China's Blueprint For Global Power

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

12 minutes ago, remake it said:

No, but because you do not understand the question you have assumed you know the answer.

You are either a bot with faulty wiring as Jan would argue, or you have a mental illness.

If it is the latter please accept my heartfelt condolences

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

23 minutes ago, remake it said:

No, but because you do not understand the question you have assumed you know the answer.

Man! Was that ever a clever riposte!😂

[Guest]

Don't encourage this diverting drivel !

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I know....should just ignore him, but it’s kinda fun!

[Otis11 + 551]

19 hours ago, remake it said:

 

A problem with your math is that it should relate to the events which transformed its last dynasty into the constitutional government of  China formed in 1912 - a process which occurred through internal machinations rather than wars - but the real issue is that choosing 3000 years of history is totally arbitrary.

... so chose any time from 1912 to present. I gave you all the way back to 1000 BCE, but if you want to narrow the window, I'm ok with that.

At what time has any form of China ruled their current territory and more?

11 hours ago, remake it said:

How about you tell us what you mean by China because prior to 1912 there were just lots of dynasties, and a history lesson with dates is pretty pointless given you can just google whatever you want to know.

So if China has only existed from 1912-Present, then how can China use this 'historical territory' argument for the South China Sea, Spratly Islands, Hong Kong, and Taiwan? (Sure, had Xinjiang at that point, but not Tibet!)

[remake it + 288]

22 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

At what time has any form of China ruled their current territory and more?

So if China has only existed from 1912-Present, then how can China use this 'historical territory' argument for the South China Sea, Spratly Islands, Hong Kong, and Taiwan? (Sure, had Xinjiang at that point, but not Tibet!)

Which is it - China has existed for 3000 years or since 1912?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

How long has Communist China, as we know it today, existed?

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

12 hours ago, remake it said:

Which is it - China has existed for 3000 years or since 1912?

Utterly HOPELESS!!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

42 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Utterly HOPELESS!!

You are learning, Grasshopper.😂 

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

13 hours ago, remake it said:

Which is it - China has existed for 3000 years or since 1912?

In your own mind you seem to be the expert on all things China, so why don't you tell us then we can factually answer your question.

I did do this for 1912 earlier but you claimed I didn't understand, so are you now saying its 3000 years ago?

Please clarify so we can give you some facts that you will then ignore

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

10 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

In your own mind you seem to be the expert on all things China, so why don't you tell us then we can factually answer your question.

I did do this for 1912 earlier but you claimed I didn't understand, so are you now saying its 3000 years ago?

Please clarify so we can give you some facts that you will then ignore

You’re wasting your time Rob...

[Marcin + 519]

I was trying to follow the thread, but I am lost.

I understand that the discussion here is about SEMANTICS.

There are objective definitions (under international law or simple common sense) of CONTROL over territory, which is POSSESION of territory.

All apart this is subjective and we can discuss and mutually agree that we disagree about our opinions.

Occupation, invasion, liberation, suzerainty etc. are all subjective terms, meaning will depend on your political opinions, whether you are attacker or defender of given land.

We can also discuss from moral high ground that it is the people living on the territory that decide whether they want to be part of this or that country or create their own independent country. This point is intellectually interesting. Can make us feel better about the state of the world, ruled by forces of good, something like Star Wars fairy tales.

But again this is pure fantasy, not reflected in any historical facts. The strongest power present at given territory rules given territory.

Again optimists would say, but we have United Nations. All decisions are made by consensus of 5 permanent members of Security Council. When these 5 disagree, back to point 1, raw power decides.

 

 

 

 

 

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

5 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

You’re wasting your time Rob...

I guess so mate

I think Jan is right (as usual)

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

2 minutes ago, Marcin said:

We can also discuss from moral high ground that it is the people living on the territory that decide whether they want to be part of this or that country or create their own independent country.

I think history tells us something very different!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

We can also discuss from moral high ground that it is the people living on the territory that decide whether they want to be part of this or that country or createtheir own independent country. 
 

Marcin I don’t know what medication you are on, but the statement above would lead to chaos and anarchy. 

[Otis11 + 551]

19 hours ago, remake it said:

Which is it - China has existed for 3000 years or since 1912?

I don't know how much clearer I can be. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED CHINA HAS ONLY EXISTED SINCE 1912. I HAVEN'T CHANGED MY STANCE AT ALL. PERIOD. 

For the basis of discussion I offered to abide by your definition, and you STILL CANNOT ANSWER MY QUESTION.

Quote

At what time has any form of China ruled their current territory and more?

SO? ANSWER IT. 

You can define China at any point in time, and as any way you want - you just have to explain your definition.

(Actually, I'd settle for you answering any question I've asked... or even just not twisting my words to CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY imply I said something I didn't)

(Btw, despite the appearance, I'm not angry about this - just trying to do everything possible to make this clear.)

5 hours ago, Marcin said:

I was trying to follow the thread, but I am lost.

I understand that the discussion here is about SEMANTICS.

There are objective definitions (under international law or simple common sense) of CONTROL over territory, which is POSSESION of territory.

All apart this is subjective and we can discuss and mutually agree that we disagree about our opinions.

Occupation, invasion, liberation, suzerainty etc. are all subjective terms, meaning will depend on your political opinions, whether you are attacker or defender of given land.

We can also discuss from moral high ground that it is the people living on the territory that decide whether they want to be part of this or that country or create their own independent country. This point is intellectually interesting. Can make us feel better about the state of the world, ruled by forces of good, something like Star Wars fairy tales.

But again this is pure fantasy, not reflected in any historical facts. The strongest power present at given territory rules given territory.

Again optimists would say, but we have United Nations. All decisions are made by consensus of 5 permanent members of Security Council. When these 5 disagree, back to point 1, raw power decides.

 

 

 

 

 

This is not a matter of Semantics.

I've offered fact after fact and reference after reference, asking honest questions trying to understand others points of views. I've been answered by Ad Hominem, blatant twisting my words, and a complete lack answers (no facts, no rebuttals, no answers in any form).

The FACTS (not opinions) are that China has never in history controlled all of their current lands, yet they are using the argument of 'historical territory' to expand. This is a LIE. There is no opinion in this statement. The Chinese Government is LYING to the international community (and their own populace) as DEMONSTRABLE FACT.

I have avoided making such strong claims to this point as I was honestly attempting to understand the other side and learn what I might be overlooking, but the more I research, the more I find my understanding to be FACTually correct. I've attempted to unbiasedly show this information and invited others to punch holes in my understanding, but no. 

Again, this is not a matter of semantics. This is not opinion. This is FACT.

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

Otis you're wasting your time!

I refer you to my reply to Remake It earlier

"You are either a bot with faulty wiring as Jan would argue, or you have a mental illness.

If it is the latter please accept my heartfelt condolences"

 

[Otis11 + 551]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Otis you're wasting your time!

I refer you to my reply to Remake It earlier

"You are either a bot with faulty wiring as Jan would argue, or you have a mental illness.

If it is the latter please accept my heartfelt condolences"

 

I know you're right.

Just getting frustrated with politics of late (US, EU, World affairs, etc) - arguing on knowledgeable forms about it is my PSV if you will. Though it works much better if people will actually have reasonable (and reasoned) discussions.

I keep trying to be reasonable and understand the 'other side' in all of these items and I keep coming to the same conclusion - There is a demonstrable, factually correct side... and the other side. I make it a point to be open to changing my mind - as I've done many times before - but on current topics, there's no 'matter of opinion' to it. To hold their opinions, their either shunning logic, or blatantly ignoring fact.

Anyway... might move on to another thread.

Thanks!

[remake it + 288]

4 hours ago, Otis11 said:

I don't know how much clearer I can be. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED CHINA HAS ONLY EXISTED SINCE 1912. I HAVEN'T CHANGED MY STANCE AT ALL. PERIOD.

False claim - that was when the nation had a constitution.

4 hours ago, Otis11 said:

You can define China at any point in time, and as any way you want - you just have to explain your definition.

Your graphic on the first page of this thread shows a dynasty with greater land area.

4 hours ago, Otis11 said:

The FACTS (not opinions) are that China has never in history controlled all of their current lands, yet they are using the argument of 'historical territory' to expand. This is a LIE. There is no opinion in this statement. The Chinese Government is LYING to the international community (and their own populace) as DEMONSTRABLE FACT.

There were dynasties that at various times in the past covered regions which are not now part of modern China, and that's a fact.

[Otis11 + 551]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

False claim - that was when the nation had a constitution.

You . How am I making a false claim in the statement:

Please, show clearly which part of that is false, because in the first picture you are chastising me and telling me China formed in 1912. I've said it goes back 3000 years, but was willing to accept your definition.

1 minute ago, remake it said:

Your graphic on the first page of this thread shows a dynasty with greater land area.

There were dynasties that at various times in the past covered regions which are not now part of modern China, and that's a fact.

Ok, that graphic goes from the 3000 year history you claim isn't China, but Ok. Where - What year or Dynasty was China larger than current?

Yes, China at one time controlled land that it does not now control - I never disputed that. I said China has never had all the land it currently has, plus more land. Again, please provide a date or Dynasty (though you said dynasties weren't China... so I'm a bit confused on your definition of China if you'd care to explain) that disputes this.

If China is going to claim they used to own the Spratly islands, XinJiang or Tibet can legitimately claim they used to be independent nations by that very same argument.

[remake it + 288]

4 hours ago, Otis11 said:

I've been answered by Ad Hominem, blatant twisting my words, and a complete lack answers (no facts, no rebuttals, no answers in any form).

You have made claims that your own graphics show not to be true, so this is about your statement that "It's claims to 'historical' lands are completely bogus," despite you also saying 

On 10/15/2019 at 5:34 AM, Otis11 said:

China can clearly use their current justification to invade multiple more countries and take over huge swaths of land....

 

[remake it + 288]

3 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

I said China has never had all the land it currently has, plus more land.

If this is not about semantics, then that is another false claim, which is a point you seem not to be grasping here, and this is nothing personal as it actually clarifies why you said 

On 10/15/2019 at 5:34 AM, Otis11 said:

China can clearly use their current justification to invade multiple more countries and take over huge swaths of land,

 

[Otis11 + 551]

Just now, remake it said:

You have made claims that your own graphics show not to be true, so this is about your statement that "It's claims to 'historical' lands are completely bogus," despite you also saying 

 

You're kidding, right? You quote my admonition of you 'blatantly twisting my words' in the same post that you go on to BLATANTLY TWIST MY WORDS. (You're pulling both those snippets completely out of context and you know it)

Please read the post in context: 

 

 

[remake it + 288]

1 minute ago, Otis11 said:

You're kidding, right? You quote my admonition of you 'blatantly twisting my words' in the same post that you go on to BLATANTLY TWIST MY WORDS. (You're pulling both those snippets completely out of context and you know it)

Others can arbitrate on your lack of logic here as what you said is available to them, but the other aspect you have completely overlooked is the fact that the concept of "foreign lands" suggests other nations controlled the tribal/ethnic regions beyond dynastic control, and this is not the case as "nationhood" was only formalized in the 20th century.

[Otis11 + 551]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

Others can arbitrate on your lack of logic here as what you said is available to them, but the other aspect you have completely overlooked is the fact that the concept of "foreign lands" suggests other nations controlled the tribal/ethnic regions beyond dynastic control, and this is not the case as "nationhood" was only formalized in the 20th century.

Yes, my lack of logic. Got it.

That's why I cited and linked to the whole comment, so others could see what my post actually said since you refused to quote them in context.

As an example:

1 minute ago, remake it said:

You have made claims that are true, so true, that you are right Otis.

(All of these words were actually quoted from remake it. Now, honestly they're taken way out of context because remake it would never say this, but I didn't even have to change the order! Shockingly.)