| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
04 Mar 2005 03:38:41 PM |
| Object: |
Silent Partners |
Silent Partners
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/printout/0,13675,501050307-1032415,0=
0=2Ehtml
They never meet, but a de facto alliance has formed between the leaders
of Japan and Taiwan
BY ANTHONY SPAETH
In dealing with the delicate issue of Taiwan, most governments follow
the American model. They vow at regular intervals that they recognize
only One China-the People's Republic-but then send diplomatic
personnel to Taipei (under commercial cover), trade with the Un-China,
and maintain discreet official contact. The much heavier burden of
maintaining peace in the Taiwan Strait-making sure China doesn't try
to take Taiwan by force, or Taipei doesn't provoke Beijing into
trying-is shouldered by Washington alone.
Now Japan is lending the U.S. support on that potential battle line.
Two weeks ago, Washington and Tokyo issued a joint communiqu=E9 that
specifically cites peace in the Taiwan Strait as a common objective of
the two allies. That came just weeks before China's National People's
Congress is expected to enact an anti-secession law that may require
the mainland to declare war if Taiwan declares independence, and days
before U.S. President George W. Bush went to Europe and tried to
dissuade the E.U. from lifting its 16-year embargo on selling arms to
China-arms that would be most useful for invading Taiwan. As a
result, the cross-strait chessboard has become more like a game of go:
more subtle and unpredictable. "I do think it was a surprise," says
Kenneth Lieberthal, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution in
Washington and former senior director for Asia at the National Security
Council. "If you had asked before, most specialists would have said,
'the Japanese don't do that.'"
Japan
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/69984d4c56600f09
Taiwan
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/84c9e453e27664d6
Is the wakening giant a monster?
http://tinyurl.com/iws6
A Blueprint for the Future=20
http://snipurl.com/a684
.
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
10 Mar 2005 04:51:20 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1110492811.816091.218820@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
wrote in
news:1110478112.369859.230840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
[great big snip]
I have noticed a considerable change in that alleged sentiment in
the
recent past. Maybe you've heard of places like Lebanon and the
Ukraine?
Lebanon? Let us see, yesterday 500,000 people rallied in support
of Hezbollah and Syria in Beirut.
Yeah, chanting "No to foreign interference" while being harangued by
supporters of Syrian interference. And it's like you don't even
notice the irony.
This dwarfed the antiSyrian
demonstrations being carried out by the Christian minority. You
are really delusional if you call that a victory for American
interests.
Hezbollah could get its associated mullahs to call up a pretty
impressive crowd, as opposed to the *spontaneous* crowds calling for
Syrian withdrawal, who would have been too intimidated to rally like
that prior to the events in Iraq. Kim Jong-Il can call up pretty
impressive crowds for his demonstrations too.
Well get ready for another Bush about face on the Mideast:
If the current position started in 1991, this is hardly a Bush about-
face.
http://nytimes.com/2005/03/10/politics/10diplo.html
I wouldn't put too much trust the New York Times' take on Bush
administration policy...
At least there is someone at State that realizes the significance of
Hizbullah's influence and importance in Lebanon.
That doesn't make them any less of a terrorist organization.
This is a major
reversal. December, 1991, we declared Hezbollah a terrorist
organization -- that was a very big mistake and hopefully we can
reverse it.
Or at least mitigate their terrorist impulses as they come into the
political mainstream. Of course that's about as likely as Sinn Fein
without the IRA...
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CPi" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
10 Mar 2005 10:09:25 PM |
|
|
syvanen@ucdavis.edu:
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in
It will be the
responsibility of the American people to contain that power.
Actually, I am an optimist. I think we can defeat this kind of
madness.
I think so too, if the kind of madness you're talking about is the
sort of defeatist nonsense that you're pushing.
Thanks again for making it clear to us that the issue is the very real
possibility of nuclear war. I think when the debate is phrased in
those terms, that we will see a sane policy emerge on Taiwan -- and
that policy is recognition of the reality of One China.
Why haven't you spoken on China taking the sane route and not invading
Taiwan? Do you think they are insane, so instead rely on the US to be sane?
Is China insane? Can the US be relied upon to be sane?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
11 Mar 2005 12:42:01 PM |
|
|
C'Pi wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu:
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in
It will be the
responsibility of the American people to contain that power.
Actually, I am an optimist. I think we can defeat this kind of
madness.
I think so too, if the kind of madness you're talking about is the
sort of defeatist nonsense that you're pushing.
Thanks again for making it clear to us that the issue is the very
real
possibility of nuclear war. I think when the debate is phrased in
those terms, that we will see a sane policy emerge on Taiwan -- and
that policy is recognition of the reality of One China.
Why haven't you spoken on China taking the sane route and not
invading
Taiwan? Do you think they are insane, so instead rely on the US to
be sane?
Is China insane? Can the US be relied upon to be sane?
OK. China, be rational and do not invade Taiwan. Get it. I am
speaking to you.
Now what do we do when they ignore my good advice? Go to war? Even if
it goes nuclear?
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
11 Mar 2005 01:06:23 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1110566521.519441.132030@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
C'Pi wrote:
:
Fred Stone wrote:
wrote in
It will be the
responsibility of the American people to contain that power.
Actually, I am an optimist. I think we can defeat this kind of
madness.
I think so too, if the kind of madness you're talking about is the
sort of defeatist nonsense that you're pushing.
Thanks again for making it clear to us that the issue is the very
real possibility of nuclear war. I think when the debate is
phrased in those terms, that we will see a sane policy emerge on
Taiwan -- and that policy is recognition of the reality of One
China.
Why haven't you spoken on China taking the sane route and not
invading Taiwan? Do you think they are insane, so instead rely on
the US to be sane? Is China insane? Can the US be relied upon to be
sane?
OK. China, be rational and do not invade Taiwan. Get it. I am
speaking to you.
Now what do we do when they ignore my good advice? Go to war? Even
if it goes nuclear?
And then when China threatens Thailand or Korea or Japan or...
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
11 Mar 2005 04:17:26 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in
news:1110566521.519441.132030@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
C'Pi wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu:
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in
It will be the
responsibility of the American people to contain that power.
Actually, I am an optimist. I think we can defeat this kind
of
madness.
I think so too, if the kind of madness you're talking about is
the
sort of defeatist nonsense that you're pushing.
Thanks again for making it clear to us that the issue is the
very
real possibility of nuclear war. I think when the debate is
phrased in those terms, that we will see a sane policy emerge on
Taiwan -- and that policy is recognition of the reality of One
China.
Why haven't you spoken on China taking the sane route and not
invading Taiwan? Do you think they are insane, so instead rely on
the US to be sane? Is China insane? Can the US be relied upon to
be
sane?
OK. China, be rational and do not invade Taiwan. Get it. I am
speaking to you.
Now what do we do when they ignore my good advice? Go to war?
Even
if it goes nuclear?
And then when China threatens Thailand or Korea or Japan or...
Thailand, Korea and other Asian countries apart from Japan don't seem
to agree with you.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
11 Mar 2005 01:30:01 PM |
|
|
Oh yes you are back to dominoes again. Remember what happened when we
high tailed it out of Viet Nam? 30 years of peace. China, Japan,
Korea and Thailand can manage their own affairs. We are not needed.
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
11 Mar 2005 04:00:30 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1110569401.527660.210350
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Oh yes you are back to dominoes again. Remember what happened when we
high tailed it out of Viet Nam? 30 years of peace.
Not for the Vietnamese or the Cambodians.
China, Japan,
Korea and Thailand can manage their own affairs. We are not needed.
We are allies of three of those four. Our support is important.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
11 Mar 2005 02:55:18 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Oh yes you are back to dominoes again. Remember what happened when we
high tailed it out of Viet Nam? 30 years of peace. China, Japan,
Korea and Thailand can manage their own affairs. We are not needed.
If I remember correctly, Vietnam kicked Pol Pot out into
the jungles and then China invaded Vietnam and Vietnam
whipped their butts too. You have to hand it to the Vietnamese.
They fight like champions. Despite all this domino talk, the
US supported Pol Pot along with China. In the end we not only
lost, but proved we were also not sane. We ignored the death
of 1/4 of the Timurese at hands of our allies the Indonesians.
If I lived in the Far East the last thing I'd want is to hear
the US is going to 'help' us.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
11 Mar 2005 04:48:11 PM |
|
|
Not to mention that the US destroyed the Sihunok regime prior to Pol
Pot's victory. The current S korean government's greatest fear is that
the US will provoke some unnecessary war with the North. There is some
real ambivalence in the minds of the South Koreans whether the presence
of US troops hurts more than it helps.
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Syvanen, a simple yes/no question? |
12 Mar 2005 12:45:21 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:30:01 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and wrote:
Oh yes you are back to dominoes again. Remember what happened when we
high tailed it out of Viet Nam? 30 years of peace. China, Japan, Korea
and Thailand can manage their own affairs. We are not needed.
Were we needed when Japan invaded China, Singapore, Thailand, Korea, etc.?
Please answer "Yes" or "No". No long-winded philosophic dodges.
Please, just a "yes" or a "no".
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CPi" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
12 Mar 2005 02:01:22 AM |
|
|
syvanen@ucdavis.edu:
C'Pi wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu:
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in
It will be the
responsibility of the American people to contain that power.
Actually, I am an optimist. I think we can defeat this kind of
madness.
I think so too, if the kind of madness you're talking about is the
sort of defeatist nonsense that you're pushing.
Thanks again for making it clear to us that the issue is the very
real possibility of nuclear war. I think when the debate is
phrased in those terms, that we will see a sane policy emerge on
Taiwan -- and that policy is recognition of the reality of One
China.
Why haven't you spoken on China taking the sane route and not
invading Taiwan? Do you think they are insane, so instead rely on
the US to be sane? Is China insane? Can the US be relied upon to be
sane?
OK. China, be rational and do not invade Taiwan. Get it. I am
speaking to you.
Now what do we do when they ignore my good advice? Go to war? Even
if it goes nuclear?
What do you do if you see someone being raped and killed? Slink away on the
chance you will also get killed? But I have the felling I already know your
answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
12 Mar 2005 04:34:16 AM |
|
|
C'Pi wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu:
C'Pi wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu:
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in
It will be the
responsibility of the American people to contain that power.
Actually, I am an optimist. I think we can defeat this kind of
madness.
I think so too, if the kind of madness you're talking about is
the
sort of defeatist nonsense that you're pushing.
Thanks again for making it clear to us that the issue is the very
real possibility of nuclear war. I think when the debate is
phrased in those terms, that we will see a sane policy emerge on
Taiwan -- and that policy is recognition of the reality of One
China.
Why haven't you spoken on China taking the sane route and not
invading Taiwan? Do you think they are insane, so instead rely on
the US to be sane? Is China insane? Can the US be relied upon to
be
sane?
OK. China, be rational and do not invade Taiwan. Get it. I am
speaking to you.
Now what do we do when they ignore my good advice? Go to war?
Even
if it goes nuclear?
What do you do if you see someone being raped and killed? Slink away
on the
chance you will also get killed? But I have the felling I already
know your
answer.
Are you taling about the Rape of Nanking? Zen and Shinto fascists did
it.
Rape of Nanking
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/227db2b8a8a28d10
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
12 Mar 2005 02:31:49 AM |
|
|
C'Pi wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu:
C'Pi wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu:
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in
It will be the
responsibility of the American people to contain that power.
Actually, I am an optimist. I think we can defeat this kind of
madness.
I think so too, if the kind of madness you're talking about is
the
sort of defeatist nonsense that you're pushing.
Thanks again for making it clear to us that the issue is the very
real possibility of nuclear war. I think when the debate is
phrased in those terms, that we will see a sane policy emerge on
Taiwan -- and that policy is recognition of the reality of One
China.
Why haven't you spoken on China taking the sane route and not
invading Taiwan? Do you think they are insane, so instead rely on
the US to be sane? Is China insane? Can the US be relied upon to
be
sane?
OK. China, be rational and do not invade Taiwan. Get it. I am
speaking to you.
Now what do we do when they ignore my good advice? Go to war?
Even
if it goes nuclear?
What do you do if you see someone being raped and killed? Slink away
on the
chance you will also get killed? But I have the felling I already
know your
answer.
Keep up your shrieking, nerd of the ring. Political solution to
peacefully resolve the current civil war stand-off between ROC and PRC
is the only way to gaurantee no invasion and no Iraq-like death. Look
at Hong Kong. Have you been there? Any HK babies getting killed like in
Iraq?
As a Taiwanese-American, I fully support ROC's current reunification
policy that's based on parity, equity, preservation of values.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
12 Mar 2005 03:48:18 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:31:49 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
As a Taiwanese-American,...
Where was your father born? Mother?
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
12 Mar 2005 03:47:44 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:31:49 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
C'Pi wrote:
What do you do if you see someone being raped and killed? Slink
away...?
Keep up your shrieking, nerd of the ring.
Oh very clever Charles. Did you read that somewhere?
Political solution to peacefully resolve the current civil war stand-off
between ROC and PRC is the only way to guarantee no invasion and no
Iraq-like death.
Wrong. The PRC could simply not invade. Simple solution. Nothing
"political" about it.
As a Taiwanese-American, I fully support ROC's current reunification
policy that's based on parity, equity, preservation of values.
You mean you support the communist oppression of yet 22 million more
Chinese.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
15 Mar 2005 12:42:54 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:31:49 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
C'Pi wrote:
What do you do if you see someone being raped and killed? Slink
away...?
Keep up your shrieking, nerd of the ring.
Oh very clever Charles. Did you read that somewhere?
Political solution to peacefully resolve the current civil war
stand-off
between ROC and PRC is the only way to guarantee no invasion and no
Iraq-like death.
Wrong. The PRC could simply not invade. Simple solution. Nothing
"political" about it.
As if US will simpy give all the stolen land back to the Native
Americans. Nothing "political" about that, right?
What's the chance of that happening? Should the Native Americans take
your advise and stand up to our own anti-seccession US Code?
Have you posted the same sentiment about our own problem? Should China
join the people of the world and stand up to save the Native Americans?
Or US don't want foreign interrfernece on internal issues with thise
"dependent nations"?
Take your pick I don't care, but you people should be consisten with
your moralistic dogma.
As a Taiwanese-American, I fully support ROC's current
reunification
policy that's based on parity, equity, preservation of values.
You mean you support the communist oppression of yet 22 million more
Chinese.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
15 Mar 2005 01:02:52 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 22:42:54 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
Wrong. The PRC could simply not invade. Simple solution. Nothing
"political" about it.
As if US will simple give all the stolen land back to the Native
Americans. Nothing "political" about that, right?
Ignore irrelevant stuff.
As a Taiwanese-American, I fully support ROC's current reunification
policy that's based on parity, equity, preservation of values.
You mean you support the communist oppression of yet 22 million more
Chinese.
And you ignore a relevant question.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CPi" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
12 Mar 2005 07:02:33 AM |
|
|
charles_liu@my-deja.com:
C'Pi wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu:
C'Pi wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu:
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in
It will be the
responsibility of the American people to contain that power.
Actually, I am an optimist. I think we can defeat this kind of
madness.
I think so too, if the kind of madness you're talking about is
the sort of defeatist nonsense that you're pushing.
Thanks again for making it clear to us that the issue is the very
real possibility of nuclear war. I think when the debate is
phrased in those terms, that we will see a sane policy emerge on
Taiwan -- and that policy is recognition of the reality of One
China.
Why haven't you spoken on China taking the sane route and not
invading Taiwan? Do you think they are insane, so instead rely on
the US to be sane? Is China insane? Can the US be relied upon to
be sane?
OK. China, be rational and do not invade Taiwan. Get it. I am
speaking to you.
Now what do we do when they ignore my good advice? Go to war?
Even
if it goes nuclear?
What do you do if you see someone being raped and killed? Slink
away on the chance you will also get killed? But I have the felling
I already know your answer.
Keep up your shrieking, nerd of the ring. Political solution to
peacefully resolve the current civil war stand-off between ROC and PRC
is the only way to gaurantee no invasion and no Iraq-like death. Look
at Hong Kong. Have you been there? Any HK babies getting killed like
in Iraq?
We agree, so why do you feel the need to be insulting? A political solution
is the only option. Of course what form that political solution takes is
still way open.
As a Taiwanese-American, I fully support ROC's current reunification
policy that's based on parity, equity, preservation of values.
Oh, wait. I thought you said a political solution was the only option but
it seems you already decided which form that option is to take. Not
particularly open minded or "politically" flexible, are you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
12 Mar 2005 03:45:14 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:01:22 +0800, C'Pi thought carefully and wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu:
....
Now what do we do when they ignore my good advice?...
What do you do if you see someone being raped and killed? Slink away on
the chance you will also get killed? But I have the felling I already
know your answer.
Good question.
Mike, what is your answer? Is his feeling correct?
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
09 Mar 2005 03:48:57 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in
news:1110397092.572305.135340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
[...]
Even if it is not their
self interest, that does not mean that they will act rationally.
The
military is very powerful in China and it is its self interest to
build up the military. Since there is no Han Chinese on either
side
of the straights that support independence, there is little to
check
the China war party if things begin to spin out of control.
If we wuss out on Taiwan, there will be nothing to keep our other
friends from losing faith in our support. Our military is very
powerful
too, and we *do* support independence. China's war party can have
it's
"breakaway province" a smoking radioactive slag heap, if that's what
they want.
So you want the 'Bible Belt' to become a smoking radioactive slag heap?
q.e.d.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
08 Mar 2005 03:30:08 PM |
|
|
In article <1110315864.176232.252950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
<syvanen@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
"And in spite of their bluster, the PRC isn't any more interested in a
war with the US just to rein in their "breakaway province". "
If you honestly believe that then you would not think that your
position will lead to war. Perhaps the US could threaten but then back
off if push comes to shove, but I do not think that is possible. We
would be better off, simply making it clear that the US will not go to
war over Taiwan.
We are currently losing the war in Iraq without being defeated on the
battlefield, unfortunately, we will likely lose the battle over Taiwan.
I understand the reluctance about going to war over Taiwan.
But leaving them high and dry would be quite irresponsible
IMO on the part of the US. The main reason Taiwan isn't part
of the PRC today is that the US prevented the PRC from attacking
Taiwan in 1950. In the ensuing 55 years the Taiwanese have built
a great little nation. What is the US message to Taiwan? "Nice job
guys, but now you're on your own"? Surely they deserve better than
to be handed to the CCP on a platter.
If the CCP attacks Taiwan and takes the island, what will become of the
economies? It's very hard to say. Would the PRC be willing to sacrifice
so much of China's progress for what is certain to be a very dangerous,
unpredictable situation? Taiwan is an important part of the world economy.
A PRC invasion would affect the entire world. That's one reason why it's
silly for the PRC to say that it's only China's business. It's not. To
say nothing of the many Taiwanese who have relationships with people around
the world. It's their business, too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
10 Mar 2005 04:12:40 AM |
|
|
Bill Moore wrote:
In article <1110315864.176232.252950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
<syvanen@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
"And in spite of their bluster, the PRC isn't any more interested in
a
war with the US just to rein in their "breakaway province". "
If you honestly believe that then you would not think that your
position will lead to war. Perhaps the US could threaten but then
back
off if push comes to shove, but I do not think that is possible. We
would be better off, simply making it clear that the US will not go
to
war over Taiwan.
We are currently losing the war in Iraq without being defeated on
the
battlefield, unfortunately, we will likely lose the battle over
Taiwan.
I understand the reluctance about going to war over Taiwan.
But leaving them high and dry would be quite irresponsible
IMO on the part of the US. The main reason Taiwan isn't part
of the PRC today is that the US prevented the PRC from attacking
Taiwan in 1950. In the ensuing 55 years the Taiwanese have built
a great little nation. What is the US message to Taiwan? "Nice job
guys, but now you're on your own"? Surely they deserve better than
to be handed to the CCP on a platter.
If the CCP attacks Taiwan and takes the island, what will become of
the
economies? It's very hard to say. Would the PRC be willing to
sacrifice
so much of China's progress for what is certain to be a very
dangerous,
unpredictable situation? Taiwan is an important part of the world
economy.
A PRC invasion would affect the entire world. That's one reason why
it's
silly for the PRC to say that it's only China's business. It's not.
To
say nothing of the many Taiwanese who have relationships with people
around
the world. It's their business, too.
Are you willing to sacrifice New York or the 'Bible Belt' for the
freedom of Taiwan?
http://tinyurl.com/5p2oj
bmoore at blackhole dot nyx dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
08 Mar 2005 07:52:47 PM |
|
|
You raise serious and painful issues. I agree with everthing you say,
except for one point: The US has no business going to war over Taiwan.
I do believe if the Taiwanese knew clearly that the US would not
protect them, they could negotiate their reintegration into China short
of war.
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
08 Mar 2005 08:10:01 PM |
|
|
In article <1110333167.276880.212360@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<syvanen@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
You raise serious and painful issues. I agree with everthing you say,
except for one point: The US has no business going to war over Taiwan.
I do believe if the Taiwanese knew clearly that the US would not
protect them, they could negotiate their reintegration into China short
of war.
An interesting take on it. The main problem is that I cannot
envision any reintegration with the current PRC leaders that
would be acceptable to the Taiwanese. The goal is to maintain
both the peace and Taiwan's freedom, and I just don't see how
that can happen with the current PRC leadership.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
09 Mar 2005 02:15:28 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 02:10:01 +0000, Bill Moore thought carefully and
wrote:
In article <1110333167.276880.212360@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<syvanen@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
You raise serious and painful issues. I agree with everthing you say,
except for one point: The US has no business going to war over Taiwan.
I do believe if the Taiwanese knew clearly that the US would not
protect them, they could negotiate their reintegration into China short
of war.
An interesting take on it. The main problem is that I cannot envision
any reintegration with the current PRC leaders that would be acceptable
to the Taiwanese. The goal is to maintain both the peace and Taiwan's
freedom, and I just don't see how that can happen with the current PRC
leadership.
Being tough and not surrendering to threats.
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
09 Mar 2005 11:45:17 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2005.03.09.08.15.26.801335@ms74.hinet.net>,
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 02:10:01 +0000, Bill Moore thought carefully and
wrote:
In article <1110333167.276880.212360@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<syvanen@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
You raise serious and painful issues. I agree with everthing you say,
except for one point: The US has no business going to war over Taiwan.
I do believe if the Taiwanese knew clearly that the US would not
protect them, they could negotiate their reintegration into China short
of war.
An interesting take on it. The main problem is that I cannot envision
any reintegration with the current PRC leaders that would be acceptable
to the Taiwanese. The goal is to maintain both the peace and Taiwan's
freedom, and I just don't see how that can happen with the current PRC
leadership.
Being tough and not surrendering to threats.
Yes. And continue with cross-cultural and economic ties.
20 years ago, no one could foresee the relationships that have
been forged. If Taiwan can hang tough for 20 more years (or whatever)
conditions may be much more ripe for some sort of political integration.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
10 Mar 2005 04:37:58 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 02:10:01 +0000, Bill Moore thought carefully and
wrote:
In article <1110333167.276880.212360@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<syvanen@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
You raise serious and painful issues. I agree with everthing you
say,
except for one point: The US has no business going to war over
Taiwan.
I do believe if the Taiwanese knew clearly that the US would not
protect them, they could negotiate their reintegration into China
short
of war.
An interesting take on it. The main problem is that I cannot
envision
any reintegration with the current PRC leaders that would be
acceptable
to the Taiwanese. The goal is to maintain both the peace and
Taiwan's
freedom, and I just don't see how that can happen with the current
PRC
leadership.
Being tough and not surrendering to threats.
But it's the Christian and Zen fascists who are doing the threatening.
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
09 Mar 2005 02:14:29 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:04:24 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and wrote:
.... We would be better off, simply making it clear that the US will not
go to
war over Taiwan.
Give Hitler what he wants, and we will have peace in our time.
Do you remember "appeasement"? Did it work well, do you think?
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
09 Mar 2005 01:47:57 PM |
|
|
"Give Hitler what he wants, and we will have peace in our time.
Do you remember "appeasement"? Did it work well, do you think? "
Let me see, this is what the neocrazies said when the US invaded Iraq?
Hussein was threatening the US? So say your neocon masters, but nobody
rational buys into that.
Taiwan happens to be a Chinese province. Some in the US believe it is
our interest to US to support a successionist movement in another
country. Not our role. Abe Lincoln is considered the greatest of our
leaders because he stopped a successionist movement. We deny that to
the Chinese? The Taiwan problem is a remnant from the cold war, it
is time for us to put it to rest.
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
12 Mar 2005 02:28:14 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"Give Hitler what he wants, and we will have peace in our time.
Do you remember "appeasement"? Did it work well, do you think? "
Let me see, this is what the neocrazies said when the US invaded
Iraq?
Hussein was threatening the US? So say your neocon masters, but
nobody
rational buys into that.
Taiwan happens to be a Chinese province. Some in the US believe it
is
our interest to US to support a successionist movement in another
country. Not our role. Abe Lincoln is considered the greatest of
our
leaders because he stopped a successionist movement. We deny that to
the Chinese? The Taiwan problem is a remnant from the cold war, it
is time for us to put it to rest.
Well said.
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
