Believe that then, SAINT, believe that. Whatever makes your skirt fly up.

It will be economically beneficial for both to merg together some decades down the track. Present political tensions will change for the better.

yes, thats a very good point, our global stability is low at the moment with alqueda and all, especially somewhat slumping economy and heavy unemployment, we need to have peace for a while

Originally Posted by NYC88mm

Im just wondering, if the us really didnt need IRaq's oil and and have all the oil we wanted in saudi arabia, then your statement: "Iraq had driven the oil prices higher" makes no sense, its contridiction since the latter stated that IRaq's nowadays inefficient oil supply had risen the oil price when you also stated that it didnt matter whether iraq had oil or not.

Oil is the future of war, whoever controls the middle east controls the world nowadays.. Unless some genius comes up with an alternative to fossil fuel, until that day, the us is goign to be heavily engaged in the middle east and trying to make a monopoly

No, the war in Iraq caused a destabilization in the Economic System somehow, it was not the lack of oil from Iraq that drove up prices, but rather just the fact that we were there. I can not go in depth and explain the economics of how it happened, but somehow the US invasion of Iraq caused a destabilzation in the prices of Barrels of Oil and the prices skyrocketed shortly their after. If we had not invaded we would still only be playing $30-35 a barrle as opposed to $50. The Problem right now is not supply, but rather the traders on Wall Street who are driving the prices higher. But I think after spiking at $50 a barrle the prices have dropped to about $48.10 a barrle.

And no, Oil is not the future. We in the US are already experimenting with Hydrogen power and their are even a few cars available in the private sector which use Hydrogen Cells for power instead of gasoline.

Oil, Middle East, Terrorists, Iraq? Why are we discussing the black blood of the world? We're going way off track guys.

Originally Posted by Zyca

It all depends on how the US view China. Taiwan is an immobile carrier between China and the US. With Taiwan out of the way joining China, the US will be facing China's biggest island directly accross the Pacific Ocean, and whether that's a good idea or a bad idea is basically determined by how you view China. You want to be close to your friends, but you want some distance from your enemies. So strategically, Taiwan's geographic location is very crucial. The US care much less about Tibet for its relative insignificant geographic location, and Tibet's situation is much worse than that of Taiwan.

Firstly, the fact of the matter is nobody can do a bloody thing about Tibet because they'd have to either go through all of China or get India involved in something they don't want to be involved with. Its just too deeply buried to get to.

Taiwan works as an immobile carrier, but a very unsafe one. Truth be told, the Phillipines would be the Most Valuable set of islands to opperate from if the USA and China were at war. One problem with the PRC taking Taiwan is that the Phillipines is then in a lot more danger themselves. If Taiwan is invaded, it confirms Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipino, Indian, Russian ... well everybody's ... fears of Chinese aggression.

Nazi Germany had its people 100% sold on the idea that invading Czechoslovakia and Poland were completely justified. The German peoples there were "being persecuted and were suffering terribly at the hands of the Czech's and Poles". Aggressor states like Nazi Germany learned long ago how important it was to sell their cause to their people through the state controlled media before taking military action. With overwhelming public opinion onboard, they are literally forced to take action. Its just the same thing all over again, only now its China. If China invades, its just proof of what everyone suspects it of being: an aggressor nation looking to conquer.

As a longtime sinophile and someone who has lived and worked in both countries I say: Yes they can reunite peacefully.

When I was in China (PRC) last, the locals were talking about a revolution, after the Olympics, to have a multiparty system. They seemed to be very determined about it. Most thought that it could/would be bloody.

If this internal revolt were to happen Taiwan could easily bring other partied to the mainland.

Originally Posted by simplesolutions

As a longtime sinophile and someone who has lived and worked in both countries I say: Yes they can reunite peacefully.

When I was in China (PRC) last, the locals were talking about a revolution, after the Olympics, to have a multiparty system. They seemed to be very determined about it. Most thought that it could/would be bloody.

If this internal revolt were to happen Taiwan could easily bring other partied to the mainland.

Are you serious, when were you last in China?

Originally Posted by simplesolutions

As a longtime sinophile and someone who has lived and worked in both countries I say: Yes they can reunite peacefully.

When I was in China (PRC) last, the locals were talking about a revolution, after the Olympics, to have a multiparty system. They seemed to be very determined about it. Most thought that it could/would be bloody.

If this internal revolt were to happen Taiwan could easily bring other partied to the mainland.

I think that was a small minority who felt that way, most Chinese are content with the current government because it falls very much so inline with Chinese tradition.