Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 December 10

= December 10 =

Why can't women serve in direct combat roles in the US Military?
Women are barred from serving in direct combat roles in the US military; why? Has there been significant discriminatory suits been filed against this practice? How can the government discriminate in this respect?

Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the U.S. is a complex, pluralist society and some of its institutions are slow to adopt various progressive reforms. A second reason is that old people tend to be in charge, and old people tend to have a stronger belief in old ideas than young people.  I would be shocked if, in 50 years, this restriction was still in place.  It just takes time for the stodgy conservative people in charge to die off, and when the next generation who was raised with a different worldview takes over, it will change.  -- Jayron  32  00:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Widely discussed in lots of places. You should have no problem getting a handle on the issues by simply doing a google search for DOD policy on women in combat. The first hit, Where we stand on women in combat, appears to give a fairly current overview from the point of view of those who want women to be able to more formally engage in combat operations (because the truth is, women in the US military are already on the front lines). How can the government discriminate? The US military is given much more leeway in self-governance than other branches of the government. Occasionally, the Commander in Chief and the legislature do step in to direct changes in policy, such as when African-Americans were integrated into the armed forces, and the current push to allow gay soldiers to openly serve (See Don't ask, don't tell). I'm pretty sure lots of lawsuits have been filed, but am almost as sure that they didn't go very far. Sort of related, see Rostker v. Goldberg which dealt with why only men could be drafted. --Quartermaster (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A woman I know who served in the U.S. Navy (mustered out at E-6 a year or two ago) shot several Tomahawk missles at a perceived enemy. Sounds like combat to me. PhGustaf (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The OPs point however is that this is one of the last bastions of sanctioned, gender-based discrimination. There still remains some roles in the U.S.  military that women may not fill solely because of the lack of a penis and a Y-chromosome.  That they can fill some combat-level roles is irrelevent to the question.  Until they are allowed to fill every role (or indeed, since this is the military, are ordered to fill every role) then the OPs question remains valid.  -- Jayron  32  01:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a law/legal expert, but why don't lawsuits go very far in this case? Surely if the municipal police force prevented women from becoming police officers, their policy would be shot down by suits pretty easily right? Does the military's self-governance mean they can ignore these laws? Acceptable (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Pretty much, yes. They aren't subject to state or local laws, in this respect, and federal employment laws have explicit exclusions for the military (and farm workers, and those who work for Congress, etc.). StuRat (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Women in the military has several relevant points. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 06:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If "combat" requires carrying a 100 pound load on the back, or requires extreme upper body strength for climbing over something, then the average woman will be markedly inferior to the average man, and might endanger the success of the operation, or the lives of their teammates. That said, there are bell-shaped distributions such that many women exceed the physical strength of many men, and it makes more sense to select by physical capability rather than by gender if your goal is high physical capability. Many US female soldiers have been grievously wounded in the present occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, since there is no "front" and any place may suddenly become a combat zone. Any ride down any road may suddenly be assaulted by machine-gun fire, RPGs and IEDs. Being in theater is effectively being in combat. Edison (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The position of the British Army is in this document.
 * Quote: "Because women are generally working at a higher percentage of their maximal effort to achieve the same levels of performance as men, they are at increased risk of over-use injury, and this finding was confirmed by morbidity data from the Army’s Training Agency and from the Field Army. Smaller size and lower bone density also predispose to a higher incidence of stress fractures. However, men and women of equal fitness have an equal incidence of injuries.
 * "A review of female recruits entering the Army in 1999 showed that if current selection standards were applied retrospectively, only 0.1% of those applying would have reached the standard for entry to the Infantry or Royal Armoured Corps. Of trained female soldiers, 1% would reach the standards." Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The practical answer is that US courts have usually shown great deference to military policy. There are notable exceptions, of course.  --Sean 17:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's rather bizarre to contemplate women suing the government on the grounds that they lack an equal opportunity to get killed or maimed in the line of duty. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's rather bizarre that some 50000 years after fully developed speech we still use sticks and stones (and higher-tech equivalents) to communicate our desires and displeasures. I'd say human society has the mental age of an18 months old toddler. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you find that surprising? All animals (more or less) communicate their desires and displeasure through physical confrontation.  Why do you think humans would be any different?  We just have tools that do a lot more damage than antlers or claws. Buddy431 (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see... I think it was Mark Twain who said, "Man is an ignoramus." With a little more humor, Will Cuppy made this comment in his essay on Charlemagne: "The Dark Ages were called The Dark Ages because people then were not very bright. They've been getting brighter and brighter ever since, until they're like they are now." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified Armored Car
--Arima (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Vehicle: Image
 * Event: Japanese_embassy_hostage_crisis


 * My guess is a type of Casspir (see here, for example). But I'm the opposite of an expert in this field. ---Sluzzelin talk  12:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Casspir it is. Here is one of 20 Casspir PNP 0002 Armoured personnel carriers operated by the Policia Nacional Del Peru. Alansplodge (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Mysterious huge markings on ground in China
What is the purpose of these markings on slide 11 here http://www.pcworld.com/article/170870/strangest_sights_in_google_earth_part_ii.html or directly here http://zapp3.staticworld.net/news/graphics/200808-militarymysteries2-cropped_slide.jpg ? Thanks 92.15.0.115 (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently, nobody knows, but I will guess that this could be a "test image" to test the resolution of images from high-altitude surveillance aircraft or satellites. Marco polo (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It really looks like the Chinese military just has too much time on its hands, see this too. Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  16:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That second one looks like some sort of blasting test experiment facility. Set off a bomb in the middle of the circle, look what it does to the objects.  Seems like a perfectly good thing for the military to be testing.  I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. military had a similar facility.  -- Jayron  32  19:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One US military facility for such testing is called China Lake. Googlemeister (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt it is an explosives facility — has too many things too close together. But it might be some kind of radar or EMP simulator facility. Notice also the apparently quite high tower just to the south of it. Hmm. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Over-thje-horizon radars tend to look like that. 92.15.28.181 (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldnt a series of stripes or even just a pair of dots be enough to test the resolution? 92.24.190.135 (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ah, well, the Chinese assumedly know about the presence and capabilities of satellites. it's entirely possible that these things represent a form of counter-intelligence - toss a few odd looking objects around the countryside, see which attract attention and which don't, figure out where surveillance has blind spots.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Are we sure hey are real - the image on googlemaps and terraserver are different and look like they could be some sort of artifact from the digital processing. In the google maps image the white marks appear to be underneath some of the physical features. MilborneOne (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That square image in that PCWorld link has a number of interesting shapes surrounding it. APL (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But notice how they all disappear at different zoom levels. APL (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The pattern linked to immediately above is a different pattern from the one linked to by the OP. For me that second pattern does not dissapear when you soom in. It looks grubby, as if it is old paint that has started to wash away from the tops of the terrain. If it is real, it must have been a very difficult feat to paint straight lines on a very uneven surface. Do these patterns actually exist on the ground? 92.15.28.181 (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's use Occam's razor and consider the simpler possibilities first. Pressume for the moment that it is military in nature.  Q: What does a well trained military force  need? A: A training ground for war games. Q: What does the image show? A: Lots of caterpillar tracks and shell holes. Q: How are they going to practice the taking of and securing of territory. A: Have a grid pattern laid out to represent a city. Q: How do they do that. A: Use bulldozers. Q: Is there any evidence to suggest  that? A: Yes. The strait avenues  are streaked as if the have been scraped and there are dark shadow lines on some of the edges which may indicate  heaped lines of rubble. Q: Is there any other things to suggest that bulldozers have been used? Yes. This image; which shows  what appears to be a line of bulldozers still hard at work.. The other adjacent 'airfield' type pattern also looks pot-marked with bomb craters. --Aspro (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What you have linked to appears to be just an airfield. The military training grounds in Europe have no big white lines. The original pattern linked to above might be just a translucent artifact, perhaps just an end of roll marker. The pattern looks familar to me - perhaps it is a means of encoding information into an image. 92.15.28.181 (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is too much detail missing for it to be a real 'airfield'. It is clearly not something translucent. Ground details such as craters tracks and material swept across it by  water drainage courses preclude it from being that. Also, if   real  'airfields' why  have cratering on one of them (other than to mislead aerial reconnaissance) ? It even  has a clear  target X visual bombing mark  Therefore, the  lines are certainly  topological ground features. Europe has a vastly different terrain so the absence there  would be expected. What about the US though? Is this a transparency as well? --Aspro (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The airstrip marking could be a bombing practice range, if it is not smooth enough to be an emergency runway. 92.15.28.181 (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.--Aspro (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's odd, the link I posted was just the link from slide 11 of the article the question-asker posted, but it clearly shows a different (but similar image).  I wonder if it's changed since the article was made?
 * Also, when I said it disappeared at different zoom levels, I meant that it disappears when you zoom out. Which it does. APL (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are these two images in the same place? 92.29.117.8 (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a representation of the streets in a city, to be used for bombing practice. Although it seems likely that the white lines are a lot thicker than real streets would be. 92.29.117.8 (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

SAP course
Hi! Can somebody help me more about SAP, I m completely novice. I m craving 2 pursue it in coming years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KENNY THAPA (talk • contribs) 16:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you expand more on what you mean, are you refering to Special Assistance Plan Mo ainm  ~Talk  16:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose he means SAP ERP, a clumsy and overpriced Enterprise resource planning tool. Quest09 (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Maurice - the Film.
Maybe I should have asked this question on the Humanities desk - but here goes. I just watched this movie with Hugh Grant and others playing the parts of young undergraduates at Oxford University in England during the British Edwardian era. I thought the film and story somewhat typical of the portrayed upper class of the time and period and that it was well acted and produced. What puzzles me about this kind of film is how young men (the actors), clearly in their sexual prime, can kiss, cuddle, be affectionate to each other, even get into bed with each other, simulate gay sex, and not become aroused, even if they are not actually gay or curious. By the way, I couldn't care less either way - it's their business, not mine. The biographies of the principals suggest that they are mostly happily married with kids, so how do they control their natural urges doing those erotic scenes? Or do they genuinely not have any natural urges towards other men and can act those scenes totally devoid of any arousal? And I suppose the same goes for women/women scenarios too? 92.7.216.6 (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Different social and cultural situations have their own "normal". John Cleese tells stories of his life at similar boys schools, and it is the sort of stuff that may seem odd outside of the context of the school. What you perceive as "gay" isn't necessarily so. Consider the common Arabic attitude towards holding hands. Men frequently hold hands when walking together in Arabic culture, a public display viewed in some western cultures like the U.S. as unambiguously gay. See this excellent article at the New York Times. I wouldn't say that, for example, Saudi Arabia has a more lenient stance towards homosexuality than the U.S. does!!! You can't take things like this out of one culture, and attempt to apply the standards of another against them. -- Jayron  32  20:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The OP isn't saying anything about the historical acts, he's specifically asking about the actors. And the answer there is: maybe they were turned on, maybe they weren't. Actors and actresses frequently stress how completely un-erotic a filmed sex scene usually is - at least half a dozen people standing around watching you, makeup people touching you, stopping, starting, re-starting, trying different actions and nuances, it goes on and on. After coyly allowing your hand to drift across someone lower abdomen thirty times in a row, I'm sure getting turned on is probably the last worry you've got - more like boredom! Matt Deres (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) I doubt we'd find any citation that tells us that Hugh Grant and Rupert Graves either did get "aroused", or that they didn't. How would this be measured anyway, apart from having obvious erections?  If they're happily married and/or as heterosexual as one can be, then how likely is it that being with another man in this context is going to produce the reactions you speak of?  If a gay male actor were in a straight-sex scene (with a woman), he probably wouldn't get aroused either, but he'd just do whatever the script and director asked for.  Having sex with dozens of people around you filming it must be a daunting prospect even for porn actors, which is why the porn studios have ticklers - people who use feathers etc to stimulate the actors' genitals to erection just before the director says "action".  When it's not even a porn film, but an art film, there's much less likelihood that the guys are going to be rampantly erect, especially if they're not even gay to begin with.  Bottom line is that a straight actor is not going to risk his reputation by being seen to have erections in the company of other men.  The workers on the set might be sworn to silence, but WikiLeaks has ears and eyes everywhere.  My 2c.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you google "actors aroused sex scene" you find plenty of discussion on this topic, and varying opinions. Gay or straight, it probably depends on the actor and the situation.  I found some quotes that suggested certain actors do get aroused at times; on the other hand, Joseph Fiennes is asked the question in  this interview,  and says "Quite the opposite, in fact. I would love to show my prowess and say 'absolutely' but, with 20 hairy-arsed sparks standing around, I never do. And take after take kills any desire."  If he's a straight man failing to be aroused during a sex scene with a female actress, I doubt he'd find a male colleague any more stimulating (and as Jack says, he's got more incentive to ensure it doesn't happen).   Ka renjc 20:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

China rules
Does the United Nations represent the end of WWII and was formed by China? Why was the "treaty" singed in San Francisco? If the "treaty was signed in the United States why would China have right to name any connection to this country? Why would a treaty include two totally different subjects as War memorial and Performing Arts Center?

china wall china wall china wall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.119.60.105 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The United Nations Charter was signed in the San Francisco War Memorial and Performing Arts Center because that's where its terms had just been agreed, at the 2-month United Nations Conference on International Organization attended by representatives of the 50 founding nations. History of the United Nations and China and the United Nations discuss how and why the UN came into being, and the history of China's role within it.  Ka renjc 22:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you are talking about the UN Charter or the Treaty of San Francisco - both signed at the same facility (which included a lounge for WWI veterans). China was not present the WWII-ending Treaty of San Francisco signing (in 1951) but was for the UN Charter (in 1945). Rmhermen (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The question makes no sense, it makes obvious erronous assumptions and proceeds to completely unrelated issues about local US sites, then finish of with a rant. I call troll. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe a troll. Or just someone yet to become well informed. I have one question. What "treaty"? HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It makes perfect sense if the OP is a non-native speaker of English. That a single structure is called "The San Francisco War Memorial and Performing Arts Center" can be confusing, he seems to be thinking that there are two seperate buildings, and was confused why a treaty would be said to be signed in two different buildings.  There were also two agreements, both signed there, BOTH involving many of the same people, and BOTH related to the end of WWII, but they were actually seperate events, seperated by several years.  It could be easy to confuse the two.  I'm not sure what the china wall thing means.  But it seems perfectly reasonable to AGF on this one.  -- Jayron  32  22:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with the possibility of confusion. I'm heading in that direction myself! HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * One other comment, the "China" which was an original member of the UN was Nationalist China, now confined/exiled to Taiwan. Communist China replaced them in the UN in 1971. StuRat (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That view seems obvious from the words of the Charter but is not the view shared by mainstream or orthodox international legal scholars.
 * That view is that the state of China has changed its government from the Republic of China to the People's Republic of China under the "succession of states" theory. Therefore, the reference to "the Republic of China" in the UN's constitutional documents is to be read as if "China" has changed its name from one to the other, just as if a person named in a contract had changed his name. Under this theory, the succession occurred de facto around 1949-1951 while it was recognised by the international community progressively from the 1950s to the 1970s.
 * Of course that view is contested in various ways - the Taiwanese government says that the succession was never complete and as such the Republic of China still represents the state of China and has not been succeeded. The Taiwanese opposition says that there was no succession, there was a splitting of the sovereignty of China into two parts, both of which are new sovereign states. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat complicated by the (very political) One-China policy. I'd appreciate the so-called "mainstream...scholars" you cite if they showed some sign of not towing the Beijing Party Line when it comes to the history of China.  The one-China policy merely represents the ability of Mainland China to control international law regarding this issue sheerly by the size of its population and economy.  There have been effectively 2 Chinas since the 1950s, most non-governmental concerns deal with Taiwan as sovereign state in its own right, or maintain some sort of legal fiction to be able to do so in a de facto way, while still publicly professing the one-China policy.  However, no government who actually wants to deal with Beijing would ever recognize Taiwan as an independent state because Mainland China would essentially blackball it.  So we all pretend like Taiwan is part of China, and go through great lengths to maintain the illusion, all the while Taiwan behaves essentially like a sovereign state of its own right.  -- Jayron  32  14:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not quite complete Jayron. The Taiwanese government also "pretend[s] like Taiwan is part of China." Remember that all governments who still recognise the Republic of China recognises it as the government of China.
 * My view is that it is simplistic to label the "one China" theory as pure legal fiction at this point in time. The two governments were rival governments in a civil war up until at least the 1970s. Perhaps they are trending towards being two functional governments of two separate states, but at the moment this is by no means clear - yet. Perhaps the first view that there is one state with two rival governments and the second view that, in practice if not in law, there are two states with two governments, are both partially valid at the moment. Perhaps the second view is becoming more validly true now. Certainly, the longer that the two sides are at peace as they are now, the more likely that the status quo will morph into a permanent separation. But who knows, perhaps there will be a democratic revolution in China and things will change very quickly - just as the reunification of Germany happened quickly once the impetus was there, and we can probably all envisage a fairly quick reunification of South and North Korea once someone knocks off the Kims. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that everyone recognized the two Germanies and the two Koreas as clearly distinct and independent states. No one pretended, for example, that Kim Jong Il represents South Korea as well as North.  The point is that we pretend that Beijing exerts anything that resembls sovereign control over Taiwan, or conversly that Taipei exerts anything that resembels sovereign control over mainland China.  But it is a pretense.  Taiwan exerts all of the parts of the definition of a Sovereign state, it has a defined territory, and a working and stable government which has the capacity to enter into relations with other states.  That other states choose, for one reason or another, to pretend this isn't the case is part of the problem.  Yes, I agree that we cannot predict the future, but you seem to speak out of both sides of your mouth when you claim that the one-China policy has any basis in reality, and then compare the Chinese situation to the German one or the Korean one.  -- Jayron  32  17:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also perhaps worth noting the reason that Taiwan for so long asserted sovereignty over the mainland: The PRC has always threatened to attack if Taiwan were to declare independence.  If Taiwan is not willing to renounce its claim to be a legitimate government, and also declines to declare independence, then logically it's hard to escape the claim that they're sovereign over all of China.  I believe they have by now found subtleties equal to the task, though I don't know just what those would be, and that they no longer claim the entire Middle Kingdom. --Trovatore (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any cite for the claim the reason the ROC has always asserted sovereignty over the mainland was because of fear of a PRC attack? Note that I'm not asking for refs of what the PRC may have done, simply for refs suggesting the main (your statement sugests only but I'll allow main) reason the ROC didn't declare independence as a sovereign Taiwanese state say when they moved to Taiwan and the 50s particularly but perhaps the 60s and early 70s too, is because they were afraid of how the PRC would respond. My impression, IMHO semi-supported One-China policy and Taiwan independence is that the Kuomintang government had some genuine (some may say or pigheaded) belief that they would one day retake what was theirs and during those times at least and didn't really want to be simply an independent Taiwan. So fear of PRC invasion wasn't necessarily the primary reason they didn't declare independence as a sovereign state of Taiwan. (Note I don't ask this to be difficult but for a reason, I think it's far from clear what the world and in particular that area would be like if they had pushed for independence as a sovereign state early on, and as may be obvious by my comments I believe they may have had a chance if they had pushed for it earlier (they may also have been destroyed but as I've said I'm not convinced nor have I seen any sources suggesting that was the primary thing stopping them). Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly possible that in earlier times the KMT genuinely hoped to retake the entire mainland. Nevertheless it's worth noting that there was a significant obstacle in the way of formally renouncing the claim even if they had wanted to. --Trovatore (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that many in the West (and I will, for the moment, assume that you, Trovatore, is from "the West" -apologies if I'm wrong) tend to somehow assume that independence has overwhelming or even majority support in Taiwan. The assumption seems to be that the only thing stopping Taiwan from declaring independence (and renouncing the mainland) is pressure from the mainland. If anyone points out that there are other forces at play here - pressure from the US, a significant proportion of the population supporting eventual reunification, or the vast majority of the population supporting the status quo - all of this tends to get dismissed as just more evidence of pressure from the mainland.
 * I think this is slightly patronising because it assumes that both the mainland and Taiwan are one dimensional. Remember that Taiwan's safety is backed up by the overwhelmingly most powerful military force in the world (and that's the United States, not China), and supplemented by pledges from a string of fairly powerful American allies such as Australia. For all the hype about China's rise, its leaders are by and large realists, and it is unlikely that China would risk war with the United States.
 * But this aside, I am genuinely perplexed as to why the "real" picture (of vast majority support for status quo and only fringe support for either independence or reunification) gets distorted into a picture of overwhelming majority for independence which is somehow repressed by a combination of PRC military threats and a home government that gets inexplicably re-elected on pro-China policies. I remember a whole string of reports, rangin from a low quality report written by someone who took a trip sponsored by the Taiwanese government, no less, in the Sydney Morning Herald, to a seemingly insightful analysis published in the New York Times - all calling the recent municipal elections overwhelmingly for the pro-independence parties - in glaring contrast to the predictions in Chinese-language media both in Taiwan and outside. The actual result, of course, was was another pan-Blue victory (or a draw at most).
 * Is it that the pro-indepdence camp has better propaganda machines? Do pro-independence Taiwanese tend to leave for overseas more, and thus have a disproportionate influence outside of Taiwan? Or is it a case of Western eyes seeing what they want to see? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm quite willing to believe that the majority of Taiwanese want the status quo, under the current circumstances. But the current circumstances include the threat by the PRC to attack, if independence were declared.  Is there really any credible measurement of how they would feel if that menace were removed?
 * As for the support by the US, remember that the US deliberately pursues a policy of strategic ambiguity, for the obvious reason that if China doesn't want war with the US, neither does the US want war with China, nor even for China to get upset enough to start imposing economic repercussions. If Taiwan were to declare independence and the mainland made good on its threat, when push came to shove, what would the US really do?  I honestly don't know, and it's hard for me to see how the Taiwanese voter can know either.
 * I don't think I'm being patronizing; I think I'm giving credit to the Taiwanese when I say that I think that, while they're happy enough with the status quo of independence-without-the-word, they don't really prefer having to tiptoe around these magical shibboleths. Admittedly I have no direct evidence for this; I just think it's human nature to get irritated with that sort of nonsense. --Trovatore (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)