A next battle ground for another in the succession of US losing wars, at no expense to itself!

And closer to home, now the Solomons have given the middle finger to the US, where to now for a looming Australian losing war?

London to a brick on, PM Mummy’s Boy will be missing in action!

Dan

Taiwan was never part of the Communist People's Republic of China.

Thank you Jack for this interesting information.

However, there is no need to depend on history: here are free people who wish to remain free and there is the monstrous CCP which wants to devour them - surely we should support freedom regardless of past-centuries trends!

I think we need to think about what it means to 'own' property.
It means that someone is in possession of something, and has exclusive use of it?
In this modern overcrowded world, our right to that exclusive use must be both enforced and defended.

As long as those in Taiwan can defend Taiwan, they will continue to 'possess' and use their country.
By themselves they might be hard pressed to prevent a powerful and determined aggressor from moving in and taking over.
However, the US of A is there to support Taiwan.
That circumstance deters potential aggressors.

When an aggressor does force possession of another 'country', for how long should we consider it theft?
I suggest 99 years sounds about right.
After that amount of time, almost the entire population has changed.
None are responsible for anything that took place before their time.
So recriminations should cease, and new 'boundaries' should be accepted?
It is foolish to propagate or perpetuate a baseless feud?

Such feuds do nothing but promote divisiveness.
There are those in Australia who would do well to heed that fact?

Dear Ipso Fatso,

«I think we need to think about what it means to 'own' property.»

I like that: it is wise indeed to go back to the basics.

«It means that someone is in possession of something, and has exclusive use of it?»

What then does "possession" mean?

Nobody has exclusive use of anything.
For one, the land is also used by many animals, birds, insects, fungi, etc.
Also, the very fact of us discussing something is also a 'use' of that thing.
Taking satellite photos? Using information from weather stations to predict typhoons? Breathing the air and pollen that come from there? These are all uses!

Enforcing the impossible, is... impossible.

«As long as those in Taiwan can defend Taiwan, they will continue to 'possess' and use their country.»

Taiwan need not be defended (mankind has not enough hydrogen bombs to sink it) - it's the people who live there who try to defend themselves from an evil Chinese regime, and anyone who cares should help them.

«When an aggressor does force possession of another 'country', for how long should we consider it theft?»

This is not a case of theft because no one can "possess" a country: aggressors can only oppress and persecute the people who live there, and that would be wrong no matter how long they do so.

«After that amount of time, almost the entire population has changed.»

So is it then OK to oppress and persecute their descendants?

«None are responsible for anything that took place before their time.»

I agree, but what matters here is not the past, but the future fate of the good Taiwanese people who want to remain free.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«So recriminations should cease, and new 'boundaries' should be accepted?»

Any "recriminations" are none but a pretext by aggressors, like the wolf upstream who condemns the lamb downstream of polluting his water.

'Boundaries' are not real, but can be temporarily set as a means of self-protection.
Ultimately, all Chinese people, without boundaries, ought to be freed from their oppressing regime, not just the people of Taiwan.

«It is foolish to propagate or perpetuate a baseless feud?»

Yes, but what we have in Taiwan is not a feud, but bullying: acts of aggression by the strong and evil against the weak.

«Such feuds do nothing but promote divisiveness.»

Divisiveness, as in setting oneself apart from evil-doers, is very good!

«There are those in Australia who would do well to heed that fact?»

While we should not harbour any feuds, we actually do not have enough divisiveness in Australia - we need more!