Jacko
Evolution strikes again. Two days ago the position was "China has never been expansionist." Several historical examples contradicted this so the position now seems to be that "modern China" is not expansionist. OK
Expansionism is in the eye of the beholder.
China attacked Vietnam in 1979. Why they did so is open to interpretation. However, I suggest that a "Territorial Expansion" attack looks remarkably similar to a garden-variety "Mineral Resources" attack to the victims. Hopefully the conquerors in such cases post hand-bills or something to let those ignorant common folk know that they aren't being assimilated, only subjugated and ripped-off.
Since "The Spratleys are claimed by everyone", perhaps a vote should be taken of the Islanders to settle the issue? On second thought, since the islanders all think they are Vietnamese perhaps that wouldn't work.... Suffice it to say that China is trying to occupy the islands by force of arms and intimidation for whatever reason. Still expansionist actions regardless of the supposed intentions.
Regarding Tibet, just how long does a country have to be independent before it can't be forcibly reoccupied and subjugated?? All Countries with former colonies should be informed ASAP of this new rule as I'm sure they would be interested! Particularly if they only want to make money and steal resources again, not just be expansionist of course.
"Taiwan, incidently, doesn't even see itself to be independant." Not sure what you meant by that. They consider themselves to be the only rightful government of China so they have no-one to be independent of. In their view the mainland government is the "rebel province". That makes for an interesting test for your Tibet style "legitimate claim" theory.
As to your confusion regarding China's attack into Korea maybe I can clarify. The Yalu River forms the boundary between China and Korea. The Chinese were on the North bank, the UN forces were on the South bank. The Chinese attacked South across the river. The Chinese attacked into Korea.
I stand by my statement re expansionist tendencies. I can only suggest you give further consideration to the word "motive" as used in my statement (it also implies opportunity cost and risk vs. gain). Perhaps a longer view of history as well. The US started with only thirteen States...
[This message has been edited by StbdD (edited 27 April 2001).]