[quote=“Chewycorns”]Before 90 percent of Americans even knew who Palin was, I was writing a year or two ago, that she should be on the ticket in 2008. Is that a cheerleader? 
Limitations? I think her selection has energized the base and appealed to some Reagan Democrats and Hillary voters (at least before the economic downturn). Of course, I disagree with her on some issues. Grown up people can do that, you know?[/quote] Slightly off topic, but… If nothing else she’s energized Saturday Night Live’s base. Here’s a pretty good rundown on where she stands on issues. I doubt she knows where Taiwan is, but now that she’s got a passport maybe she’ll visit.
npr.org/templates/story/stor … d=95725546
I think they should greet the ARATS guy with a bunch of melamine tainted products, as that is the kind of things China is sending to Taiwan these days… Chinese gave a new meaning to “plastic food”…
Of course, Ma is nowhere to be seen these days… probably because it has nothing to do with him, he is just the President, what do people expect? For him to be a God?
Right, well I guess Israel is going to have to agree to NOT exist and America to NOT be western, free and largely Christain if these nations are to deal with their respective enemies in the manner you suggest for Taiwan.
As for the other way, I can’t make heads or tails what you are talking about.
[quote=“TaipeiDawg”]
I think that the fear of “ramifications of reckless behavior”, which is taken to mean provoking military action from the PRC, is often used as a fear factor. The “state to state” model may not be very realistic in terms of getting things done expediently but the benefit is that it is clear where both sides stand on the issue. Simply dispensing with the “state to state” model in favor of being ‘pragmatic’ and giving the KMT a free pass to negotiate things in closed door sessions does not give most people a warm, fuzzy feeling. No amount of lip service about the dignity of the ROC or saluting of the flag can actually assure anybody about where they stand on the issue…[/quote]
After years of a passive aggressive approach by Sadam Husein towards the UN weapons inspectors, perhaps someone should have asked if he had that warm, fuzzy feeling as he was getting his ass pulled out of a dirt hole in the ground to carry him off to his execution.
The “state to state” model is far from clear where both sides stand. China has never, and under current circumstances will never accept the “state to state” model. How about giving one instance, ever, to prove otherwise.
Other countries dont recognize Taiwan as a independent sovereign state. So whats the point of inviting the premier of China to Taiwan, with the condition it must be done on a state to state basis. Absolutely meaningless. Or saying Taiwan will accept a gift of Panda's, so long as its done on a state to state basis. It will not happen, you may as weoll say, "shove 'em up your ass"
Its a passive aggressive approach, and while Mucha man may feel its all a game. I dont think China were playing when they signed the anti cessation law, nor are they mucking around with a 1000+ missiles. I understand the hard core TI supporters sometimes have trouble connecting the dots, hell even when absolutely everyone around Chen was being prosecuted for corruption, they couldnt make the small jump to work out in all likelihood so was Chen. But Nostradamus you dont need to be to work out what happens when all hope of unification is taken from the table.
And Mucha Man , you dont uderstand what I am saying and need it spelled out, doesnt come as a surprize as if you look under the definition of passive aggressive in wiki it says this “People with this personality style are often quite unconscious of their impact on others, and thus may be genuinely dismayed when held to account for the inconvenience or discomfort caused by their passive-aggressive behaviors. In that context, they fail to see how they might have provoked a negative response, so they feel misunderstood, held to unreasonable standards, and/or put-upon.”
[quote=“Mick”][quote=“TaipeiDawg”]
I think that the fear of “ramifications of reckless behavior”, which is taken to mean provoking military action from the PRC, is often used as a fear factor. The “state to state” model may not be very realistic in terms of getting things done expediently but the benefit is that it is clear where both sides stand on the issue. Simply dispensing with the “state to state” model in favor of being ‘pragmatic’ and giving the KMT a free pass to negotiate things in closed door sessions does not give most people a warm, fuzzy feeling. No amount of lip service about the dignity of the ROC or saluting of the flag can actually assure anybody about where they stand on the issue…[/quote]
After years of a passive aggressive approach by Sadam Husein towards the UN weapons inspectors, perhaps someone should have asked if he had that warm, fuzzy feeling as he was getting his ass pulled out of a dirt hole in the ground to carry him off to his execution.
The “state to state” model is far from clear where both sides stand. China has never, and under current circumstances will never accept the “state to state” model. How about giving one instance, ever, to prove otherwise.
Other countries dont recognize Taiwan as a independent sovereign state. So whats the point of inviting the premier of China to Taiwan, with the condition it must be done on a state to state basis. Absolutely meaningless. Or saying Taiwan will accept a gift of Panda's, so long as its done on a state to state basis. It will not happen, you may as weoll say, "shove 'em up your ass"
Its a passive aggressive approach, and while Muzha man may feel its all a game. I don’t think China were playing when they signed the anti cessation law, nor are they mucking around with a 1000+ missiles. I understand the hard core TI supporters sometimes have trouble connecting the dots, hell even when absolutely everyone around Chen was being prosecuted for corruption, they couldnt make the small jump to work out in all likelihood so was Chen. But Nostradamus you dont need to be to work out what happens when all hope of unification is taken from the table.
And Muzha Man , you dont uderstand what I am saying and need it spelled out, doesnt come as a surprize as if you look under the definition of passive aggressive in wiki it says this “People with this personality style are often quite unconscious of their impact on others, and thus may be genuinely dismayed when held to account for the inconvenience or discomfort caused by their passive-aggressive behaviors. In that context, they fail to see how they might have provoked a negative response, so they feel misunderstood, held to unreasonable standards, and/or put-upon.”[/quote]
Now tell me what the fuck “other way” means for you in English, and not jibberish. I have the feeling everything you are saying can be said in about two - maybe three - lines so quit wasting my time with incoherent rambles and then compounding this with sententious lectures when I ask for a clarificaition.
[quote=“Mucha Man”][quote=“Mick”][quote=“TaipeiDawg”]
I think that the fear of “ramifications of reckless behavior”, which is taken to mean provoking military action from the PRC, is often used as a fear factor. The “state to state” model may not be very realistic in terms of getting things done expediently but the benefit is that it is clear where both sides stand on the issue. Simply dispensing with the “state to state” model in favor of being ‘pragmatic’ and giving the KMT a free pass to negotiate things in closed door sessions does not give most people a warm, fuzzy feeling. No amount of lip service about the dignity of the ROC or saluting of the flag can actually assure anybody about where they stand on the issue…[/quote]
After years of a passive aggressive approach by Sadam Husein towards the UN weapons inspectors, perhaps someone should have asked if he had that warm, fuzzy feeling as he was getting his ass pulled out of a dirt hole in the ground to carry him off to his execution.
The “state to state” model is far from clear where both sides stand. China has never, and under current circumstances will never accept the “state to state” model. How about giving one instance, ever, to prove otherwise.
Other countries dont recognize Taiwan as a independent sovereign state. So whats the point of inviting the premier of China to Taiwan, with the condition it must be done on a state to state basis. Absolutely meaningless. Or saying Taiwan will accept a gift of Panda's, so long as its done on a state to state basis. It will not happen, you may as weoll say, "shove 'em up your ass"
Its a passive aggressive approach, and while Muzha man may feel its all a game. I don’t think China were playing when they signed the anti cessation law, nor are they mucking around with a 1000+ missiles. I understand the hard core TI supporters sometimes have trouble connecting the dots, hell even when absolutely everyone around Chen was being prosecuted for corruption, they couldnt make the small jump to work out in all likelihood so was Chen. But Nostradamus you dont need to be to work out what happens when all hope of unification is taken from the table.
And Muzha Man , you dont uderstand what I am saying and need it spelled out, doesnt come as a surprize as if you look under the definition of passive aggressive in wiki it says this “People with this personality style are often quite unconscious of their impact on others, and thus may be genuinely dismayed when held to account for the inconvenience or discomfort caused by their passive-aggressive behaviors. In that context, they fail to see how they might have provoked a negative response, so they feel misunderstood, held to unreasonable standards, and/or put-upon.”[/quote]
Get your head out of your ass. Is that direct enough for you? Now tell me what the fuck “other way” means for you in English, and not jibberish. I have the feeling everything you are saying can be said in about two - maybe three - lines so quit wasting my time with incoherent rambles and then compounding this with sententious lectures when I ask for a clarificaition.[/quote]
War.
One word, only three letters, simple enough for you?
actually, Mick, there are a few countries that DO accept taiwan as an independent state. not that they are terribly big countries, or terribly influential in the world, but they do show that countries can recognise taiwan as the sovereign nation that it is, and not disappear in a puff of smoke. what’s to stop more countries recognizing the same facts?
Ah, i forget: it does not resemble YOUR particular take on the matter. therefore no-one should do it.
it’s really just semantics, and when more people get pissed off by China, they may well react by recognising Taiwan. who knows? I still have an old 1970 ecyclopaedia somewhere that glowingly describes China as a small island nation off the coast of Asia, so it’s not like the political map can’t change by proclamation, just as it did in 1972. we all know that despite the best (yet unsuccessful) efforts being made to prove things one way or another de jure, it actually is the de facto state that matters. and de fcto is what you make it, not what the bully sitting next to you says it is.
unless they invade, of course, but then i don’t see that happening for a while… the longer that pussy Ma keeps rubbing his little lamp, though, the more likely it is that the de facto situation will actually include de jure unification.
and another thing, mick: that little anti-seccesion red herring that you keep trumpeting can only apply to Taiwan AFTER unification, not before. capiche?
[quote=“urodacus”]actually, Mick, there are a few countries that DO accept taiwan as an independent state. not that they are terribly big countries, or terribly influential in the world, but they do show that countries can recognise taiwan as the sovereign nation that it is, and not disappear in a puff of smoke. what’s to stop more countries recognizing the same facts?
Ah, i forget: it does not resemble YOUR particular take on the matter. therefore no-one should do it.
it’s really just semantics, and when more people get pissed off by China, they may well react by recognising Taiwan. who knows? I still have an old 1970 ecyclopaedia somewhere that glowingly describes China as a small island nation off the coast of Asia, so it’s not like the political map can’t change by proclamation, just as it did in 1972. we all know that despite the best (yet unsuccessful) efforts being made to prove things one way or another de jure, it actually is the de facto state that matters. and de fcto is what you make it, not what the bully sitting next to you says it is.
unless they invade, of course, but then I don’t see that happening for a while… the longer that pussy Ma keeps rubbing his little lamp, though, the more likely it is that the de facto situation will actually include de jure unification.
and another thing, mick: that little anti-seccesion red herring that you keep trumpeting can only apply to Taiwan AFTER unification, not before. capiche?[/quote]
Well, thats a post I can relate to. I do accept over time things change, its why when Lee tung Hui put forward the idea of “state to state” it was a good idea, yet in my opinion is now a dead end and for Taiwan to realize its end goal of a de jure Taiwan, a more intelligent strategy needs to be brought into play. “State to state” and the following required steps, have already been anticipated, in every direction. To continue to persue it is now a dumb dumb move, that in every avenue has Taiwan a looser, not clever.
For an optimist, they will see the realist as a pessimist. However we all like to see ourselves as realists. So it is with the TI’s supporters , those who are middle ground and wish to to keep the status quo, and those who are pro unification. Thus it is not unusual for the TI crowd to call a moderate a commie loving bastard who would like nothing better than unification, but that does not make it so either.
mmm, I missed this last sentence the last time round, did you do an edit?
Unless I am mistaken, China considers Taiwan a part of China right now. So no, it does not come into play AFTER unification, it comes into play NOW. China definition of the situation as you well know is not the same as how it is defined here or elsewhere.
[quote=“Mick”]…not push for de jure independence is what I am in favour of and make no mistake, your position is a full on push for de jure independence, recklessly ignoring the possible ramifications.
[/quote]
Just to make this clear also: no it isn’t. If you want to know my position ask.
And could you kindly respond to this:
[quote]
… Sorry, you cant adopt a policy of only dealing with your giant neighbor on the condition they adhere to a principle they would rather go to war over first.
Right, well I guess Israel is going to have to agree to NOT exist and America to NOT be western, free and largely Christain if these nations are to deal with their respective enemies in the manner you suggest for Taiwan.[/quote]
[quote=“Mucha Man”] [quote=“Mick”]…not push for de jure independence is what I am in favour of and make no mistake, your position is a full on push for de jure independence, recklessly ignoring the possible ramifications.
[/quote]
Just to make this clear also: no it isn’t. If you want to know my position ask.[/quote]
I will, and thank you. Would you help clear up my confusion? You DO advocate the “state to state” relationship the DPP were following? Yet you do not see this as part of the journey towards de jure independence ? Would you also advocate a name change, a change of constitution, a declaration of independence. Where exactly would you draw the line? or would you, and why? and would you consider all this NOT to be a push for de jure Independence.
[quote=“Mucha Man”]
And could you kindly respond to this:
[quote]
… Sorry, you cant adopt a policy of only dealing with your giant neighbor on the condition they adhere to a principle they would rather go to war over first.
Right, well I guess Israel is going to have to agree to NOT exist and America to NOT be western, free and largely Christain if these nations are to deal with their respective enemies in the manner you suggest for Taiwan.[/quote][/quote]
Sure. lets get over the obvious first. Taiwan is not Isreal and the neighbors of Isreal dont equate to China, and the relationship between those other countries and China is quite different and Taiwan, which in turn does not share the same relationship with the US as Isreal. I have to say the onus is to clarify the question and make clear what is being asked. My turn not to understand, feel free to make fun and ridicule my intellect in your response.
But these countries’ recognition are bought out-right in the open market. That is usually not the diplomacy people want to engage in. How long does ROC think they can out spend the PRC with these 20 or so allies to the cause?
ACD: yet when the PRC does outbid the ROC, that’s a legitimate use of diplomatic ‘aid’ then, isn’t it?
mmm, yes, mick, i went back to correct a typo and added that snippet.
this is a great topic, with no one really ‘right’ or wrong, as there is no objective final answer.
Taiwan should demand that is it is to reunite with China that the govt of China be 50pct represented by the ROC govt. Back to the prewar CCP/KMT alliance it is then.
[quote=“Mick”][quote=“Muzha Man”] [quote=“Mick”]…not push for de jure independence is what I am in favour of and make no mistake, your position is a full on push for de jure independence, recklessly ignoring the possible ramifications.
[/quote]
Just to make this clear also: no it isn’t. If you want to know my position ask.[/quote]
I will, and thank you. Would you help clear up my confusion? You DO advocate the “state to state” relationship the DPP were following? Yet you do not see this as part of the journey towards de jure independence ? Would you also advocate a name change, a change of constitution, a declaration of independence. Where exactly would you draw the line? or would you, and why? and would you consider all this NOT to be a push for de jure Independence.
[quote=“Muzha Man”]
And could you kindly respond to this:
[quote]
… Sorry, you cant adopt a policy of only dealing with your giant neighbor on the condition they adhere to a principle they would rather go to war over first.
Right, well I guess Israel is going to have to agree to NOT exist and America to NOT be western, free and largely Christain if these nations are to deal with their respective enemies in the manner you suggest for Taiwan.[/quote][/quote]
Sure. lets get over the obvious first. Taiwan is not Israel and the neighbors of Israel dont equate to China, and the relationship between those other countries and China is quite different and Taiwan, which in turn does not share the same relationship with the US as Israel. I have to say the onus is to clarify the question and make clear what is being asked. My turn not to understand, feel free to make fun and ridicule my intellect in your response.[/quote]
Quit being a pussy. I am not ridiculing your intelligence but if you think after answering a series of questions clearly and honestly I will stand to be backslapped and called passive aggressive, you are mistaken.
Let’s put that behind us now however, as I would like to continue this.
I make the analogy with Israel, not because it is perfect, but because it was in response to your assertion that a smaller country can’t insist that a larger one accepts its point of view. But Israel is a clear example of a country that cannot and will not accept the view of its neighbors that it does not have the right to exist.
Do you think they should be more open to the other side’s view? I don’t. I think clearly there are times when one side is wrong and the other right. Regarding Taiwan and China I say that China is absolutely wrong, and Taiwan absolutely right. We are independent, and should not under any circumstances be forced to reunify. Such an act would be a shotgun marriage so to speak and no fairminded rational observer could consider it otherwise.
That Taiwan is in dire straights now because the military and economic balance is shifting in China’s favor is obvious. That there are probably no great solutions to the problem as long as China remains determined to show it can be a 19th century world power, is obvious too.
Where would I draw the line? I would not declare de jure independence. No. And neither did Chen in 8 years despite all the hubbub that he was nuts and a huge troublemaker.
Do I advocate state to state? Of course. Do you really expect to get anywhere by denying reality? This is a serious question. Taiwan is a state and despite the fact not everyone formally recognizes this is words, they do so in deeds, by accepting our money, our passports, our stamps and allowing our citizens to travel freely while putting restrictions on the Chinese. Every country in the world recognizes our de facto statehood so please how on earth can we proceed by denying reality?
Are state to state relations one step toward de jure independence? Of course and so they should be. Again, what else is there? We either are working toward this, however carefully and craftily and slowly it may be (perhaps with the last hope we have that we can hold out long enough for China to change), or we are working toward capitulation. If you believe that Taiwan can never achieve de jure independence, and that China will never change, then we might as well give it up now.
Well, MM: Maybe one day you’ll be President of the Republic of Taiwan and then finally we’ll get things sorted out !!
However, in the meantime, we are stuck - for better or for worse - with Ma. So back to him…
I think that some leaders seem better during good times and others during bad times. For example, Gordon Brown’s popularity has increased during the financial crisis. (Or he has become less unpopular - whichever way you want to look at it.) That is because his serious style and Chancellor of the Exchequer background make him seem like not a bad guy to captain the ship on rough financial seas. But during good times Brown came across as charisma-less grump.
Now Ma, on the other hand, appeared to be a cool cat (to many at least) because he seemed like he wouldn’t start shit and would focus on peace and prosperity. He’d be a “good times” leader, and seemed fit for the part. But now that his political ship has been grounded on an unmapped sand bar - financial crisis, cross-straights confusion and popularity slide - he doesn’t appear to know how to deal with the problems in any decisive way. In short, he seems weak, which was always the critique leveled against him from within his own party, during the days when he was sparring with Lien Chan and Wang Jyn-ping.
The problem with this perception of him as a puss is that it might undermine some of the good things that he stands for: He can’t negotiate with China if Taiwanese don’t trust him to negotiate on their behalf; China won’t take him seriously if he’s seen as weak and lacking in popular support.
I kind of wish the guy would eat some spinach or something and show a little Alpha Male leadership. But maybe it’s just not in him.
[quote=“Mick”][quote=“TaipeiDawg”]
I think that the fear of “ramifications of reckless behavior”, which is taken to mean provoking military action from the PRC, is often used as a fear factor. The “state to state” model may not be very realistic in terms of getting things done expediently but the benefit is that it is clear where both sides stand on the issue. Simply dispensing with the “state to state” model in favor of being ‘pragmatic’ and giving the KMT a free pass to negotiate things in closed door sessions does not give most people a warm, fuzzy feeling. No amount of lip service about the dignity of the ROC or saluting of the flag can actually assure anybody about where they stand on the issue…[/quote]
After years of a passive aggressive approach by Sadam Husein towards the UN weapons inspectors, perhaps someone should have asked if he had that warm, fuzzy feeling as he was getting his ass pulled out of a dirt hole in the ground to carry him off to his execution.
The “state to state” model is far from clear where both sides stand. China has never, and under current circumstances will never accept the “state to state” model. How about giving one instance, ever, to prove otherwise. [/quote]
The reason China amasses missiles and creates laws about Taiwan is to create a sense of fear and inevitability among the population of Taiwan. You are a good example that it is effective. I used to wonder if missiles would fall in my neighborhood, yet I was surprised when I asked people whether China would actually bomb Taiwan and they shook their head and said, “Naahhhh”. In reality, times are good in China and short of Taiwan declaring outright independence they are not about to ruin it by declaring war over primarily ideological issues. Even if Taiwan did declare independence China would have to measure the fallout of any brash moves very, very carefully. So, man up and get a freaking grip on yourself.
I’m saying that the state to state model is one extreme. On the one hand it will limit flexibility and what you are able to accomplish. On the other hand the advantage is that you maintain some integrity and are not putting yourself in a compromised position from the outset.
The other extreme is to give the KMT a blank check and let them negotiate behind closed doors under the ‘One China’ principle. They’ll get something done but you won’t know what you get nor what you give up until after it’s a done deal.
If you want to get results and predictable consequences there would have to be some kind of compromise. It seems to me that Ma is trying to use the state to state model under the moniker ‘region to region’. He says he is defending the integrity of the ROC but the definition of ‘ROC’ and how it relates to One China is a serious gray area that seems to vary from time to time…
Yes, but Taipei Dawg, how can Ma Ying-jeou negotiate anything if he has no credibility? That’s the whole point of this thread, not the old KMT vs DPP thing. That’s been done to death a 1000 times of Forumosa. The question is: Is Ma too weak to get ANYTHING done, worthy of the staure of the office of president? Please address the question.
Ehem, any comments on his “there will be no war during the four years I’m in power” claims?
if there was no war when CSB was in power for 8 years, and he was on the opposite side of China, why would there be a war when Ma is spending more time kowtowing to China than taking care of Taiwan?
Fait-divers number 2030823048239482 since Ma took the job.
Not long ago I met a German customer who asked me: “Woaaah, you do business in Taiwan ? That must be very tough, everybody there is corrupt, right ? Even that former president”. What could I say ?
If Mr. Ma can get rid of this image, then Taiwan is making great progress and its economy will benefit - much more than those tourists from China can contribute.