X-Message-Number: 16158 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 21:35:21 +0100 From: Philip Rhoades <> Subject: Even more off-topic . . Oh well, until someone starts complaining that we take this discussion private . . >Message #16154 >Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:57:08 +0000 () >From: Louis Epstein <> >Subject: Re: CryoNet #16144 - #16152 > > > The island of Taiwan is part of China - the fact that the losing side in a > > civil war retreated there makes no difference - nor does the fact that one > > may not like the regime of the winning side. > >On the contrary.Since both governments survive,the war is not really over; >and the bad guys having the great bulk of the territory does NOT excuse >the "one China" nonsense.The fact is that "China" is a geographic >expression,not a country,and the pretenses of governments of entitlement >to rule the whole thing should not be given the respect they demand. The Taiwanese government would last about five minutes without the support of the west (just like the state of Israel) - that doesn't necessarily make it right - but in history, "might makes right" and "history is written by the winners" - face it, China is communist (whatever that means - I don't think Karl would be happy . .) and Taiwan is part of China . . >At no time has the Peking government ever exercised or been entitled to >exercise control over Taiwan,Kinmen,Matsu,or the other islands that have >been under the ROC government's control since various dates between >1912 and 1945. The Guomingdang can claim no more legitimacy on the islands than the communists - at least the communists _fought_ the invading Japanese . . do you think the communists got all that peasant support because they collaborated? You don't win revolutions like that without substantial support. Do you think the Guomingdang was a model of liberal democracy? >(And calling Peking "Beijing" is an unseemly kowtow to the mainland's >demands,before you ask.The European countries don't demand that we abandon >traditional translations of their names,the Chinese Communists are >entitled to no special privileges). Irrelevant. > > How would someone in Washington feel that if, after the southern US states > > lost the US civil war, the losers retreated to one state and set up a new > > nation there with the help of some superior outside military force, such > > that the situation could not be changed? - I think it would not be popular > > in the north . . but that is exactly what you are supporting in the > > China/Taiwan situation. > >No.The North is the analogue of Taiwan...the government of the whole >country against which the other part rebelled in an indefensible effort >to perpetuate injustice.Of course the PRC would rather be seen as the >analogue of the United States in the 1770s...but there,we eventually got >a deal(the Treaty of Paris in 1783) that recognized the revolution. >The Chinese Communists have not obtained recognition and forgiveness >from the government against which they committed the crime of revolting, >and it still exists.And is better for its people than theirs is. As I mentioned above, one of the reasons the communists got support where the Guomingdang didn't was because they fought the Japanese - if I was an average Chinese at the time who would I support? Let me see, the revolutionaries or the collaborators? hmm . . it's a tough one . . I suppose you claimed that the Czar's relatives were still the legitimate government of Russia for about 70 years as well? > > The US goes to war at the drop of a hat when it considers its national > > (commercial) interest is at stake eg oil in Iraq - but won't defend small > > countries that should be defended eg East Timor against Indonesia because > > RealPolitiks is involved. > >I am not a defender of heartless pragmatism. Good. > > In the Iraq situation it was obviously more > > complicated than just one issue though - the US led Iraq to believe it was > > alright to invade Kuwait so then they could behave like the cavalry > coming > > to the rescue . . not to mention the fact that they could test out a few > > new weapons in a live situation, against a previously supported (but now > > unpopular) ally . . > >If you respect someone,you tend to politely omit mention of such >flaws. Flaws!? - a little more than flaws I suggest - you leave yourself little credibility if you don't respond to important facts. Find out the real story about that disaster - eg the Iraqi army was made up of lots of conscripts that _really_ didn't want to be there (it was literally the army or death) - these were the people that were used for target practise by the Allies during the Iraqi retreat. If you knew all the facts at the time you couldn't possibly have supported the whole allied campaign (if you were a reasonable human being) - the problem is that a lot of the truth only filters out much later - "the first casualty of war is the truth". >(I remember the Olympic TV coverage with the announcer telling us >that if we start telling our grandchildren about the runner Michael >Johnson one day,we'll say "There was a man with shoes of gold..."... >on the contrary,if I feel like telling future descendants about him, >I'll flatter him by not mentioning that silly ego trip). What is this about? James Swayze said: > > What Bush said was stupid one for tipping our hand as to our resolve > > (always keep the other side guessing) and two for not understanding the > > Asian psyche. First of all Taiwan belongs to China. What right have we > > to interfere? Would we appreciate China helping out Hawaii to secede? > > Old Cold War mentalities got us involved when Taiwan rebelled in 1949. Louis said: >The government now on Taiwan is the one that the government >controlling the mainland rebelled against in 1949.The government >on Taiwan has controlled it since 1945,and certain other offshore >islands since 1912. With no more legitimacy (perhaps less) than the communists claim now. >I believe that the Gulf War victory was virtually thrown away because >Saddam Hussein was not humiliated.He still stands tall and pretends he >won a great victory.Because he did not lose face,he has learned no >lesson and neither have those around him. Look, the US created Hussein - he would have got nowhere without US support in the beginning (via the CIA etc etc) - you can't very well complain about your nasty dictators behaving like nasty dictators when you encourage them to behave that way in the first place . . do your homework. >A justly united China will see the revolution of 1949 as something to >apologize for,not build patriotism around.It's just like the people in >the South whining "it wasn't about slavery" and waving Confederate >flags...wrong is still wrong no matter how many centuries it takes to >admit.(The seceding states,in their official enactments about why they >were seceding,made crystal clear that preserving slavery was at the >core of their reasoning). Have the British apologised for creating the Chinese Opium problem and its wars? You can't talk about all the nasty things the communists have done without finding out why people supported them against a long history of pretty nasty foreigners . . Mao just didn't get up one day and say "OK, I'm leader of the country now!" - it was a long hard fight, first against the Japanese and then against Chinese collaborators who had no interest in the welfare of the vast majority of Chinese. As James said, it might not suit us, but the current mainland regime has the "Mandate of Heaven". >If they want reunification,it can come on terms dictated by Taipei... Are you serious? Yeh, right, that'll happen . . >otherwise let it wait.(And no,it won't be the ROC government riding >into Peking in triumph and sending the whole Central Committee to >jail.There will be a president and prime minister,the more powerful >one being the one from the mainland and the one from Taiwan being one >of his otherwise-mainland deputies,the less powerful one being the one >from Taiwan and all his deputies coming from the mainland.That's the >Chinese-style solution and it can be seen miles off.But while the >we-are-the-only-legitimate-government-of-the-whole-country fever >infects either side,it won't happen,and no one should let any other >kind of unification happen). That's got a big chance of success . . it will more likely be a Hong Kong style result with the west aquiescing for some pragmatic reason . . > > Lastly, readers of cryonet should keep in mind that Bush opposes > > technologies that we need to achieve our main goal. I believe that main > > goal is immortality whether it be through cryonics or ANY other means. > > For this reason, to me, Shrub and his ilk ARE the enemy plain and simple > > regardless of which ideology anyone happens to identify with. > >Make no mistake that I am very anti-Bush. At least we agree here - I don't live there but if you have someone stupid in the White House, it needs expressing (feel free to give John Howard [who?] a blast - but he is just very conservative not stupid). >As efforts to banish mortality gain steam,I wonder what other >persons and institutions will emerge as enemies. I think Bush is the biggest threat - he is doing all he can to cause the Polar ice caps to melt - think about how well the US economy will work if the oceans rise by about 8 metres - but I guess he'll be long gone as President by then . . is Hillary still going to kick his ass in 2004? Phil. - Philip Rhoades Pricom Pty Limited (ACN 003 252 275) GPO Box 3411 Sydney NSW 2001 Australia Mobile: +61:0411-185-652 Fax: +61:2:8923-5363 E-mail: Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16158