BOYCOTT AMERICAN GOODS AND SERVICES IF THE US NAVY ATTACKS CHINA.
Chia Kok Wee Johnny
>I fully support to boycott Amercian goods if the US navy attacks China
>which none of her business. And most of the time, we even buy more goods
>made in Asia rather than Amercian.
What are you driving? The scenerio is whether China ATTACKS Taiwan. US
has nothing to gain by going to war with China.
Reason with your head not your emotions.
Rethinam Sabapathy
>I say to all peace loving people around the world : boycott
>American goods and services if the US Navy attacks China. Vote
>with your pockets,guys. Ask your family to lay off all American
>goods and services for as long as it takes.I know I am,starting
>right now.
>
Don't worry. Most of the stuff we buy here are from neigbouring
countries. Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, China, India,
Australia. We have some stuff from USA with claims like "Eat this, it is
good for you", but nobody eats them.
Saba
Peter Seet
It is clear that with a war economy and a defense budget of
US$242 Bil, America has to keep on formenting wars worldwide
to justify its ridiculously out of proportion defense budget.
Peace is an enemy of America and will mean further downsizing
and more unemployment.
Hence the benefits to America is self evident if it can keep
the tension high across the Taiwan Straits and then sell more
weapons to Taiwan even if it violates the agreements signed
with China.
The US Navy is spoiling for a fight and with a much superior
force it is of course confidently fishing in troubled waters.
It is clear who is the interloper who is fanning the flames of
war.
Patrick Tsang
> American goods and services if the US Navy attacks China. Vote
> with your pockets,guys. Ask your family to lay off all American
> goods and services for as long as it takes.I know I am,starting
> right now.
I don't think it is relastic at all !
Why ? As we know about 90% of the commercial aircraft was man. in
US, so can we just demand the airline to sereve the customer with the
"non US aircraft". Also, I bet the CPU or the OS of your computer was
made by the US company, so why are u still using it ???????
Pat :)
Phil Lowrey
>So sleep in peace my friend, no need to get excited. No war !! the best
show is
>yet to come, wait till the PLA antagonises and irritates the Seventh Fleet
to
>see if it dares to fire the first shot ?
>
>Fed Up
I agree with you that there will be no war. I also must add that I
believe the U.S. Navy will not fire the "first shot." If attacked in
international waters by PRC forces, however, the U.S. Navy will respond and
defend itself. Superior U.S. naval forces and plenty of high-tech weapons
would ensure that no U.S. ground forces would be involved. Therefore, the
present situation is essentially status quo....the PRC intimidates Taiwan,
yet it will not attack Taiwan for fear of becoming involved in a war with
the U.S. forces. If neither the U.S. nor the PRC fire at each other, the
situation will remain the same and Taiwan will remain under ROC leadership.
Phil Lowrey
>
>
>It is clear that with a war economy and a defense budget of
>US$242 Bil, America has to keep on formenting wars worldwide
>to justify its ridiculously out of proportion defense budget.
>
>Peace is an enemy of America and will mean further downsizing
>and more unemployment.
>
>Hence the benefits to America is self evident if it can keep
>the tension high across the Taiwan Straits and then sell more
>weapons to Taiwan even if it violates the agreements signed
>with China.
>
>The US Navy is spoiling for a fight and with a much superior
>force it is of course confidently fishing in troubled waters.
>It is clear who is the interloper who is fanning the flames of
>war.
>
>American goods and services if the US Navy attacks China. Vote
>with your pockets,guys. Ask your family to lay off all American
>goods and services for as long as it takes.I know I am,starting
>right now.
>
>
Perhaps you should remind yourself of exactly who began firing
missiles near Taiwan...clearly an act designed to intimidate the people of
the island. You mention that the U.S. is "fanning flames", yet, who started
the fire? I suppose you are satisfied to sit back and watch as the PRC
intimidates another nation....namely, the ROC. If everyone held your
beliefs, I guess the PRC would take Taiwan and we'd all wait to see what
region is next in line for domination by the corrupt Beijing government.
Phil Lowrey
>
>Peter Seet <ps...@netcor.pc.ad> wrote:
>
>>I say to all peace loving people around the world : boycott
>>American goods and services if the US Navy attacks China. Vote
>>with your pockets,guys. Ask your family to lay off all American
>>goods and services for as long as it takes.I know I am,starting
>>right now.
>>
>
>
>countries. Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, China, India,
>Australia. We have some stuff from USA with claims like "Eat this, it is
>good for you", but nobody eats them.
>
>Saba
>
>
>
Please remember not to ask the U.S. for help if someday the PRC
decides to annex your country. I guess you will defend yourself.
mad...@ibm.net
>
>I say to all peace loving people around the world : boycott
>American goods and services if the US Navy attacks China. Vote
>with your pockets,guys. Ask your family to lay off all American
>goods and services for as long as it takes.I know I am,starting
>right now.
And I say to all peace-loving people around the world: buy
all the American products you can afford if push comes to
shove with China.
China is the last major wart on the face of freedom. No more
humane action exsists than the support of an all-out effort
to clense the Earth once for all of the sickening presence
of communism. The people of China should not have to endure
one moment more of languish under their oppresive regime.
With the yokes of state-slavery thrown off, nearly a quarter
of the world's population will be brought back into the
marketplace.
The only legitimate place left for communsim is in the minds
of the nuts, left to their own delusions by a society that
will hold the nut's absolute authority over himself sacred,
even if that commie nut will not return the favor.
I say that there is no greater humanity.
############################################################################
# . : 0 .. . | "A child may log onto a seemingly #
#`. . .. . | innocent Star Trek Fan Club BBS #
# \`. : _|_ .. | and suddenly find himself invited to #
#\ \\`. ... . | .. | a satanic mass, might be offered #
# \\\\`. .. . | drugs or might meet some new friends #
#|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| who want to help him kill his #
#|||| Mark David |||| parents." -- Cheif Alfred Olsen #
#|||| mad...@ibm.net |||| :::::::::::: #
#|||| CompuServe 103377,3406 |||| PGP key available upon request #
#|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| #
############################################################################
Gerald Hsu
>
> It is clear that with a war economy and a defense budget of
> US$242 Bil, America has to keep on formenting wars worldwide
> to justify its ridiculously out of proportion defense budget.
>
> Peace is an enemy of America and will mean further downsizing
> and more unemployment.
>
> Hence the benefits to America is self evident if it can keep
> the tension high across the Taiwan Straits and then sell more
> weapons to Taiwan even if it violates the agreements signed
> with China.
>
> The US Navy is spoiling for a fight and with a much superior
> force it is of course confidently fishing in troubled waters.
> It is clear who is the interloper who is fanning the flames of
> war.
>
> American goods and services if the US Navy attacks China. Vote
> with your pockets,guys. Ask your family to lay off all American
> goods and services for as long as it takes.I know I am,starting
> right now.
>
>
The CPU chip used by the news server is probably made in USA. You may
boycott the american goods and services by unsubscribing these
newsgroups :-)
-Gerald
John Chen
>LOW CHENG TECK <new...@po.pacific.net.sg> wrote:
>
>>I fully support to boycott Amercian goods if the US navy attacks China
>>which none of her business. And most of the time, we even buy more goods
>>made in Asia rather than Amercian.
>
>What are you driving? The scenerio is whether China ATTACKS Taiwan. US
>has nothing to gain by going to war with China.
C'mon! Don't be silly. It's so obvious that the reason US wants to see
a war (should say any wars) is to sell weapons.
Fed Up
>The US Navy is spoiling for a fight and with a much superior
>force it is of course confidently fishing in troubled waters.
Don't get overtly worry or paranoid over this, I bet you $ 10 this time they
won't dare to fire a single shot. Why ? one single shot,and that will mean war,
and the U.S requires both Houses to convene and agree for the declaration of
war.
This is Election year, the Republicans would have to listen to a Democratic
Party President, then Bill would have the upper hand,that's no good for Robert
Dole. Bill won't dare to act alone, that's unconstitutional and war is not
popular with the American electorate, they need to be convinced that it is
justified. The American electorate, albeit afew, is not stupid.
The U.S won't take on China alone, it will need all its Allies to back it up to
sanction a war with a legitimate country, so all will look nice and pretty, like
Mom's apple pie, remember Korea / Vietnam ? how many would agree to a war with
China immediately ? NATO could not even agree with the agendas for Bosnia /
Croatia on their door-steps for years.
Seventh Fleet or not, the US Navy and Air Force could not even "crush" Sadam on
their own, and Fidel Castro still puffing his cigar right next door after the
Bay of Pigs 30 years ago. The U.S Marines could not even catch a "fly" like Adit
in Somalia, so what's the chance of crushing the PLA in one blow with the
Seventh Fleet ?
I'd say about one million to one.
How about the outcry ensued from all the "unconsulted" Asean countries, which
don't forget now include Vietnam, ex-arch-enemey no. 1 ? Furthermore, uncle
Boris will need to be consulted too, just in case he got upset, he still got
afew of his IBM's around. Why do you think Jiang went to the Ukraine three
months ago ? the ex-Soviet nukes silos are still there, being polished everyday.
You think all these escaped those guys in Beijing ? not very likely.
artlim
>
> Peter Seet <ps...@netcor.pc.ad> wrote:
> Don't get overtly worry or paranoid over this, I bet you $ 10 this time they
> won't dare to fire a single shot.
Actually, the only thing I'm waiting for all of this is that soon, the Americans
will have to bow-out with their tails between their legs, like so many times
before.
Unfortunately, if China does not invade, then the Americans will claim victory!
Regards.
mad...@ibm.net
>Who should we go for help if American decides to annex our country?!
China of course. Being the super-moral, working mans',
peace-loving, enlightened communists that they are, they
should have no problem with rushing to your aid.
LOW CHENG TECK
China. If US support Taiwan to be independent, then any of the States of
US can be anindependent country too.
mad...@ibm.net
>Frankly, unethical as it may seem, I think there are really very few countries in
>the world who have arms to sell and don't sell them once they smell the opportunity
>to do so. That's why as long as man lives, there'll always be wars, and so
>there'll always be weapons (or the other way around). A sad thing, but true.
Weapons are tools, no more no less. A man may kill his
fellow man just as well with a knife, a bat or with a rock.
What is sad is that people will form the intent and act on
those intentions of murder.
And what is truly sad is that they allow themselves to carry
out the intended violent actions of others.
>I'm not so sure China may not make the first move to 'persuade' Taiwan, though. All
>they have to do will be to shoot in one live missile within Taiwan's 'safe' zones.
I think will the Chinese Navy will prod the US ships, at an
increasing degree to see how they react; typical brazen
communist strategy.
It is alarming how easily the US government falls for it,
though.
Chee Cheong Fun
> Please remember not to ask the U.S. for help if someday the PRC
>decides to annex your country. I guess you will defend yourself.
>
SparkPlug
> Please remember not to ask the U.S. for help if someday the PRC
>decides to annex your country. I guess you will defend yourself.
>
You are missing the point altogether. The entire affair is "internal" and no
foreign power be it the united states or any other country should intervene.
Just imagine, if a state in your own country suddenly wished to be "independent".
Your goverment then tries to deal with the situation. Then, foreign powers start
to supply arms, intelligence to undermine your goverments efforts to unite the
country.
Conflict ensues....the people suffers the ravages of war..... but of course,
the US get to sell more arms. and that's the about the bottom line why the US
wants to get involved. Please expand your mind just a little... it not about
protecting 'freedom and human rights ' is about possible large arms contracts.
Look at the speed they responded to Kuwait invasion, there big bucks there too!
And of course the Kuwaitis did buy and continue to buy large amount of arms from
the US and are able to pay for them. Taiwan is also a rich country and are
able to pay handsomely for arms too. The US real concern is not for the people of
taiwan, is for Money, money money!
Just look at how the US dragged its feet over Bosnia. Bosnia cannot really
pay for arms. Same situation in Somalia and numerous other examples.
US involvement in the present Taiwan saga will only serve to escalate war and
prolong uncertainty in the region. China on the other hand has every right to
do what it wants with Taiwan. It was NEVER been debated at all whether in fact
taiwan is part of china. Taiwan has always been part of China.
Go US, just get out of the region mind your own business.
Barryjan
the world who have arms to sell and don't sell them once they smell the opportunity
to do so. That's why as long as man lives, there'll always be wars, and so
there'll always be weapons (or the other way around). A sad thing, but true.
As for lurking around in the seas, I think the US is there as a hopeful deterrent
rather than being ready to attack China. More likely, if anything happens, the US
might take a backseat - they've got too much to lose being involved in the war -
maybe human beings have learned that being truly altruistic in someone else's
country where the cause is almost lost (eg. Vietnam) just doesn't pay.
artlim
Careful Cheng Teck, I didn't say to boycott American goods (although I
don't see any reason to buy them in the first place.) :)
I was implying that the reason for america to go to anyone's rescue was an
economic one, more than the fact that they say it is because of 'democracy'
and 'freedom'.
Regards.
LOW CHENG TECK
Patrick R. Collins
: >with your pockets,guys. Ask your family to lay off all American
: >goods and services for as long as it takes.I know I am,starting
: >right now.
: Don't worry. Most of the stuff we buy here are from neigbouring
: countries. Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, China, India,
: Australia. We have some stuff from USA with claims like "Eat this, it is
: good for you", but nobody eats them.
Last trade figures I saw, the US had a SURPLUS with Singapore.
--
Regards, Pat
If no one expects anything from you, it's easy to deliver.
http://www.prairienet.org/~pcollins
TY Lim
>
>China is the last major wart on the face of freedom. No more
>humane action exsists than the support of an all-out effort
>to clense the Earth once for all of the sickening presence
>of communism. The people of China should not have to endure
>one moment more of languish under their oppresive regime.
>With the yokes of state-slavery thrown off, nearly a quarter
>of the world's population will be brought back into the
>marketplace.
>The only legitimate place left for communsim is in the minds
>of the nuts, left to their own delusions by a society that
>will hold the nut's absolute authority over himself sacred,
>even if that commie nut will not return the favor.
>I say that there is no greater humanity.
Why the American still LOVE to do business with China ? Why don't you
ask all the American's Co. stop doing business with China so that we
will have one competitor less !!
TY Lim
Singapore.
>
artlim
:> >American goods and services if the US Navy attacks China. Vote
:> >goods and services for as long as it takes.I know I am,starting
:> >right now.
:>
:> all the American products you can afford if push comes to
:> shove with China.
:> China is the last major wart on the face of freedom. No more
:> humane action exsists than the support of an all-out effort
:> to clense the Earth once for all of the sickening presence
:> of communism. The people of China should not have to endure
:> one moment more of languish under their oppresive regime.
:> With the yokes of state-slavery thrown off, nearly a quarter
:> of the world's population will be brought back into the
:> marketplace.
:>
:> The only legitimate place left for communsim is in the minds
:> of the nuts, left to their own delusions by a society that
:> will hold the nut's absolute authority over himself sacred,
:> even if that commie nut will not return the favor.
:>
:> I say that there is no greater humanity.
Hear! Hear! for the great Humanitarian MaDavid!
Prehaps you should ask your government to 'absorb' all the unfortunates
in the world!
How many would America like to take (just from China alone)? 100 million?
200 million?
I say, let every country run its own course of History! Not taint it
with American idealism!
Phil Lowrey
I guess it has to be said a thousand times, but the PRC has NEVER
controlled, ruled, governed or aided in the well-being of the Taiwanese
people. Thus, by trying to take something that they don't govern or rule,
it is not an "internal" matter. Your example of the U.S. Civil War is
different because at the time, the Southern states that rebelled were
formerly governed by the U.S. government. They were part of the U.S.
government. The U.S. government did not change. In China, the PRC won the
civil war, but was unable to assert its domination over Taiwan, thus on
Taiwan the exiled ROC government rules. Hence, the comparison is very
different indeed.
As to money, perhaps you are correct in stating that the U.S. often
acts where money is involved, yet I do not think that was the issue in
Haiti, Panama, Somalia, Lebanon, etc (no money to gain from those
operations). It was an issue in Kuwait as a large portion of the world's
oil supply would have been in the hands of a sadistic madman (Saddam
Hussein).
artlim
:>
:> mad...@ibm.net wrote:
:>
:> >China is the last major wart on the face of freedom. No more
:> >humane action exsists than the support of an all-out effort
:> >to clense the Earth once for all of the sickening presence
:> >of communism. The people of China should not have to endure
:> >one moment more of languish under their oppresive regime.
:> >With the yokes of state-slavery thrown off, nearly a quarter
:> >of the world's population will be brought back into the
:> >marketplace.
:>
:> >The only legitimate place left for communsim is in the minds
:> >of the nuts, left to their own delusions by a society that
:> >will hold the nut's absolute authority over himself sacred,
:> >even if that commie nut will not return the favor.
:>
;> >I say that there is no greater humanity.
:> Why the American still LOVE to do business with China ? Why don't you
:> ask all the American's Co. stop doing business with China so that we
:> will have one competitor less !!
:>
:> TY Lim
:> Singapore.
Hear! Hear! After all, American policy is soooooo screwed up!
On one hand, they say "We are not afraid to go to war with China!"
on the other hand "Don't worry, it will not affect your MFN status for
trade!"
Is everyone as confused as I am? And doesn't everyone agree that the US
better start getting a forgein policy going before interfering with
other people's politics?
Regards.
Phil Lowrey
>
>lowr...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Phil Lowrey) wrote:
>> Please remember not to ask the U.S. for help if someday the PRC
>>decides to annex your country. I guess you will defend yourself.
>>
>
>
America has never laid claim to your country and I doubt it ever
will. On the other hand, the expansionist minded PRC leaders have cited
several lands that they believe they have "historical sovereignty" over and
they may use this excuse to attempt to legitimize their taking/annexing of
such lands. The U.S. has not made such threats and does not have such aims.
LO...@uswest.com
>> won't dare to fire a single shot.
>
>Actually, the only thing I'm waiting for all of this is that soon, the Americans
>will have to bow-out with their tails between their legs, like so many times
>before.
A much more likely scenario than one where the US actually engages the PRC
in warfare, IMO. There is no possible way we could project the amount of military
power into that part of the world necessary to counter the huge strength of the PRC.
>
>Unfortunately, if China does not invade, then the Americans will claim victory!
This isn't (and never has been) about Americans claiming "victory". Anybody
dumb enough to make such a claim would be laughed at! Anywhere.
>
>Regards.
Phil Lowrey
Yes, then the PRC should stay out of Taiwan ROC politics.
Alex Lam
>Peter Seet wrote:
>>
>> It is clear that with a war economy and a defense budget of
>> US$242 Bil, America has to keep on formenting wars worldwide
>> to justify its ridiculously out of proportion defense budget.
>>
>> Peace is an enemy of America and will mean further downsizing
>> and more unemployment.
>>
>> Hence the benefits to America is self evident if it can keep
>> the tension high across the Taiwan Straits and then sell more
>> weapons to Taiwan even if it violates the agreements signed
>> with China.
>>
>> The US Navy is spoiling for a fight and with a much superior
>> force it is of course confidently fishing in troubled waters.
>> It is clear who is the interloper who is fanning the flames of
>> war.
>>
>> I say to all peace loving people around the world : boycott
>> American goods and services if the US Navy attacks China. Vote
>> with your pockets,guys. Ask your family to lay off all American
>> goods and services for as long as it takes.I know I am,starting
>> right now.
>>
>>
>The CPU chip used by the news server is probably made in USA. You may
>boycott the american goods and services by unsubscribing these
>newsgroups :-)
>-Gerald
Don't forget the Internet also started in America,
the protocol for the Usenet newsgroup also
originated in America by some university students.
Also, the Unix system, the base O/S for over 80 percent of
the infrastructure of the Internet, the Windows NT, etc., are
all American creations.
Alex Lam.
--
//Alex Lam's Virtual Studio. http://www.alexlam.com/users/lampas/ Looking for original///
//story, articles,art works, photography,to be publish on my multi-culture-world peace &//
//humanity oriented web site.//Interested please reply by e-mailme to: lam...@alexlam.com//
//Think For Yourself.Question Authority(T. Leary)-Give Peace A Chance.(J. Lennon)//
>>JOIN THE PEACE & PROTEST AGAINST CHINA'S AGGRESSION ON MY WEB SITE !!!<<<
Marc Nield
wrote:
>Is everyone as confused as I am? And doesn't everyone agree that the US
>better start getting a forgein policy going before interfering with
>other people's politics?
>
>Regards.
Whilst you are quite correct that the US should sort out its approach
to these matters (it clearly makes no sense to fight with a nation and
give it trade priviledges at the same time) you should be clear on who
is interfering with whose internal politics here. I was labouring
under the apparent misapprehension that China were threatening Taiwan
and that the US had never stated that they would 'attack China'
Marc Nield
mad...@ibm.net
>Just imagine, if a state in your own country suddenly wished to be "independent".
>Your goverment then tries to deal with the situation. Then, foreign powers start
>to supply arms, intelligence to undermine your goverments efforts to unite the
>country.
Being a Canadian, I can tell you that such a situation has
risen recently. There was a vote in the provence concerned.
It was a very narrow descision, but it chose to remain.
There was plenty of whining and yelling by the rest of the
country. What there was NOT were government forces
patrolling the provincial borders playing war games.
That is the difference between communism (excuse me, CHINESE
communism) and democracy.
And Taiwan IS NOT a part of China. It's affluent, clean and
FREE. All the things China is NOT.
>Conflict ensues....the people suffers the ravages of war..... but of course,
>the US get to sell more arms. and that's the about the bottom line why the US
>wants to get involved. Please expand your mind just a little... it not about
>protecting 'freedom and human rights ' is about possible large arms contracts.
Every time a neo-commie forgets, I will repeat it for them:
China INITIATED agression.
Let's try it again:
China INITIATED agression.
>Look at the speed they responded to Kuwait invasion, there big bucks there too!
>And of course the Kuwaitis did buy and continue to buy large amount of arms from
>the US and are able to pay for them. Taiwan is also a rich country and are
>able to pay handsomely for arms too. The US real concern is not for the people of
>taiwan, is for Money, money money!
Whereas China being communist aren't concerned with money.
Their talisman is power, power, power!
>Just look at how the US dragged its feet over Bosnia. Bosnia cannot really
>pay for arms. Same situation in Somalia and numerous other examples.
There are no US vital interests involved in Bosnia. Concern
for vital interests is the only legitimate reason for war.
Only communist-owned newspaper commentaries hold it
differently.
Phil Lowrey
>
>lowr...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Phil Lowrey) wrote:
>>In article <4i9hmt$1...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>, ccf@chinatown says...
>>>
>>>lowr...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Phil Lowrey) wrote:
>>>> Please remember not to ask the U.S. for help if someday the PRC
>>>>decides to annex your country. I guess you will defend yourself.
>>>>
>>>Who should we go for help if American decides to annex our country?!
>>>
>>>
>
>>America has never laid claim to your country and I doubt it ever
>>will.
>
to as
>long as that country and its leaders toe the lines of the U.S policies.
>(e.g. Iran under the Shah, Phillipines under Marcos, Cuba under Batista and
afew
>other S American banana republics )
>
>If that country does not toe the lines, then the U.S would use its mighty
>dollars to kill off that country, or humiliate it under the guise of
"Democracy"
>and "Human Rights" and stir as much troubles amongst the populace as
possible
>using CIA covert operations, by supporting any so called Human rights
activists
>it can find. It does not matter even the Human Activists are ex-criminals.
They
>would be automatically "pardoned" for expendiency sake.
While I am not fond of past CIA operations in other countries or the
participation of the U.S. in supporting certain leaders or governments, I am
afraid that, taken as a whole, there is no other nation that has the ability
to uphold the ideals of democracy and human rights in the world. Remember,
the people of the PRC have no say in their situation or their government.
While you may not agree with the U.S. pushing the PRC to recognize its human
rights problems, I feel that this is a necessary step to actually achieve
results in that direction.
>
>> On the other hand, the expansionist minded PRC leaders
>
>Believe you me, I have been there and the only "expansionist" things they
are
>doing are expanding their bank accounts,and the wallets of their citizens.
>The word "Communism" will die a natural death one day in PRC sooner than
you
>think. So why not let nature and history take their course ?
>
>> have cited
>>several lands that they believe they have "historical sovereignty"
>
>Think hard Phil ! look at the map....Hong Kong was a fine example. Is this
>pitiful island of hilly rocks belong to the Bristish ? ( blush ) no ?
>
>When the Commies came to power in 1946, they then fought a bloody war in
the
>Korean Peninsular 1950-1953, how many millions dead ? one interesting
question
>here : Why didn't the Commies attacked a poorly guarded Bristish colony,
when
>they could have swept the island in 2 days, why went to help the North
Koreans ?
>why honour a 100 year lease with a defunct British Empire ? why went to war
>helping the North Vietnamese in the 1960's, they could have just take Hong
Kong
Here you point to two fine examples of the Chinese interfering in
the politics of other nations: Vietnam and Korea. Shouldn't they have just
left Vietnam and Korea alone as you suggest the U.S. leave Taiwan ROC alone?
>and Macau when the U.S was too busy licking its wounds in Vietnam,why wait
till
>1997 ( 30 years later ) why talked and discussed anything with the Brits
over
>Hong Kong with Chris Patten ?
>
>( would you sit down and discuss with your ex-tenants about what flowers to
>plant in the garden of your home, and how to paint it after the tenants are
>about to leave ? )
>
My understanding is that the Communist government did not attack
Hong Kong or Macau because the British and Portuguese governments were among
the first to recognize the new PRC. Thus, they left the leased colonies
alone and agreed to the lease arrangements. Had they not recognized the
PRC, they could have taken them, though I doubt the young PRC government
fresh from fighting a civil war, would have wanted to engage itself in war
with two European nations.
>>over and
>>they may use this excuse to attempt to legitimize their taking/annexing of
>>such lands. The U.S. has not made such threats and does not have such
aims.
>
>Your reasonings are just what you think on the surface, re-read what I said
>about Hong Kong, then maybe you'll give them Commies a bit more "respect"
that
>they have kept their words past 50 years :
>No interference in Hong Kong's affairs.
>
>Even if they attack Taiwan now, what's the price the U.S is willing to pay
for
>so called "Democracy" in others' lands ? ask those American parents who
have
>lost their sons in the hills, paddy-fileds and jungles of Korea and
Vietnam,
>they'll tell you : Go to Hell ! let them Chinese go and fight their own
wars !!
>Make no mistake Phil : Taiwan is not Pearl Harbour.
>
>Fed Up
>
I believe that if the PRC does attack Taiwan, it fight the same sort
of battle that Hitler fought when he tried to take Britain. It is extremely
difficult to take a fortified island. The PRC would have to transport
troops either by sea or by air. Otherwise, they would have to launch
missiles to attack Taiwan. In either case, the Taiwanese forces combined
with U.S. naval forces should be able to repel such an attack. Thus, the
U.S. engagement would be limited....that is, no U.S. ground forces. The
U.S. would not need or desire to "invade" the mainland. Defending Taiwan
would not require such a move. Peace exists between the PRC and ROC
currently; perhaps not "officially", but in practice. It is the PRC,
however, that is threatening the peace as a result of the impending free and
democratic elections in Taiwan. Again, the PRC has NEVER controlled or
governed Taiwan or contributed to the well-being of the Taiwanese people.
To attack Taiwan would be an act of war. If the U.S. presence in the region
has the potential to halt any possible PRC aggression, I support it. If the
U.S. ignored the PRC threat, did not send ships to the region and allowed
the annexation of Taiwan by the PRC, then the world would criticize the U.S.
for not helping Taiwan. It is basically a "damned if you do, damned if you
don't" situation for the U.S.
Fed Up
>In article <4i9hmt$1...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>, ccf@chinatown says...
>>
>>lowr...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Phil Lowrey) wrote:
>>> Please remember not to ask the U.S. for help if someday the PRC
>>>decides to annex your country. I guess you will defend yourself.
>>>
>>Who should we go for help if American decides to annex our country?!
>>
>>
>America has never laid claim to your country and I doubt it ever
>will.
It never laid claim to any country or territory, because it does not need to as
long as that country and its leaders toe the lines of the U.S policies.
(e.g. Iran under the Shah, Phillipines under Marcos, Cuba under Batista and afew
other S American banana republics )
If that country does not toe the lines, then the U.S would use its mighty
dollars to kill off that country, or humiliate it under the guise of "Democracy"
and "Human Rights" and stir as much troubles amongst the populace as possible
using CIA covert operations, by supporting any so called Human rights activists
it can find. It does not matter even the Human Activists are ex-criminals. They
would be automatically "pardoned" for expendiency sake.
> On the other hand, the expansionist minded PRC leaders
Believe you me, I have been there and the only "expansionist" things they are
doing are expanding their bank accounts,and the wallets of their citizens.
The word "Communism" will die a natural death one day in PRC sooner than you
think. So why not let nature and history take their course ?
> have cited
>several lands that they believe they have "historical sovereignty"
Think hard Phil ! look at the map....Hong Kong was a fine example. Is this
pitiful island of hilly rocks belong to the Bristish ? ( blush ) no ?
When the Commies came to power in 1946, they then fought a bloody war in the
Korean Peninsular 1950-1953, how many millions dead ? one interesting question
here : Why didn't the Commies attacked a poorly guarded Bristish colony, when
they could have swept the island in 2 days, why went to help the North Koreans ?
why honour a 100 year lease with a defunct British Empire ? why went to war
helping the North Vietnamese in the 1960's, they could have just take Hong Kong
and Macau when the U.S was too busy licking its wounds in Vietnam,why wait till
1997 ( 30 years later ) why talked and discussed anything with the Brits over
Hong Kong with Chris Patten ?
( would you sit down and discuss with your ex-tenants about what flowers to
plant in the garden of your home, and how to paint it after the tenants are
about to leave ? )
>over and
ken...@ix.netcom.com
to protect its national interest on any kind of issure, not just
taiwan.
>"J. Yeung" <j...@rit.com> wrote:
>China has gone through two centuries of weakness and himiliation.
>Taiwan was occupied by Dutch and Japanese before. "Anti-Chinese" riots
>happened in Vietnam and Indonesia. Britain took Hong Kong in the Opium War.
>Macau was leased to Portugual. Japan invaded China. "Americans
>missionaries began to preach human rights to Chinese, even when they
>still had a slave-holding society that was busy obliterating
>North America's native cultures. The United States discriminated
>against Chinese immigrants and put their children in segregated schools." (*)
>Uncle Sam turned over the Tiao Yu Tai islands seized by Japan in 1895
>during its war with the Qing dynasty to Japan. P.R.C.
>gave up Mongolia under pressure from the fromer U.S.S.R. While we
>should not take an revenge on any countries for these historical
>events, these stigma should remind us of the importance of building
>a _strong_ and _peaceful_ China.
>In the recents years, PRC's economy begins to take off. Taiwan (ROC) and Hong
>Kong are approaching to a mature economy. Cultural and commercial
>exchanges between the Taiwan Straits are increasing. So what's going on in
>the Taiwan Strait right now? Should we Chinese fight against Chinese as
>in the Civil war? You can't help to ask yourself what is the root of
>Taiwan Strait problem. It first appears that some people in Taiwan are
>so enthusiatic for independence. Then it is the struggling for power
>among the leaders on two sides. Communist leaders are grabbing the
>chances to show their nationalism for consolidation of their positions
>in the post-Deng era. Taiwan's Lee is constantly provoking PRC with
>irresponsible comments to show his affinity towards Taiwan people.
>And then, the United States take the chance to show the commitment
>to the U.S. protectorates and to protect the so-called "American
>interests" while at the same time justify the billion sales of deadly
>weapons to Taiwan. U.S. senators and presdential candidates cannot
>wait to let their Americans' sons shed blood for the dream of TI (**)
>advocates as long as the politicians on the Chapel Hill can gain a
>short term popularity among their people.
>So in my opinion, To those T.I. who said that they are taiwanese
>but not Chinese: WAKE up!!!! if you can give up your Chinese name,
>Chinese writing, Chinese identity and Chinese culture, you should leave
>Taiwan and be whatever you want to be. If not, the communists should kick
>you guys out from Taiwan. Chinese is not a name only for people
>from the country called "China", but for people who _inherited_ the
>Chinese culture. It's also not simply a formality such as Confucism,
>but it's a way of thinking and living that has been shaped for
>2,000 years. Let me ask, how many of those people in Taiwan are not
>cultivated in a Chinese way? How many of you can completely give up
>the Chinese culture? While it is understandable to see some people
>in Taiwan who don't want to be ruled by the communists, there is no
>excuse, in the eyes of all Chinese, for the people living in Taiwan
>to lose the identity of being a Chinese. I support the Republic of
>China to protect her territory, but I will fully support the People's
>Republic of China to "missile" out those TIers who are the trouble
>maker of the crisis.
>To all Chinese: just let us cool down. Don't position yourself into
>the Jiang's One_China or Lee's They_Scared_to_Death,_Ha_Ha! political
>games. Peaceful unification will come when the economy and political
>situation in both sides can match. We will have a strong, peaceful
>and unified Chinese nation if we work hard now.
>To all Americans: Don't meddle into other people's business if you are
>not belonging to the same family. Keep the politicians on the
>Chapel Hill to mind the problems in your own society. G.M. workers
>are losing their jobs. AT&T has lay off a lot of people. Every
>company is planning down-sizing. The national debts just like your
>weight - never get slim. So, vote those politicians out, don't let them
>start another Vietnam war in Taiwan. They should care more about their
>people, not those TIers who spend millions dollars on them.
>God bless you! God bless the America! God bless the Chinese! Let's
>not pray for another bloody Vietnam war.
>--A Chinese
>(*) Quoted from an article by Gordon Bennett on the NY Times (8/15/1995)
>(**) TI = Taiwan Independence
keith green
Listen to Peter! Do what he says! The PRC wants what is best for
Taiwan! Don't worry your pretty heads about troops marching in the
streets! Boycott American goods! Stop the American agression
against Taiwan! Let PRC elect a president for you!
Peter Seet (ps...@netcor.pc.ad) wrote:
: It is clear that with a war economy and a defense budget of
: US$242 Bil, America has to keep on formenting wars worldwide
: to justify its ridiculously out of proportion defense budget.
: Peace is an enemy of America and will mean further downsizing
: and more unemployment.
: Hence the benefits to America is self evident if it can keep
: the tension high across the Taiwan Straits and then sell more
: weapons to Taiwan even if it violates the agreements signed
: with China.
: The US Navy is spoiling for a fight and with a much superior
: force it is of course confidently fishing in troubled waters.
: It is clear who is the interloper who is fanning the flames of
: war.
: I say to all peace loving people around the world : boycott
: American goods and services if the US Navy attacks China. Vote
: with your pockets,guys. Ask your family to lay off all American
: goods and services for as long as it takes.I know I am,starting
: right now.
:
--
My employers disagree with everything I say, keith green, nan
write, think, believe, feel, do, or plan to do. <kgr...@ida.org>
keith green
Phil,
You make the mistake of thinking that 1) the PRC could not benefit
from such a war and 2) that even if they can't benefit obviously that
they really care.
Phil Lowrey (lowr...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
: In article <4i766o$o...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>, orc...@fedup.com says...
: >So sleep in peace my friend, no need to get excited. No war !! the best
: show is
: >yet to come, wait till the PLA antagonises and irritates the Seventh Fleet
: to
: >see if it dares to fire the first shot ?
: >
: >Fed Up
: I agree with you that there will be no war. I also must add that I
: believe the U.S. Navy will not fire the "first shot." If attacked in
: international waters by PRC forces, however, the U.S. Navy will respond and
: defend itself. Superior U.S. naval forces and plenty of high-tech weapons
: would ensure that no U.S. ground forces would be involved. Therefore, the
: present situation is essentially status quo....the PRC intimidates Taiwan,
: yet it will not attack Taiwan for fear of becoming involved in a war with
: the U.S. forces. If neither the U.S. nor the PRC fire at each other, the
: situation will remain the same and Taiwan will remain under ROC leadership.
keith green
: I fully support to boycott Amercian goods if the US navy attacks China
: made in Asia rather than Amercian.
yes. and if your neighbor tries to burn down your house, and your
other neighbor tries to stop him, i fully support the right of the
first one to burn down your house and i fully support the boycott
of your other neighbor who was interfering in something which is
none of his business, even though he is your great friend.
Have a nice day, Mr. Logician.
k
keith green
: Hear! Hear! After all, American policy is soooooo screwed up!
Unlike the perfect policies of the PRC?
: On one hand, they say "We are not afraid to go to war with China!"
: on the other hand "Don't worry, it will not affect your MFN status for
: trade!"
This is unfortunate. I'ld just as soon not have anything to do with
a government as courageous as that of the PRC. I mean they massacred
peaceful students at TAM. We'ld be no match for them.
: Is everyone as confused as I am? And doesn't everyone agree that the US
: better start getting a forgein policy going before interfering with
: other people's politics?
Yea. I think PRC could benefit from the same advice. Taiwan is a
separate country. They don't want you there. If they wanted you
there, they'ld send out personal invitations to your soldiers to
come and lay waste to them. I'm sure it's very convenient for you
to imagine the big, bad US is trying to force a confrontation with
the US. But the simple fact is that our carrier didn't move into
place until you brave boys started bullying with neighbor.
And, like most gutless bullies, when anyone big enough to keep you
from claiming your prize comes along to stop you, you just whine
about how it's none of their business -- like the big, brave man
who beats the shit out of his wife and says that it's no one else's
business what he does in his own house.
Hong Chew
-- Hong
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ 3rd Ave. chop-hopper ~
~ BIC Tempo, NP V8, Windwing SlalomCom ~
~ laydown jibe, clewfirst waterstart ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hong Chew
China INITIATED agression.
--
Donald Wong
:lowr...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Phil Lowrey) wrote:
:>In article <4i9hmt$1...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>, ccf@chinatown says...
:>>
:>>lowr...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Phil Lowrey) wrote:
:>>> Please remember not to ask the U.S. for help if someday the PRC
:>>>decides to annex your country. I guess you will defend yourself.
Phil, following this posting you wrote "Dammed if you do, Dammed if
you don't" you took the words off my mouth.
:>America has never laid claim to your country and I doubt it ever
:>will.
Agree
:It never laid claim to any country or territory, because it does not need to as
:long as that country and its leaders toe the lines of the U.S policies.
:(e.g. Iran under the Shah, Phillipines under Marcos, Cuba under Batista and afew
:other S American banana republics )
Not all American foreign policy are correct, that depends on which
parties in the controlled of the White House, and also both the House
and Senate. I can even name a few myself.
:If that country does not toe the lines, then the U.S would use its mighty
:dollars to kill off that country, or humiliate it under the guise of "Democracy"
:and "Human Rights" and stir as much troubles amongst the populace as possible
:using CIA covert operations, by supporting any so called Human rights activists
:it can find. It does not matter even the Human Activists are ex-criminals. They
:would be automatically "pardoned" for expendiency sake.
:
:> On the other hand, the expansionist minded PRC leaders
:
:Believe you me, I have been there and the only "expansionist" things they are
:doing are expanding their bank accounts,and the wallets of their citizens.
:The word "Communism" will die a natural death one day in PRC sooner than you
:think. So why not let nature and history take their course ?
:
I too have been there, too many times to keep track. Expanding of the
bank accounts and the wallets "you know who"? I am not a kid you know.
Are you aware that doing business in PRC you need to have
"connection"?
"Communism" is only a word, communism come in different form, would
you believe it, even as "democracy". The beautiful part is they have
one thing in common..."Power and Control". They even have election
too, just like the US, but under different rules. Natural death,
nay......don't believe it.
:> have cited
:>several lands that they believe they have "historical sovereignty"
:
:Think hard Phil ! look at the map....Hong Kong was a fine example. Is this
:pitiful island of hilly rocks belong to the Bristish ? ( blush ) no ?
agree
:
:When the Commies came to power in 1946, they then fought a bloody war in the
:Korean Peninsular 1950-1953, how many millions dead ? one interesting question
:here : Why didn't the Commies attacked a poorly guarded Bristish colony, when
:they could have swept the island in 2 days, why went to help the North Koreans ?
:why honour a 100 year lease with a defunct British Empire ? why went to war
:helping the North Vietnamese in the 1960's, they could have just take Hong Kong
:and Macau when the U.S was too busy licking its wounds in Vietnam,why wait till
:1997 ( 30 years later ) why talked and discussed anything with the Brits over
:Hong Kong with Chris Patten ?
:
Money, money $$$$$$$$$$. Why kill a golden goose?
:( would you sit down and discuss with your ex-tenants about what flowers to
:plant in the garden of your home, and how to paint it after the tenants are
:about to leave ? )
So that your tenant won't bad mouth about the place after he moves
out, and to assure the new tenants all are well. You want to make sure
money keeps rolling in. Money, money,money and money again $$$$$$$$
:
:>over and
:>they may use this excuse to attempt to legitimize their taking/annexing of
:>such lands. The U.S. has not made such threats and does not have such aims.
:
:Your reasonings are just what you think on the surface, re-read what I said
:about Hong Kong, then maybe you'll give them Commies a bit more "respect" that
:they have kept their words past 50 years :
:No interference in Hong Kong's affairs.
So long $$$$$ keeps coming. "Business as usual"
You trust commies? Good luck to you.
:
:Even if they attack Taiwan now, what's the price the U.S is willing to pay for
:so called "Democracy" in others' lands ? ask those American parents who have
:lost their sons in the hills, paddy-fileds and jungles of Korea and Vietnam,
:they'll tell you : Go to Hell ! let them Chinese go and fight their own wars !!
:Make no mistake Phil : Taiwan is not Pearl Harbour.
The American just send two aircraft carriers there, I haven't heard
anything that they will attack or done anything yet.
:
:Fed Up
:
I too am Fed Up
don
John Neil
>...country. What there was NOT were government forces
>That is the difference between communism (excuse me, CHINESE
>communism) and democracy.
>And Taiwan IS NOT a part of China. It's affluent, clean and
>FREE. All the things China is NOT.
Read your history book (yeah, the one still in mint condition). What
hads being affluent, clean and free got to do with anything. I
question the free as well, unless youy mean in relative terms.
>>Look at the speed they responded to Kuwait invasion, there big bucks there too!
>>And of course the Kuwaitis did buy and continue to buy large amount of arms from
>>the US and are able to pay for them. Taiwan is also a rich country and are
>>able to pay handsomely for arms too. The US real concern is not for the people of
>>taiwan, is for Money, money money!
>Whereas China being communist aren't concerned with money.
>Their talisman is power, power, power!
Join the real world!
>>Just look at how the US dragged its feet over Bosnia. Bosnia cannot really
>>pay for arms. Same situation in Somalia and numerous other examples.
what's tour pouint here?
>There are no US vital interests involved in Bosnia. Concern
>for vital interests is the only legitimate reason for war.
>Only communist-owned newspaper commentaries hold it
>differently.
man, you really need to stop getting your news from Rush Limbaugh and
The Weekly World News
J. Yeung
artlim
Sigh, LOGIN had enough sense to write the sarcasm down and didn't even get the point!
Regards.
Jerry Cheng
>In article <4ibt66$1q...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, mad...@ibm.net writes:
>In <4ia8at$4...@jaring.my>, SparkPlug <chu...@pc.jaring.my> writes:
>>Just imagine, if a state in your own country suddenly wished to be "independent".
>>Your goverment then tries to deal with the situation. Then, foreign powers start
>>to supply arms, intelligence to undermine your goverments efforts to unite the
>>country.
>Being a Canadian, I can tell you that such a situation has
>risen recently. There was a vote in the provence concerned.
>It was a very narrow descision, but it chose to remain.
>There was plenty of whining and yelling by the rest of the
>country. What there was NOT were government forces
>patrolling the provincial borders playing war games.
And please tell me Mr Canadian Citizen: What happened to all
the Canadian and American NATIVES who wanted independence,huh?
Were they not relegated to the scrap heap of history by your
fellow citizens and GOVT forces??????? What democraZy???
Chinese_2
> They (Taiwan) don't want you (China) there. If they wanted you
> there, they'ld send out personal invitations to your soldiers to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> come and lay waste to them. I'm sure it's very convenient for you
> to imagine the big, bad US is trying to force a confrontation with
> place until you brave boys started bullying with neighbor.
Are you hearing-impaired or blind? The SIMPLE FACT is Taiwan did not
send out PERSONAL INVITATIONS to your (US's) carriers. (This information is
from Lee Teng-hui, if you treat him). When can you SHAMELESS bullies
just stop your gutless bullies on other countries?
Mark Allen Framness
Tsang <pts...@basil.stthom.edu> writes:
MAF>
MAF>
MAF> Why ? As we know about 90% of the commercial aircraft was man. in
MAF>US, so can we just demand the airline to sereve the customer with the
MAF>"non US aircraft". Also, I bet the CPU or the OS of your computer was
MAF>made by the US company, so why are u still using it ???????
No need! They can just get the Japanese rip off of our Operating Systems.
They can buy the cranes that the Japanese ripped off (the designs that is)
from Manitowoc Company. They can buy pirated video, audio tapes and
software in the PRC. No problem!
--
FROM: MARK ALLEN FRAMNESS
HOME: <fram...@EMIRATES.NET.AE>
WORK: <m4...@ugru.uaeu.ac.ae>
All standard disclaimers apply. Anyone who says likewise is
itching for a fight!
Poff Thomas
Whatever has been a problem in the past is in the past.
I can tell you this is a problem now.
There's a window of opportunity that's very important right now.
At this time, westerners are very open about being conciliatory and
patient with China. If you push that too far everything will break.
What happens is up to us. There is really a choice to make about
whether we want to stay the way we are or try to become more appealing
to each other.
I came to China to try and learn about this.
I'd say at this point things could still go either way... either down
a road of cooperation and success or down a road of disagreement and
humiliation.
When I say that I really do mean this with regard to both sides.
If we make a major mistake, we're all going to pay for it.
It seems historically China has had the same problem everyone else has had.
The ruling parties often wanted to dominate the people and expand it's
rule. Nothing special about that... except generally if you make the
comparison to the U.S. you'll find that when we undergo temporary
"expansion" we do it to fix something. Once we're done we give it back.
How many superpowers do _you_ know who would do this on a regular basis?
As you must well know, China is no stranger to ethnically based humiliation.
Not only on the outside but as well within among different ethnic groups.
It's a pretty natural problem.
Did you know the first American to visit Japan (Ido/Tokyo) was put in a zoo?
(That should make you laugh)
Thomas
J. Yeung (j...@rit.com) wrote:
: China has gone through two centuries of weakness and himiliation.
Mark Addinall
: In article <4i71oh$k...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>, sai...@signet.com.sg says...
: >
: >Peter Seet <ps...@netcor.pc.ad> wrote:
: >
: >>I say to all peace loving people around the world : boycott
: >>American goods and services if the US Navy attacks China. Vote
: >>with your pockets,guys. Ask your family to lay off all American
: >>goods and services for as long as it takes.I know I am,starting
: >>right now.
: >>
: >
: >Don't worry. Most of the stuff we buy here are from neigbouring
: >countries. Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Taiwan, China, India,
: >Australia. We have some stuff from USA with claims like "Eat this, it is
: >good for you", but nobody eats them.
: >
: >Saba
: >
: >
: >
: Please remember not to ask the U.S. for help if someday the PRC
: decides to annex your country. I guess you will defend yourself.
They just might. A whole bunch of brand-spanking new fighters
bought and delivered :)
Mark.
Mark Addinall
: >decides to annex your country. I guess you will defend yourself.
: Who should we go for help if American decides to annex our country?!
I'll help :)
Mark.
George Antony Ph 93818
>Just look at how the US dragged its feet over Bosnia. Bosnia cannot really
>pay for arms. Same situation in Somalia and numerous other examples.
You are just too bloody ignorant. Both in Bosnia and Somalia, the US was
the country that (1) took action first, and (2) cajoled other countries to
follow suit.
>US involvement in the present Taiwan saga will only serve to escalate war and
>prolong uncertainty in the region. China on the other hand has every right to
>do what it wants with Taiwan.
That is your opinion, not shared by people who are less slavish in their
subservience to the PRC than you.
> It was NEVER been debated at all whether in fact
>taiwan is part of china.
Where have you been ? It has been debated, and being debated in Western
media quite a lot.
>Taiwan has always been part of China.
And never part of the PRC.
>Go US, just get out of the region mind your own business.
Get out of soc.culture.australia, you PRC pimp.
George Antony
Barry Bruyea
Or does logic leave when left wing sympathizers move in?
Barry Bruyea
>They just might. A whole bunch of brand-spanking new fighters
>bought and delivered :)
>
>Mark.
Yes, as long as the pilots are American trained or are actually
Americans. We've all seen third world pilots in action; momentarily.
>
Bill Tie
wrote:
>SparkPlug <chu...@pc.jaring.my> writes:
>>US involvement in the present Taiwan saga will only serve to escalate war and
>>prolong uncertainty in the region. China on the other hand has every right to
>>do what it wants with Taiwan.
>That is your opinion, not shared by people who are less slavish in their
>subservience to the PRC than you.
One quarter of the world's population share his opinion. You
want to make something out of it, you sterile pom ?
>>It was NEVER been debated at all whether in fact
>>taiwan is part of china.
>Where have you been ? It has been debated, and being debated in Western
>media quite a lot.
The Western Liberal press?? hahahahaha You idiot thats the
most discredited press in this whole damn world. You have been
in the Whoop Whoop, mate!!
>>Taiwan has always been part of China.
>And never part of the PRC.
Like HK is never part of the PRC? Then why is the Brit so
willing to give it back? And I suppose the whites in Australia
have always been a part of Australia, in fact for over 20,000
yrs I am advised. Never mind about the Aborigines. Hey mate
I look forward to the day when the Aust Aborigines wake up
and demand their land back. And I hope the whole world will
sell them lots of weapons too to stake their claims.
>>Go US, just get out of the region mind your own business.
>Get out of soc.culture.australia,you PRC pimp...George Antony
Why dont we ask the Aust Aborigines first mate. After all
they are the true Australians. You are just a bloody migrant.
You know why the Japanese invented the fastest camera? So
that they can photograph a digger with his big mouth shut.
hehehehe
>
Chris
>SparkPlug <chu...@pc.jaring.my> writes:
>
>>pay for arms. Same situation in Somalia and numerous other examples.
>
>You are just too bloody ignorant. Both in Bosnia and Somalia, the US was
>the country that (1) took action first, and (2) cajoled other countries to
>follow suit.
While I would have to agree with you on every other point regarding china,
you are deathly wrong in both of the above respects. The US did not take
action first in either conflict. The bosnia-serbia conflict has been
going on since before world war one. And after the borders were recreated
at the end of WWI and WWII, the yugoslavs were unhappy. They, initialised
the conflict, and the US has gone in to aid those being oppressed. In
somalia, I do not believe that the US went in simply for its health.
There were injustices being done, and they were reacting to what had
happened. In Both Bosnia,and Somalia, what the US did was a reaction, to
actions already taken by third parties.
--
W. Christopher Ellis
el...@singnet.com.sg
Bren...@aol.com
Tak ada Gading Yang Tak Retak
Sleeping is no mean art:
For its sake, one must stay
awake all day.
-Nietzsche
rick
: Perhaps you should remind yourself of exactly who began firing
: missiles near Taiwan...clearly an act designed to intimidate the people of
: the island. You mention that the U.S. is "fanning flames", yet, who started
: the fire? I suppose you are satisfied to sit back and watch as the PRC
: intimidates another nation....namely, the ROC. If everyone held your
: beliefs, I guess the PRC would take Taiwan and we'd all wait to see what
: region is next in line for domination by the corrupt Beijing government.
:
Tell that to the PRC about "another nation". There is no another nation
in their view - Taiwan is a state of China, at best.
Corrupt Beijing government ? - what has corruption has to do with this?
BTW, many, many corrupt government on this planet - just that each of
them do it their own way and justify it with some grand excuse.......
Also, if you think this is exploitation, many other superpower nations
are exploiting the rest - they do it their own ways.
Michael Wan
Hey Phil if you read any major newspaper you will know that
Taiwan is NOT another nation. The United Nation recognises
Taiwan as a part of China. Go get an education as well as a
life.
Busybody
Thong Wei Koh
Yes, and they are usually flying aging aircrafts against top of the line
fighters from the West.
Are American pilots all that good? Why don't we put them in similar planes
to that of the nations they are pitted against, and we shall see.
Does it actually make you feel good to disparage pilots from 'third world
countries' in such a way? Proud that you have the best technology to
napalm and bomb the hell out of villagers in padi fields eh?
Thong Wei
Ronnie Fong
David W. Olson
>mpe...@leonis.nus.sg (rick) wrote:
>>Phil Lowrey (lowr...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
>>: Perhaps you should remind yourself of exactly who began firing
>>: missiles near Taiwan...clearly an act designed to intimidate the people of
>>: the island. You mention that the U.S. is "fanning flames", yet, who started
>>: the fire? I suppose you are satisfied to sit back and watch as the PRC
>>: intimidates another nation....namely, the ROC. If everyone held your
>>: beliefs, I guess the PRC would take Taiwan and we'd all wait to see what
>>: region is next in line for domination by the oppressive Beijing government.
>>Tell that to the PRC about "another nation". There is no another nation
>>in their view - Taiwan is a state of China, at best.
>Hey Phil if you read any major newspaper you will know that
>Taiwan is NOT another nation. The United Nation recognises
>Taiwan as a part of China.
Taiwan controls its own territory, chooses its own government, and does not
accept policy decisions made in Beijing or any other capitol - that meets
the de-facto definition of an independent nation. Its government is
recognized as a national government by many other nations, though not,
officially, by the USA or by the UN.
The UN and its members embrace the doctrine of self-determination: that a
people and region have the right to determine their own future. The
government of Zhonghua Renmin Gonghe Guo (ZRGG), the People's Republic
of China, recognizes and promotes the principle of self-determination,
such as of Puerto Rico, except when the people and region are considered
an integral part of ZRGG - Taiwan and Tibet, ...
The USA, also, in its Declaration of Independence, holds that Governments
exist by consent of the governed, thus affirming the principle of self-
determination.
David Olson, my posting, my response
LO SHENG
: Hey Phil if you read any major newspaper you will know that
: Taiwan is NOT another nation. The United Nation recognises
: Taiwan as a part of China. Go get an education as well as a
: life.
Interesting question. Now, which other country in the world has two heads
of states, two sets of army guarding against each other, two governments
running independently, and two totally different political question.
The most you can criticised is Phil's use of the word 'nation'. Yep,
maybe Taiwan is not exactly a nation is that sense. But it certainly
doesn't function as part of China either.
If you would just be kind enough to relax the use of words here, (hey, you
are not a laywer are you? Only lawyers indulge in exact use of words -
they make their living doing that, for us, just be normal guys, okay? :))
I am afraid that other than having a seat in UN because someone is
pointing a gun at her head, Taiwan functions and looks like a nation.
--
<<<<Lo Sheng the Great>>>> * E-mail:l...@mailhost.net * Pager 9-6073746
Self-Expression Page http://www.cadcam.nus.sg/~ele4-97
And the wise man said 'I don't care, I want it now!'
* * *
Yang Changqing D
: Its government is
: recognized as a national government by many other nations, though not,
: officially, by the USA or by the UN.
FYI, "many other nations" meant 30 some plus among more that 180 nations.
: The UN and its members embrace the doctrine of self-determination: that a
: people and region have the right to determine their own future.
:
: The USA, also, in its Declaration of Independence, holds that Governments
: exist by consent of the governed, thus affirming the principle of self-
: determination.
So, how do you explain that Bosnia was recognized for its
self-determination, while the Serbs living in Bosnia was not allowed to
self-determination? What would happen if Taiwan declears Ind. to be
Republic of Taiwan, and the ethnics from mainland China living in Taiwan
decide to form another independent country withing Taiwan, say a couple
of cities and counties? What if the locals living in those cities and
counties decided to be independent from that banana republic? So much so
for the princinple of self-determination.
Montana Freemen do have the consent of the governed: the 20 some people
decided to self-govern. Do you agree that they should be aloowed to go
their own way?
: David Olson, my posting, my response
cq.
Thomas L. Billings
(Yang Changqing D) wrote:
> FYI, "many other nations" meant 30 some plus among more that 180 nations.
>
> So, how do you explain that Bosnia was recognized for its
> self-determination, while the Serbs living in Bosnia was not allowed to
> self-determination? What would happen if Taiwan declears Ind. to be
> Republic of Taiwan, and the ethnics from mainland China living in Taiwan
> decide to form another independent country withing Taiwan, say a couple
> of cities and counties? What if the locals living in those cities and
> counties decided to be independent from that banana republic? So much so
> for the princinple of self-determination.
>
> Montana Freemen do have the consent of the governed: the 20 some people
> decided to self-govern. Do you agree that they should be aloowed to go
> their own way?
>
> : David Olson, my posting, my response
>
> cq.
Please note that this is also a matter of moral competence. The
Bosnian-Serbs have demonstrated their own moral incompetence to rule
anyplace. By their criminal financial scams, and threats to local
residents, the so-called Montana Freemen demonstrated such incompetence
as well.
The people of Taiwan have every reason to believe they can run their own
affairs with as good or better moral competence then Beijing. That is
why their own decisions deserve our support. If they stay "part of
China", then they might influence the Mainland towards greater freedom.
If they decide the cost of doing that is too great, then they have the
right to decide it, because they are morally competent to do so. The
Serbs and "Freemen" aren't.
--
Institute for Teleoperated Space Development
it...@teleport.com(Tom Billings)
ITSD's web site is at, http://www.teleport.com/~itsd1/index.html