The United China

 China maybe have some rights to "invade" taiwan but how you dare to claim greater manchuria , outer mongolia & singapore ! this is nonsense.

china have no rights to be there , the same goes to these occupied lands : Tibet , Eastern Turkistan "Uyghuristan" , Inner Mongolia , Gansu , Qinghai & Heilongjiang. 

if your people "hidden Army" are much more than the native people in singapore then that doesnt give you the rights to claim it ! and even if your country occupied it before.

using your logic today the so called china must goes back under the rule of the mongols.

and my answer to your silly poll is that china will be back to its normal border which is your so called great wall , just remember why your "brave" people built it , what a courage.

Mongolians are not ethnic Chinese why do think it should be part of China.

How about China stops occupying East Turkistan, Tibet Inner Mongolia. You have NO right over them, yet your greed makes you want more

Your excuse for taking lands such as Singapore is that they are ethnic Han, if that was the case let the majority of China free from han occupation

Before a country a reclaim something, it must lose it.

Before it can lose it, it must own it.

China can try to claim Singapore, but until it has owned and lost Singapore, it cannot reclaim or reunify with Singapore.

The only countries in the world today that can reclaim or reunify Singapore (if they so chooses to) would be

(1) Federation of Malaysia - Singapore was originally part of the Sultanate of Johor, which is today part of the Malaysian Federation.

(2) United Kingdom of the Great Britain - Singapore was a Crown Colony.

(3) Japan - which conquered and occupied Singapore from 1942-1945.

(4) Republic of Indonesia - based on some ancient maritime kingdom of long ago which claimed the entire Riau archipelago and southern parts of peninsular Malaysia.

What you think as your personal thought is entirely up to you, but the words reclaim and reunify have definite meanings which personal thoughts cannot change.

but when it comes to economic and political influence, those small countries are all off the league.

Personally I'd rather live in a country that takes good care of its citizens, that treats its citizens fair and right, and that offers to HELP other countries in need than one that tries to "exert" influence in the economic and political scenes and that has aggressive expansionist policies, but can't even feed its citizens and has huge income and regional disparities within its border.

Even though countries like Norway, Sweden, Iceland, the Netherlands, etc. are small, the respect they've earned from the international community is no less than that of any so-called "powers". These countries are countries that set the records for the whole world in human rights, in egalitarianism, and in social progressivism.

I would  like to see a Chinese person being proud of his or her nationality because of China being a benevolent rather than a belligerent country.  

Perhaps you seldom read my other posts and do not know my stand on social policies. I am all for income redistribution and generous social programmes.

It seems you have a preference for a skewed income distribution with a small % of super-rich controlling the bulk of a country's wealth. That's fine. It's your preference. Cannot dispute with someone's preference. In any case, it seems this is the direction that China is heading anyway, so this will probably make you happy.

Countries that are socially progressive today do not necessarily have the most glorious past. (FYI, Sweden WAS an imperial power too, but its expansionist ambition was somewhat confined to Northern Europe e.g. Finland). When I talk about benevolence and social progressivism, I always refer to issues such as gender equality, minority rights, environmental awareness, socfal justice, things that may not be of too much of importance to you given your fixation on territorial expansion, political and economic dominance, and military might.

The Nordic countries and the Low countries consistently spend a much larger proportion of their GDP on foreign aid than most other countries. And ever since the end of the era of Imperialism, these countries have essentially been engaging in extremely peaceful foreign policies.

In exalting the Nordic and the Low countries as "exemplary countries", I am not trying to (1) assert that these countries are "perfect" - no country is and (2) I am also not tryting to give any excuse for their imperialist past, but again, which country does not have a skeleton hidden in its historical closet? But I think, if I may say, a difference between you and I is that I have very little inclination to engage in national or cultural chauvinism of any kind whereas your world view is almost entirely dominated by your sinocentricism. I have no qualms about criticizing Canada and pointing out its shameful past, e.g. its treatment of the Native People, its past racist immigration policies, etc.

Sino Defender, it is one thing to love your country, it is another to do it the way you do. One of the most destructive forces in human history is the adherence to any kind of extreme "ism". Remember why you harbour so much hatred towards the Japanese nation? It's because of their brutal and shameful invasion of China. And how did that happen? It all probably started with someone with extreme nationalist and militaristic views, not unlike yours, ascended to power and had their personal agenda turned into the national agenda. What a horror that it had created!!!! Do you really want history to repeat itself, only this time it's China being the creator of those horrors?

perhaps, you don't know much about economics. big governments usually result in worse economic performance. an ideal society is a free economy with a very low tax rate. just let the people do whatever, and the economy will prosper. having a high tax rate to try to take care of people usually makes the economy worse off. a truly rich society is a society with a number of big rich and a great number of middle class. not a boring economy with all middle class and no real entrepreneur spirit.

i am glad that you know the european economy was developed based upon imperialism.

Take back has the same meaning as reclaim.

In any case, you have not shown what has Singapore got to do China?

If flimsy grounds are good enough, why not go for California or the United States?

After all, there's some proposal that the Chinese "discovered" American way before the Columbus.

Mongolians are not ethnic Chinese why do think it should be part of China.

How about China stops occupying East Turkistan, Tibet Inner Mongolia. You have NO right over them, yet your greed makes you want more

Your excuse for taking lands such as Singapore is that they are ethnic Han, if that was the case let the majority of China free from han occupation