Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The right is for whatever Fox News and Clear Channel tell them to be for, just like the left is for whatever CNN, MSNBC, FB, and Democracy Now tell them they have to be for.And just like that, the right is all for yet another foreign war.
Add OAN and FB to the right as well and I will agree. We the People have become We the Lemmings.The right is for whatever Fox News and Clear Channel tell them to be for, just like the left is for whatever CNN, MSNBC, FB, and Democracy Now tell them they have to be for.
Oh, I thought about OAN and Newsmax. .. I just didn't think they have the viewership and reach that the others do. I don't much pay that close attention to manufactured culture anymore. Maybe they reach as much as Democracy Now. What do I know?Add OAN and FB to the right as well and I will agree. We the People have become We the Lemmings.
Sounds like a post ripped right out of the pre WWII era when Germany was unopposed and conquering nations left and right.fuck them all, let them fight their own battles. ever notice all the fat ass cigar-chewing assholes have no problem sending some young kid into battle as long as it is not them or their family. And I do not give a shit that armed forces are still voluntary.
A referendum? They could vote on it themselves.China is a bigger threat to the US than Russia, though the US public doesn't agree, but i can explain that
the macho right wing conservative Russians are easier to demonize than non-macho left wing liberal Chinese wusses
i think there should be a referendum on everything, much better than letting politicians decide policyA referendum? They could vote on it themselves.
If liberty and equality are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.--Aristotle
That should happen afterward in their congress, assembled; delegated that social power.i think there should be a referendum on everything, much better than letting politicians decide policy
Taiwan is already independent. China has no control over it. It's a part of China in nameonly. They are the original government of China. They relocated to Taiwan after the communist takeover, and The PRChas never been in control there. They claim it's part of China and Taiwan claims to be the legit government for all of China but it's all talk.China would go to war over that or even if Taiwan declared their independence China says it will go to war if they do that.
I wouldn't say they have no control over it, they try to get some leverage and have influence over certain politicians and other figures like some rich people.Taiwan is already independent. China has no control over it. It's a part of China in nameonly. They are the original government of China. They relocated to Taiwan after the communist takeover, and The PRChas never been in control there. They claim it's part of China and Taiwan claims to be the legit government for all of China but it's all talk.
TAIWAN WAS A PART OF CHINA. IT WAS CEDED BACK TO CHINA AFTER WWII BY THE JAPANESE. IT IS CHINESE TERRITORY.Taiwan was part of Imperial China. Never Communist China.
Sort of, but not exactly. There are native Taiwanese people. They are not Chinese, but related to Polynesians/Micronesians. They're a minority now though.TAIWAN WAS A PART OF CHINA. IT WAS CEDED BACK TO CHINA AFTER WWII BY THE JAPANESE. IT IS CHINESE TERRITORY.
Formosa, is Chinese...it is Chinese territory.Sort of, but not exactly. There are native Taiwanese people. They are not Chinese, but related to Polynesians/Micronesians. They're a minority now though.
The people that live on the Island of Taiwan do not deny rhey are chinese....but it is not a question of being chinese or not being chinese....it is a question of being a communist or not being a communist.....they do not want to be communist.Formosa, is Chinese...it is Chinese territory.
It was traditionally Chinese, it had been recognized along with Hong Kong, and Macau as strictly Chinese.
It was lost to Imperial Japan but was given back to the nation of China after WWII.
IT IS CHINESE.
Talk of native rights and property is a useless diversion.
One could say the exact same thing about the Ryukyu chain of islands and their native populations.
But you won't hear ANY of that because those islands are recognized as Japanese territory.
I am indifferent to what they 'want'.The people that live on the Island of Taiwan do not deny rhey are chinese....but it is not a question of being chinese or not being chinese....it is a question of being a communist or not being a communist.....they do not want to be communist.
I am indifferent to what they 'want'.
The TRUTH is that the land belongs to the nation of China.
I want a Ferrari...I can go get in one, drive off, and call it mine but the judge will not care, as he shouldn't.
A thief by any other name.
international.thenewslens.com
No. I don't know where you found this horseshit...but it's exactly that...horseshit.The truth is:
You do not know the history of the Island of Taiwan
Japan never admitted that “Taiwan was returned to China.”
Taiwan was already ceded to Japan before the end of the Qing dynasty. From China’s perspective, it was an “unequal treaty.” However, in terms of international law, it was a legal transfer of territory. At the same time, recognizing the legality of territorial transfer doesn’t erase the possibility of returning such territory legally again.
In the case of Hong Kong, for example, Kowloon and Hong Kong island were both ceded to Britain in perpetuity. Yet the Sino-British Joint Declaration stated that the PRC would legally repossess the entire Hong Kong.
After the Second World War, Taiwan should have been returned to the ROC as well. Practically speaking, the ROC has indeed reclaimed Taiwan. But in terms of international law, whether Taiwan has been returned remains in an “incomplete” status.
Three documents — the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration, and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender — have determined that Taiwan must be returned to China after WWII. However, each of these documents standing alone is insufficient to prove that Taiwan must be returned. We have to examine all three together to clarify the logic.
The Cairo Declaration was the only document that mentioned: “all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.” But it was not signed by Japan — it was more like a statement of political will. The 1945 Potsdam Declaration was signed between the Allies, and it stated that Japan must accept the Cairo Declaration, but again it was not a treaty signed off by Japan.
The 1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender was signed between Japan’s representatives and the Allies, officially the end of the war. Ironically, this treaty did not mention the Cairo Declaration or Taiwan. It had only stated Japan’s acceptance of the conditions outlined in the Potsdam Declaration, indirectly linking it to the initial Cairo Declaration.
Despite all the twists and turns, Taiwan was “supposed” to be returned to the ROC.
Legally speaking, however, the above-mentioned documents were simply “letters of intent.” Although they have a certain extent of legal authority, only an official peace treaty signed by Japan can resolve Taiwan’s status legally. Unfortunately, the Cold War quickly took place and the peace treaty with Japan was not finalized until 1951, yet the KMT had lost the civil war and retreated to Taiwan in 1949. There was no consensus on which government represented “China,” therefore neither the PRC nor the ROC attended the conference.
In the end, Japan only declared to “surrender” Taiwan in the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, rather than “returning” Taiwan. Next, under the U.S. permission, Japan decided to choose the KMT-ruled ROC as “the sole legal government of China” and signed the Treaty of Taipei with the ROC government. In Article 2 of the Treaty of Taipei, both parties agreed that “Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands,” according to the San Francisco Treaty.
Both the PRC and ROC have emphasized that the Treaty of Taipei meant Taiwan has been returned to China. The logic was, in terms of international law, Taiwan was only relevant to China-Japan relations without a third party claiming sovereignty over Taiwan — so it was redundant to reiterate the returned party in the treaty. But it leaves a loophole: Will Taiwan still have the right to self-determination when Japan had only surrendered the territory? Within the U.N. list of "non-self-governing territories," which are subject to the decolonization process, Taiwan was not included. In other words, Taiwan was already decolonized, but its status was still incomplete.
Until 1972, Japan signed the Japan-China Joint Communiqué with Beijing to establish their diplomatic relations. In this agreement, the Japanese government “fully understood and respected” the position of the PRC that Taiwan was an inalienable territory of the PRC, but note that Japan never used the term “recognize” or even “acknowledge.”
At the same time, Japan insisted on complying with the Potsdam Declaration, which implied that Japan acknowledged Taiwan was already returned to the ROC. Also, the Japanese government refused to call the Treaty of Taipei illegal or invalid after it was abrogated and declined to “surrender” Taiwan again. The Japanese argued that Japan had already “surrendered” Taiwan once in the 1950s, therefore it cannot be done again. But these arguments did not help to clarify Taiwan’s international legal status.
Taiwan is the Real China
The Republic of China was never conquered by the communists....they fled to the Island of Formosa.
The mainland is occupied by communist usurpers hence their obsession with Taiwan....they know to be legal they must conquer Taiwan where the real legal government of China resides.
I mentioned earlier that I find Taipei to be a great deal more Chinese than anywhere I’ve visited in mainland China, which is to say that Taipei corresponds more closely with the images I had of China before I ever traveled there, from its architecture, to it culture, to its cuisine.
This makes sense, of course, given Chiang Kai-Shek’s goal of Chinese national restoration in Taiwan following the exile of the Republic of China there, to say nothing of Mao’s goal of destroying most things traditionally Chinese during the Cultural Revolution in the People’s Republic of China.
