twilight2000-digest Thursday, March 9 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 130 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Laws of War Re: Retribution was Laws of War Re: Laws of War more AT-4 RE: Retribution was Laws of War Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: China v. Taiwan Re: China v. Taiwan Re: China vs. Taiwan RE: China vs. Taiwan Alt Game settings RE: Alt Game settings RE: Alt Game settings Re: China v. Taiwan Re: China v. Taiwan Re: China v. Taiwan RE: Alt Game settings RE: Alt Game settings Re: China vs. Taiwan RE: Alt Game settings RE: China vs. Taiwan Re: China v. Taiwan RE: Alt Game settings Re: China v. Taiwan Re: China v. Taiwan Re: China v. Taiwan RE: China vs. Taiwan Re: China v. Taiwan Re: China v. Taiwan RE: China vs. Taiwan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:33:07 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Laws of War >I sort of doubt a Japanese captain would have been convicted of this, >because the Japanese rarely attacked merchant ships--they used their subs >almost excluseivly against warships (and also for running messages and >transporting things), but it's possible. >Scott Orr You've made a slight error here Scott but it's a little known one. My whole family is merchant marine and I learnt very early on in life that a general order came out in 1943 that allied merchant sailors were to be executed. This was ordered by a sub-admiral in the pacific fleet but not repealed, I'm sure a warcrimes search will find it. If I remember correctly it also stated that merchant marine radio officers were to be interogated before execution. This may throw some light on two things, the amount of machine gunned lifeboats and the Allies attitude to the Japanese after WW2. Australia and Britain had the majority of merchant marine ships in the pacific during the war. Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:39:07 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Retribution was Laws of War > A condition involving a morbid (say deathly) fear of needles, and to >lesser >extents- blades or edged objects. The literal tranlation comes out to be a >"fear of edges" but should have been "fear of points" really. > Anyway, I could tell you several horror stories about having the >condition >but that's probably not the point here. >Jesse. He's serious when he means he has no control in 'needle situations', I have a similiar problem and I once belted a nurse to my eternal shame. I TRIED to tell her but she wasn't listening. I had to get a blood test a few years ago and my wife went into hysterics when my eyes rolled to the back of my head and I went into a fit. Never sneer at a phobia. Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 02:22:20 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Laws of War At 05:33 PM 3/9/00 +1100, Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: >>I sort of doubt a Japanese captain would have been convicted of this, >>because the Japanese rarely attacked merchant ships--they used their subs >>almost excluseivly against warships (and also for running messages and >>transporting things), but it's possible. > > You've made a slight error here Scott but it's a little known one. Error? Not sure anything I said above contradicts what you said below. >My >whole family is merchant marine and I learnt very early on in life that a >general order came out in 1943 that allied merchant sailors were to be >executed. This was ordered by a sub-admiral in the pacific fleet but not >repealed, I'm sure a warcrimes search will find it. If I remember correctly >it also stated that merchant marine radio officers were to be interogated >before execution. > This may throw some light on two things, the amount of machine gunned >lifeboats and the Allies attitude to the Japanese after WW2. I only recall this happening once or twice actually. >Australia and >Britain had the majority of merchant marine ships in the pacific during the >war. The above may be true, but it's nonetheless the case that the Japanese simply didn't attack much merchant shipping. I'm not sure if anyone was ever tried for attacking merchant shipping without warning (itself a crime) or for the take-no-prisoners policy (another crime). At any rate, Brandon's original point, that the Allies convicted someone for doing something they themselves had done, wouldn't apply to the take-no-prisoners order. (This would also hardly have been unique for the Japanese, who had a long list of sins relating to POW's.) Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 22:06:41 +0100 From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathias_K=F6ppen?=" Subject: more AT-4 Thought I'd add a note here on the swedish AT-4. In sweden we call this weapon a "Pansarskott" (roughly translated = armorshot). What's funny about this weapon is that everyone who shots it for the first time shoots too short (they "dip" the weapon). It's the same AT-grenade in the AT-4 as the Carl Gustav use (just the difference that you can't reload the AT-4). Another thing to note about it is that the sight is made out of plastic and VERY fragile. So we learned that once you fired one but before you got rid of it, remove the sight and store it in case another should be broken off. Of course - you only do this if you have the time to do it (takes about 20 seconds when you've done it a couple of times). Talking about the Carl Gustav I reacted that in TW2K it can only fire HEAT (in v2.0 in any case). When I made my military service we had HE and Smoke rounds available too. We usually carried 4 HEAT, 2 HE and 2 smoke rounds (the C-G Ammo bearer carried 4 and the assisting squad leader (me) carried another 4 - and they are heavy!). But back to the AT-4. In my squad we carried 4 AT-4s if we had the Carl Gustav with us. If we left that in the BV-206 we carried 6 AT-4s (everyone except for the sharpshooter and the SAW-gunner). /Mathias *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:48:25 -0500 From: "Erwos" Subject: RE: Retribution was Laws of War Just another perspective... I'm Jewish (extremely religious for that matter, but don't worry, I won't force my views upon all of you :-) ), and a lot of my family was killed in the Holocaust (there's this big black line where my family tree stops because of it). Do I forgive the Nazis working in the death camps? Hell no! I'm of the opinion that you are just as guilty of a crime you did fifty five years ago as one you did fifty five seconds ago. If someone deserves death (because they did some little thing like participate in a genocide), it's just their luck that they didn't get caught for a long while, and you find a tree and hang them anyways. Age is not some sort of cleansing power. People do change, but all actions have consquences, and we need to remember that. And, to keep this thread in T2k, I'm currently working on a new history timeline that takes into account the various problems that could cause WWIII. Here's my current list of potential conflicts: China vs. Taiwan Russia vs. any one of those rogue nation-states they spawned when they broke up India vs. Pakistan (already included in the normal t2k line) Russi vs. EU (perhaps because of the Balkans, or NATO just gets too large for them) Israel vs. their friendly Arab neighbors who finally tire of the peace process USA vs. China China vs. Russia Can anyone else think of any more? - -Erwos *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 18:33:49 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan In a message dated 03/08/2000 6:06:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, baiya@geocities.com writes: << I don't know if the US would. But we would be looking at sparsely populated areas there in the far east. And probably not overly resource rich (might be some oil, other resources, but what good are they if Russia doesn't have the funds to and equipment to get at them?) And remember, Russia did sell a vast track of land once, only about 100 years ago. That's how we got Alaska. other stuff snipped>> The land in question is not resource rich, to my knowledge. Farther north, it's abundant in resources. But, my point is, The Chinese have been itching to get back that land, treaties and agreements notwithstanding. I don't see the Russians selling the land to a nation whom they are distrustful of, especially with the wave of rising nationalism at home. <> I'm no expert, but there are several periods where China is "whole". And I wouldn't exactly say they look inward either. Over different periods of time, various nations have had to pay tribute to the Chinese, Korea and Vietnam being two examples. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 18:33:59 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: China v. Taiwan In a message dated 03/08/2000 9:12:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, sdorr@ix.netcom.com writes: << I'm not familiar with this. Have then been after a real seat, or an observer seat like the PLO? I can't imagine them asking for a real seat except for the China seat. >> They used to have the "China" seat until the '70's (?) then it was given to the PRC. They've wanted it back ever since. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 18:33:54 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: China v. Taiwan In a message dated 03/08/2000 9:29:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, sdorr@ix.netcom.com writes: << Which means that in modern history it's been under Chinese rule, what 4 years? >> That depends on what you consider modern. If you say 1900's and on, then only the 4 years between the end of WWII and the end of the Civil War. Of course the PRC will say the island is still under Chinese rule, and that is the root of the current problem. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 18:36:15 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan In a message dated 03/08/2000 10:12:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, sdorr@ix.netcom.com writes: << I'll have to take issue with this: there's a huge stress in contemporary Chinese thinking on China "taking its right place in the world," by which they mean that other countries should respect China as a superpower and bow to Chinese wishes. I'm not a China expert, but from the bit of Chinese thinking I've seen, they have very unrealistic expectations about how the world is going to react to their various moves (I guess this comes from being insular for so long). Scott Orr >> I have to agree with Scott. I've studied China, the language and history and lived in both Taiwan and China, but that does not make me an expert either. But I agree, it's nationalistic pride which is driving the nation. From what I know, they feel it's their time to become the next truly great superpower. The attitude over there is "we were once a great nation, then other powers came and interfered, now we are strong again, it is our time." I'm guessing what is holding them back is the current truly great superpower. orrin *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 19:19:08 -0500 From: "Garcia, Abel" Subject: RE: China vs. Taiwan - -----Original Message----- << I'll have to take issue with this: there's a huge stress in contemporary Chinese thinking on China "taking its right place in the world," by which they mean that other countries should respect China as a superpower and bow to Chinese wishes. I'm not a China expert, but from the bit of Chinese thinking I've seen, they have very unrealistic expectations about how the world is going to react to their various moves (I guess this comes from being insular for so long). Scott Orr >> From: Orrin I have to agree with Scott. I've studied China, the language and history and lived in both Taiwan and China, but that does not make me an expert either. But I agree, it's nationalistic pride which is driving the nation. From what I know, they feel it's their time to become the next truly great superpower. The attitude over there is "we were once a great nation, then other powers came and interfered, now we are strong again, it is our time." I'm guessing what is holding them back is the current truly great superpower. Interesting analysis from both Scott and Orrin; I agree. Perhaps what Orrin wrote in his last line is *THE* reason for US intervention if China were to try and reclaim Formosa: it's responsibility that is the bride of power. I do think that it is the respect that the Chinese have for the US willingness to use that power (to protect Taiwan) that keeps the Chinese at bay. (I do not agree with previous posts that they could not physically invade if the US did not intervene.) Do either of you know a website where I can get current Chinese TOE and GNP info? (I just read in yesterday's paper that their GNP increased by 7% and that the Chinese are increasing their military budget by 13%.) Abel *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:22:29 +1000 From: "Adam Betteridge" Subject: Alt Game settings And, to keep this thread in T2k, I'm currently working on a new history timeline that takes into account the various problems that could cause WWIII. Here's my current list of potential conflicts: China vs. Taiwan Russia vs. any one of those rogue nation-states they spawned when they broke up India vs. Pakistan (already included in the normal t2k line) Russi vs. EU (perhaps because of the Balkans, or NATO just gets too large for them) Israel vs. their friendly Arab neighbors who finally tire of the peace process USA vs. China China vs. Russia Can anyone else think of any more? An American-Russian Alliance against the Chinese & North Koreans. China launches attacks into Siberia & Mongolia, at the same time North Korea fires Chem weapons at the South & US bases in Japan. Chinese backed geurillas launch revolutions in the Russian Near East supporting many of the muslim fundamentalists within the region. Russian forces in the far east are caught off guard and the Chinese meet initially with little opposition. China also takes this oppurtunity to launch convetional missile & air attacks against Taiwan in an attempt to destroy the Taiwanese airbases. The North Korean attack is iniatially blunted as the South Koreans were alerted from a source within the North 3 hours before the assault was due to begin. However heavy civilian casualties are taken and this will effect much of the South Korean reserve forces. The US and Japan declare war on North Korea, the same source as alerted the South Korean govt alerts the South that the missiles where supplied by China for the attack and the personel who launched were in fact Chinese officers. US & Japanese govt's recognise Taiwanese govt as legit govt of China and promise support. I'll have to stop there but you get a general feel for what I was thinking Ad *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 19:41:42 -0500 From: "Garcia, Abel" Subject: RE: Alt Game settings - -----Original Message----- From: Adam Betteridge And, to keep this thread in T2k, I'm currently working on a new history timeline that takes into account the various problems that could cause WWIII: China vs. Taiwan, Russia vs. anyone, India vs. Pakistan, Russi vs. EU, Israel vs. their friendly Arab neighbors, USA vs. China China vs. Russia Ad, Good list. Are you thinking to pick up this alternative timeline from our present non-war "real" timeline 010100? Then perhaps follow future conflict(s) to its natural conclusion? If so I have been thinking of the same thing. A couple of T2K posters mentioned perhaps "gaming" a history; I think this is a good idea and definitely do-able with a Traveller (of course) product called: _POCKET_EMPIRES_. This supplement allows modeling trade, economics, population growth, and war on a global (interstellar even) scale in yearly turns. Does anyone else on this list own this Traveller book? Abel *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 16:48:55 -0800 (PST) From: Ray Wiberg Subject: RE: Alt Game settings > think this is a good idea and definitely do-able with a Traveller (of > course) product called: _POCKET_EMPIRES_. This supplement allows modeling > trade, economics, population growth, and war on a global (interstellar even) > scale in yearly turns. Does anyone else on this list own this Traveller > book? > Abel No but I have TNE's World Tamer which does the same thing and is compatible with 2.2 Was Pocket Empires a T4 or TNE sourcebook? Ray *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 19:56:37 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: China v. Taiwan At 06:33 PM 3/9/00 EST, OrrinLadd@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 03/08/2000 9:29:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, >sdorr@ix.netcom.com writes: > ><< Which means that in modern history it's been under Chinese rule, what 4 >years? >> >That depends on what you consider modern. If you say 1900's and on, then >only the 4 years between the end of WWII and the end of the Civil War. Of >course the PRC will say the island is still under Chinese rule, and that is >the root of the current problem. You said it was colonized by Portugal, but you didn't say it ever passed by to China. When, if ever, did it pass back? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:56:37 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: China v. Taiwan At 06:33 PM 3/9/00 EST, OrrinLadd@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 03/08/2000 9:29:56 PM Pacific Standard Time, >sdorr@ix.netcom.com writes: > ><< Which means that in modern history it's been under Chinese rule, what 4 >years? >> >That depends on what you consider modern. If you say 1900's and on, then >only the 4 years between the end of WWII and the end of the Civil War. Of >course the PRC will say the island is still under Chinese rule, and that is >the root of the current problem. You said it was colonized by Portugal, but you didn't say it ever passed by to China. When, if ever, did it pass back? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 19:57:47 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: China v. Taiwan At 06:33 PM 3/9/00 EST, OrrinLadd@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 03/08/2000 9:12:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, >sdorr@ix.netcom.com writes: > ><< I'm not familiar with this. Have then been after a real seat, or an > observer seat like the PLO? I can't imagine them asking for a real seat > except for the China seat. > >> > >They used to have the "China" seat until the '70's (?) then it was given to >the PRC. They've wanted it back ever since. Well yes, obviously. But that's the _opposite_ of trying to be reconigzed as independent. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:03:00 -0500 From: "Garcia, Abel" Subject: RE: Alt Game settings > From: Abel > _POCKET_EMPIRES_. This supplement allows modeling > trade, economics, population growth, and war on a global (interstellar even) > scale in yearly turns. Does anyone else on this list own this Traveller > book? From: Ray Wiberg No but I have TNE's World Tamer which does the same thing and is compatible with 2.2. Was Pocket Empires a T4 or TNE sourcebook? Ray, It was the only decent book to come out of T4; I embarrassed to admit TNE's WT handbook is the *only* TNE book I don't have. _POCKET_EMPIRES_ is set up to allow ruling families set up their own little kingdoms in their pocket of space at the dawn of space exploration/domination; the game allows players to control the GNP of their pocket of worlds. Abel (tne++, t4--) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:29:22 +1300 From: Andrew Tiffany Subject: RE: Alt Game settings At 19:41 9/03/00 -0500, you wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Adam Betteridge >And, to keep this thread in T2k, I'm currently working on a new history >timeline that takes into account the various problems that could cause >WWIII: China vs. Taiwan, Russia vs. anyone, India vs. Pakistan, >Russi vs. EU, Israel vs. their friendly Arab neighbors, USA vs. China >China vs. Russia > >Ad, >Good list. Are you thinking to pick up this alternative timeline from our >present non-war "real" timeline 010100? Why not start at 00:00, 01/01/2000 and say the Y2K bug caused a lot of havoc for the US? Then other nations may decide to jump in while they are distracted. Cheers Andrew Tiffany *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 18:20:41 -0700 From: "JC" Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan >Do either of you know a website where I can get current Chinese TOE and GNP >info? (I just read in yesterday's paper that their GNP increased by 7% and >that the Chinese are increasing their military budget by 13%.) >Abel http://www.gsprint.com/cmd/maps.htm Pretty high level organizational charts only, Corps/Army level, has info on quite a bit of hardware for Chinal though. http://www.emeraldesigns.com/matchup/military.shtml No TOE charts here but since people seem interested in this topic right now it's got some tech info on hardware for both sides. A little bit on the skimpy side for me, but it gives a good overview and some deployment numbers I think. http://www.tdreview.com/free1.html And for those that are interested here's a site for fairly recent defense related news for Taiwan. http://www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/links/milorg/china.html List of Chinese military related websites Hope you find some of the above useful. Regards, JC *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:24:12 -0500 From: "Garcia, Abel" Subject: RE: Alt Game settings - -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Tiffany >Good list. Are you thinking to pick up this alternative timeline from our >present non-war "real" timeline 010100? Why not start at 00:00, 01/01/2000 and say the Y2K bug caused a lot of havoc for the US? Then other nations may decide to jump in while they are distracted. Andrew, Sounds good to me; shall we call this alt-timeline scenario "The beginning of the end"? Of course when the "other nations" decide to jump in would be up to the player running that country... Abel *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:32:32 -0500 From: "Garcia, Abel" Subject: RE: China vs. Taiwan >Do either of you know a website where I can get current Chinese TOE and GNP >info? (I just read in yesterday's paper that their GNP increased by 7% and >that the Chinese are increasing their military budget by 13%.) From: JC http://www.gsprint.com/cmd/maps.htm http://www.emeraldesigns.com/matchup/military.shtml http://www.tdreview.com/free1.html http://www.cfcsc.dnd.ca/links/milorg/china.html Hope you find some of the above useful. JC, Definitely. THX, Abel *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:57:47 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: China v. Taiwan At 06:33 PM 3/9/00 EST, OrrinLadd@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 03/08/2000 9:12:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, >sdorr@ix.netcom.com writes: > ><< I'm not familiar with this. Have then been after a real seat, or an > observer seat like the PLO? I can't imagine them asking for a real seat > except for the China seat. > >> > >They used to have the "China" seat until the '70's (?) then it was given to >the PRC. They've wanted it back ever since. Well yes, obviously. But that's the _opposite_ of trying to be reconigzed as independent. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:37:36 -0500 From: "Garcia, Abel" Subject: RE: Alt Game settings From: Andrew Tiffany [mailto:atiff@physics.otago.ac.nz] Why not start at 00:00, 01/01/2000 and say the Y2K bug caused a lot of havoc for the US? Andrew, If this time and date (00:00 010100) sets off play then how about setting off other play events for the following dates: 00:00 010101 & 00:00 010110 Abel *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:57:43 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: China v. Taiwan In a message dated 03/09/2000 4:55:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, sdorr@ix.netcom.com writes: << You said it was colonized by Portugal, but you didn't say it ever passed by to China. When, if ever, did it pass back? >> I should have said the Portugese established A colony on the island, but it was still mainly populated by the Chinese. They never took over the whole island to my understanding, as there were also Dutch and Spanish colonies there also. How long the colonies lasted is beyond me, I think when the Japanese took over they were expelled. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 21:08:36 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: China v. Taiwan In a message dated 03/09/2000 5:34:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, sdorr@ix.netcom.com writes: << >They used to have the "China" seat until the '70's (?) then it was given to >the PRC. They've wanted it back ever since. Well yes, obviously. But that's the _opposite_ of trying to be reconigzed as independent. >> But they're not trying to be recognized as an openly independent nation, at least not yet. For the longest time, up till the 80's the Nationalist government claimed they were the legitimate government of ALL China. And for the longest time, they clung to the idea that they could retake the mainland and triumphantly march into Beijing. The notion of an independent Taiwanese state has only recently come about, mainly supported by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). It is an idea that is gaining popularity as younger Taiwanese born after the Civil War realize they already have de facto independence. The current Nationalist President has also discretely said he favors "state to state" relations between China and Taiwan. Now, if the Democratic Progressive Party candidate wins the election, which he has a good chance of doing, then I do not doubt that Taiwan would declare its independence. They want a seat in the UN, most importantly they want the "China" seat. As an interesting side note, members of the DPP are known for getting into fistfights with members of other parties during sessions of the Taiwanese Parliament. Even female members of the DPP will physically assault their collegues. orrin (who feels like he's back in school) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:34:16 +1300 From: Andrew Tiffany Subject: Re: China v. Taiwan >As an interesting side note, members of the DPP are known for getting into >fistfights with members of other parties during sessions of the Taiwanese >Parliament. Even female members of the DPP will physically assault their >collegues. This is becasue they are able to intimidate (that's not really the right word) the really old members of the House, the ones still left over from the exodus to Taiwan who are there without having been voted in. They basically forced them to leave the house. When they first started out, they were badly outnumbered in the house, and to get a word in edge-wise, it had to be done with lots of physical activity, screaming and shouting. Cheers Andrew Tiffany *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:14:24 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: China vs. Taiwan At 07:19 PM 3/9/00 -0500, Garcia, Abel wrote: >Do either of you know a website where I can get current Chinese TOE and GNP >info? (I just read in yesterday's paper that their GNP increased by 7% and >that the Chinese are increasing their military budget by 13%.) Try the CIA World Factbook site (I don't have the URL, but it shouldn't be hard to find). Keep in mind that 7% of diddly-squat is still diddly-squat: China's per capita GDP is still below $1,000; and for realy poor countries, it's much harder to devote a given percentage of GDP to miltitary spending, because you have less money to spare. Another factor is that, no matter how much money it has, and no matter how many blueprints it has, China simply lacks the ability to manufacture high-tech equipment in sizable amounts. To do that you need skilled workers and high-tech factories, and the price of these things for China is even higher than it would be for us (comparing per-capita GDP's in dollars hides the fact that labor and food are cheaper per dollar in poor countries, while high-tech things are much more expensive). Right now, therefore, I'm not worried about China's military power. But when China approaches the point of being a "middle income" country (between $4,000 and $8,000 GDP), which is the point at which the transition to democracy almost always occurs, THEN I'll start to worry, because at that point China will still be authoritarian, but with a lot more money and better technology that it has now (one thing it _won't_ be is the most populous country in the world--India will have long overtaken it by then). Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:25:23 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: China v. Taiwan At 08:57 PM 3/9/00 EST, OrrinLadd@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 03/09/2000 4:55:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, >sdorr@ix.netcom.com writes: > ><< You said it was colonized by Portugal, but you didn't say it ever passed by > to China. When, if ever, did it pass back? > >> > >I should have said the Portugese established A colony on the island, but it >was still mainly populated by the Chinese. They never took over the whole >island to my understanding, as there were also Dutch and Spanish colonies >there also. How long the colonies lasted is beyond me, I think when the >Japanese took over they were expelled. There were ethnic Chinese on the island (in addition to the ethnic Taiwanese?), but did China actually have effective rule over the island? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:26:18 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: China v. Taiwan At 09:08 PM 3/9/00 EST, OrrinLadd@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 03/09/2000 5:34:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, >sdorr@ix.netcom.com writes: > ><< >They used to have the "China" seat until the '70's (?) then it was given >to > >the PRC. They've wanted it back ever since. > > Well yes, obviously. But that's the _opposite_ of trying to be reconigzed > as independent. > >> > >But they're not trying to be recognized as an openly independent nation, at >least not yet. For the longest time, up till the 80's the Nationalist >government claimed they were the legitimate government of ALL China. And for >the longest time, they clung to the idea that they could retake the mainland >and triumphantly march into Beijing. > Yes, we already said all that. :) >The notion of an independent Taiwanese state has only recently come about, >mainly supported by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). It is an idea >that is gaining popularity as younger Taiwanese born after the Civil War >realize they already have de facto independence. The current Nationalist >President has also discretely said he favors "state to state" relations >between China and Taiwan. Now, if the Democratic Progressive Party candidate >wins the election, which he has a good chance of doing, then I do not doubt >that Taiwan would declare its independence. > >They want a seat in the UN, most importantly they want the "China" seat. > >As an interesting side note, members of the DPP are known for getting into >fistfights with members of other parties during sessions of the Taiwanese >Parliament. Even female members of the DPP will physically assault their >collegues. > Interesting. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:29:17 +1000 From: "Adam Betteridge" Subject: RE: China vs. Taiwan THe URL is http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ch.html Scott wrote Right now, therefore, I'm not worried about China's military power. But when China approaches the point of being a "middle income" country (between $4,000 and $8,000 GDP), which is the point at which the transition to democracy almost always occurs, THEN I'll start to worry, because at that point China will still be authoritarian, but with a lot more money and better technology that it has now (one thing it _won't_ be is the most populous country in the world--India will have long overtaken it by then). Well Scott you better start getting worried, it's at $3,600 per capita GDP so maybe another 5 years at the most before it hits your zone. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #130 *************************************