ShrimpCracks, stop using the (shrimp)crack. You need to go back and read the TRA again.
STOP_Ma, your asinine points are not worth my time to respond, especially because they don’t have to do with the premise of what you quote and because I’ve addressed them in some other form already elsewhere.
Instead, I will take the time to make my own comment. Taiwan is the [b]world
So you refuse to tell us where you draw the line.
Funny. That’s what a loyal friend of an abusive boyfriend usually does.
To paraphrase the last post …
[quote=“STOP_Ma”]
Where do you draw the line with respect to “changing the status quo” ?
Notice that all 3 of these examples are decisions that no one would argue should be made by the PRC. No one, except the PRC, perhaps.
Now, please consider these examples:
I would argue that there is more “spurring a conflict” in these actions than anything Taiwan has done.[/quote]
However, this misses the point.
The “status quo” from the US President’s point of view (Ditto for the State Department) is that “Taiwan is on a flight-path for eventual unification with the PRC.”
The actions which Taiwan has taken (or wants to take) do indeed threaten that “status quo” and the actions which the PRC have taken do not.
===> You have to remember that under the San Francisco Peace Treaty the United States Military Government (i.e. Commander in Chief) has the right to make “disposition” of the property (i.e. “territorial title”) of Formosa and the Pescadores, and in the 1972 Communiaque he did exactly that … by putting Taiwan on a “flight-path” for eventual unification with the PRC. As the State Department has said many times: “Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation.” Taiwan is not a sovereign entity, and currently it is being handled by the US Executive Branch, by the Commander in Chief, via his plenary power over foreign affairs.
[quote=“Hartzell”]To paraphrase the last post …
[quote=“STOP_Ma”]
Where do you draw the line with respect to “changing the status quo” ?
Notice that all 3 of these examples are decisions that no one would argue should be made by the PRC. No one, except the PRC, perhaps.
Now, please consider these examples:
I would argue that there is more “spurring a conflict” in these actions than anything Taiwan has done.[/quote]
However, this misses the point.
The “status quo” from the US President’s point of view (Ditto for the State Department) is that “Taiwan is on a flight-path for eventual unification with the PRC.”
The actions which Taiwan has taken (or wants to take) do indeed threaten that “status quo” and the actions which the PRC have taken do not.
===> You have to remember that under the San Francisco Peace Treaty the United States Military Government (i.e. Commander in Chief) has the right to make “disposition” of the property (i.e. “territorial title”) of Formosa and the Pescadores, and in the 1972 Communiaque he did exactly that … by putting Taiwan on a “flight-path” for eventual unification with the PRC. As the State Department has said many times: “Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation.” Taiwan is not a sovereign entity, and currently it is being handled by the US Executive Branch, by the Commander in Chief, via his plenary power over foreign affairs.[/quote]
First of all, I believe the Treaty of San Francisco was NOT signed by either the PRC or the ROC.
Secondly, this “flight path” you talk about is not one exclusive to the PRC.
Furthermore, freezing the NUC DOES NOT “threaten” unification in any way – unless, of course, you believe “democracy” is a threat.
Of course, from the U.S. neocon perspective, “democracy” IS INDEED a threat when it doesn’t suit its needs.
You are correct. The San Francisco Peace Treaty was not signed by either the ROC or the PRC.
However, the ROC assented to the terms of the SFPT by signing a subsidiary treaty with Japan. That was called the Treaty of Taipei, or Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty.
So …
I am not sure what this is supposed to mean, why would “democracy” not suit the needs of the USA … ??
If the Taiwanese want to push for “democracy” then they should actively coordinate to get the handling of the “Taiwan question” out of the Oval Office of the Commander in Chief (where he is handling this matter based on his plenary power over “foreign affairs” as per the formula established by Nixon in the 1972 communique) and into the US Congress.
Congress has legislative authority over the civil rights of the inhabitants of territory under the jurisdiction of the United States!!
So … if the Taiwanese people would recognize during the WWII period, it is the United States which has acquired Taiwan under the principle of conquest, and that no final disposition of Taiwan territory has been made to date, then it is easy to demand and receive your civil rights from the members of Congress … and the Commander in Chief won’t be able to interfere … (without being subject to impeachment).
You might want to read this compendium of information regarding how territory acquired under the principle of conquest comes directly under the US Constitution’s territorial clause (Article 4, Sec. 3, Clause 2) –
taiwanadvice.com/conqudom.htm
[quote=“Hartzell”]
If the Taiwanese want to push for “democracy” then they should actively coordinate to get the handling of the “Taiwan question” out of the Oval Office of the Commander in Chief (where he is handling this matter based on his plenary power over “foreign affairs” as per the formula established by Nixon in the 1972 communique) and into the US Congress.
Congress has legislative authority over the civil rights of the inhabitants of territory under the jurisdiction of the United States!! [/quote]
The U.S. does not, in any way, excert sovereignty over Taiwan. This communique between Nixon and the PRC was also not agreed upon by the Taiwanese themselves. What’s more the Taiwanese are not “pushing” for democracy – they already have it. And the government is honouring this democracy by freezing this undemocratic body formed by an unelected government.
Again, the U.S. claims no sovereignty over Taiwan.
You will find that many many people in Taiwan agree with your point of view.
And they are all wrong.
You might want to read all the information on the website I mentioned.
Again, you are wrong.
Taiwan was acquired by the United States under the principle of conquest. To date, no final disposition of Taiwan territory has been made.
See – taiwanadvice.com
I guess we have even more confirmation you don’t read. In any language.
The article isn’t “old”. It’s from Wedneday (about 16 hours ago, actually). Senate Warner made the quoted comments on Tuesday, in front of the Senate Committee on Armed Services which he chairs.
[quote=“rcctang”][quote=“ShrimpCrackers”]
Anyway, the United States has already declared that President Chen has NOT changed the status quo and that it is merely abolishing the NUC. So whats with CCTang digging up old articles that were speculative and mostly say contrary?
[/quote]
I guess we have even more confirmation you don’t read. In any language.
The article isn’t “old”. It’s from Wedneday (about 16 hours ago, actually). Senate Warner made the quoted comments on Tuesday, in front of the Senate Committee on Armed Services which he chairs.[/quote]
You did not link your article and there was no date besides your post. I also couldn’t find the article on Google. So I can only assume that it must’ve been much earlier; besides didn’t the US say that Taiwan was only making the NUC ‘cease to function’ and had determined that it would not change the status quo? So no matter what Senator Warner is acting on old news or his personal opinion.
Also, again, what about the fact that most US senators are in the Taiwan Caucus than ever? And that number keeps increasing.
Why do you keep mentioning this “Taiwan Caucus”? What the fack is it really for anyway?
Well let’s see what I wrote earlier, shall we? Oh yes,
[b]Taiwan is the world
I just did a google news search for “Taiwan Caucus”. Number of times mentioned in non-Taiwanese English press: zero. Maybe they just didn’t have anything to talk about. You know, it’s not like anything significant has happened in Taiwan in recent months.
Still no apology from the U.S. State Department ;>), but here’s some words that will break the heart of cctang, zeugmite, AC Dropout and Mayor Ma Ying-jeou:
[quote]A high-ranking US Department of Defense official on Thursday reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to defend Taiwan against any military action by China, while again urging Taiwan to beef up its capability to defend itself.
William Fallon, commander of the US Pacific Command (PACOM), said that until China renounces any intention of using force to resolve the Taiwan issue, the US will maintain sufficient military capability in the region to meet its obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA).
“While consistently seeking to assure the [People’s Republic of China] of our desire for peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues, we retain our strong commitment to the defense of Taiwan should it be threatened by PRC military action,” Fallon said in his written statement before the Armed Services Committee in the House of Representatives.[/quote]
[quote]
Fallon pointed out that China has continued to acquire new hardware and expand its military capabilities, a situation which he said calls for “close attention” by the US.[/quote]
USA been watching China military capabilities since the Open Door Policy. I assume they will just keep on watching.
What’s USA gonna do, ask India to nuke China?
STOP_Ma, let me know when the US supports Taiwan independence, 'mkay?