| 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: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
10 Mar 2005 03:15:03 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:47:57 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and 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.
Ignoring the question, eh?
Taiwan happens to be a Chinese province.
Taiwan is a sovereign, independent nation occupying land which has never
for one second been a part of the PRC.
Some in the US believe it is our interest to US to support a
successionist movement in another country.
Nope. Not the slightest degree of honesty. The problem is that the
businessmen want stability (and that almost always means suck up to the
dictators), but the American people will not permit the invasion of a
democratic country by the communists.
Not our role. Abe Lincoln is considered the greatest of our
leaders because he stopped a successionist movement.
Nope. Because he freed the slaves.
We deny that to the Chinese?
The CCP want to enslave the free. Why shouldn't we deny that?
The Taiwan problem is a remnant from the cold war, it is time for us to
put it to rest.
I see that you are willing to sacrifice a free people to the butchers of
TAM, but I don't see why.
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
10 Mar 2005 04:35:41 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
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?
But it was Adolf Bush and Benito Blair who invaded Iraq without any
explicit UN Security council permission.
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
09 Mar 2005 02:13:08 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 10:23:08 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
Taiwan is the arbiter of their own freedom. The US are merely their
guarantor.
I might be sympathetic to the Taiwanese desire for independence, but my
feelings are not the issue.
It is not about "feelings". It is about justice.
The PRC has a One China Policy and if the US tries to thwart that
policy, there will be war.
The CCP had a policy of supporting revolutions around the world. The US
(mostly) tried to thwart them. There was no war and the CCP have now
abandoned that policy. Thwarting dictators doesn't always end in war.
So this is the question that Americans must address. Do we want to go
to war with China? For me the answer is no. And in spite of wishful
thinking by the war party, neither Korea or Japan will go to war with
China over this issue.
Well Korea says, privately, it will. Japan says publicly it will.
And if the US allows a free nation to be conquered by communists, shame on
it.
[And shame on you for proposing that.]
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
10 Mar 2005 05:01:35 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 10:23:08 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and
wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
Taiwan is the arbiter of their own freedom. The US are merely
their
guarantor.
I might be sympathetic to the Taiwanese desire for independence,
but my
feelings are not the issue.
It is not about "feelings". It is about justice.
The PRC has a One China Policy and if the US tries to thwart that
policy, there will be war.
The CCP had a policy of supporting revolutions around the world. The
US
(mostly) tried to thwart them. There was no war and the CCP have now
abandoned that policy. Thwarting dictators doesn't always end in war.
Telling lies isn't going to save Zen fascists.
"China's external behavior during the Maoist era was a contradictory
phenomenon. Despite its tendency toward using force, Mao's China was
not an expansionist power. It is essential to make a distinction
between the pursuit of centrality and the pursuit of dominance in
international affairs in terms of the fundamental goal of Chinese
foreign policy. While Mao and his comrades were never shy about using
force in pursuing China's foreign policy goals, what they hoped to
achieve was not the expansion of China's political and military control
of foreign territory or resources -- which was, for Mao and his
comrades, too inferior an aim -- but, rather, the spread of their
influence to other "hearts and minds" around the world. Mao fully
understood that only when China's superior moral position in the world
had been recognized by other peoples would the consolidation of his
continuous revolution's momentum at home be assured. "
http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/chen_maos.html
The World isn't going to take orders from Jim Walsh or any fascists.
So this is the question that Americans must address. Do we want to
go
to war with China? For me the answer is no. And in spite of
wishful
thinking by the war party, neither Korea or Japan will go to war
with
China over this issue.
Well Korea says, privately, it will. Japan says publicly it will.
And if the US allows a free nation to be conquered by communists,
shame on
it.
[And shame on you for proposing that.]
So you're going to herd Native Americans into the Reservations again?
http://tinyurl.com/3uep3
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
09 Mar 2005 02:09:08 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:40:47 -0500, Christopher A. Lee thought carefully
and wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 21:18:21 +0800, Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net>
wrote:
Christopher Lee wrote:
As is recognising a breakaway province as a separate country and
treating it as though it had always been one, even before the parent
recognises it.
The ROC is older than the PRC. the Communist rebelled against the ROC.
Taiwan has never, for one day, been a part of the PRC.
Do you understand the meaning of "breakaway province"?
Do you understand that China does not see it the way the US does,
I understand that you adopted the language of the butchers of TAM. The
only question is why did you.
nor even Taiwan? Or that the US is not the arbiter?
The only MORAL solution is for the people of Taiwan to determine their
political institutions in free and fair elections.
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
10 Mar 2005 12:25:37 PM |
|
|
The only MORAL solution is for the people of Taiwan to determine their
political institutions in free and fair elections.
OK we now have two competing moralities. One is the justice for the
people of Taiwan to have their independence from the rest of China.
Personally I see nothing wrong with that. Now thanks to Stone, we can
see that if the US is going to enforce that morality, we may very much
end up with nuclear war. That is also a moral issue. How to decide?
I love Los Angeles and San Francisco. Would I be willing to trade
those cities to defend a political abstraction in China? I have
already answered that one. What do you think?
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
10 Mar 2005 12:38:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:25:37 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and wrote:
The only MORAL solution is for the people of Taiwan to determine their
political institutions in free and fair elections.
OK we now have two competing moralities. One is the justice for the
people of Taiwan to have their independence from the rest of China.
Personally I see nothing wrong with that.
It is nice of you to "see nothing wrong" with 22 million people living in
a free country.
Now thanks to Stone, we can see that if the US is going to enforce that
morality, we may very much end up with nuclear war.
Nonsense. Nuclear weapons have no practical use in this case.
That is also a moral issue. How to decide?
I love Los Angeles and San Francisco. Would I be willing to trade those
cities to defend a political abstraction in China? I have already
answered that one. What do you think?
You made it up. This is a modern version of "I would rather be red than
dead". But, then as now, it was a false choice. Tyrants can be stopped.
BTW, we are still waiting for you to explain how well appeasing Hitler
worked.
--
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 |
10 Mar 2005 10:16:57 PM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:25:37 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and
wrote:
The only MORAL solution is for the people of Taiwan to determine
their
political institutions in free and fair elections.
OK we now have two competing moralities. One is the justice for
the
people of Taiwan to have their independence from the rest of China.
Personally I see nothing wrong with that.
It is nice of you to "see nothing wrong" with 22 million people
living in
a free country.
Now thanks to Stone, we can see that if the US is going to enforce
that
morality, we may very much end up with nuclear war.
Nonsense. Nuclear weapons have no practical use in this case.
That is also a moral issue. How to decide?
I love Los Angeles and San Francisco. Would I be willing to trade
those
cities to defend a political abstraction in China? I have already
answered that one. What do you think?
You made it up. This is a modern version of "I would rather be red
than
dead". But, then as now, it was a false choice. Tyrants can be
stopped.
There you go again. You still operate within the old cold war
paradigms. You silly fool it is not rather dead than red. Get your
***** together. That was the issue 50 years ago.
Tyrants can be stopped? Yes you are still trying to get the US
military to support your foolish goals. Sorry, boy, we will oppose
you.
BTW, we are still waiting for you to explain how well appeasing
Hitler
worked.
Somehow you have made an equation between what happened in Prague in
1938 and what is happening in Taiwan today. I do not see the
equivalence. Perhaps you counld explain this equation?
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
10 Mar 2005 11:55:03 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:16:57 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
BTW, we are still waiting for you to explain how well appeasing Hitler
worked.
Somehow you have made an equation between what happened in Prague in
1938 and what is happening in Taiwan today. I do not see the
equivalence. Perhaps you could explain this equation?
Give the Chinese Taiwan,they will be appeased. Oh, well, if they want a
few other islands, give them those too.
Etc.
Sound familiar. No? Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
--
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 |
11 Mar 2005 05:06:03 PM |
|
|
In retrospect we know that Hitler was hell bent on war. That war would
simply have started in 1938 rather than 1939 without the appeasement.
Of course, this statement will precipitate a bunch of 'history would
have been different if we had acted then' arguments. This is a complex
issue and to save you time, let me just say nothing I have seen is
convincing.
Now to China. I do not believe the Chinese wants war with the US.
They are doing quite well with simple economic competition. But they
will not tolerate our inferfering in her internal affairs. Taiwan is a
remnant of a cold war that we won a decade ago. Time to pack up our
toys, rejoice in our victory and go home.
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
12 Mar 2005 12:58:58 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In retrospect we know that Hitler was hell bent on war. That war
would
simply have started in 1938 rather than 1939 without the appeasement.
Of course, this statement will precipitate a bunch of 'history would
have been different if we had acted then' arguments. This is a
complex
issue and to save you time, let me just say nothing I have seen is
convincing.
Now to China. I do not believe the Chinese wants war with the US.
They are doing quite well with simple economic competition. But they
will not tolerate our inferfering in her internal affairs. Taiwan is
a
remnant of a cold war that we won a decade ago. Time to pack up our
toys, rejoice in our victory and go home.
Well said.
Peaceful solution that can avoid death and suffering is far from being
exhausted (look at Hong Kong.) As a Taiwanese-American, I say America
stay out.
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
12 Mar 2005 08:57:41 AM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1110610738.102985.109730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote:
In retrospect we know that Hitler was hell bent on war. That war
would simply have started in 1938 rather than 1939 without the
appeasement.
Actually it should have started in 1936k, when Germany was vulnerable.
Of course, this statement will precipitate a bunch of
'history would have been different if we had acted then' arguments.
This is a complex issue and to save you time, let me just say nothing
I have seen is convincing.
Now to China. I do not believe the Chinese wants war with the US.
They are doing quite well with simple economic competition. But they
will not tolerate our inferfering in her internal affairs. Taiwan is
a remnant of a cold war that we won a decade ago. Time to pack up
our toys, rejoice in our victory and go home.
Well said.
Peaceful solution that can avoid death and suffering is far from being
exhausted (look at Hong Kong.) As a Taiwanese-American, I say America
stay out.
Yes, let's look at Hong Kong.
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050311/afp/050311073347asiapacificnews.html
"BEIJING (AFP) - China is grappling with tough decisions after Hong Kong
leader Tung Chee-hwa stood down, mulling whether its interests would be
better served by anointing a successor for two years or five.
Whatever they decide, analysts agree any chance of universal suffrage in
the territory in 2007 is dead and buried...
...."In their minds, Hong Kong is 100 percent a Beijing matter, but the
international community also has a legitimate concern in the way the
Basic Law is implemented.
"If they appoint for two years, it will show that promises from the
Chinese Communist Party and the government are unreliable and can't be
trusted."
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
14 Mar 2005 03:56:14 PM |
|
|
Yes, let's look at Hong Kong
you absolutely defy logic. What does this have to do with Taiwan? Or
are you implying that western forces should have used war to prevent
Hong Kong reunification? Of course political life in China sucks --
but you want us to go to war to make it better?
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
14 Mar 2005 05:27:52 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1110837374.587848.192540
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Yes, let's look at Hong Kong
you absolutely defy logic. What does this have to do with Taiwan?
Nicely snipped, oh logical one.
Or
are you implying that western forces should have used war to prevent
Hong Kong reunification? Of course political life in China sucks --
but you want us to go to war to make it better?
I want us to live up to our treaty obligations with Taiwan.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
15 Mar 2005 12:28:23 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in news:1110837374.587848.192540
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Yes, let's look at Hong Kong
you absolutely defy logic. What does this have to do with Taiwan?
Nicely snipped, oh logical one.
Or
are you implying that western forces should have used war to
prevent
Hong Kong reunification? Of course political life in China sucks
--
but you want us to go to war to make it better?
I want us to live up to our treaty obligations with Taiwan.
Do you want us to live up to our treaty obligation with Native
Americans, right in our own backyard? Or should we take another field
trip to soc.culture.native?
How about unilatterally abandon our continued oppression and
subjugation of the Native Americans, because respecting their right to
their land is the right thing to do, like you all demand of China?
If not it's hypocrisy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
15 Mar 2005 06:42:46 AM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1110868103.893425.78870@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in news:1110837374.587848.192540
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Yes, let's look at Hong Kong
you absolutely defy logic. What does this have to do with Taiwan?
Nicely snipped, oh logical one.
Or
are you implying that western forces should have used war to
prevent Hong Kong reunification? Of course political life in China
sucks
--
but you want us to go to war to make it better?
I want us to live up to our treaty obligations with Taiwan.
Do you want us to live up to our treaty obligation with Native
Americans, right in our own backyard? Or should we take another field
trip to soc.culture.native?
Knock yourself out.
How about unilatterally abandon our continued oppression and
subjugation of the Native Americans, because respecting their right to
their land is the right thing to do, like you all demand of China?
How about not changing the subject?
If not it's hypocrisy.
Oh, dear, if we don't you'll call us all names. Gosh, we'll reform right
away!
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 01:52:26 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
charles_liu@my-deja.com wrote in
news:1110868103.893425.78870@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in news:1110837374.587848.192540
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Yes, let's look at Hong Kong
you absolutely defy logic. What does this have to do with
Taiwan?
Nicely snipped, oh logical one.
Or
are you implying that western forces should have used war to
prevent Hong Kong reunification? Of course political life in
China
sucks
--
but you want us to go to war to make it better?
I want us to live up to our treaty obligations with Taiwan.
Do you want us to live up to our treaty obligation with Native
Americans, right in our own backyard? Or should we take another
field
trip to soc.culture.native?
Knock yourself out.
I know, just like what happened last time, right?
Please, you don't see the hypocrisy in saying Taiwan should have this
and that rights no matter what, while we stomp on the poor Native
Americans with our own anti-seccession law, denying them the exact
rights? Whatever happened to the "no matter what", "in any case"
moralistic dogma? Or it doesn't apply to us, because you people are
hypocrits?
How about unilatterally abandon our continued oppression and
subjugation of the Native Americans, because respecting their right
to
their land is the right thing to do, like you all demand of China?
How about not changing the subject?
It's about the consistency and validity of "morality" y'all are citing.
If Taiwan deserve these rights in any case, why doesn't it apply to our
crime? Shouldn't we do something about our own wrongs first, because we
can, and self-examination is elementary morality?
Suddenly y'all are not dogmatic about holding ourselves to the same
morality. Very strange, I thought these principles are soooo
unyielding.
If not it's hypocrisy.
Oh, dear, if we don't you'll call us all names. Gosh, we'll reform
right
away!
Oh, dear, if the Commie Ch!nks don't y'all gonna call them names. Gosh,
they better reform right away!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 10:32:20 AM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1110959546.083240.180850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
wrote in
news:1110868103.893425.78870@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in news:1110837374.587848.192540
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Yes, let's look at Hong Kong
you absolutely defy logic. What does this have to do with
Taiwan?
Nicely snipped, oh logical one.
Or
are you implying that western forces should have used war to
prevent Hong Kong reunification? Of course political life in
China sucks
--
but you want us to go to war to make it better?
I want us to live up to our treaty obligations with Taiwan.
Do you want us to live up to our treaty obligation with Native
Americans, right in our own backyard? Or should we take another
field trip to soc.culture.native?
Knock yourself out.
I know, just like what happened last time, right?
I missed the part where you refuted anything that I said.
Please, you don't see the hypocrisy in saying Taiwan should have this
and that rights no matter what, while we stomp on the poor Native
Americans with our own anti-seccession law, denying them the exact
rights? Whatever happened to the "no matter what", "in any case"
moralistic dogma? Or it doesn't apply to us, because you people are
hypocrits?
What are you on about? The "poor Native Americans" are a welcome part of
our society *now*. Yes, their tribes have claims in the courts against
prior obligations undertaken by the Federal Government, but that doesn't
make them an "occupied country".
How about unilatterally abandon our continued oppression and
subjugation of the Native Americans, because respecting their right
to their land is the right thing to do, like you all demand of
China?
How about not changing the subject?
It's about the consistency and validity of "morality" y'all are
citing. If Taiwan deserve these rights in any case, why doesn't it
apply to our crime? Shouldn't we do something about our own wrongs
first, because we can, and self-examination is elementary morality?
The analogy exists only in your mind.
Suddenly y'all are not dogmatic about holding ourselves to the same
morality. Very strange, I thought these principles are soooo
unyielding.
It's not the same morality.
If not it's hypocrisy.
Oh, dear, if we don't you'll call us all names. Gosh, we'll reform
right away!
Oh, dear, if the Commie Ch!nks don't y'all gonna call them names.
Gosh, they better reform right away!
I didn't call the Chinese Communists "chinks" and I'll thank you for not
putting those sorts of words in my mouth.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Are Native American truely welcomed as part of Whitman's society? |
16 Mar 2005 11:10:41 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
....
Please, you don't see the hypocrisy in saying Taiwan should have
this
and that rights no matter what, while we stomp on the poor Native
Americans with our own anti-seccession law, denying them the exact
rights? Whatever happened to the "no matter what", "in any case"
moralistic dogma? Or it doesn't apply to us, because you people are
hypocrits?
What are you on about? The "poor Native Americans" are a welcome part
of
our society *now*. Yes, their tribes have claims in the courts
against
prior obligations undertaken by the Federal Government, but that
doesn't
make them an "occupied country".
Why don't we ask the NA community how they are "welcomed" *now*, and if
given a truely respected decision, would they want their land back or
keep things the way it is?
I believe some NA posters have already answered your question last
time.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 11:15:46 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
charles_liu@my-deja.com wrote in
news:1110959546.083240.180850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
charles_liu@my-deja.com wrote in
news:1110868103.893425.78870@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in news:1110837374.587848.192540
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Yes, let's look at Hong Kong
you absolutely defy logic. What does this have to do with
Taiwan?
Nicely snipped, oh logical one.
Or
are you implying that western forces should have used war to
prevent Hong Kong reunification? Of course political life in
China sucks
--
but you want us to go to war to make it better?
I want us to live up to our treaty obligations with Taiwan.
Do you want us to live up to our treaty obligation with Native
Americans, right in our own backyard? Or should we take another
field trip to soc.culture.native?
Knock yourself out.
I know, just like what happened last time, right?
I missed the part where you refuted anything that I said.
Please, you don't see the hypocrisy in saying Taiwan should have
this
and that rights no matter what, while we stomp on the poor Native
Americans with our own anti-seccession law, denying them the exact
rights? Whatever happened to the "no matter what", "in any case"
moralistic dogma? Or it doesn't apply to us, because you people are
hypocrits?
What are you on about? The "poor Native Americans" are a welcome part
of
our society *now*. Yes, their tribes have claims in the courts
"the courts", meaning the kangaroo courts that's run by us the
occupier. Souns like you support Taiwan clearing their independence
thru PRC courts.
I'll make it clear that I support ROC's unification policy that's based
on parity, equity, preservation of values, and it's not subjet to PRC
government's kangroo court.
See how your seemingly unyielding morality doesn't stand up to the test
of self-examination? No wonder the Mainland Chinese are laughing at us
with sh!t like "kettle calling the pot black", "people in glass house
shouldn't throw stones", "what's good for the goose is good for the
gander" - because it's true.
against
prior obligations undertaken by the Federal Government, but that
doesn't
make them an "occupied country".
How about unilatterally abandon our continued oppression and
subjugation of the Native Americans, because respecting their
right
to their land is the right thing to do, like you all demand of
China?
How about not changing the subject?
It's about the consistency and validity of "morality" y'all are
citing. If Taiwan deserve these rights in any case, why doesn't it
apply to our crime? Shouldn't we do something about our own wrongs
first, because we can, and self-examination is elementary morality?
The analogy exists only in your mind.
Suddenly y'all are not dogmatic about holding ourselves to the same
morality. Very strange, I thought these principles are soooo
unyielding.
It's not the same morality.
If not it's hypocrisy.
Oh, dear, if we don't you'll call us all names. Gosh, we'll reform
right away!
Oh, dear, if the Commie Ch!nks don't y'all gonna call them names.
Gosh, they better reform right away!
I didn't call the Chinese Communists "chinks" and I'll thank you for
not
putting those sorts of words in my mouth.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 12:25:56 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1110993346.450990.296890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
wrote in
news:1110959546.083240.180850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
wrote in
news:1110868103.893425.78870@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote in news:1110837374.587848.192540
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Yes, let's look at Hong Kong
you absolutely defy logic. What does this have to do with
Taiwan?
Nicely snipped, oh logical one.
Or
are you implying that western forces should have used war to
prevent Hong Kong reunification? Of course political life in
China sucks
--
but you want us to go to war to make it better?
I want us to live up to our treaty obligations with Taiwan.
Do you want us to live up to our treaty obligation with Native
Americans, right in our own backyard? Or should we take another
field trip to soc.culture.native?
Knock yourself out.
I know, just like what happened last time, right?
I missed the part where you refuted anything that I said.
Please, you don't see the hypocrisy in saying Taiwan should have
this
and that rights no matter what, while we stomp on the poor Native
Americans with our own anti-seccession law, denying them the exact
rights? Whatever happened to the "no matter what", "in any case"
moralistic dogma? Or it doesn't apply to us, because you people are
hypocrits?
What are you on about? The "poor Native Americans" are a welcome part
of
our society *now*. Yes, their tribes have claims in the courts
"the courts", meaning the kangaroo courts that's run by us the
occupier. Souns like you support Taiwan clearing their independence
thru PRC courts.
I'll make it clear that I support ROC's unification policy that's
based on parity, equity, preservation of values, and it's not subjet
to PRC government's kangroo court.
See how your seemingly unyielding morality doesn't stand up to the
test of self-examination?
All I see is you making specious claims of moral equivalence.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 02:45:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:52:26 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
... Commie Ch!nks ...
Shame on you for calling the Chinese Communist Party by that racist slur.
In any event their formal name is "Butchers of TAM"
--
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 |
16 Mar 2005 02:59:40 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:52:26 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
... Commie Ch!nks ...
Shame on you for calling the Chinese Communist Party by that racist
slur.
In any event their formal name is "Butchers of TAM"
So your formal name is "Butchers of Zen" or is it "Rapist of Nanjing"?
--
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 |
13 Mar 2005 01:41:49 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
charles_liu@my-deja.com wrote in
news:1110610738.102985.109730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote:
In retrospect we know that Hitler was hell bent on war. That war
would simply have started in 1938 rather than 1939 without the
appeasement.
Actually it should have started in 1936k, when Germany was
vulnerable.
Of course, this statement will precipitate a bunch of
'history would have been different if we had acted then'
arguments.
This is a complex issue and to save you time, let me just say
nothing
I have seen is convincing.
Now to China. I do not believe the Chinese wants war with the US.
They are doing quite well with simple economic competition. But
they
will not tolerate our inferfering in her internal affairs. Taiwan
is
a remnant of a cold war that we won a decade ago. Time to pack up
our toys, rejoice in our victory and go home.
Well said.
Peaceful solution that can avoid death and suffering is far from
being
exhausted (look at Hong Kong.) As a Taiwanese-American, I say
America
stay out.
Yes, let's look at Hong Kong.
Even that, is still far better than our own American Hitler did to
Iraq. Where does this "Hitler should be killed" moralistic dogma end?
Will it ever end up in our own backyard?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
13 Mar 2005 02:08:12 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1110742909.679138.118450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
wrote in
news:1110610738.102985.109730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote:
In retrospect we know that Hitler was hell bent on war. That war
would simply have started in 1938 rather than 1939 without the
appeasement.
Actually it should have started in 1936k, when Germany was
vulnerable.
Of course, this statement will precipitate a bunch of
'history would have been different if we had acted then'
arguments.
This is a complex issue and to save you time, let me just say
nothing
I have seen is convincing.
Now to China. I do not believe the Chinese wants war with the US.
They are doing quite well with simple economic competition. But
they will not tolerate our inferfering in her internal affairs.
Taiwan is a remnant of a cold war that we won a decade ago. Time
to pack up our toys, rejoice in our victory and go home.
Well said.
Peaceful solution that can avoid death and suffering is far from
being exhausted (look at Hong Kong.) As a Taiwanese-American, I say
America stay out.
Yes, let's look at Hong Kong.
Whoops, you snipped the good stuff. What's the matter, you can't deal
with that? Quick, change the subject!
Even that, is still far better than our own American Hitler did to
Iraq.
Where does this "Hitler should be killed" moralistic dogma end?
Will it ever end up in our own backyard?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
13 Mar 2005 11:20:20 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
charles_liu@my-deja.com wrote in
news:1110742909.679138.118450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
charles_liu@my-deja.com wrote in
news:1110610738.102985.109730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote:
In retrospect we know that Hitler was hell bent on war. That
war
would simply have started in 1938 rather than 1939 without the
appeasement.
Actually it should have started in 1936k, when Germany was
vulnerable.
Of course, this statement will precipitate a bunch of
'history would have been different if we had acted then'
arguments.
This is a complex issue and to save you time, let me just say
nothing
I have seen is convincing.
Now to China. I do not believe the Chinese wants war with the
US.
They are doing quite well with simple economic competition.
But
they will not tolerate our inferfering in her internal affairs.
Taiwan is a remnant of a cold war that we won a decade ago.
Time
to pack up our toys, rejoice in our victory and go home.
Well said.
Peaceful solution that can avoid death and suffering is far from
being exhausted (look at Hong Kong.) As a Taiwanese-American, I
say
America stay out.
Yes, let's look at Hong Kong.
Whoops, you snipped the good stuff. What's the matter, you can't deal
with that? Quick, change the subject!
Just for the record, I have no problem with what you cited. Now notice
how you can't deal with it when your moralistic dogma is applied to
ourselves. Iraq is worse than when Saddam ruled.
Taiwan is a remnant of a cold war that we won a decade ago. Time to
pack up our toys, rejoice in our victory and go home.
Even that, is still far better than our own American Hitler did to
Iraq.
Where does this "Hitler should be killed" moralistic dogma end?
Will it ever end up in our own backyard?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
14 Mar 2005 06:18:27 AM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1110777620.098706.119490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
wrote in
news:1110742909.679138.118450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
wrote in
news:1110610738.102985.109730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote:
In retrospect we know that Hitler was hell bent on war. That
war
would simply have started in 1938 rather than 1939 without the
appeasement.
Actually it should have started in 1936k, when Germany was
vulnerable.
Of course, this statement will precipitate a bunch of
'history would have been different if we had acted then'
arguments.
This is a complex issue and to save you time, let me just say
nothing
I have seen is convincing.
Now to China. I do not believe the Chinese wants war with the
US. They are doing quite well with simple economic competition.
But they will not tolerate our inferfering in her internal
affairs. Taiwan is a remnant of a cold war that we won a decade
ago. Time to pack up our toys, rejoice in our victory and go
home.
Well said.
Peaceful solution that can avoid death and suffering is far from
being exhausted (look at Hong Kong.) As a Taiwanese-American, I
say America stay out.
Yes, let's look at Hong Kong.
Whoops, you snipped the good stuff. What's the matter, you can't deal
with that? Quick, change the subject!
Just for the record, I have no problem with what you cited. Now notice
how you can't deal with it when your moralistic dogma is applied to
ourselves. Iraq is worse than when Saddam ruled.
Nonsense.
Taiwan is a remnant of a cold war that we won a decade ago. Time to
pack up our toys, rejoice in our victory and go home.
More nonsense.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
14 Mar 2005 12:45:28 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 21:20:20 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
Taiwan is a remnant of a cold war that we won a decade ago. Time to pack
up our toys, rejoice in our victory and go home.
Now I am confused.
When you say "we" do you mean "us PRC citizens" (the "winners of the
Chinese Civil War)
OR
"us US citizens" (which I seem to remember you saying you were).
OR
....."us ROC citizens" (which you now say you are, too.)
Lots of different "we's"
--
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 |
14 Mar 2005 01:22:48 PM |
|
|
I must have not been clear at some point. I am a citizen of the US so
when I refer to we and us, it is to the US. Yes we won the cold war.
The soviets imploded and both the PRC and Viet Cong have became
capitalists.
Those enemies have left the battle field, but unfortunately the US is
still storming around the globe looking for new dragons to slay. We
have greatly overstepped our role in the world.
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 01:20:10 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I must have not been clear at some point. I am a citizen of the US
so
when I refer to we and us, it is to the US. Yes we won the cold war.
The soviets imploded and both the PRC and Viet Cong have became
capitalists.
Those enemies have left the battle field, but unfortunately the US is
still storming around the globe looking for new dragons to slay. We
have greatly overstepped our role in the world.
Well said. As a Taiwanese-American, I say America stay out, on both
accounts.
For those Americans who's moralistic dogma tell them to "do something
about it", how about do something about our own Native Americans that
are already subjugated and under our own boot of anit-seccession law,
where their independence must clear our kangaroo courts that have
repeatedly decleared them "dependent nations" undeserving of the rights
y'all say Taiwan should have.
That's like asking ROC to clear independence thru PRC courts. Why is it
one is okay but not the other? My guess would be hypocrisy.
If they are both wrong, how about do something about our own crimes
first? It's our own country and we can do something about it, shouldn't
we mind our own business first? Self-examination is an elementary
morality some of y'all are lacking in appearantly.
So don't be suprised if Mainland Chinese people say stuff like "kettle
calling pot black", "living in glass house should not throw stone",
"what's good for the goose is good for the gander" - because y'all
deserve it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
