It was just a few months ago that Ma first mentioned the concept of negotiating a “peace treaty” with China. That time he suggested putting a time limit on it. I believe he said a “thirty to fifty-year peace treaty.”
What would that mean? It would almost certainly mean a giant digital countdown timer would be erected, no pun intended, over Tiannanmen Square. When that timer hit zero, it would be surrender or war. Ma clearly cannot be trusted with such issues. Didn’t he use to say he was in favor of the status quo?
I’ll tell you what the problem with the greens is: They are too stupid to spot the most blatent flaws in pan-blue logic and create a winnable debate over these issues. I nstead, they continually embarrass themselves by dancing to the pan-blue’s tunes. The greens should start by losing those ugly politican vests. Let the ugly blues wear those creepy authoritarian duds. The greens should try to act like normal humans since they keep talking of turning Taiwan into a normal country.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]If he is committed to ROC, how can he not be committed to Taiwan? Unless Taiwan is no longer part of the ROC in Green logic.
All of Taiwan’s hard won democracy all occurred in the framework of the ROC, not outside of it.[/quote]
I can’t let this go uncommented.
The ROC is a government of all China, including Mongolia. It was established by Sun Yat-sen, and it’s capital is currently Nanjing. If Ma is more committed to the ROC than to Taiwan or Taiwan’s joining the PRC, I’d like to see some evidence of that! Ma has no aspirations of retaking the mainland. Perhaps he would be infavor of reunification provided the PRC democratizes and the KMT and Communist Party of China become equally legal entities under a new constitution for all of China including Taiwan; that would be a sensible position. But Ma has not clarified that stance.
By suggesting a peace treaty between Taiwan and China, he automatically rules out the possibility of his support for the ROC as per paragraph one just above. The government of the ROC and the current government of China based in Beijing are at war. The civil war never ended. Ma should be speaking of a peace treaty between the KMT and the CCP. Then the issue of whether and how to “re-unite” could possibly be dealt with.
But, of course, Ma doesn’t want to reveal his intentions, so he speaks in platitudes that don’t really hold water. This is why he can’t be trusted.
The ROC map clearly illustrates that Taiwan is part of ROC territory. It is dishonest to imply Taiwan is not part of the ROC with comments like "new constitution for all of China including Taiwan,” when the current ROC constitution already covers this issue.
The CCP was part of the ROC at one point and nowhere in the constitution are they outlawed from participating in the framework. A few simple changes in public policy in the lower administration offices and the CCP can once again participate in the ROC system.
This implies that the other political parties on Taiwan are at war with CCP.
Forget the historical and legal disconnect necessary to process this logically, that separate States establish by warring political parties need only to negotiate among themselves for peace, but how can it be acceptable to Taiwan while the pan-Green actively oppose a peace treaty with the PRC in hopes of war.
This goes back to my original belief that the Greens are now anti-KMT for the sake of being anti-KMT. Even when a totally reasonable and pragmatic solution like a “peace treaty” is presented opposition is automatic. I wonder would the Greens take such a position if CSB suggested a “peace treaty” as an interim solution.
It would? Then the timer is clearly at zero right now. So is it surrender or war, huh?
So who can be trusted? Ma may have floated a political trial balloon for internal consumption, but put Ma aside, who else can be trusted? Who else has even pulled his or her head out of his or her ass long enough to step back and consider the possibilities?
[quote=“dearpeter”]Does everyone have a very short memory or what?
It was just a few months ago that Ma first mentioned the concept of negotiating a “peace treaty” with China. That time he suggested putting a time limit on it. I believe he said a “thirty to fifty-year peace treaty.” [/quote]
It’s been more than “a few months” since the topic was raised by the senior KMT leadership. Ma also talked about it extensively on his European visit, which maybe what you’re referring to. He’s reiterating it here probably because it’s a key part of his campaign platform, a description of the policies he will implement if he’s elected to office.
The fact that you don’t “trust” him on this issue is worth exactly one vote, assuming you’re a member of the ROC electorate.
Ma’s policies are obviously intended to preserve the political status quo for the indefinite future, while moving forward on economic and civil matters. This is what he stands for… and if he gets elected to office, it’s what the electorate of Taiwan supports.
The ROC map clearly illustrates that Taiwan is part of ROC territory. It is dishonest to imply Taiwan is not part of the ROC with comments like "new constitution for all of China including Taiwan,” when the current ROC constitution already covers this issue.
[/quote]
I’m aware of the definition of ROC. Obviously.
Maybe so. But will the CCP go along with this framework for reunification? I think not.
Huh? I don’t follow. I think my civil war reference is quite clear and you are obfuscating.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I was critiquing Ma’s oversimplification, not stating my own model for reunification.
This is propagandizing away from the point of debate.
You still haven’t addressed my key point that a peace treaty with a time limit is a time bomb for Taiwan. And you hven’t offered any defense of Ma’s radical shift away from the status quo he used to support, which is a mutual ceasefire governed by no formal agreements at all. It seems the DPP is more for the status quo than Ma these days.
Ma is well known in the Chinese community at large for making repeated, repeated comments about the need for a democracy in mainland China before discussing actual reunification. He brings up 6/4 on a regular basis.
Wait, even as president of the ROC, he doesn’t have the legal or moral authority to end a state of war? What, pray tell, forms the logical basis for this judgement?
The “peace treaty” between the KMT and the CCP was “signed” when Lien Chan and Hu Jintao, in their respective positions as chairman of the parties they led, shook hands and agreed on a joint declaration of future cooperation.
[quote=“cctang”]
Are the “blatant” flaws in pan-Blue logic?[/quote]
You mean “What are the flaws?” ?
There are several.
[ul]Blocking any bill put forth by the government is a good way to act as opposition.
Not bothering to upgrade the military in the face of strong threats makes sense.
All problems of a country are caused by a single president who is evil.
Revering a former leader (CKS) while trusting his sworn enemy.
Promoting the belief that Taiwan’s economy is falling apart when it isn’t.
Clinging to outdated, nonsensical constitutional assertions that even the CCP has renounced (eg. Mongolia = China)
Claiming any judicial decision that isn’t favorable to the KMT has been influenced by the evil president.
Claiming to support the status quo while seeking to change it.
Claiming restrictions on investment in China are being lifted too slowly when Taiwan is the top investor there already.
Blocking arms purchases from the one powerful country that saved Taiwan’s ass from communist takeover, even as other countries are unwilling to sell arms to Taiwan[/ul]
But in my original comment, I was referring to smaller things that I can’t bring to mind right now. The DDP does argue these issues, but I guess not well enough.
Let’s flip the question. You tell me just what is the Blue’s proposed method to make Taiwan a more stable and prosperous place? It seems to be doing fine under the DPP, except for the annoying problems caused by pan-blue political interests.
Why is a peace treaty necessary? Why should cross-strait trade be accellerated? Do you think Canada opened its doors to America overnight once the relevant FTA was signed? Hell, no. There were detailed, regulated phase-ins for every area of trade you can think of. And the US hasn’t threatened to invade Canada for a few centuries.
I don’t think you’ve addressed zeugmite’s point that a peace treaty without a time limit is an open bottle of nitroglycerine for Taiwan. And your characterization of Ma’s position as “radical” seems incorrect, as well as irrelevant.
Incorrect because he and the KMT has stated this position (preservation of political status quo formalized via a bilateral agreement) for years… does the term “1992 consensus” ring a bell? He has never stated an opposition to a “formal agreement” in this direction.
Irrelevant, because it’s the Taiwanese people who’ll decide if he’s radical or not. Unlike CSB, Ma isn’t in office yet. He doesn’t get to implement anything at all, unless the Taiwanese public elects him to office.
[quote=“dearpeter”]You mean “What are the flaws?” ?
There are several. [/quote]
Always fun talking to a zealot that seems unwilling to understand the opposing point of view, and chooses to characterize it as the position of a morally corrupt sub-human. I certainly oppose Chen Shui-bian’s position on cross-strait affairs, but at least I understand why he does the things he does.
Are you really incapable of understanding why the pan-Blue parties, as intelligent human beings, might choose to implement the policies you list above as being flawed? This is not a question of your willingness to agree with them. This is a test of your intellectual capacity for understanding.
Doesn’t your last sentence of this paragraph answer the first sentence of this paragraph?
Taiwan is being asked to spend a large % of her GDP on military defense; flights that should take about 45 minutes are being diverted on a path that takes 5 hours; Taiwanese businesses are throwing away billions in terms of mainland tourist revenue. I don’t think a peace treaty is “necessary”, but why wouldn’t a peace treaty be desirable? But again, let me repeat a word from my previous post: irrelevant. The Taiwanese people will decide for themselves whether a peace treaty is desirable, and your non-vote is irrelevant.
Your choice of comparison seems very apropos… let’s have Taiwan implement detailed, regulated phase-in for trade relaxation… after the two sides first sign a FTA!
And why do you need a peace treaty, in the first place? Is there a war or something?
The greens may be pushing for Taiwanese localization (which was the agenda that gave them the votes, so why are you complaning about?) but they have managed to push some very needed welfare reforms that the KMT only had for their people (in example teachers, public workers, etc, who get a lot more extras than anyone else over here). Also, most of the reforms this country needs are mostly blocked in the LY, because any reform is against the KMT…
Read up on some ROC history. The simple answer is yes there is still a war.
Because racism is bad. Democratically supported racism is bad.
You gave example of civil servants who usually get greater benefits to off-set the fact they are paid a lot less compared to the private sector. In a free market, if the benefits of a civil servant matches those in the private sector what is the incentive to become a civil servant.
So we really need to see what reform you are talking about in particular.
Oh sorry, it’s just that this war over here has got some dust on it… the only war here is the missiles pointed from the PRC…
What about the will to serve the country? Isn’t it enough for people to become a civil servant?
About the DPP agenda, what part of it is racism? I don’t get why localization has to be called racism… If so, then the KMT and their sinonization is racism, and as you support it, then you support racism as well, so really, I don’t get you).
What reforms this country needs? Where should we start… let me get a roll of toilet paper, because this will for sure take a long time.
a) Environmental reform (I would spend a week here)
b) Judicial reform (the only laws that are followed in Taiwan seem to be the ones against foreigners)
c) Political reform (from stripping out KMT’s arses, sorry, assets, to remove the “above-the-law” status of the legislators
[quote=“mr_boogie”]
About the DPP agenda, what part of it is racism? I don’t get why localization has to be called racism… If so, then the KMT and their sinonization is racism, and as you support it, then you support racism as well, so really, I don’t get you).[/quote]
Assuming this is not an attempt at being obtuse, I would suggest first have a read in the dictionary under racism.
For example, in England we have those in favour of closer ties with Europe and the Euro sceptics. Overall, this has led to a greater awareness of European culture, but this is not racism.
If a party ran for office and targeted the opposition candidate by saying that he had too much european blood and only pure English could be trused with the nation, this is racism. I’m sorry you don’t get it.
But I am interested and since you brought it up, can you give me some examples of this KMT racist sinonization you talk about?
mick, that is my question… if what DPP is doing - called localization, or making the Taiwanese Language more important and increasing awareness for Taiwanese culture - it is called racism by some members of the red/blue camp, then what the KMT did with their sinonization (it was forbidden to speak Taiwanese, and the Mandarin speakers where allways regarded as upper class (in my wife’s school, there was an entrance for the 49ers and an entrance for the locals)). It is a natural reaction of the people to start going against forced rules once they cease to exist. The same happens in many places where a “national” language was forced uppon a population.
If sinonization is not racism, then taiwanization is also not. Anyone who consider’s the greens a racist group, must to consider the blues also.
And we are still on the phase where the KMT has to come up with it’s own past. Or, as Borat says, “we are not sad, because it is us do the kill”…
localization as you call it, promoting Taiwanese identity is not racism. But when you single out a group (WSR) then target the opposition and its leaders and call them Chinese communists who do not represent the real Taiwanese, implied to be BSR. This is racism.
This is what happened in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, it is what they are doing to Ma now, it is also the reason many DPP members have left the DPP and amounts to a poor choice in tactics. I can accept that you may not see the distinction, but this aspect of the DPP I hope they change and focus instead on policies and what they can do for Taiwan. All the people of Taiwan and not just BSR and stop using unnecessary scare tactics such as the KMT are not real Taiwanese.
[quote=“Mick”]localization as you call it, promoting Taiwanese identity is not racism. But when you single out a group (WSR) then target the opposition and its leaders and call them Chinese communists who do not represent the real Taiwanese, implied to be BSR. This is racism.
This is what happened in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, it is what they are doing to Ma now, it is also the reason many DPP members have left the DPP and amounts to a poor choice in tactics. I can accept that you may not see the distinction, but this aspect of the DPP I hope they change and focus instead on policies and what they can do for Taiwan. All the people of Taiwan and not just BSR and stop using unnecessary scare tactics such as the KMT are not real Taiwanese.[/quote]
I think you re squeezing way more mileage out of ‘racism’ than is the term good for. And the inherent fallacy in your logic is obvious. Racism usually occurs in situations involving more than one race group.
But as you suggest the KMT is as Taiwanese as the DPP, and alternatively as Greater China proponents would claim, Taiwan is but a part of China, then on what basis can those Taiwanese provincials be accused of being racists when according to your world view they are merely attacking their fellow Chinese and/or Taiwanese who happen to hold divergent views?
[quote=“LiAoriotpolice”]I think you re squeezing way more mileage out of ‘racism’ than is the term good for. And the inherent fallacy in your logic is obvious. Racism usually occurs in situations involving more than one race group.
But as you suggest the KMT is as Taiwanese as the DPP, and alternatively as Greater China proponents would claim, Taiwan is but a part of China, then on what basis can those Taiwanese provincials be accused of being racists when according to your world view they are merely attacking their fellow Chinese and/or Taiwanese who happen to hold divergent views? [/quote]
You right perhaps that I may be squeezing to much mileage out of what I called DPP racism, it's a subject I have little tolerance for and assosiate with small minded individuals. But your assumptions about me and my world view are incorrect.
When I am talking about Taiwanese, I am talking about Taiwanese passport holders , not mainland Chinese, the assosiation was made by you and you may wish to ask yourself what that says about your view of Taiwanese people who hold differing opinions to those of the DPP? It seems your comments only add valitity to the point I was making.
If you compare KMT assimilation and DPP assimilation strategy the major difference is that the KMT promoted an inclusive identity that all, including themselves had to adjust to, the Chinese national concept was relatively new and even all the founding members did not speak the official dialect fluently. This policy was developed on the mainland to be the foundation for the genesis of a new political State.
Unlike the KMT strategy, the DPP strategy is developed specifically on Taiwan to divide and motivate people to the polls. It is not an inclusive identity that they promote. They promote a nativist policy, playing on negative emotions to motivate people to the polls.
In fact, I would even question how serious is the DPP is in the commitment to create a new political State on Taiwan. In comparison to the KMT in reaching similar milestones in their respective history, it seems they are half hearted in their revolution.
