, we can agree to disagree.

It's good, I suppose, that you won't let political preference get in the way of your perspective on nationhood. We can disagree on which political system is best for China but we can agree we both want the best for her. That, at the very least, is more than can be said for the traitorous pan-green f*cks who would turn their backs on their motherland.

Well, considering that the word "regime" IS a western word, I would say that you have to accept western way of use.

But yes, I think that we can both agree on bolded part.

About Pan-Greens, well, if China was democracy, I presume that the Greens would still want independence, but China would then have moral right to label them as "traitorous fucks who turn their backs on their motherland". But this way, no. Nobody should be forced to live under dictatorship, one people or not.

 

[jobjed]

Well, considering that the word "regime" IS a western word, I would say that you have to accept western way of use.

But yes, I think that we can both agree on bolded part.

About Pan-Greens, well, if China was democracy, I presume that the Greens would still want independence, but China would then have moral right to label them as "traitorous fucks who turn their backs on their motherland". But this way, no. Nobody should be forced to live under dictatorship, one people or not.

The pan-blues want to be separate from the PRC, the political entity, not China, the cultural entity. That's acceptable, I understand their preference. If they want democracy so much, whatever, have it; being part of the PRC is preferable, not mandatory. They simply need to recognise they are Chinese first and foremost, and they are to come to the defence of China, PRC or otherwise, if she is attacked. As of currently, the CPC's stance is agreement with mine. The ROC is allowed to practise democracy but not separatism.

The pan-greens want be be completely separate from not just the PRC, but also the ROC and 'China' in every sense of the word. They wish to become the ROT. That is traitorous and unacceptable. I can count on a single hand the reasons that could prompt me to enlist; the success of Taiwan separatism is one of them.

 

[abc123]

The pan-blues want to be separate from the PRC, the political entity, not China, the cultural entity. That's acceptable, I understand their preference. If they want democracy so much, whatever, have it; being part of the PRC is preferable, not mandatory. They simply need to recognise they are Chinese first and foremost, and they are to come to the defence of China, PRC or otherwise, if she is attacked. As of currently, the CPC's stance is agreement with mine. The ROC is allowed to practise democracy but not separatism.

The pan-greens want be be completely separate from not just the PRC, but also the ROC and 'China' in every sense of the word. They wish to become the ROT. That is traitorous and unacceptable. I can count on a single hand the reasons that could prompt me to enlist; the success of Taiwan separatism is one of them.

I don't think they have anything against China per se, but against dictatorial Beijing rule ( even under Hong Kong style authonomy ) yes. RoT is just the means to achieve that freedom.

 

[Blackstone]

The pan-blues want to be separate from the PRC, the political entity, not China, the cultural entity. That's acceptable, I understand their preference. If they want democracy so much, whatever, have it; being part of the PRC is preferable, not mandatory. They simply need to recognise they are Chinese first and foremost, and they are to come to the defence of China, PRC or otherwise, if she is attacked. As of currently, the CPC's stance is agreement with mine. The ROC is allowed to practise democracy but not separatism.

The pan-greens want be be completely separate from not just the PRC, but also the ROC and 'China' in every sense of the word. They wish to become the ROT. That is traitorous and unacceptable. I can count on a single hand the reasons that could prompt me to enlist; the success of Taiwan separatism is one of them.

It'd be a titanic mistake for leaders of China to allow any wiggle room for separatists in Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Macau to maneuver and cause trouble for unity. Beijing mandarins should always keep in mind what happened when Gorbachev promoted glasnost before completion of perestroika. The kind of chaos separatists can cause in the Middle Kingdom is dangerous not only to China, but to Asia and the rest of the world.

Overwhelming evidence from history show nations do best by completing economic and institutional developments before embarking on massive social and political reforms. All other methods produced basket cases in one form or another. Finally, if China falls to pieces, a-la the Soviet Union, the resulting mess could cast tsunamis across the entire world, and that isn't in humanity's interests.

 

[abc123]

It'd be a titanic mistake for leaders of China to allow any wiggle room for separatists in Xinjiang, Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Macau to maneuver and cause trouble for unity. Beijing mandarins should always keep in mind what happened when Gorbachev promoted glasnost before completion of perestroika. The kind of chaos separatists can cause in the Middle Kingdom is dangerous not only to China, but to Asia and the rest of the world.

Overwhelming evidence from history show nations do best by completing economic and institutional developments before embarking on massive social and political reforms. All other methods produced basket cases in one form or another. Finally, if China falls to pieces, a-la the Soviet Union, the resulting mess could cast tsunamis across the entire world, and that isn't in humanity's interests.

Come on. When was the last time when unity of China was seriously threatned? Tibetan mutiny in 50s? Was even that serious/had a chance to suceed? Han-Chinese are 95% of Chinese population, all the minorities ( including HK & Macao ) have no chance whatsoever for any serious attempt against unity of China.

On the other hand, my humble opinion is, if China want's to be strong for incoming Unmentionable Showdown with Unmentionable Country, democracy is the No1 thing. More important than J-20 or Type 095. Because, many people in China are ready to trade it's freedoms for prosperity, but what to do when prosperity is gone due to blockade by Unmentionable Country? If they don't get freedom before that, there will be big potential for revolution in case of serious economical hardships/reverses in conflict.

 

[advill]

There is only ONE China recognised by the UN and many countries including Singapore.

 

[Equation]

Sorry man, but this post is absolutly hillarious.

I understand if you, being from PRC, can't ( not allowed ) tell anything good about RoC/Taiwan, but this is becoming tragicomical...

Ahem, same goes to the Taiwan regime and their people being stuck with their mentality on a religious institutions who denied them of the truth. That they don't belong on that piece of PRC island. Sorry but your regime government lost the civil war therefore lost every right to exist as a legitimate and acceptable government body recognize by the UN.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

On the other hand, my humble opinion is, if China want's to be strong for incoming Unmentionable Showdown with Unmentionable Country, democracy is the No1 thing. More important than J-20 or Type 095. Because, many people in China are ready to trade it's freedoms for prosperity, but what to do when prosperity is gone due to blockade by Unmentionable Country? If they don't get freedom before that, there will be big potential for revolution in case of serious economical hardships/reverses in conflict.

I don't know why you keep pinning your hope on economical blockade. It was tried before and not succeeded.In the 60's US imposed trade embargo on China. with the objective of causing break down and regime change. It doesn't work. It was not lifted until 1972

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

For your information China is self sufficient in food for a long time . Most of the grain and staple food are produced inside the country.They did import soy and corn for animal feed because raising living standard.

China produced more than 50% of their oil need from domestic sources with increasing import from Soviet Union and Central Asia
Most Chinese electricity comes from coal. Oil is used strictly for transportation.But in recent year China expand the public transport like rail and subway like there is no tomorrow. Most urban center have subway and they are connected with dense railway system and road
So worst come worst people will leave their car in the garage and used public transportation. Inconvenience sure but it will galvanized support for the government

China economy depend more and more on domestic consumption and capital investment . Export component has declined year by year . Export to us is no more than 10%

China is rich in mineral. They are self sufficient in mineral.They did import coal not out of shortage But because it is cheaper to import coal from
Australia than getting it from Shaanxi or inner Mongolia

If embargo was imposed on China, she will suffered but will not kneel down. but the rest of the world will suffer hyper inflation and riot and blood on the street. Embargo is like shooting one own foot

But imposing embargo is act of war and you must be dreaming if it can be localized. It will be the beginning of WWIII.

I doubt that Asian country will support embargo since their own economy is so integrated with China they will suffer immensely. Not to mention they will incur the wrath of China for generations

 

[PikeCowboy]

A good government is one that is responsible to its people and improves the livelihood of its citizens.

Democracy is a mean to an end, it is not an end in of itself. Good governance is the goal, and democracy is just one possible path to good governance, I think this is a very important point to clarify.

Legitimacy comes from an organization properly fulfilling the role of a government, not from the mechanism by which the organization arose. Legitimacy comes from actions and not origins. Likewise, a popular government is not necessarily a good government, and an unpopular government is not necessarily a bad one.

I do not disparage popular democracy as a mechanism, in fact it has worked well for many of countries (the west), but clearly there are numerous countries where democratically elected governments are complete failures (most developing countries) and there are some countries where non-democratically elected governments are highly functional (China).

Using a word like regime to poke at PRC CCP legitimacy, when they're doing a good job on the whole, is unnecessary.

--- Taiwan importing nuclear contaminated food doesn't exactly paint the picture of a very functional and responsible government, I don't know whose interests the Taiwan government is looking out for but certainly not those of its citizens.

 

[tphuang]

Please stay off politics and go back to SCS strategy.