BirdKiller said:
albino boo said:
Sleekit said:
albino boo said:
Tell that to the Tibetans who they invaded in 1956, the Indians who they attacked in 1962, the Russians who they attacked in 1969 and the Vietnamese who they attacked in 1979.
to the Chinese Tibet is part of China. it only existed as an independent state for 30 years of its entire history. "old maps" as i said before.
the rest were cold war border conflicts that resulted in next to no territorial change and directly led to the Sino-Soviet split and China becoming a US ally in the cold war. if you want to frame those as Chinese "imperialist" aggression you simply are making a mockery of far more complicated history involved.
and by my "logic" nothing. my or your supposed "logic" and your desire for the world to adhere to it while throwing around false equivalences doesn't shape the world. but the Chinese Confuciust view of China does shape their world and maybe just maybe you should find out what the hell that is before you go trying to label them the next overly simplistic "big bad" on the world stage simply because for your own world view to work you've got to have one.
this ? this a an argument about a rock in the sea akin to multitudes of others some of which almost certainly involve your own country ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes ) and as such it doesn't particularly mark China down as anything.
Just how long did Poland exist as independent country before the Germans invaded? Tibet has been part of China for periods of history, first coming into Chinese control under the Mongols and has come and gone since with the strength of the ruling dynasties. Much like Poland has appeared and disappeared in the same time period. China since WW2 has consistently used armed force in backing its view of the borders, in the process killing 10000s of poeple and attempting to destroy any non Chinese culture within its selfdefined borders. 90% of countries in the world can make convincing historical claims to control of parts or even entire other countries, why is it acceptable for China to used armed force on its claims but not Mexico to invade the US to reclaim the southern half of the US?
The example of Mexico vs. U.S. is probably a poor example considering we did win the territories after a war and forcing Mexico to sign a document legitimizing the U.S.'s ownership of that land.
There's nothing wrong with Mexico invading the U.S. to reclaim the same territories...if Mexico is willing to become the 51st state of the United States after it surrenders.
The irony of course here, on the subject of Mexico, is that Mexican Military Forces do invade the United States on a regular basis. They have shot and killed members of the Border Patrol while transporting drug shipments for the Cartels. If the U.S.A wanted to go to war with Mexico, we have a legitimate claim to, they have already participated in acts of war against us on our own soil. It's terrifying to realize that the corruption there runs so deep. But we aren't at war with Mexico. There aren't even any National Guard forces stationed on the border. Why? Because we don't want Mexico. We don't want to engage in acts of hostilities against Mexico, even when they are engaging on a regular basis in acts that are backed by members of the corrupted parts of their own government. Mexico is a mess and if we started a military campaign against Mexico to go after the drug cartels, it wouldn't end until we were half way through South America. The U.S. government knows that. They won't do it.
On the subject of whether or not it's okay? You're trying to apply morality to a question that has no basis there. Only two things matter: can they do it? Yes. Could they win? No. There's nothing to be gained from an invasion. Mexico isn't together enough as a country to even make an attempt at reclaiming it's territory, it's government is in pieces and weighed down by corruption that has no interest in seeing things change. A bloody military conflict will end with most of their own people, both soldier and civilian, dead and those in power, well, no longer in power. It's a losing proposition.
We haven't even included the fact that Mexico would be up against the most well-funded and one of the best trained, largest military forces in the world. Say what you will about the United States and it's politics, but it's military is a very scary beast. Our military readiness assumes that we will be fighting two full-scale wars on any given front, with our force projection we can fight two full scale wars from anywhere in the world. If Mexico did invade, the US Military could, in fact, engage in a full scale war against them while keeping operations going in the Middle East and a strong presence on the Korean DMZ. Think about that for a second, then remember that's without resorting to the use of nuclear weapons.
On the China front? I don't know what's going to happen. I know the US is required to support Japan militarily due to treaties from WW2, Japan doesn't have much in the way of their own and may not actually be able to engage in conflicts if they are presented. China, however, does have a military, they also have crappy force projection. If they want to go to war over it, they can. It's more a question of will they.
