| 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: "Guru Google" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
08 Apr 2005 01:56:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote:
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.
what if Taiwanese also sell u their trinkets and PLA wanna destroy
that?
Well said.
strange this time charles liu dont mention native americans. :^))
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
15 Mar 2005 06:38:14 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu 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.
We are having trouble handling Iraq.
China is out of the question.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
15 Mar 2005 11:57:22 PM |
|
|
We are having trouble handling Iraq.
China is out of the question
Of course, but the neocrazies and nutcases in this thread seem to not
realize this point.
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
15 Mar 2005 11:37:35 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:38:14 -0600, wcb thought carefully and wrote:
We are having trouble handling Iraq.
China is out of the question.
Were we to try to "handle" China, it would be impossible. But that is not
on offer.
All the USA will do is prevent the Chinese from invading. Very easy, even
compared to invading Iraq, let alone securing Iraq.
--
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 |
15 Mar 2005 09:28:58 PM |
|
|
wcb <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:42377fbb$0$65263$16895aa@news.airnews.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu 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.
We are having trouble handling Iraq.
China is out of the question.
It's not a question of *occupying* China, merely of preventing them from
occupying Taiwan. That's a whole other ballgame.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 01:03:59 AM |
|
|
wrote:
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.
Bingo. Well said. The anti-seccession law had a very important
paragraph about foreign interreference, and it is obviousely aimed at
America.
As a Taiwanese-American I say America stay out, on both accounts:
- ROC already has an unification policy based on parity, equity,
preservation of values, and it has a track record of 50 years of peace.
- Compare that with America's track record of nearly 150 military
actions since WWII, and the millions upon millions of deaths we have
cased. If Taiwan wants death and destruction, "our way" would be it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
16 Mar 2005 02:46:35 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:03:59 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote:
....If you think we should defend Taiwan and if the Taiwanese
independence movement continues in the current direction then there
will be war.
Then there will be war.
And it could go nuclear.
Nonsense.
--
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 03:02:28 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 23:03:59 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
syvanen@ucdavis.edu wrote:
....If you think we should defend Taiwan and if the Taiwanese
independence movement continues in the current direction then
there
will be war.
Then there will be war.
And it could go nuclear.
Nonsense.
Haven't you learnt the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Zen fascist?
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
15 Mar 2005 11:35:49 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:04:17 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and wrote:
... 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.
If the Butchers of TAM are not bluffing, there will be war (and no, not
nuclear).
--
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 01:38:08 PM |
|
|
There is a pattern to Jim's unmarked snips. I originally wrote the
following:
MS
"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.
JW
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.
MS
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.
JW
Shame on you. How can you look in a mirror?
MS
You advocate actions that could lead to nuclear war and you think
you
have a monopoly on dishing out shame? You must be deluded.
JM
There is ZERO chance that defending Taiwan from an invasion will lead
to a
nuclear war. I.e., you are lying.
MS.
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. "
End cut and paste.
You call me a liar on two occassions and when I question you on this,
you snip it away. Were you being impetuous and are now too ashamed to
defend yourself? Too proud to apologize?
Mike Syvanen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Chiang Kaishek |
13 Mar 2005 05:44:09 AM |
|
|
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.
Are you taling about Chiang Kaishek?
Chiang (Kaishek OR Kai OR Shek)
http://news.google.com/news?tab=gn&q=Chiang%20(Kaishek%20OR%20Kai%20OR%20Shek)&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
http://www.google.com/search?tab=nw&q=Chiang+(Kaishek+OR+Kai+OR+Shek)&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=Chiang+%28Kaishek+OR+Kai+OR+Shek%29&btnG=Google+Search&hl=en&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=Chiang%20(Kaishek%20OR%20Kai%20OR%20Shek)&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wg
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=Chiang+(Kaishek+OR+Kai+OR+Shek)&start=0&scoring=d&num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&
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?
Hitler also came to power through democratic elections.
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.
That's what you said during the Vietnam war as well.
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.
Neocons are going to defend Taiwan? Why don't the Chickenhawks try it?
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
LOL. Haven't you learnt the lessons of Zen and Shinto fascism?
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."
Fascists are saying that? That's a good one.
Conformista, Il (1970)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065571/
This story opens in 1938 in Rome, where Marcello has just taken a job
working for Mussollini and is courting a beautiful young woman who will
make him even more of a conformist. Marcello is going to Paris on his
honeymoon and his bosses have an assignment for him there. Look up an
old professor who fled Italy when the fascists came into power. At the
border of Italy and France, where Marcello and his bride have to change
trains, his bosses give him a gun with a silencer. In a flashback to
1917, we learn why sex and violence are linked in Marcello's mind.
Summary written by Dale O'Connor {daleoc@interaccess.com}
aka "The Conformist" - USA
aka "Conformiste, Le" - France
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Rape of Nanking |
11 Mar 2005 04:22:01 PM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
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.
Are you talking about 'Rape of Nanking'?
"Rape of" (Nanking OR Nanjing)
http://news.google.com/news?tab=gn&q=%22Rape%20of%22%20(Nanking%20OR%20Nanjing)&safe=images&lr=&num=100&hl=en&
http://www.google.com/search?tab=nw&q=%22Rape+of%22+(Nanking+OR+Nanjing)&lr=&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Rape+of%22+(Nanking+OR+Nanjing)&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?as_epq=Rape%20of&as_oq=Nanking%20Nanjing&safe=images&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
--
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: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
10 Mar 2005 12:46:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:38:28 +0800, Jim Walsh
<jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> 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.
BTW, we are still waiting for you to explain how well appeasing Hitler
worked.
The US didn't care about Hitler until Germany declared war against
them after Pearl Harbour.
Western Europe went to war with Germany two years before the US did,
in 1939.
Because of a mutual defence treaty with Poland, whom Germany invaded.
You forget that Britain, France etc lost a huge part of a generation
of young men during WW1, which they had also been fighting for 2 years
before the US joined in.
They wanted to avoid that happening again.
If perhaps WW1 had been fought on US soil, and they had lost the same
proportion of that generation perhaps they might not be so gung ho
about war and slaughter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
10 Mar 2005 02:04:20 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:a65131ptqd49h3d3qei4efammee0ce82gd@4ax.com:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:38:28 +0800, Jim Walsh
<jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> 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.
BTW, we are still waiting for you to explain how well appeasing Hitler
worked.
The US didn't care about Hitler until Germany declared war against
them after Pearl Harbour.
There were US appeasers just like the libruls nowadays, but the national
leadership did very much care about Hitler, enough to send massive aid
to Britain during 1940 and '41.
Western Europe went to war with Germany two years before the US did,
in 1939.
Because of a mutual defence treaty with Poland, whom Germany invaded.
You forget that Britain, France etc lost a huge part of a generation
of young men during WW1, which they had also been fighting for 2 years
before the US joined in.
They wanted to avoid that happening again.
If perhaps WW1 had been fought on US soil, and they had lost the same
proportion of that generation perhaps they might not be so gung ho
about war and slaughter.
And we would all be speaking Russian and worrying for real about
midnight knocks on the door. Instead of merely playing librul fantasy
games about "fascists" we'd all have first-hand experience of the real
thing.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
10 Mar 2005 02:44:50 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:a65131ptqd49h3d3qei4efammee0ce82gd@4ax.com:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:38:28 +0800, Jim Walsh
<jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> 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.
BTW, we are still waiting for you to explain how well appeasing
Hitler
worked.
The US didn't care about Hitler until Germany declared war against
them after Pearl Harbour.
There were US appeasers just like the libruls nowadays, but the
national
leadership did very much care about Hitler, enough to send massive
aid
to Britain during 1940 and '41.
Have you forgooten Roosevelt was a liberal? Conservatives didn't want
to get involved in Europe at that time.
Western Europe went to war with Germany two years before the US
did,
in 1939.
Because of a mutual defence treaty with Poland, whom Germany
invaded.
You forget that Britain, France etc lost a huge part of a
generation
of young men during WW1, which they had also been fighting for 2
years
before the US joined in.
They wanted to avoid that happening again.
If perhaps WW1 had been fought on US soil, and they had lost the
same
proportion of that generation perhaps they might not be so gung ho
about war and slaughter.
And we would all be speaking Russian and worrying for real about
midnight knocks on the door. Instead of merely playing librul fantasy
games about "fascists" we'd all have first-hand experience of the
real
thing.
But Russians were our allies at that time. Have you forgotten fascists
were defeated in World War II?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Silent Partners |
10 Mar 2005 03:08:59 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:46:15 -0500, Christopher A. Lee thought carefully
and wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:38:28 +0800, Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net>
wrote:
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.
The US didn't care about Hitler until Germany declared war against them
after Pearl Harbour. Western Europe went to war with Germany two years
before the US did, in 1939. Because of a mutual defence treaty with
Poland, whom Germany invaded.
And sometime soon will you discuss how well appeasement worked in the case
of Hitler?
You forget that Britain, France etc lost a huge part of a generation of
young men during WW1, which they had also been fighting for 2 years
before the US joined in. They wanted to avoid that happening again.
I haven't forgotten either the reasons or the results of appeasing Hitler.
If perhaps WW1 had been fought on US soil, and they had lost the same
proportion of that generation perhaps they might not be so gung ho about
war and slaughter.
Whatever. Appease the CCP, and see what it gets you.
--
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: Manzhouguo |
06 Mar 2005 03:40:34 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 20:37:47 -0800, syvanen thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
Can they sink Okinawa? Can they sink South Korea? No. So American
forces have a firm ground to stand on.
You are assuming that the Japanese or the S. Koreans will allow the
US
to use those bases to protect Taiwan. I happen to believe that
they
will not....
Mike Syvanen
LOL. The Butchers of TAM recently went into rage when the Japanese
said,
fairly clearly, that they would. The So. Koreans have always said so.
Zen and Shinto fascists are going to protect Taiwan? Will it be like
Manzhouguo or rape of Nanjing?
Manchuria Manchurian Manchu Manchus Manchukuo Manzhou Jurchen
Manzhouguo
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20Manchuria%20OR%20Manchurian%20OR%20Manchu%20OR%20Manchus%20OR%20Manchukuo%20OR%20Manzhou%20OR%20Jurchen%20OR%20Manzhouguo&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=Manchuria+OR+Manchurian+OR+Manchu+OR+Manchus+OR+Manchukuo+OR+Manzhou+OR+Jurchen+OR+Manzhouguo&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=Manchuria+OR+Manchurian+OR+Manchu+OR+Manchus+OR+Manchukuo+OR+Manzhou+OR+Jurchen+OR+Manzhouguo&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?as_oq=Manchuria%20Manchurian%20Manchu%20Manchus%20Manchukuo%20Manzhou%20Jurchen%20Manzhouguo&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
"Rape of" (Nanking OR Nanjing)
http://news.google.com/news?tab=gn&q=%22Rape%20of%22%20(Nanking%20OR%20Nanjing)&safe=images&lr=&num=100&hl=en&
http://www.google.com/search?tab=nw&q=%22Rape+of%22+(Nanking+OR+Nanjing)&lr=&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Rape+of%22+(Nanking+OR+Nanjing)&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?as_epq=Rape%20of&as_oq=Nanking%20Nanjing&safe=images&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
