US-Taiwan Multi-Billion Dollar Arms Deal Creates Stir in Far

[Blayne]

I think we're beginning to confuse some terms here, there's a difference between 'autonomous region' and 'Special Economic Zone' a huge one.

Tibet is already theoretically autonomous constitutionally just not I imagine in completely in practice yet.

[Ypoknons]

I think we're beginning to confuse some terms here, there's a difference between 'autonomous region' and 'Special Economic Zone' a huge one.

Tibet is already theoretically autonomous constitutionally just not I imagine in completely in practice yet.

No, I'm talking about Special Administrative Region status under Art. 31. SEZ, as exemplified by Shenzhen, originally existed to to grant special economic status, mostly loosening up rules for FDI. The SARs have much more power locally than autonomous regions, although I don't think a full HKSAR "everything except defense and foreign affairs" (in theory) is quite the answer for Tibet - somewhere in between I suppose would work. But it's all highly theoretical anyways since there's almost no way Beijing will grant it.

[Pelranius]

They plan on at least 500 of them and useful targets are endless. I wouldn't say they wont target civilian infrastructure either. Two missiles strikes will cripple most power plants on earth, and Taiwan could knock out power to a big chunk of the Chinese economy. This would be nothing the US and NATO hasn't gotten away with doing to Iraq and Serbia.

The problem with shooting at power plants is that it's unlikely to deter China (they have a lot of power plants on the east coast) and Beijing would be expecting to take that amount of economic damage (the CCP can survive power outages. It cannot survive Taiwan's de jure independence). And given how ridiculously redundant PLA facilities are, resources spent on cruise missile would be better used towards building more HF-III anti ship missiles.

Dispersion on huge unguided rockets like that is so high that it would amount to indiscriminate area bombing of Taiwan’s cities, with cluster bombs too. You are talking about missing by 1-2km or more. Doing that and massacring so many civilians, all of which will be live streaming onto the internet, would be only a path to utter ruin. It’d make that small chunk of Beirut Israel flattened in 2006 look like a fucking joke.

Actually the WS-2+/3/4 have some sort of guidance, and then there's the 200/300km ballistic missiles that China sold to Turkey, the B-611. I believe the CEP for the most basic of the WS-2 family is >0.3% of range. That's plenty of room to threaten large targets like ROCAF bases.

[K. A. Pital]

The CCP can survive power outages. It cannot survive Taiwan's de jure independence

I think you are badly misplacing China's priorities.

[Uraniun235]

The problem with shooting at power plants is that it's unlikely to deter China (they have a lot of power plants on the east coast) and Beijing would be expecting to take that amount of economic damage (the CCP can survive power outages. It cannot survive Taiwan's de jure independence).

That's a pretty extreme statement. How far do you think they would be willing to go to attempt to quash Taiwan independence?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The problem with shooting at power plants is that it's unlikely to deter China (they have a lot of power plants on the east coast) and Beijing would be expecting to take that amount of economic damage (the CCP can survive power outages. It cannot survive Taiwan's de jure independence).

That's a pretty extreme statement. How far do you think they would be willing to go to attempt to quash Taiwan independence?

They reportedly have neutron bombs for that effect?

[Shroom Man 777]

The CCP can survive power outages. It cannot survive Taiwan's de jure independence

I think you are badly misplacing China's priorities.

This must be why the CCP has collapsed and why Chiang Kai Shek is stomping around in Beijing. The CCP cannot survive Taiwan's de jure independence!

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I think you are badly misplacing China's priorities.

This must be why the CCP has collapsed and why Chiang Kai Shek is stomping around in Beijing. The CCP cannot survive Taiwan's de jure independence!

Well, the CCP made itself the protector of China's sovereignty, as well as the protector of its wealth. All that nationalistic stuff will eventually blow back somehow.

[Shroom Man 777]

It seems to be doing fine despite Taiwan's continued independence for quite some time.

[Blayne]

The CCP can survive power outages. It cannot survive Taiwan's de jure independence

I think you are badly misplacing China's priorities.

Susan L Shirk: China Fragile Superpower
http://www1.unl.edu/mediahub/media/1167

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrMjegvkyL0

Everything you need to know.

Basically if Taiwan did an act such as declaring independence from China (right now it still calls itself the Republic of China and views the mainland as a part of itself including Mongolia), China's leaders would feel compelled to use force to crush the movement or else it would risk open revolt from the PLA, students, and the people of China, the central government literally cannot survive if they cannot put up a strong show of force in such an eventuality, a show of force that would quite possibly embroil the United States.

Which is why (Susan Shirk) had as a member of the state department and an expect on China's internal politics had wrote that the USA musn't do anything that could unnessasarily provoke China as a war is in neithers interest and maintaining the status quo is, it is sufficient on one side to through the Taiwan-Relations act to gaurantee that Taiwan's isn't attacked while at the sametime not arming it in such a way that would provoke Chinese attack and allow events to progress and develop normally.

<---- Political Science Major focused on Chinese comparative politics also taking a Minor in Mandarin.

It seems to be doing fine despite Taiwan's continued independence for quite some time.

And I'm glad you aren't a diplomat or ambassador to any country otherwise the frequency of wars would increase. There's a marked difference between de jure and de facto independence.

de facto means that Taiwan can be painted the same colour as the mainland for any important UN members maps of the region.

[K. A. Pital]

Everything you need to know.

Yeah - except you should do better than rely on the opinion of a handful of self-proclaimed experts.

Basically if Taiwan did an act such as declaring independence from China (right now it still calls itself the Republic of China and views the mainland as a part of itself including Mongolia), China's leaders would feel compelled to use force to crush the movement or else it would risk open revolt from the PLA, students, and the people of China, the central government literally cannot survive if they cannot put up a strong show of force in such an eventuality, a show of force that would quite possibly embroil the United States.

That's a load of bullcrap. The One-China policy is a very important tenet, but I assure you that China is not going to risk it's enormous industrial potential to placate a need to have Taiwan nominally included in the Chinese talks. Yes, sure, overthrowing the One-China status quo is seen as belligerency on part of China. Can they live with it? Sure as hell they can.

There's a marked difference between de jure and de facto independence.

There is, but your thesis that China would collapse all of a sudden if Taiwan declared independence seems to require more justification than the opinion of a few American war-fearing "experts". Actually, the Chinese I spoke to about Taiwan said that relations with China are quite good and it's unlikely they would have supported an armed intervention in Taiwan. Because a lot of Han would die.

So your and that armchair expert's idea that "students and workers and people of China" will openly revolt (apparently thereby demanding the PRC to attack Taiwan) if Taiwan goes independent seems to be a load of bullshit.

Sure, China WILL take measures, but it will not risk it's own ruin. Chinese people are not idiotic warmongers who will overthrow government if it avoids war.

[Lusankya]

Sure, China WILL take measures, but it will not risk it's own ruin. Chinese people are not idiotic warmongers who will overthrow government if it avoids war.

It's possible that whoever's in the hot seat at the time of Taiwan declaring proper independence would lose their political career, but even the person who took the fall was someone with the power to take China to war, the people in that position are level-headed enough to not actually do something that silly.

Current Chinese policy for regaining Taiwan isn't based around going to war anyway. One of the benefits of the "one country, two systems" policy in Hong Kong and Macau is that it can model a way that Taiwan can re-enter China while maintaining most of its autonomy and its current political system.

Actually, the Chinese I spoke to about Taiwan said that relations with China are quite good and it's unlikely they would have supported an armed intervention in Taiwan. Because a lot of Han would die.

This is very true. The beef that the Chinese have with Taiwan is not the Taiwanese people - they quite like Taiwanese people as a matter of fact. The issue China has with Taiwan is that they think it should be a part of one China, people and all. Can't have that if you kill lots of them.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, the folks in charge might have to step down, but that's a far cry from "PEOPLE WILL TAKE TO THE STREETS AND OVERTHROW CPC BECAUSE THEY WANT WAR!!!". It's like these Western experts live in some sort of parallel reality.

[Lusankya]

It's probably the same alternate reality where all the black people get equal rights and start oppressing whites, and China making more submarines means that pirates will start attacking shipping (because China = pirates, yarrr! or something).

[[R_H]]

First the USA, now Europe.

Europe Risks Angering China by Agreeing Taiwan Helicopter Deal

European firm Eurocopter says it has agreed terms to sell three helicopters to Taiwan less than a week after the United States angered China by saying it would deliver $6.4 billion worth of arms to the island.

In a deal that could strain Sino-European ties, Airbus sister company Eurocopter has announced it is to sell three helicopters to Taiwan in a deal worth around 80 million euros ($110 million).

Taiwanese military officials said the deal with Eurocopter - a subsidiary of the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) - was finalized in January. The helicopters are due to be delivered by the end of 2011.

"We invited international tenders. The Eurocopter Group won the bid because its price was lower than our bottom price," Air Force press officer Yin Shih-hsien told DPA news agency.

Beijing has so far offered a muted response to the Eurocopter deal, which involves three EC225 long-range transport helicopters, saying it understood the aircraft were intended for rescue missions.

"We will continue to watch this issue closely, in particular the use of these helicopters," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said in an official statement.

The procurement follows an agreement between the US and Taiwan, which China regards as a breakaway province, for $6.4 billion worth of military equipment. China has since threatened sanctions against US firms involved in the deal, including Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.

The Eurocopter deal marks only the third European arms sale to Taiwan in the last 40 years, due mainly to political sensitivity over China-Taiwan relations. Beijing has claimed sovereignty over Taiwan since 1949, when nationalists fled to the island at the conclusion of the Chinese civil war.

A Dutch deal in the 1970s for two submarines ended in Beijing downgrading diplomatic ties with the Netherlands. More recently, in 1993, China closed the French consulate in southern Guangdong province after Paris sought to sell Taiwan advance fighter jets.

[K. A. Pital]

Europe is not too scared by any sort of sanctions. Just today France agreed to sell Mistral LHDs to Russia despite US warning of sanctions.

[[R_H]]

Europe is not too scared by any sort of sanctions. Just today France agreed to sell Mistral LHDs to Russia despite US warning of sanctions.

The USA threatened sanctions? What, did they want to sell Russia American-built LHDs?

[Uraniun235]

The problem with shooting at power plants is that it's unlikely to deter China (they have a lot of power plants on the east coast) and Beijing would be expecting to take that amount of economic damage (the CCP can survive power outages. It cannot survive Taiwan's de jure independence).

That's a pretty extreme statement. How far do you think they would be willing to go to attempt to quash Taiwan independence?

They reportedly have neutron bombs for that effect?

A nuclear first strike? That seems like it would end the current Chinese government even more effectively than "de jure Taiwanese independence", even if the US didn't fulfill its treaty obligation.

[Blayne]

Everything you need to know.

Yeah - except you should do better than rely on the opinion of a handful of self-proclaimed experts.

Basically if Taiwan did an act such as declaring independence from China (right now it still calls itself the Republic of China and views the mainland as a part of itself including Mongolia), China's leaders would feel compelled to use force to crush the movement or else it would risk open revolt from the PLA, students, and the people of China, the central government literally cannot survive if they cannot put up a strong show of force in such an eventuality, a show of force that would quite possibly embroil the United States.

That's a load of bullcrap. The One-China policy is a very important tenet, but I assure you that China is not going to risk it's enormous industrial potential to placate a need to have Taiwan nominally included in the Chinese talks. Yes, sure, overthrowing the One-China status quo is seen as belligerency on part of China. Can they live with it? Sure as hell they can.

There's a marked difference between de jure and de facto independence.

There is, but your thesis that China would collapse all of a sudden if Taiwan declared independence seems to require more justification than the opinion of a few American war-fearing "experts". Actually, the Chinese I spoke to about Taiwan said that relations with China are quite good and it's unlikely they would have supported an armed intervention in Taiwan. Because a lot of Han would die.

So your and that armchair expert's idea that "students and workers and people of China" will openly revolt (apparently thereby demanding the PRC to attack Taiwan) if Taiwan goes independent seems to be a load of bullshit.

Sure, China WILL take measures, but it will not risk it's own ruin. Chinese people are not idiotic warmongers who will overthrow government if it avoids war.

I'm not gonna summarize the book I already did that but this "self proclaimed expert" that you just so casually dismissed was one of the original members of the Committee of Concerned Asian scholars who went to China as it was beginning to open up and she served as deputy assistant secretary for China at the U.S. State Department from 1997-2000. She was the IGCC’s director from 1991-97, during which time she founded the Northeast Asia Cooperation Dialogue, a track-two security forum. Dr. Shirk has served on the Defense Policy Board, which advises the U.S. Secretary of Defense on international security issues, and has made many high and low profile trips to China meeting with people, businessmen, and high profile politicians.

You do not casually dismiss without reading them the words of someone whose had significant contact with China and the Chinese since the late 70's.

You do not understand how fragile China's political system is, in order to maintain the legitimacy of the CPC they have to resort to appeals to the peoples nationalism to maintain popularity, anything that that can be contributed as 'hurting' Chinese pride is latched upon by the Chinese media and tabloids stirring the melting pot of nationalistic outrage.

Generally the foreign affairs department wishes to solve issues and disputes lowkey and is willing to be concilliatory but if they're underable to solve and issue or if the media gets wind of it first (for example like with the aircollision off of Hainan) it becomes impossible for the government to solve the problem without losing face. (While China has censorship the media control cartel is made up of the most conservative membership of the Party and often acts independently)

For example remember the 1999 US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? You had tens of thousands of Chinese protesters spontaniously appearing to protest what they felt was an outrageous deliberate attack on Chinese soil (which embassies are) since they view the US as a sort of hypercompetant power who could never miss the real target or make mistakes.

Chinese nationalism is constantly being stoked and prodded by the media through commentary on foreign affairs as while most domestic politics is taboo to remark upon they can operate just fine on anything foreign and then the tabloids.... oi.... everything gets magnified and often the government can't stop the news from spreading on many things.

Did you know they're were over 70,000 protests per year in China? And this number is increasing? The protests against hurt pride are just an anomaly, they are recurring factor.

The Chinese of course aren't blind to this predicament, Hu Jintao & Co know what they've finally got themselves into and do what they can to peacefully solve issues and to adopt a more pragmatic policy even though it means a few political sacrifices (ie the double digit spending increase per year for the PLA? That was a compromise to keep the PLA from getting ansty) but it is in effect all an effort to reduce the likely hood of them needing to resort to force but they are still very much in a position where if Taiwan declares de jure independence for whatever reason they will have to use force or the CPC will topple as its 'Mandate of Heaven' as it were depends upon eventually unifying the country, they're legitimacy int he eyes of the people is at stake.

So yes they are very much willing to go to war if need be and that is why the US generally is taking a conciliatory role as provoking a war means they'ld go to war and going to war is something the US cannot afford right now.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm not gonna summarize the book I already did that but this "self proclaimed expert" that you just so casually dismissed was one of the original members of the Committee of Concerned Asian scholars who went to China as it was beginning to open up and she served as deputy assistant secretary for China at the U.S. State Department from 1997-2000.

And the US State Department is a stellar collection of people who are craptacularly bad at understanding other nations and cultures. Seriously. Argument from authority? Not going to fly.

Dr. Shirk has served on the Defense Policy Board, which advises the U.S. Secretary of Defense on international security issues, and has made many high and low profile trips to China meeting with people, businessmen, and high profile politicians.

So she's one of the US war folks. So what? The US war folks are full of people whom I'd easily classify as dangerous madmen, were you to ask me.

You do not casually dismiss without reading them the words of someone whose had significant contact with China and the Chinese since the late 70's.

And why is that? Should I perhaps also not casually dismiss the ravings of Cold War lunatics like Brzezinski? Holy god, you're fully indulging in an argument-from-authority based on the observations of a SINGLE American, who is also a politician and a war-involved person, which makes it all the more fun. Good lord.

You do not understand how fragile China's political system is, in order to maintain the legitimacy of the CPC they have to resort to appeals to the peoples nationalism to maintain popularity, anything that that can be contributed as 'hurting' Chinese pride is latched upon by the Chinese media and tabloids stirring the melting pot of nationalistic outrage.

So perhaps this is why the CPC prevented screening of "Memoirs of a geisha" just for the sake of preventing nationalist outrages?

Generally the foreign affairs department wishes to solve issues and disputes lowkey and is willing to be concilliatory but if they're underable to solve and issue or if the media gets wind of it first (for example like with the aircollision off of Hainan) it becomes impossible for the government to solve the problem without losing face. (While China has censorship the media control cartel is made up of the most conservative membership of the Party and often acts independently)

You are being ridiculous now. Air collision off Hainan - what has China done wrong?

For example remember the 1999 US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? You had tens of thousands of Chinese protesters spontaniously appearing to protest what they felt was an outrageous deliberate attack on Chinese soil (which embassies are) since they view the US as a sort of hypercompetant power who could never miss the real target or make mistakes.

Yeah, and so what? They overthrew the CPC? Don't be ridiculous. The CPC is the overseeing power for all the political life in China. There are no credible alternatives to it so far, and the Chinese nationalism is aimed at bolstering CPC, not overthrowing it.

Did you know they're were over 70,000 protests per year in China? And this number is increasing? The protests against hurt pride are just an anomaly, they are recurring factor.

So what? China has over 1 sixth of the world's population. How many protests per capita, for a reasonable comparison to other nations?

ie the double digit spending increase per year for the PLA? That was a compromise to keep the PLA from getting ansty

That is natural for a rising superpower.

they are still very much in a position where if Taiwan declares de jure independence for whatever reason they will have to use force or the CPC will topple as its 'Mandate of Heaven' as it were depends upon eventually unifying the country, they're legitimacy int he eyes of the people is at stake.

So you are saying they are still IN A POSITION to do it, but you have provided ZERO evidence that the Chinese people would want to have a war to the extent that they would overthrow their own fucking government. You are pathetic.

So yes they are very much willing to go to war if need be and that is why the US generally is taking a conciliatory role as provoking a war means they'ld go to war and going to war is something the US cannot afford right now.

The US motivations are of no issue. The US has been horribly blind to cultural issues of other nations since the dawn of time. Saying that an American is a "specialist" on the culture of other nations is like saying the sky is green. It's mostly an exception to a vast rule that says America knows fuck nothing about other nations, their inhabitants and their desires.

[Blayne]

My evidence is that book I told you about with the google videos to provide some context, you should check them out.

There is "what she said" then there's "what she wrote" and then there's "what she sourced" all of it checks out, read the book, only 16$ at your bookstore.

If your wanna dismiss her frankly stellar work in the field (of which you are thus far very ignorant of) whose words would you take as a valid source and a valid view of the issue? So far all I've seen is "well the people I've spoken to said..." bullshit a few dozen random people aren't a valid statistical survey.

There are papers, indepth research, memos from thinktanks, regular meetings with her counterparts from leading Chinese universities, you can't dismiss it as an 'argument from authority' just because it conflicts with how you view it.

Have you been to China? Jave you met with their think tanks? Have you read any of the 600 sources given in her book? There's a huge and long political history that Ms Shirk covers very much in depth that you are just kinda blindly ignoring.

China's political system is actually very fragile and is a result of a delicate balance by leaders who lack the political credentials the 'Long march" generation of leaders had, a system that is very unlikely to survive a severe loss of face. You are arguing from ignorance.

[K. A. Pital]

My evidence is that book I told you about with the google videos to provide some context, you should check them out.

One book does not provide sufficient evidence for anything. You should be able to build an argument better than the one you provided so far.

There is "what she said" then there's "what she wrote" and then there's "what she sourced" all of it checks out, read the book, only 16$ at your bookstore.

At whose bookstore, moron? I live smack in the middle of the Soviet Union - pardon that, middle of Russia - and have more pressing things to do than check the books of US defence analysts, unless of course they are available for public download. So either provide the evidence, or fuck off.

If your wanna dismiss her frankly stellar work in the field (of which you are thus far very ignorant of) whose words would you take as a valid source and a valid view of the issue? So far all I've seen is "well the people I've spoken to said..." bullshit a few dozen random people aren't a valid statistical survey.

So was there a statistical survey that indicates the Chinese people would be willing to rain missiles and kill lots of their Han compatriots if Taiwan gets de-jure independent? To the extent that they would depose their government?

Have you been to China? Jave you met with their think tanks? Have you read any of the 600 sources given in her book? There's a huge and long political history that Ms Shirk covers very much in depth that you are just kinda blindly ignoring.

Yes, I have been to China. Nay, I had not spoken to Chinese "think tanks", unless a few government officials and Beijing policemen can count as such. Like I said, either lay out the PROOF of the argument that the Chinese want a war with Taiwan so much that they will rise up and depose the CPC entirely if Taiwan goes de-jure independent, or stop bothering.

China's political system is actually very fragile and is a result of a delicate balance by leaders who lack the political credentials the 'Long march" generation of leaders had, a system that is very unlikely to survive a severe loss of face. You are arguing from ignorance.

Fragility is a subjective measure, and the opinion of a few US analysts is hardly convincing me, because US analysts have been craptacularly bad at understanding the politics, culture and many other nuances of other nationalities. You completely glossed over it.

No, I can't go buy that book. If it's available in open access, sure - I'll read it and see. I might even do it specifically to demonstrate how wild the extrapolations might be to come to the conclusion that the Chinese government will be overthrown if Taiwan becomes de-jure independent.

[Bellator]

At whose bookstore, moron? I live smack in the middle of the Soviet Union - pardon that, middle of Russia

When did Amazon stop shipping to Russia?

[Simplicius]

Basically if Taiwan did an act such as declaring independence from China (right now it still calls itself the Republic of China and views the mainland as a part of itself including Mongolia), China's leaders would feel compelled to use force to crush the movement or else it would risk open revolt from the PLA, students, and the people of China, the central government literally cannot survive if they cannot put up a strong show of force in such an eventuality, a show of force that would quite possibly embroil the United States.

Look- first, when you're asked for evidence, instead of saying "Buy the book," you find passages that support what you say and quote them. Preferably, these passages contain evidence the author used for her conclusions, and not just those conclusions. Otherwise, why should anyone care about this book?

Second, by not presenting any text, you ask us to believe that you have a perfectly clear understanding of the author's conclusions and are relaying them to us free of distortion or misinterpretation. There is no guarantee that this is so, whether deliberately or not, which is why you should post relevant citations.

As it happens, there are excerpts of this book on Google Books here, from which you may quote. However, you should read closely before you do, so as not to make an ass of yourself.

"Ordinary people take a very hard line on Taiwan," a well-known academic commentator explained later, "not because of the need to save face, but because if Taiwan goes independent, it will trigger other secessionist movements in Tibet, Xinjiang, and maybe Inner Mongolia, and national unity will be threatened. [] "But," he said, "Taiwan is a question of regime survival--no regime could survive the loss of Taiwan."

1. This is hearsay, not an authoritative statement or a conclusion backed by evidence.
2. The academic refers to other separatist movements seizing on Taiwanese independence as an excuse for action, not mass protests, as the threat to the government.

China's decision-makers feel trapped between Taiwan and their own public in an impossible situation. As one colonel put it, "People criticize the government for not doing enough about Taiwan. If Chen Shui-bian does something and the U.S. doesn't stop him, then the army will think it should act to teach him a lesson. Then the U.S. will respond and the Chinese people will support a harsh government reaction, showing muscle. But the U.S. is the world's superpower, it has face to keep, so the U.S. will have to respond, It will be impossible to control the escalation."

Again, Shirk states a generalization and provides hearsay from an anonymous source to "support" it.

Recognizing the huge costs of military action--at minimum, it would set back the economy by three, five, or ten years, according to various Chinese internal studies--the CCP leaders seek to avert it, or at least postpone it until the military is ready.

Here is indication of something you glossed over in your simplistic analysis. The CCP derives a lot of its legitimacy from its demonstrated ability to grow the economy and increase Chinese prosperity; protests a couple of years ago were not against the government for not being tough about Taiwan, but by poor rural Chinese who felt that the country's economic growth came at their expense (IIRC). Significant disruptions to economic growth are a threat to the CCP. Any action that derails that growth is anathema to the government - why do you think China stonewalls on international climate change treaties?

It is universally believed in China that the CCP would fall if it allowed Taiwan to become independent without putting up a fight. A Beijing student put it this way, "If we can't get Taiwan back, the Chinese government may lose its power to control the people. It will show that the government is too weak to protect our territory--then people will want to change the government, maybe even demand democracy."

HUGE claim there; no evidence given except more hearsay - from a student. But wait...

People rarely specify how they think a Taiwan crisis would bring down the Communist Party--it takes more than a lot of angry, unhappy people to overturn a government. And, in fact, once you get outside the power elite in Beijing, you may find a 'silent majority' who care more about the economic progress than Taiwan. (A small group of local government officials told me that, as one of them said, "The people don't really care much about Taiwan. It's the government that cares.")

So, even in this morass of unsubstantiated generalizations and hearsay opinions, the author suggests that the country, on the whole, isn't going to pressure the government to crush and independent Taiwan, and is in fact pretty chill about the whole thing. Of course she doesn't bother to investigate this at all - no more than any of her other claims - but she basically confesses that her "authentic" hearsay might be totally irrelevant after all.

So, Blayne, it's your turn. Pick out the passages, either online or from the actual text, that lend credence to your claims.

Also, for anyone who wans a condensed read, there is a summary-review here.

[K. A. Pital]

At whose bookstore, moron? I live smack in the middle of the Soviet Union - pardon that, middle of Russia

When did Amazon stop shipping to Russia?

Hey, I don't know who the fuck you are, but perhaps you should at first familiarize your nimble mind with the wage level in provincial Russia, the price of books in Russia and how it compares with price of books abroad, and the price of international delivery. And then think, how can I even DO that for the sake of an internet debate? That is my very sincere recommendation.

Because otherwise I'll feel compelled to throw your "advice" to me into the rubbish bin.

Oh, and thanks to Simplicius, I wouldn't have to dig through that book - he already demonstrated that it is hardly solid facts, neither does it support Blayne's idiotic wild-ass exaggeration.