Then you are doing the Lord’s work trolling them 
Does anyone have a link about this verdict? I can’t imagine that the Supreme Court can decide foreign policy. [/quote]
The Supreme Court wouldn’t be deciding anything on foreign policy. They are being asked to exercise judicial review on the San Francisco treaty. The Court isn’t trying to draft a treaty recognizing Taiwan (the role of Congress), nor is it trying to sign a treaty recognizing Taiwan (the role of the President). They are being asked to review whether or not Taiwan became US territorial land under the treaty, and if that’s the case, what rights the Taiwanese people get as nationals (but not citizens). I know that’s a slight distinction, because in fact they would be affecting foreign policy, but it is an important distinction nonetheless. The US Supreme court is the only place in which to address this because it involves the US government as a defendant.
Carter was definitely an aberration. But in fact, his administration demonstrates what to expect with perfect, genuine, unadulterated liberalism. Carter is close to what we’d have if the kook fringe in the Democrat Party secured control again (which I suspect most of these posters are). Clinton came in as a “centrist,” calling himself the third way because he knew Carter had left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth for a long time, especially back-to-back with Reagan.[/quote]
So jotham, which president do YOU most resemble now as you attempt again to deflect from being called out on your ignorance of the topic on hand?
Are you kooky like Carter, senile like Reagan, or slimy like Clinton? :charliebrown:
I think the legal argument misses the point.
“International law” is actually a completely misnomer. There is no rule of law internationally - treaties are in some sense analogous to laws but there is no international police to back them up. It is all about what you are prepared to fight for and whether you win. In fact most treaties have opt outs anyway. You can’t compel sovereign entities to do anything by treaties unless you are a larger soverign entity.
If the US wants Taiwan it would have to face down the Chinese and take it. It’s not willling to do that, because the Chinese have nukes. The US Supreme Court could rule that Taiwan was part of the US, and the US, Chinese and Taiwanese governments would all just ignore that ruling. My guess is that the US administration has some legal device to get out of that situation - e.g. the President could renounce all claim to Taiwan.
My guess is that given that the court will not rule that Taiwan is part of the US, regardless of the quality of the legal arguments because they know this.
There may be some Taiwanese politics involved in this. The Green Party has as one of their talking points reference to these differing treaties in order to make the point that China never had legal claim to Taiwan in the first place. I wonder if now they’re trying to drag the US into it. If this move succeeds, then they think that gives more force to their argument, thereby making Taiwanese sovereignty and independence a matter for Taiwan (and US?) to decide – and not for China and Taiwan to decide.
But with someone inexperienced as Obama, he may be a bull in a china closet and just create a declaration making the case for Beijing even stronger than Carter did because he fears the repercussions of this and wants to wash his hands clean of it, or just wants to get along and show our abundant goodwill. They should have tried this when Bush was in office. But then again, Bush wasn’t famously getting along too well with Chen Shui-bian.
[quote=“KingZog”]I think the legal argument misses the point.
“International law” is actually a completely misnomer. There is no rule of law internationally - treaties are in some sense analogous to laws but there is no international police to back them up. It is all about what you are prepared to fight for and whether you win. In fact most treaties have opt outs anyway. You can’t compel sovereign entities to do anything by treaties unless you are a larger soverign entity.
If the US wants Taiwan it would have to face down the Chinese and take it. It’s not willling to do that, because the Chinese have nukes. The US Supreme Court could rule that Taiwan was part of the US, and the US, Chinese and Taiwanese governments would all just ignore that ruling. My guess is that the US administration has some legal device to get out of that situation - e.g. the President could renounce all claim to Taiwan.
My guess is that given that the court will not rule that Taiwan is part of the US, regardless of the quality of the legal arguments because they know this.[/quote]
KingZog,
I couldn’t agree more. Who in the hell wants to fight China? Not the US, not anybody. Lots of countries have nukes, but I’d call China more likely to use theirs than most.
The USA ain’t gonna do nuttin’. :roflmao:
How can it? The US never occupied nor claimed Taiwan.
Tommy are you not American or just didn’t pay attention in civics class? There is no official language of the US, we just speak American. 
Now some states have laws that make English the official language in that state, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t do that with Spanish, Swahili or Mandarin.
I’d say they more resemble the Puerto Ricans, a territory, but not a state or whatever that damn place is.
They’d also get first world infrastructure
Not exactly, the pay that most people receive would be at a much lower rate, plus you get all the funny deductions but well paid professionals would get hit by the Alternative minimum tax rate or whatever it is.
Honestly, most Americans wouldn’t care I think. They’d also have to express some desire, i.e. Texas model, of wanting to join the US. I really cant see that happening.
Have you even been through an American airport recently? I love going back to the US, but I hold off as long as possible because of the airports. 24-36 hours and 3 flights of pure boredom, bad food, and overbearing security. All because the F%&*ing INS couldn’t do their job right.
Taiwan would have to show some interest and hold a referendum in order to join the US, sort of like Texas did so many years ago. I’m always amazed how people will comment on the US without realizing how the law works in the US.
Cheers
[quote=“trebuchet”]
KingZog,
I couldn’t agree more. Who in the hell wants to fight China? Not the US, not anybody. Lots of countries have nukes, but I’d call China more likely to use theirs than most.
The USA ain’t gonna do nuttin’. :roflmao:[/quote]
No one would really want to fight China on her home turf, but she doesn’t have much force projection. Hell, Japan’s “Home Defense Force” could kick the crap out of anything that China puts to sea, and they are statutorily only a defense force. No one wants to get into a fight with China for primarily economic reasons, along with not wanting to start WW3.
Trebuchet, where do you get the information for half the stuff you post? There are only 5 nuclear weapon states, as by the Nuclear Proliferation treaty: the UK, France, US, Russia and China. There are three more who have tested, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. None of the previous three are part of the NPT. Israel is widely believed to have them too. South Africa had 6 and then dismantled theirs in the 90’s. Iran and Syria are believed to be pursuing nuclear enrichment.
That makes 9 countries in total currently have, or are presumed to have nuclear weapons. Once again it’s: the UK, France, US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. That’s 9 countries out of 194 (195 including Taiwan) in the world. That’s not “lot’s” of countries. It’s less than 10.
Would China be more likely to use theirs? Probably. If they let Taiwan go free they also lose credence over their claim to Tibet. That isn’t something they want to to. Will the US intervene? Idk. I know for sure that very few other countries would do anything. The US doesn’t want another Pacific campaign of WW2. The logistics are a nightmare. China has a very short supply line while the US’s would stretch across the entire Pacific.
To Okami,
California has two legal languages, English and Spanish
By inference America’s lingua franca is English. Taiwan’s was officially Mandarin only but now has expanded “officially” to Mandarin, Minnan, Hakka and the aboriginal languages. All of these are now considered “national” languages.
At least Taiwanese will likely soon get visa free entry into the USA , so less searching for a Green Card so they can escape to America if the Chicoms come to the treasure island. Now they can just get on a plane and enter as tourists and overstay a few decades I guess.
Wow, do people actually know what American sentiments are these days to military adventurism, economic burden, and recent immigrants…
The problem in my opinion is that there has never been a consistent idealogy in TI, other than the Machevallien view that Taiwan was for Taiwanese. It is a racist idealogy that makes very little sense on a multi-ethnic island.
In a couple of years, I wouldn’t be surprised if USA applied to be an ROC terrority. Cash is king… 
If Taiwan wants to be “for the Taiwanese”, then let the aboriginals have a crack at it. Let 'em come down from the mountains where the Japanese and Han Chinese chased them and no more of the ignorant rants by those who claim the tribes would be “better off” being relocated to South America. Put up an aboriginal banner over the island and create a benevolent chieftainship under which the varied Hakka, Fujianese and 1949-era “mainlanders” and their offspring can have alien permanent residency cards. The tribes are the only ones who for centuries never said they were “Chinese” and who (during long periods of the Japanese occupation) actually fought hard to maintain their sovereignty.
For that matter, now that wheat farmers and conservationists alike are realizing that the American Great Plains need some rather serious soil revitalization of the sort easily enough done with a few decades of bison hooves and poop, let’s let the Plains Indians have a crack at running part of America. Bison burgers, anyone?
I’m so glad you didn’t say Indian burgers.
The US may decide to give Taiwan back to China.
If the court rules that Taiwan belongs to the US, it necessarily also means that the US, as the owner of Taiwan, gets to decide Taiwan’s future (which kind of flies in the face of the claims by the pan-greens and TI crowds, and that’s that 1. Taiwan is an sovereign, independent country, and 2. the future Taiwan can only be decided by Taiwanese people themselves).
Given China’s influence, it’s unlikely the US would allow Taiwan independence or to accept it as a de-facto US territory. So, there’s really only two ways the US would react here. One, and the more likely one, is to do the same as Japan did, to simply renouce all claims to Taiwans, which brings us back to where we started. Or two, the US may give Taiwan back to China. Which is certainly plausible. Remember Taiwan was scheduled to be returned to China in the '40s(Potsdam declaration), but wasn’t done due to the on-going Chinese civil war. But now with the PRC having long emerged as the legitimate China, there would be no question where Taiwan should have been returned to. Makes sense for the US to want to seize the opportunity to get rid of the hot potato that is Taiwan when on many occasions US government officials have said somethings to the effect of “Taiwan is not a country.” But I guess Lin never thought of this.
TI intellectuals were never much for thinking of consequences beyond their 10 min of fame.
The US may decide to give Taiwan back to China.
If the court rules that Taiwan belongs to the US, it necessarily also means that the US, as the owner of Taiwan, gets to decide Taiwan’s future (which kind of flies in the face of the claims by the pan-greens and TI crowds, and that’s that 1. Taiwan is an sovereign, independent country, and 2. the future Taiwan can only be decided by Taiwanese people themselves).
Given China’s influence, it’s unlikely the US would allow Taiwan independence or to accept it as a de-facto US territory. So, there’s really only two ways the US would react here. One, and the more likely one, is to do the same as Japan did, to simply renouce all claims to Taiwans, which brings us back to where we started. Or two, the US may give Taiwan back to China. Which is certainly plausible.[/quote]
But there’s a problem with this: Carter already gave Taiwan back to China, at least symbolically, when he recognized that Beijing owns Taiwan. That alone seems to make any court ruling an exercise in futility.
CAPTION: One more poster from the pedestrian subways of Taipei after Carter
broke off relations with Taiwan. Carter is depicted as a naive peanut farmer
offering a peanut to the communist who says “no thanks, even everything
you own would not be enough!”
CAPTION: Another poster attacking Pres. Jimmy Carter for breaking off diplomatic
relations with Taiwan and recognizing China instead. This one asks the people of
Taiwan to have a “revolutionary spirit” while it also depicts Carter getting beaten
at cards, and being trampled upon, by the communists.
Carter may have done it symbolically, but if US does own Taiwan, Obama can do it for real.
Well someone needs to buy US bonds for that 2 trillion dollar stimulus package Obama wants.
So is Taiwan worth 2 trillion to the PRC yet?