Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

When I saw “Proletarian revolution” I got so excited. I thought you’d be talking about America. Too Bad. Maybe with this FY06 budget though…

The United States Murdoch Seduced Media is only interested in foriegn countries when the US is Liberating them. I bet you have not heard about the resurgence of the Avian Flu in Vietnam either?

I am sure we will hear from Taiwan when China invades and the US is forced to Spread Freedom once again…

Let’s not forget about Russia when we think about China and Taiwan.

sorry… Russia

Ain’t you all heard? We now have an economic Mutually Assured Destruction pact with China. They own so much of our treasury debt, that we can no longer afford to have them pull their loans to us. So they and we huff and puff at each other for media consumption, but, the backchannel is, China needs the US for exports, and the US needs China to float are ever larger debt.

Can anyone guess why China believed it could get away with a worldwide public announcement of a law committing China’s invasion of Taiwan if Taiwan moves one step further toward independence? MAD.

Good point Remer.

WTF!

Don’t those Taiwanese realize that the rich white college professors know what is best for them.

The deeper meaning is that these people are scared to work those kinds of hours because they won’t get paid enough. It takes some kind of ideological blindness to miss that factor. These people can’t afford, with the wages they’re being paid, to work humane hours.

There are two sides to this: if these people can’t afford to sustain themselves on their wages at reasonable working hours, They can’t afford to spend money to buy anything but the necessities. In short, this is not only a disgusting humanitarian situation, it is also a lost economic opportunity.

The Global marketplace cannot sustain itself if They won’t buy American, and we can’t sell it. The imbalance will destroy our economy, and we will lose to those countries willing to manipulate the market.

The truth is, Mr. Hogan, that your idea of the global market betrays the heart of the free market. Wages are high here because the market demands it. Wages could be higher elsewhere, but our friends in the far east are artificially depressing wages with the help of our own corporations, looking to arbitrarially force down wages and prices. The purpose of the free market is not to make every thing cheap, but instead to set prices at sustainable levels that adapt to the conditions at hand. The corporate bottom line cannot win out every time, not with true competition and market forces at work. This free market is not Korporation Uber Alles. It is the buyers and sellers of product and labor setting the prices according to their mutual self interests. A system where big business is the only winner is a losing proposition for us all.

Aldous, Taiwan is technically a part of China. Should China choose to prove this by making a military move, the U.S. or any other nation would have no basis to stop them.

Zeek, what about the treaty we have with Taiwan to defend them against Chinese mainland aggression. And what happens to our economic dependency upon Taiwan and China?

The consequences of a Chinese move on Taiwan are potentially huge whether we act or not. If we don’t, it sends the signal to China that our Economic Mutually Assured Destruction is making us impotent against a future Chinese expansionist policy. Northern China’s water table is dropping precipitously reducing more and more arable land for agriculture and feeding its people is an absolute requirement of the government in order to maintain civil stability.

Exapansionist policy may be China’s only option if agricultural independence becomes necessary as a result of ratilliatory trade embargos. This is complicated and very major stuff going on here.

David, your expansionist theories of China are baseless and alarmingly similar to the U.S.’s attitude during the Cold-War (towards communists). The idea of deterrence really just encourages counter-aggression. And you still fail to realize the fact that Taiwan is a part of China.

Just think, wouldn’t the U.S. use military force if Hawaii or some other state were to declare independence? Of course we would. But I guess it’s easier to fight for principles than it is to live up to them.

Zeek,
The US already did use force. About 144 years ago.
Remember the war between the states?
As for corporate greed, remember just about all the CEO’s and other muckatymucks have been to our liberial infested and controled colleges where 99.0% of the professors are liberials.

It is so funny. Taiwan as a source of news about China! Taiwanese is a very inward-looking people and they only care what happens inside the island unless the news concerns their independence. It is very obvious if you have lived in TW and watch their TVs and/or read their newspaper.

As a constant readers in chinese news, I have never heard this incident reported in any other media — not even from dissidents’ blog/portal…

There are a lot of riots but mainly because the workers cannot get their wages. Besides, recently there have a SHORTAGE of cheap labor in that area that has forced the wage UPWARD. More and more factories are also relocated to other rural region of China to get enough cheap labor.

Ewwwwww, Matt bungled the story. That whole debate was for naught. Oh well.

Zeek said: David, your expansionist theories of China are baseless and alarmingly similar to the U.S.’s attitude during the Cold-War (towards communists).

First off Zeek, they are not theories. They are possibilities given certain conditions. History is full of examples of a similar nature. Remember Japan when the US placed embargos upon their nation? They expanded into China.

And I find it ironic in light of our invasion of Iraq as part of our war on the terrorists who attacked us, that you would consider such possibilities baseless. Alarming, yes, they should set off a few alarms. Baseless? That is funny…

The idea of deterrence really just encourages counter-aggression.

On this we agree entirely. Like our attempts to deter terrorists in Iraq.

And you still fail to realize the fact that Taiwan is a part of China.

What makes you think that? I have discussed this relationship and treaty specifics elsewhere here at WB and detail quite correctly that China never ceded Taiwan to any other status than part of China. Our treaty stipulates that as well, in addition to the fact that should China invade Taiwan we would defend it provided Taiwan has not formally seceded from China.

You assume to much.

Just think, wouldn’t the U.S. use military force if Hawaii or some other state were to declare independence? Of course we would.

We did. It was called the Civil War. And your point is?

But I guess it’s easier to fight for principles than it is to live up to them.

Sorry, that sentence makes no sense to me. Why would I fight for principles if I was not trying to live up to them? It appears to be a non-sequitur.

Quote from David:
“Remember Japan when the US placed embargos upon their nation? They expanded into China.”

Wait, and this proves what? That deterrence does little more than aggravate? That we shouldn’t interfere with China? What David? Help me out here.

“And I find it ironic in light of our invasion of Iraq as part of our war on the terrorists who attacked us, that you would consider such possibilities baseless.”

Yah, they attacked us. Not Taiwan. Big difference there.

“You assume to much.”

Sorry about that, haven’t been on this blog for long and a misunderstanding took place :P.

“We did. It was called the Civil War. And your point is?”

My point is that a country has the right to keep states from seceding. (So why should the U.S. go to Taiwan’s aid?)

Why would I fight for principles if I was not trying to live up to them?

The key word there was “trying.” You can try to live up to a principle without actually being able to do it. Hence, I said it is easier to fight for a principle than to live up to it.

Good arguments though. I even learned a new word ^_^.

Oh, and if you want to see some real non sequitur action, check this syllogism:

Muffins are yummy.
All yummy things are good.
Therefore, George W. Bush is a terrorist.

:D