[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, what’s China’s claim to Tibet, Vietnam, Korea, Mongolia, Taiwan, the Phillipines, ect? If you know anything about Chinese history, most of China was enlarged because “barbarians” conquered THEM. I’m talking Mongols and Manchus of course. And if China has a claim on Mongolia as Chinese territory, than it nulifies the claim that the “Chinese” always stayed “in their own backyard.” [/quote]
They say Tibet is Chinese, the Taiwanese undoubtedly ARE CHinese, and Mongolia, Vietnam, Korea and the Phillipines are undoubtedly their backyard.
The US wish to be a “leading” power when it comes to who does what in the South CHina sea, which is about as likely as the Chinese trying to be a “leading power” when it comes to whats what in the Caribbean.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, what’s China’s claim to Tibet, Vietnam, Korea, Mongolia, Taiwan, the Phillipines, ect? If you know anything about Chinese history, most of China was enlarged because “barbarians” conquered THEM. I’m talking Mongols and Manchus of course. And if China has a claim on Mongolia as Chinese territory, than it nulifies the claim that the “Chinese” always stayed “in their own backyard.” [/quote]
You have to remember who made that claim.
It was the guy who simply and consistently cannot get his history right on this forum.[/quote]
Yeah, I know, a sense of history is not exactly high up on the US publics schools list (what is?), but try to keep up, will you?
They say Tibet is Chinese, the Taiwanese undoubtedly ARE CHinese, and Mongolia, Vietnam, Korea and the Phillipines are undoubtedly their backyard.
The US wish to be a “leading” power when it comes to who does what in the South CHina sea, which is about as likely as the Chinese trying to be a “leading power” when it comes to whats what in the Caribbean. [/quote]
Tibet was a territory outside of China for centuries. What makes Tibet Chinese and Mongolia not Chinese? And if you are unfortunate enough to live outside of China, you should expect to have your country invaded, annexed and it’s perfectly fine in your view? No one should say or do anything to try and put a stop to this?
And it’s not about the US becoming a leading power in the South China Sea, it’s about China infringing on the rights of it’s neighbors, like the right to drill for oil off the coast of Vietnam for instance. Why should China claim the ocean off Vietnam’s coast?
And as far as the Carribean is concerned (don’t know if this was posted before but here it is:)
They want Mc Donalds, Baywatch, jeans and tentacle porn, let their government try to take it away from them.
[/quote]
And you know this how?
The last polls that I saw on the ME (admittedly not limited to Iran) showed astounding support for “the Muslim way” of doing things. You know, like say, killing people for adultery…[/quote]
Because being able to fuck and eat shit is better than not being able to?
People of quality might restrain themselves (thats my elitism shining through) but even they would like to have the choice.
Furry sex while being drenched in sweet-sour sauce FTW!
Oh, look ye here, and all just a google search away…
Throughout the period from the armistice on 11 November 1918 until the signing of the peace treaty with Germany on 28 June 1919, the Allies maintained the naval blockade of Germany that had begun during the war. As Germany was dependent on imports, it is estimated that 523,000[1] civilians had lost their lives during the war, and a quarter-million more[2] died from disease or starvation in this eight month period.
[/quote]
“Did the blockade starve Germany and the other Central Powers into defeat in 1918? It has recently been argued that this idea, a common assumption of First World War historiography, is mistaken. According to the revisionists, the German people often went hungry as a result of the blockade, yet few actually starved; the widely derided German system of rationing was, in fact, no less efficient than the systems used in France or Britain; and German capitulation in 1918 was precipitated on the Western Front, not among the discontented populace back home.”
Besides, who is to blame? Germany had not surrendered yet - only agreed to Marshall Foch’s armistice. German leaders were entirely to blame. Germany/Austria began the war. Germany/Austria massacred civilians in Belgium and dropped bombs from zeppelins on civilians in London. Germany’s war wiped out an entire generation of European men.
[quote]
On September 10, 1919, Chancellor Karl Renner signed the Treaty of Saint Germain and it was ratified by the national assembly on October 21. According to its provisions, the name of the republic was changed from “German Austria” to “Austria” and any efforts for the country to unify with Germany were banned. Article 88 of the treaty, sometimes called a “pre-Anschluss attempt”, states that “the independence of Austria is inalienable otherwise than with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations.” [1] Likewise, in the Treaty of Versailles dictating the terms of peace for Germany, there was a prohibition of unification. With these changes and the settling of Austria’s frontiers, the era of the Federal State of Austria, sometimes called the First Austrian Republic, began. [/quote]
Are you suggesting that the League of Nations wouldn’t have granted Austria a plebiscite(as they did the Saar?) In 1938 with Hitler having just militarised the Rhineland in breach of the Versailles treaty and with no consequences?
R.I.P. - Edith Cavell. Red Cross nurse executed by the Germans along with four Belgium civilians 12 October 1915. Cavell received a swift military “trial” in which ‘the death penalty relevant to the offence committed by Cavell was not officially declared until a few hours after her death.’
Oh, look ye here, and all just a google search away…
Throughout the period from the armistice on 11 November 1918 until the signing of the peace treaty with Germany on 28 June 1919, the Allies maintained the naval blockade of Germany that had begun during the war. As Germany was dependent on imports, it is estimated that 523,000[1] civilians had lost their lives during the war, and a quarter-million more[2] died from disease or starvation in this eight month period.
[/quote]
“Did the blockade starve Germany and the other Central Powers into defeat in 1918? It has recently been argued that this idea, a common assumption of First World War historiography, is mistaken. According to the revisionists, the German people often went hungry as a result of the blockade, yet few actually starved; the widely derided German system of rationing was, in fact, no less efficient than the systems used in France or Britain; and German capitulation in 1918 was precipitated on the Western Front, not among the discontented populace back home.”
Besides, who is to blame? Germany had not surrendered yet - only agreed to Marshall Foch’s armistice. German leaders were entirely to blame. Germany/Austria began the war. Germany/Austria massacred civilians in Belgium and dropped bombs from zeppelins on civilians in London. Germany’s war wiped out an entire generation of European men.
[quote]
On September 10, 1919, Chancellor Karl Renner signed the Treaty of Saint Germain and it was ratified by the national assembly on October 21. According to its provisions, the name of the republic was changed from “German Austria” to “Austria” and any efforts for the country to unify with Germany were banned. Article 88 of the treaty, sometimes called a “pre-Anschluss attempt”, states that “the independence of Austria is inalienable otherwise than with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations.” [1] Likewise, in the Treaty of Versailles dictating the terms of peace for Germany, there was a prohibition of unification. With these changes and the settling of Austria’s frontiers, the era of the Federal State of Austria, sometimes called the First Austrian Republic, began. [/quote]
Are you suggesting that the League of Nations wouldn’t have granted Austria a plebiscite(as they did the Saar?) In 1938 with Hitler having just militarised the Rhineland in breach of the Versailles treaty and with no consequences?[/quote]
Gargl…
Austria began the war because Serbs murdered the crown prince.
Because of interlocking treaties, which were signed by all great powers that turned into a world war.
Which was of course reason enough to starve a few hundred thousand civilians.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m doing more than keeping up; I’m schooling you. [/quote]
How can you be sure?
Maybe both of you are just reciting your respective government’s propaganda.[/quote]
Well, generally speaking I can be sure when I see you and I on opposite sides of the fence. It’s a surefire litmus test, usually.[/quote]
I really don’t have a “side of the fence” to speak of with respect to history. I wasn’t there for most of it. The only thing left of history is someone else’s recollection of it. And consider this, if history is written by the winners then it must surely all be propaganda.
At least Orion has a stable foundation with which he can analyze history.
