China Passes anti -secession law

[no1important]

I wonder what old Georgie thinks about this? Is China trying to see how "W" responds or call his bluff? Or is it just Grandstanding on China's part?

"In the event that the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/03/13/china-taiwan050313.html

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: China Passes anti -se

I think China is dead serious about this. Taiwan is a hage economic engine for them, as is Hong Kong. They are also beginning to flex their muscle as an economic power, and that isn't accidental.

 

[EagleSmack]

I wonder what old Georgie thinks about this? Is China trying to see how "W" responds or call his bluff? Or is it just Grandstanding on China's part?

"In the event that the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/03/13/china-taiwan050313.html

I think any amphibious landing if it was opposed by the US would be squashed before the first ramp dropped. The Taiwan Straight is about 120 miles across from the mainland to the nearest Taiwan Beach. That is a long way to move what would be one of the biggest invasion forces to do this. The Chinese Navy just isn't up to the job. Airborne troops just do not pack enough punch. China has about 11,000 airborne troops. It would be tough to break through and lumbering troop transport aircraft would make easy targets to both surface and AA missles.

Chinese 5th Column troops would play a big role and Taiwans reaction to sabatage would be critical in the first hours.

It would be tough for the Chinese to sneak across as there is just as much dissension with the Communist Govt. as there is in Taiwan.

It would be one heck of a battle that is for sure.

 

[ElPolaco]

It would be an interesting battle. It would be a battle of wal mart versus the independent entrepeneurs.

 

[bogie]

What would the US do if Hawaii tried to break away?

What did we (Canada) do when Quebec had the FLQ separation crisis?

Put that into perspective with China and Taiwan.

 

[Just the Facts]

Re: RE: China Passes anti -secession law

What would the US do if Hawaii tried to break away?

What did we (Canada) do when Quebec had the FLQ separation crisis?

Put that into perspective with China and Taiwan.

It's been a while since I've taken American History but if I recall correctly a 75% vote in favour gives any state the right to secceed.

I wouldn't exactly call the FLQ crisis a "separation crisis".

There doesn't seem to be much opposition among Canadians to the assertion that a 50% plus 1 vote for separation gives Quebec the right to go. We didn't see Canadian forces amassing on the Quebec borders anytime near either of the referendums. On the contrary, we had Quebec politicians calling for French Canadians in the Military to come over to Quebec when they thought they had won the referendum. Just a vote to discuss soveriegnty association. Uh-huh.

 

[bogie]

Re: RE: China Passes anti -secession law

[quote="Just the Facts]I wouldn't exactly call the FLQ crisis a "separation crisis". [/quote]
You had to live it to understand how much of a crisis it was. I lived in Quebec City at the time of the FLQ "crisis". Scary times. My father was in a major position with army intelligence, at that time, and it was not a "light matter".

re: US state "departing".
Even with the US stating 75% vote to leave, do you really think it would be allowed to even get that far to make a vote? I don't think so.

 

[Just the Facts]

Re: RE: China Passes anti -secession law

You had to live it to understand how much of a crisis it was.

Yes I'm not disputing the "crisis" part, just the "separation" part. FLQ was a terrorist crisis. The referendi were separation crises. Very different things approached in very different ways.

 

[Just the Facts]

Re: RE: China Passes anti -secession law

Even with the US stating 75% vote to leave, do you really think it would be allowed to even get that far to make a vote? I don't think so.

Yes I believe the rule of law would prevail in that situation. Americans wouldn't have it any other way. Besides why would you want to keep a state that's hell-bent on leaving. Not good business.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: China Passes anti -se

It seems to me that they did it before...something about the Civil War, I believe.

It also seems to me that it would depend which state it was. They may not care if North Dakota decided to secede, but what if it was California? I think the reaction would be quite different. Now imagine that California wasn't just seceding, but was planning on joining China in sort of a loose coaltion.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: China Passes anti -se

It seems to me that they did it before...something about the Civil War, I believe.

It also seems to me that it would depend which state it was. They may not care if North Dakota decided to secede, but what if it was California? I think the reaction would be quite different. Now imagine that California wasn't just seceding, but was planning on joining China in sort of a loose coaltion.

Righto Blair... we at least agree on one thing.

However... after the Civil War, a law was passed that basically stated that no state shall leave the Union. Prior to the Civil War, individual states had more say on how they governed themselves. Today Federal Law supercedes State Law.

I do believe that if it ever was to come to ANY state feeling the need to seceede from the Union it would be dealt with. It is a lot more difficult than to just pass a referendum and say...

"We're out of the Union.... Huzzaaaaah!"

That has been tried before.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: China Passes anti -secession law

Even with the US stating 75% vote to leave, do you really think it would be allowed to even get that far to make a vote? I don't think so.

Yes I believe the rule of law would prevail in that situation. Americans wouldn't have it any other way. Besides why would you want to keep a state that's hell-bent on leaving. Not good business.

Are you saying that the US would allow a state to leave?

 

[Just the Facts]

Re: RE: China Passes anti -se

It seems to me that they did it before...something about the Civil War, I believe.

There's some truth to that, but not much. The passions of war were already running at full steam before the secessions. And importantly, if I recall correctly, the first shot was fired by the confederates at Fort Sumter. Very different situation than that of going to war simply to stop secession, and not a fair analogy of such.

Furthermore, that was 150 years ago. They burned witches around that time too. I don't think there are many Wicans who still avoid Massachusetts for fear of being burned at a stake.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: China Passes anti -secession law

What would the US do if Hawaii tried to break away?

What did we (Canada) do when Quebec had the FLQ separation crisis?

Put that into perspective with China and Taiwan.

I wonder why the Communist didn't carry the war to Taiwan right from the start. When the Chinese Nationalist were defeated on the mainland they escaped to Taiwan and kept the existing way of government, separate from the Communist Govt.

 

[Just the Facts]

Re: RE: China Passes anti -secession law

Are you saying that the US would allow a state to leave?

Wouldn't they? I didn't know about the no state shall leave the union law. Doesn't seem to make much sense to go to war to keep around people that don't want to be kept around. Definitely a lose lose proposition.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: China Passes anti -se

It seems to me that they did it before...something about the Civil War, I believe.

There's some truth to that, but not much. The passions of war were already running at full steam before the secessions. And importantly, if I recall correctly, the first shot was fired by the confederates at Fort Sumter. Very different situation than that of going to war simply to stop secession, and not a fair analogy of such.

Furthermore, that was 150 years ago. They burned witches around that time too. I don't think there are many Wicans who still avoid Massachusetts for fear of being burned at a stake.

[/quote]

Some truth? There is a heck of a lot of truth. Of course there was talk of secsession prior to the act. It wasn't a spur of the moment decision. They (South) threatened that the final straw would be if Lincoln is elected. He was and then state after state seceeded. S. Carolina had left the Union prior to the firing on Ft. Sumter. That was all the Union Govt. needed to launch the Civil War. Many southern historians state that the Confederates taking the first shot was a mistake.

Witches were burned in the 1600's in Mass. The Civil War was in the 1860's, two hundred years later.

Here is another interesting fact... the New England states threatened secession during the War of 1812 because it was killing the trade with England and it's Canadian territories. It was Andrew Jackson from Tennessee who threatened to punish any state who did so. He wasn't in authority to do that, but that was the talk of the Unionist at the time. However the New York delegation refused to go along with New England and the talk withered.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: China Passes anti -secession law

Are you saying that the US would allow a state to leave?

Wouldn't they? I didn't know about the no state shall leave the union law. Doesn't seem to make much sense to go to war to keep around people that don't want to be kept around. Definitely a lose lose proposition.

It was tried before. A whole bunch of states left the Union and it was the bloodiest war to date for the US. The casualties far outweigh those of all the wars combined. Although both sides casualty count were included in the final tally.

 

[Just the Facts]

Re: RE: China Passes anti -secession law

It was tried before. A whole bunch of states left the Union and it was the bloodiest war to date for the US.

Well there you go. Lose-lose.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: China Passes anti -secession law

It was tried before. A whole bunch of states left the Union and it was the bloodiest war to date for the US.

Well there you go. Lose-lose.

Lose-lose?

Well seeing that the Nothern states won the only losers were the Southern states. It was a clear victory albeit a costly one. We are still the United States.

 

[Just the Facts]

Re: RE: China Passes anti -secession law

the only losers were the Southern states.

Tell that to the guy who doesn't exist because the guy from Wisconsin who would have been his grandfather was killed in Virginia.