| 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 |
16 Mar 2005 02:42:33 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:20:10 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
...If they are both wrong, how about do something about our own crimes
first?
Go ahead, follow your priorities. Do not claim that your priorities are
"natural" or "wise" or the only possible ones.
--
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 |
16 Mar 2005 01:26:16 AM |
|
|
charles_liu@my-deja.com:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu 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.
Your comparison is bizarre. Native American land was stolen from them.
When was Taiwan stolen from the PRC? Taiwan never belonged to the PRC.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 01:37:51 AM |
|
|
C'Pi wrote:
charles_liu@my-deja.com:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu 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.
Your comparison is bizarre. Native American land was stolen from
them.
When was Taiwan stolen from the PRC? Taiwan never belonged to the
PRC.
More the reason to rescue the poor Native Americans first, since their
situation is worse than Taiwan; Taiwan has not yet being subjugated,
where as the poor Native Americans "are already subjugated".
What does your moralistic dogma dictate? Save the one that's already
drawning, or the one not yet (and might not even be) in the water?
Don't tell me it's too late the for Native Americans, that's just a
convienent cop-out (if you want to go that way, we can take a field
trip to soc.culture.native.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "CPi" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 02:00:12 AM |
|
|
charles_liu@my-deja.com:
C'Pi wrote:
charles_liu@my-deja.com:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu 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.
Your comparison is bizarre. Native American land was stolen from
them. When was Taiwan stolen from the PRC? Taiwan never belonged to
the PRC.
More the reason to rescue the poor Native Americans first, since their
situation is worse than Taiwan; Taiwan has not yet being subjugated,
where as the poor Native Americans "are already subjugated".
If Native Americans are under threat of invasion then you and I can move to
a reservation and help them defend themselves. Is that ok with you? At
this time I'm not aware of any such threat of invasion so you'll be sure to
let me know when it comes so we can go and help. Sorry if that is not what
you wanted to hear but direct threats to others lives takes precedence for
me. If you think differently that's ok. I can understand that suffering of
Native Americans is more important to you than the lives of the people of
Taiwan. In fact I kind of respect that since it's your own families lives
that you will be sacrificing for the good of Native Americans. Yes, I
respect that of you.
In addition, if there are any Native Americans that are formally asserting
their right to live in their own nation then I fully support their right to
do so. And if it turns out that the US uses force against those people in
order to stop them from being independent then Charles and I will surely be
there to lend whatever support we can. Let me know when any of this happens
Charles. You and I on the front lines together. It will be glorious.
What does your moralistic dogma dictate? Save the one that's already
drawning, or the one not yet (and might not even be) in the water?
Don't tell me it's too late the for Native Americans, that's just a
convienent cop-out (if you want to go that way, we can take a field
trip to soc.culture.native.)
Let's do what we can for the Native Americans. It's a deal. Yet at the
same time I cannot stand by while others are under direct threat of invasion
and being killed.
But enough of your irrelevant smoke screen (not that you don't have valid
points about the treatment of Native Americas and their rights, but it was
still a smoke screen none the less) that didn't actually address the issue.
How do you make the comparison to US anti-seccession laws when Taiwan has
never actually been a part of the PRC? What land was stolen from the PRC?
It really makes the whole Anti-Seccession Law thing quite funny. How can
Taiwan secede from the PRC when it has never actually been part of the PRC?
The PRC wants to make its invasion "legal", but it would have to first show
Taiwan was even once a part of the PRC to do so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 03:03:04 AM |
|
|
C'Pi wrote:
charles_liu@my-deja.com:
C'Pi wrote:
charles_liu@my-deja.com:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu 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.
Your comparison is bizarre. Native American land was stolen from
them. When was Taiwan stolen from the PRC? Taiwan never belonged
to
the PRC.
More the reason to rescue the poor Native Americans first, since
their
situation is worse than Taiwan; Taiwan has not yet being
subjugated,
where as the poor Native Americans "are already subjugated".
If Native Americans are under threat of invasion then you and I can
move to
a reservation and help them defend themselves.
They are already invaded, and they are currently being occupied.
Is that ok with you?
When are you moving back to America?
At
this time I'm not aware of any such threat of invasion so you'll be
sure to
let me know when it comes so we can go and help.
The invasion already took place, hence "are already subjugated". The
oppression and occupation is happening everyday, even right now. How
convienent that you are not aware of it.
Sorry if that is not what
you wanted to hear but direct threats to others lives takes
precedence for
me.
What a twisted logic, where threats takes precdence to actual
hostility. The Native Americans are bing occupied right now as we
speak.
If you think differently that's ok. I can understand that suffering
of
Native Americans is more important to you than the lives of the
people of
Taiwan. In fact I kind of respect that since it's your own families
lives
that you will be sacrificing
Why are you bing so obtuse. I support ROC's unification policy with
track record of 50 years of peace, where no one will die.
for the good of Native Americans. Yes, I
respect that of you.
I have no respect for your moralistic dogma, and cowardice in not
applying it to ourselves.
In addition, if there are any Native Americans that are formally
asserting
their right to live in their own nation then I fully support their
right to
do so.
There are, and don't forget Hawaii Kingdom also. Will you post as many
for them as you would for Taiwan? I doubt it.
And if it turns out that the US uses force against those people in
order to stop them from being independent then Charles and I will
surely be
there to lend whatever support we can. Let me know when any of this
happens
Charles. You and I on the front lines together. It will be
glorious.
Talk's cheap. Native Americans are suffering from oppression and
hostility right now.
What does your moralistic dogma dictate? Save the one that's
already
drawning, or the one not yet (and might not even be) in the water?
Don't tell me it's too late the for Native Americans, that's just a
convienent cop-out (if you want to go that way, we can take a field
trip to soc.culture.native.)
Let's do what we can for the Native Americans. It's a deal. Yet at
the
same time I cannot stand by while others are under direct threat of
invasion
and being killed.
Again, it's funny to see you rationalizing away our crime by stating
threat of invasion takes precedence over actual invasion and
occupation.
But enough of your irrelevant smoke screen (not that you don't have
valid
points about the treatment of Native Americas and their rights, but
it was
still a smoke screen none the less) that didn't actually address the
issue.
It is relevant to the consistenc and validity of the "morality" you are
citing.
How do you make the comparison to US anti-seccession laws when Taiwan
has
never actually been a part of the PRC?
Taiwan is part of China. ROC - what's the 'C'?
What land was stolen from the PRC?
It really makes the whole Anti-Seccession Law thing quite funny.
What's more funny is that we have one, yet you think it's funny that
others have them too. No wonder the Mainland Chinese are laughing at us
with "kettle calling the pot black", "people in glass house shouldn't
throw stones", "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" -
becasue it's true.
How can
Taiwan secede from the PRC when it has never actually been part of
the PRC?
The PRC wants to make its invasion "legal", but it would have to
first show
Taiwan was even once a part of the PRC to do so.
China. Even ROC's unification policy says so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
17 Mar 2005 03:31:00 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 01:03:04 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
C'Pi wrote:
How can Taiwan secede from the PRC when it has never actually been part
of the PRC? The PRC wants to make its invasion "legal", but it would
have to first show Taiwan was even once a part of the PRC to do so.
China. Even ROC's unification policy says so.
Apparently you are claiming that the ROC seceded from China. When? [Hint:
It never happened.]
I am glad to see you agreeing that the ROC did not secede from the PRC.
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CPi" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 03:38:49 AM |
|
|
charles_liu@my-deja.com:
C'Pi wrote:
If Native Americans are under threat of invasion then you and I can
move to a reservation and help them defend themselves.
They are already invaded, and they are currently being occupied.
Are they under direct threat to be killed by bombs and missiles?
Is that ok with you?
When are you moving back to America?
When are you moving back to Taiwan?
At
this time I'm not aware of any such threat of invasion so you'll be
sure to let me know when it comes so we can go and help.
The invasion already took place, hence "are already subjugated". The
oppression and occupation is happening everyday, even right now. How
convienent that you are not aware of it.
I am fully aware of it. I am also fully aware that the people are under
threat to be killed. Would you have me ignore such a dire threat?
Sorry if that is not what
you wanted to hear but direct threats to others lives takes
precedence for me.
What a twisted logic, where threats takes precdence to actual
hostility. The Native Americans are bing occupied right now as we
speak.
And the people of Taiwan are under direct threat of being killed right now
as we speak. Sorry if lives take precedence for me. Again, it's your right
for you to think less of lives of the people of Taiwan. I respect your
opinion.
If you think differently that's ok. I can understand that suffering
of Native Americans is more important to you than the lives of the
people of Taiwan. In fact I kind of respect that since it's your
own families lives that you will be sacrificing
Why are you bing so obtuse. I support ROC's unification policy with
track record of 50 years of peace, where no one will die.
You mean Taiwan's status quo policy, since that is what has a track record
of 50 years of peace. But the PRC has made it clear that the status quo is
no longer acceptable. I'm surprised you don't know that. Even if Taiwan
had no one intending to declare independence the PRC would still invade.
You are a fool if you think otherwise.
for the good of Native Americans. Yes, I
respect that of you.
I have no respect for your moralistic dogma, and cowardice in not
applying it to ourselves.
Who are you to judge cowardice when you lack even the courage to have morals
in the first place? And who is the coward who lives in the US with no
intention of helping even their family? Too me my morals dictate that I
stand up when lives are being threatened and here I am in Taiwan. While
you...are not.
In addition, if there are any Native Americans that are formally
asserting their right to live in their own nation then I fully
support their right to do so.
There are, and don't forget Hawaii Kingdom also. Will you post as many
for them as you would for Taiwan? I doubt it.
Like posting on usenet makes a difference. Actually living in a country and
supporting the people can make a difference. Here I am in Taiwan. Where
are you? Not even in Taiwan trying to make a difference by pushing Taiwan
towards unification. Just blabbering on Usenet in front of a couple dozen
people. Blah. Blah. Blah. I bet you think you are actually making a
difference being here with your gibberish. I am under no such delusion.
And if it turns out that the US uses force against those people in
order to stop them from being independent then Charles and I will
surely be there to lend whatever support we can. Let me know when
any of this happens Charles. You and I on the front lines together.
It will be glorious.
Talk's cheap. Native Americans are suffering from oppression and
hostility right now.
Agree. Talk is cheap. If you believe Taiwan should unify with the PRC then
get over here and work for it. Spouting off on Usenet while sitting
comfortably in your home in America isn't going to accomplish squat. If you
want to make a difference in Taiwan, then come and live in Taiwan. Like I
have.
What does your moralistic dogma dictate? Save the one that's already
drawning, or the one not yet (and might not even be) in the water?
Don't tell me it's too late the for Native Americans, that's just a
convienent cop-out (if you want to go that way, we can take a field
trip to soc.culture.native.)
Let's do what we can for the Native Americans. It's a deal. Yet at
the same time I cannot stand by while others are under direct threat
of invasion and being killed.
Again, it's funny to see you rationalizing away our crime by stating
threat of invasion takes precedence over actual invasion and
occupation.
Yes, lives take precedence for me. Not having people killed actually has
precedence for me. Call me weird but that's the way I think. Again I
understand you feel that lives aren't as important, even your own families,
but that is your right.
But enough of your irrelevant smoke screen (not that you don't have
valid points about the treatment of Native Americas and their
rights, but it was still a smoke screen none the less) that didn't
actually address the issue.
It is relevant to the consistenc and validity of the "morality" you
are citing.
I'm not talking about morality. I'm talking about the legal claims and the
comparisons you are trying to make. *You* are the one citing morality. But
we have already established our morality is different. I value life. You
do not.
How do you make the comparison to US anti-seccession laws when
Taiwan has never actually been a part of the PRC?
Taiwan is part of China. ROC - what's the 'C'?
Taiwan is ROC. Not C...ROC. Get it? If you know of a legal entity called
China let me know and I'll visit it someday. In the mean time I can go to
either PRC or ROC.
What land was stolen from the PRC?
It really makes the whole Anti-Seccession Law thing quite funny.
What's more funny is that we have one, yet you think it's funny that
others have them too. No wonder the Mainland Chinese are laughing at
us with "kettle calling the pot black", "people in glass house
shouldn't throw stones", "what's good for the goose is good for the
gander" - becasue it's true.
Anser the question. What land was stolen from the PRC?
How can
Taiwan secede from the PRC when it has never actually been part of
the PRC? The PRC wants to make its invasion "legal", but it would
have to first show Taiwan was even once a part of the PRC to do so.
China. Even ROC's unification policy says so.
You'll have to clarify for me whether it says China or ROC, since I don't
really know. Maybe you can point me to a copy so I can read it for myself.
And maybe someday the ROC and the PRC will unify by choice and then a
country called China may actually exist if that is what they so choose to
name the country.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 02:44:16 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:00:12 +0800, C'Pi thought carefully and wrote:
charles_liu@my-deja.com:
Don't tell me it's too late the for Native Americans, that's just a
convenient cop-out (if you want to go that way, we can take a field
trip to soc.culture.native.)
Let's do what we can for the Native Americans. It's a deal.
Mr.Liu has never done anything for native Americans.
Yet at the same time I cannot stand by while others are under direct
threat of invasion and being killed.
Exactly right.
But enough of your irrelevant smoke screen (not that you don't have
valid points about the treatment of Native Americas and their rights,
but it was still a smoke screen none the less) that didn't actually
address the issue.
Yes, bingo.
--
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 |
12 Mar 2005 02:36:22 AM |
|
|
Bingo. What old Jimbo doesn't want to admit is there's no invasion if
peaceful unification based on political solution is achieved.
I'd like to see Jim look in the mirror himself, see the reflection of
Iraq on Taiwan. Of course it would be of no consquence to him, because
as an American, he's got a helicoptor pass.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
12 Mar 2005 03:49:51 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:36:22 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
Bingo. What old Jimbo doesn't want to admit is there's no invasion if
peaceful unification based on political solution is achieved.
IF the Taiwanese choose to unify with the CCP, that is their right. I
support them having the power to choose. [In other words, Mr. Liu is lying
about me again.]
--
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: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
12 Mar 2005 08:59:01 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.12.09.49.51.157628@ms74.hinet.net:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:36:22 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
Bingo. What old Jimbo doesn't want to admit is there's no invasion if
peaceful unification based on political solution is achieved.
IF the Taiwanese choose to unify with the CCP, that is their right. I
support them having the power to choose. [In other words, Mr. Liu is
lying about me again.]
That's what I said, and what the US policy amounts to. "No *unilateral*
solutions."
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 03:07:43 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.12.09.49.51.157628@ms74.hinet.net:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:36:22 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully
and
wrote:
Bingo. What old Jimbo doesn't want to admit is there's no invasion
if
peaceful unification based on political solution is achieved.
IF the Taiwanese choose to unify with the CCP, that is their right.
I
support them having the power to choose. [In other words, Mr. Liu
is
lying about me again.]
That's what I said, and what the US policy amounts to. "No
*unilateral*
solutions."
Such unyielding position, comming from citizen of a nation who oppress
and occupy the Native Americans, and deny them the exact rights. I
f the Native Americans choose to take back their land, is that their
rights? Should that be respected no matter what, in any case?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 10:34:29 AM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1110964063.464674.55030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.12.09.49.51.157628@ms74.hinet.net:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:36:22 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully
and
wrote:
Bingo. What old Jimbo doesn't want to admit is there's no invasion
if
peaceful unification based on political solution is achieved.
IF the Taiwanese choose to unify with the CCP, that is their right.
I
support them having the power to choose. [In other words, Mr. Liu
is
lying about me again.]
That's what I said, and what the US policy amounts to. "No
*unilateral* solutions."
Such unyielding position, comming from citizen of a nation who oppress
and occupy the Native Americans, and deny them the exact rights. If
the Native Americans choose to take back their land, is that their
rights? Should that be respected no matter what, in any case?
That's not the "exact rights" the US is supporting for the Taiwanese. If
you're going to argue from analogy, at least get the analogy right.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 11:05:02 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
charles_liu@my-deja.com wrote in
news:1110964063.464674.55030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.12.09.49.51.157628@ms74.hinet.net:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:36:22 -0800, charles_liu thought
carefully
and
wrote:
Bingo. What old Jimbo doesn't want to admit is there's no
invasion
if
peaceful unification based on political solution is achieved.
IF the Taiwanese choose to unify with the CCP, that is their
right.
I
support them having the power to choose. [In other words, Mr.
Liu
is
lying about me again.]
That's what I said, and what the US policy amounts to. "No
*unilateral* solutions."
Such unyielding position, comming from citizen of a nation who
oppress
and occupy the Native Americans, and deny them the exact rights. If
the Native Americans choose to take back their land, is that their
rights? Should that be respected no matter what, in any case?
That's not the "exact rights" the US is supporting for the Taiwanese.
If
you're going to argue from analogy, at least get the analogy right.
We are talking about right to independence and statehood, and how it
should be respected no matter what, in any case. For those Americans
advocating this for Taiwan: Should this apply to the Native Americans
as well?
It's a very simple question, yet you have to spin semantics to avoid
facing our own crime. So much for your unyielding moral dogma.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 12:31:12 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1110992702.734916.232890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
wrote in
news:1110964063.464674.55030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.12.09.49.51.157628@ms74.hinet.net:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:36:22 -0800, charles_liu thought
carefully
and
wrote:
Bingo. What old Jimbo doesn't want to admit is there's no
invasion
if
peaceful unification based on political solution is achieved.
IF the Taiwanese choose to unify with the CCP, that is their
right.
I
support them having the power to choose. [In other words, Mr.
Liu
is
lying about me again.]
That's what I said, and what the US policy amounts to. "No
*unilateral* solutions."
Such unyielding position, comming from citizen of a nation who
oppress and occupy the Native Americans, and deny them the exact
rights. If the Native Americans choose to take back their land, is
that their rights? Should that be respected no matter what, in any
case?
That's not the "exact rights" the US is supporting for the Taiwanese.
If you're going to argue from analogy, at least get the analogy
right.
We are talking about right to independence and statehood, and how it
should be respected no matter what, in any case. For those Americans
advocating this for Taiwan: Should this apply to the Native Americans
as well?
Taiwan is de facto independant *right now*, the Native Americans are
not, and the Indian Treaties do not make them so. Like I said, at least
get your analogies right before you try to make moral equivalence
arguments.
It's a very simple question, yet you have to spin semantics to avoid
facing our own crime. So much for your unyielding moral dogma.
It's a very specious question, and all it takes is semantics to prove
that it's not "our crime". So much for your 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 |
17 Mar 2005 03:28:25 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:05:02 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
We are talking about right to independence and statehood, and how it
should be respected no matter what, in any case. For those Americans
advocating this for Taiwan: Should this apply to the Native Americans as
well?
Yes.
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
12 Mar 2005 04:30:14 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 00:36:22 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
Bingo. What old Jimbo doesn't want to admit is there's no invasion
if
peaceful unification based on political solution is achieved.
IF the Taiwanese choose to unify with the CCP, that is their right. I
support them having the power to choose. [In other words, Mr. Liu is
lying
about me again.]
Are you conflating CCP and China?
--
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 12:47:10 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:06:03 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and wrote:
... Time to pack up our toys, rejoice in our victory and go home.
And do nothing when a communist dictatorship invades a peaceful nation of
free people?
Shame on you. How can you look in a mirror?
--
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 |
12 Mar 2005 11:04:00 PM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:06:03 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and
wrote:
... Time to pack up our toys, rejoice in our victory and go home.
And do nothing when a communist dictatorship invades a peaceful
nation of
free people?
Boy you are really stuck in the old cold war cliches. Modern China
happens to be a capatalist country that is ruled by a communist party.
Most Chinese are happy to make money and accept their current form of
government. That could change, but the situation today is that this
government is accepted. What is not accepted is the Taiwan
independence movement. Since Taiwan is still part of China (accepted
internationally including by the US) any attempts at independence on
Taiwan's part will be viewed as a succession. Even though the US was
successful in breaking up Yugoslavia, perhaps the Soviet Union, and
maybe Iraq it does not mean that we have that right. If we interfere
in China there will be war. A war that Stone so thoughtfully pointed
out to us could go nuclear. That is what I do not want.
Shame on you. How can you look in a mirror?
You advocate actions that could lead to nuclear war and you think you
have a monopoly on dishing out shame? You must be deluded.
Mike Syvanen
--
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 |
13 Mar 2005 05:28:53 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:04:00 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:06:03 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and
wrote:
... Time to pack up our toys, rejoice in our victory and go home.
And do nothing when a communist dictatorship invades a peaceful nation
of free people?
Boy you are really stuck in the old cold war cliches. Modern China
happens to be a capitalist country that is ruled by a communist party.
I agree that "fascist" is a more accurate description.
Most Chinese are happy to make money and accept their current form of
government.
And they have expressed this in what way? By voting for the CCP?
That could change, but the situation today is that this
government is accepted.
.........Since Taiwan
is still part of China (accepted internationally including by the US)
any attempts at independence on Taiwan's part will be viewed as a
succession.
Liar. America doesn't accept that.
Even though the US was successful in breaking up Yugoslavia, perhaps the
Soviet Union, and maybe Iraq it does not mean that we have that right.
If we interfere in China there will be war.
If China tries to invade Taiwan, there will be a war. The question is what
we will do. I promise you that the USA will defend Taiwan.
Shame on you. How can you look in a mirror?
You advocate actions that could lead to nuclear war and you think you
have a monopoly on dishing out shame? You must be deluded.
There is ZERO chance that defending Taiwan from an invasion will lead to a
nuclear war. I.e., you are lying. BTW, make a list of all the freedoms you
will give up when the CCP threatens nuclear war?
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did
not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists,
but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews,
but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me."
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
13 Mar 2005 04:21:46 PM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:04:00 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:06:03 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and
wrote:
... Time to pack up our toys, rejoice in our victory and go
home.
And do nothing when a communist dictatorship invades a peaceful
nation
of free people?
Boy you are really stuck in the old cold war cliches. Modern China
happens to be a capitalist country that is ruled by a communist
party.
I agree that "fascist" is a more accurate description.
Most Chinese are happy to make money and accept their current form
of
government.
And they have expressed this in what way? By voting for the CCP?
That could change, but the situation today is that this
government is accepted.
.........Since Taiwan
is still part of China (accepted internationally including by the
US)
any attempts at independence on Taiwan's part will be viewed as a
succession.
Liar. America doesn't accept that.
You should really go back and look at wat Kissinger agreed to when he
visited Peking in 1972. I do agree that much was left ambiguous but
one thing that was not was the One China Policy. Reversal of that
would be succession.
My, my, so its liar now. Are beginning to lose your cool? Some truths
can be painful but you can't simply insult them away.
Even though the US was successful in breaking up Yugoslavia,
perhaps the
Soviet Union, and maybe Iraq it does not mean that we have that
right.
If we interfere in China there will be war.
If China tries to invade Taiwan, there will be a war. The question is
what
we will do. I promise you that the USA will defend Taiwan.
Well you hope so. I suspect saner minds here in the US will prevail.
Actually, the war in Iraq has one good possible outcome in that when
the true nature of the that fiasco is realized by the American people,
it will make it even that more difficult to get involved in a much more
serious war against China. But, as I said before, I tend to be an
optimist, maybe you are correct.
Shame on you. How can you look in a mirror?
You advocate actions that could lead to nuclear war and you think
you
have a monopoly on dishing out shame? You must be deluded.
There is ZERO chance that defending Taiwan from an invasion will lead
to a
nuclear war. I.e., you are lying.
There you go again, blowing your cool. Considering worse case scenarios
is not lying. Can you logically wrap your mind around that? There are
some quite realistic scenarios that could lead to nuclear war. It
doesn't mean that they must occur, but to be aware of them is simple
prudence. The fact you seem incapable of even facing this possibility
puts you in a heavy state of denial, or, should I dare repeat, of
delusion.
BTW, make a list of all the freedoms you
will give up when the CCP threatens nuclear war?
Since China has never directly threatened a single one of my freedoms
there is no need to even consider such a list. The problem is Chinese
unity, not American freedom.
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I
did
not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade
Unionists,
but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the
Jews,
but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for
me,
there was no one left to speak out for me."
Yes that was the situation that many progressive minded Germans
exerienced between 1932 through 1945. The take home lesson, is what
point do the people unify and resist encroaching fascism. But there is
no analogy to Taiwan. China is not threatening any of my personal
freedoms nor of that of any other American patriot.
--
Love, Jim
Your sig here has me puzzled. Anytime you confront a difficult
argument you resort to accusations of lying. That is a serious
ad-hominum charge and in the context of my responses competely
illogical. Are you really full of love, Jim?
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
13 Mar 2005 05:35:53 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1110752506.550018.34870@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:04:00 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:06:03 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and
wrote:
... Time to pack up our toys, rejoice in our victory and go
home.
And do nothing when a communist dictatorship invades a peaceful
nation
of free people?
Boy you are really stuck in the old cold war cliches. Modern China
happens to be a capitalist country that is ruled by a communist
party.
I agree that "fascist" is a more accurate description.
Most Chinese are happy to make money and accept their current form
of
government.
And they have expressed this in what way? By voting for the CCP?
That could change, but the situation today is that this
government is accepted.
.........Since Taiwan
is still part of China (accepted internationally including by the
US) any attempts at independence on Taiwan's part will be viewed as
a succession.
Liar. America doesn't accept that.
You should really go back and look at wat Kissinger agreed to when he
visited Peking in 1972. I do agree that much was left ambiguous but
one thing that was not was the One China Policy. Reversal of that
would be succession.
The word is "secession" not "succession".
And the US is committed to the status quo vis-a-vis Taiwan and China.
Not to mention that 1972 was a long time ago.
My, my, so its liar now. Are beginning to lose your cool? Some
truths can be painful but you can't simply insult them away.
Even though the US was successful in breaking up Yugoslavia,
perhaps the
Soviet Union, and maybe Iraq it does not mean that we have that
right.
If we interfere in China there will be war.
If China tries to invade Taiwan, there will be a war. The question is
what
we will do. I promise you that the USA will defend Taiwan.
Well you hope so. I suspect saner minds here in the US will prevail.
Actually, the war in Iraq has one good possible outcome in that when
the true nature of the that fiasco is realized by the American people,
it will make it even that more difficult to get involved in a much
more serious war against China. But, as I said before, I tend to be
an optimist, maybe you are correct.
The word is "defeatist" not "optimist".
Shame on you. How can you look in a mirror?
You advocate actions that could lead to nuclear war and you think
you have a monopoly on dishing out shame? You must be deluded.
There is ZERO chance that defending Taiwan from an invasion will lead
to a nuclear war. I.e., you are lying.
There you go again, blowing your cool. Considering worse case
scenarios is not lying. Can you logically wrap your mind around that?
There are some quite realistic scenarios that could lead to nuclear
war. It doesn't mean that they must occur, but to be aware of them is
simple prudence. The fact you seem incapable of even facing this
possibility puts you in a heavy state of denial, or, should I dare
repeat, of delusion.
BTW, make a list of all the freedoms you
will give up when the CCP threatens nuclear war?
Since China has never directly threatened a single one of my freedoms
there is no need to even consider such a list. The problem is Chinese
unity, not American freedom.
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I
did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade
Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came
for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when
they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
Yes that was the situation that many progressive minded Germans
exerienced between 1932 through 1945. The take home lesson, is what
point do the people unify and resist encroaching fascism. But there
is no analogy to Taiwan. China is not threatening any of my personal
freedoms nor of that of any other American patriot.
Your last sentence is a perfect example of the analogy to Taiwan.
--
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 12:51:28 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:21:46 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
I agree that "fascist" is a more accurate description.
America doesn't accept that.
You should really go back and look at wat Kissinger agreed to when he
visited Peking in 1972. I do agree that much was left ambiguous but one
thing that was not was the One China Policy. Reversal of that would be
succession.
Why do you confuse "acknowledge" and "agree"?
If China tries to invade Taiwan, there will be a war. The question is
what we will do. I promise you that the USA will defend Taiwan.
Well you hope so...... But, as I said before, I tend to be an optimist,
maybe you are correct.
There is ZERO chance that defending Taiwan from an invasion will lead
to a nuclear war. I.e., you are lying.
There you go again, blowing your cool. Considering worse case scenarios
is not lying. Can you logically wrap your mind around that?....
I have considered the worst cases. Nuclear war isn't one of them.
BTW, make a list of all the freedoms you will give up when the CCP
threatens nuclear war?
Since China has never directly threatened a single one of my freedoms
there is no need to even consider such a list. The problem is Chinese
unity, not American freedom.
In other words, you propose abandoning the Taiwanese because, after all,
its no skin off your nose.
What that does "I hope so..." mean when you say it?
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did
not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade
Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came
for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they
came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
Yes that was the situation that many progressive minded Germans
experienced between 1932 through 1945. The take home lesson, is what
point do the people unify and resist encroaching fascism. But there is
no analogy to Taiwan. China is not threatening any of my personal
freedoms nor of that of any other American patriot.
LOL. Or rather crying because your words are EXACTLY what too many
Americans said in 1936 about Hitler and the Japanese fascists.
Love, Jim
Your sig here has me puzzled....
Have you ever looked the common salutation "Sincerely yours,..." What do
you suppose it means, literally?
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
14 Mar 2005 01:14:11 PM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:21:46 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
I agree that "fascist" is a more accurate description.
America doesn't accept that.
You should really go back and look at wat Kissinger agreed to when
he
visited Peking in 1972. I do agree that much was left ambiguous
but one
thing that was not was the One China Policy. Reversal of that
would be
succession.
Why do you confuse "acknowledge" and "agree"?
There was that ambiguity. The Chinese lived up to their end of the
bargain for the past 30 years. The Taiwan independence movement has
changed everything.
If China tries to invade Taiwan, there will be a war. The question
is
what we will do. I promise you that the USA will defend Taiwan.
Well you hope so...... But, as I said before, I tend to be an
optimist,
maybe you are correct.
There is ZERO chance that defending Taiwan from an invasion will
lead
to a nuclear war. I.e., you are lying.
There you go again, blowing your cool. Considering worse case
scenarios
is not lying. Can you logically wrap your mind around that?....
I have considered the worst cases. Nuclear war isn't one of them.
I played this war game with Stone. I pointed out that China is working
very hard at developing a conventional weapons system that could sink a
US aircraft carrier. Even though the US has the advantage in the
quality of weapons, the Chinese could in principle overcome that with
quantity. Thus it is possible that they could sink a carrier. At this
point, it was Stone and not me please note, Stone said then we would
reduce China to a radioactive waste land. Now you call that lying. I
call it a horrendous possibility but I do believe that there are people
in positions of power in this country that agree with Stone. If one of
the neocrazies had a finger on the button when that situation arose, I
do fear nuclear war as one of the options. Not likely, but there it
is.
BTW, make a list of all the freedoms you will give up when the CCP
threatens nuclear war?
Since China has never directly threatened a single one of my
freedoms
there is no need to even consider such a list. The problem is
Chinese
unity, not American freedom.
In other words, you propose abandoning the Taiwanese because, after
all,
its no skin off your nose.
Checnya wants to secceed from Russia. I think Russia should allow them
to do so. But it is not in America's national interest one way or the
other. The cost of war is too great to involve ourselves in the
internal affairs of other countris. This goes for Taiwan also.
What that does "I hope so..." mean when you say it?
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so
I did
not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade
Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they
came
for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when
they
came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
Yes that was the situation that many progressive minded Germans
experienced between 1932 through 1945. The take home lesson, is
what
point do the people unify and resist encroaching fascism. But
there is
no analogy to Taiwan. China is not threatening any of my personal
freedoms nor of that of any other American patriot.
LOL. Or rather crying because your words are EXACTLY what too many
Americans said in 1936 about Hitler and the Japanese fascists.
Actually, the US went to war with Japan when it was attacked by the
Japanese and with Germany after Germany declared war on us. We had no
call to go to war sooner than that. Our national interests were
directly threatened then and not in 1936. The US have no national
interests at stake in the Taiwanese independence movement.
Love, Jim
Your sig here has me puzzled....
Have you ever looked the common salutation (sic) "Sincerely
yours,..." What do
you suppose it means, literally?
Well it is such an archaic closing, especially within the impersonel
evirons of these net exchange groups. I thought you were trying to
make some kind of statement. A statement that is contradicted by your
continual use of gratuitous ad hominen attacks and attempts at
demonizing those who disagree with you. I will accept, if you say so,
that it is meaningless.
Love, Jim
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
15 Mar 2005 01:06:19 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:14:11 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
Why do you confuse "acknowledge" and "agree"?
There was that ambiguity. The Chinese lived up to their end of the
bargain for the past 30 years. The Taiwan independence movement has
changed everything.
So, why did you confuse "acknowledge" and "agree"?
Checnya wants to secceed from Russia. I think Russia should allow them
to do so.....
Agree.
This goes for Taiwan also.
Agree, as modified.
... The US have no national interests at stake in the Taiwanese
independence movement.
All democratic nations have a mutual national interest in defending each
other's freedom.
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
15 Mar 2005 02:04:17 PM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:14:11 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
Why do you confuse "acknowledge" and "agree"?
There was that ambiguity. The Chinese lived up to their end of the
bargain for the past 30 years. The Taiwan independence movement
has
changed everything.
So, why did you confuse "acknowledge" and "agree"?
Is this the difference that you feel we should go to war over? China
just today has thrown down a very real challenge. I think they see
weakness in the US (egad, 20,000 poorly armed Iraqi insurgents tying
down 8 of our 12 infantry divisions) and are taking advantage of the
current situation. It is very very important to know that they are not
bluffing. If you think we should defend Taiwan and if the Taiwanese
independence movement continues in the current direction then there
will be war.
And it could go nuclear.
Now Mr Morality, defend that one.
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
15 Mar 2005 03:31:53 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1110914399.451624.300160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:14:11 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
Why do you confuse "acknowledge" and "agree"?
There was that ambiguity. The Chinese lived up to their end of the
bargain for the past 30 years. The Taiwan independence movement
has changed everything.
So, why did you confuse "acknowledge" and "agree"?
Is this the difference that you feel we should go to war over? China
just today has thrown down a very real challenge. I think they see
weakness in the US (egad, 20,000 poorly armed Iraqi insurgents tying
down 8 of our 12 infantry divisions) and are taking advantage of the
current situation. It is very very important to know that they are
not bluffing.
We are not bluffing either. We have more than enough available force to
defeat the Chinese if they invade Taiwan.
If you think we should defend Taiwan and if the
Taiwanese independence movement continues in the current direction
then there will be war.
And it could go nuclear.
Now Mr Morality, defend that one.
If we back down, the Taiwanese will be the losers. And the US interests
in the Far East will all suffer the consequences.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
15 Mar 2005 05:14:19 PM |
|
|
So, why did you confuse "acknowledge" and "agree"?
Is this the difference that you feel we should go to >war over?
China
just today has thrown down a very real challenge. >I think they see
weakness in the US (egad, 20,000 poorly armed >Iraqi insurgents
tying
down 8 of our 12 infantry divisions) and are taking advantage of the
current situation. It is very very important to know that they are
not bluffing.
We are not bluffing either. We have more than >enough available force
to
defeat the Chinese if they invade Taiwan.
But you are willing to see that war go nuclear. If we had to pay the
price of losing our West Coast Cities I would not call that victory
even if China took a worse beating. (Not to mention the people of
Taiwan).
If you think we should defend Taiwan and if the
Taiwanese independence movement continues in the current direction
then there will be war.
And it could go nuclear.
Now Mr Morality, defend that one.
If we back down, the Taiwanese will be the losers. >And the US
interests
in the Far East will all suffer the consequences.
US interests?. Other than losing our military bases and forcing us to
withdraw our forces I believe our interests would be enhanced. The
Chinese and Japanese would still sell us their trinkets and buy our
bonds and would have to figure out how to get along with each other
without our interference.
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
15 Mar 2005 05:47:04 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1110928459.377528.25750@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
So, why did you confuse "acknowledge" and "agree"?
Is this the difference that you feel we should go to >war over?
China
just today has thrown down a very real challenge. >I think they see
weakness in the US (egad, 20,000 poorly armed >Iraqi insurgents
tying
down 8 of our 12 infantry divisions) and are taking advantage of the
current situation. It is very very important to know that they are
not bluffing.
We are not bluffing either. We have more than enough available force
to defeat the Chinese if they invade Taiwan.
But you are willing to see that war go nuclear. If we had to pay the
price of losing our West Coast Cities I would not call that victory
even if China took a worse beating. (Not to mention the people of
Taiwan).
It wouldn't be victory. That's the whole point of having a nuclear
arsenal.
If you think we should defend Taiwan and if the
Taiwanese independence movement continues in the current direction
then there will be war.
And it could go nuclear.
Now Mr Morality, defend that one.
If we back down, the Taiwanese will be the losers. And the US
interests in the Far East will all suffer the consequences.
US interests?. Other than losing our military bases and forcing us to
withdraw our forces I believe our interests would be enhanced.
You must believe that being forced to surrender everything would enhance
our image.
The
Chinese and Japanese would still sell us their trinkets and buy our
bonds and would have to figure out how to get along with each other
without our interference.
And anybody with a bomb would know that they could push us around. We
could never defend *anything*.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 11:26:43 AM |
|
|
wrote:
So, why did you confuse "acknowledge" and "agree"?
Is this the difference that you feel we should go to >war over?
China
just today has thrown down a very real challenge. >I think they
see
weakness in the US (egad, 20,000 poorly armed >Iraqi insurgents
tying
down 8 of our 12 infantry divisions) and are taking advantage of
the
current situation. It is very very important to know that they
are
not bluffing.
We are not bluffing either. We have more than >enough available
force
to
defeat the Chinese if they invade Taiwan.
But you are willing to see that war go nuclear. If we had to pay the
price of losing our West Coast Cities I would not call that victory
even if China took a worse beating. (Not to mention the people of
Taiwan).
If you think we should defend Taiwan and if the
Taiwanese independence movement continues in the current direction
then there will be war.
And it could go nuclear.
Now Mr Morality, defend that one.
If we back down, the Taiwanese will be the losers. >And the US
interests
in the Far East will all suffer the consequences.
US interests?. Other than losing our military bases and forcing us to
withdraw our forces I believe our interests would be enhanced. The
Chinese and Japanese would still sell us their trinkets and buy our
bonds and would have to figure out how to get along with each other
without our interference.
Well said.
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
