From: nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu)
Subject: Re: more than 50% support TI
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 08:13:05 GMT

In article <C07q4o.DEA@ulowell.ulowell.edu> cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi) writes:

>The notion of Taiwan is a independent nation is rejected. Please do not repeat
>anything That had be said by TIers here.
> couple of quick points because I have to rush for something else:
>   1. Westen sponsored or advocated "Democracy" is actually xinocracy to
>      certain extent from the experience of so many banana "democractic" 
>      republics around the world expecially in Latin America, unless the
>nation that implemented the democracy had enough strength. In that sense,
>      there are only three democracies in thise world: U.S., U.k., France. All
>other "democracies" are more or less manipulated by U.S. 

Gee, I just love that definition.  By this definition, none of the three you
mentioned above are democracies either.  The United States is "manipulated"
by Japan and Canada, at least; France by Germany, the United States, and
the United Kingdom; and the United Kingdom by the United States, Germany,
and France.  (I am surprised that you considered the United Kingdom not
"manipulated.")  Gee, I must go tell Vaclav Havel that he didn't establish
a democracy after all.  Boris Yeltsin is just an American muppet.  I love it!

>   2. the West used those rhetorics: "democracy", "human rights", "freedom",
>    not to make perspective nation better for natives, to make it better for
>     the West: politically it is easier for West to manipulate a "democracy",
>    economically, it is easier for them the obtain "free market" for West.

Huh?  How has the democratization of Japan made Japan more capable of
manipulation by the West?  If anything, the opposite was true.  Same in the
case of Germany; the less democratic half (before unification) was the half
that was more manipulated by outside.

But of course, the East Germans were just one happy family before their
proletarian paradise was utterly destroyed by the American Puppets in Bonn
(APB) (tm).  How sad.

>   3. Taiwan is a special case. It was built up by the West to compete against
>    manland militraily, politically, economically, pyschologically.
>     Most part, Taiwan's past prosperity was at the expense of mainland's
>poverty.

Huh?  Don't tell me if Taiwan didn't export anything in the past the other
countries would have bought from mainland.  They wouldn't have.  (Japan,
*South* Korea, Singapore, and perhaps the Phillippines would have been main
beneficiaries if Taiwan had been occupied by the People's Liberation Army
back in 1949.)

>   4. U.S. never stopped trying to split Taiwan from China:
>        a. U.S. had law forbiten dual citizenship, but have so many 
>         dual citizenship Taiwanese. That reminds me how U.S. obtained Texas,

There are also a lot of dual-citizen Mexicans.  A lot of dual-citizen Koreans.
A lot of dual-citizen Canadians.  Yeah, the United States just want to get
Canadians to forsake the Queen; it just wants to divide Korea; it just want to
make Mexico part of the United States.  Yeah right.

The problem with dual-citizenship is that the law prohibiting it (which was
rather poorly written anyway) was virtually unenforcable; you can't just
simply break into other countries' interior departments and seize their
records to find out who is a dual-citizen and who is not.

>          Hawaii, and sothen territories: send U.S. citizen there, encourage
>          them rebel against spainish or mexico, or Hawaii king' tyranny,
>          then delcare independent, the delcare joing U.S.
>          Does U.S. have same scheme for Taiwan? tell me.

Hey, you just reminded me of this scheme!  Since Taiwan is sending a lot of
Taiwanese citizens here, it is encouraging them to rebel against the United
States!  In 50 years California will be a Taiwanese colony!

(Your argument, even if valid, is in reverse in this case; the United States
is not sending a lot of Americans over to Taiwan; it's the other way around.)

>        b. From all talks by U.S.'s political scientists I watched, I got
>strong feeling, U.S. is eyeing Taiwan.

It is also "eyeing" Somalia; I don't think the United States have any intention
to make Somalia a part of the United States, though.

>        c. When the relationship across the Strait got hotter. U.S. media
>      poped up those rumers like: infight refueling, Air craft carrior,
>      missle use chip machine purechase. It turned out all just lies.

They also pop up with rumors like that Diana has a secret lover who abandoned
her after she separated with Charles.  And I haven't noticed too many rumors
about sales of military equipments to Taiwan.  Read the People's Daily too
much, Chunde?

>        d. one night I was listening to Voice of "free" China, it said there
>is a meeting by those democratic nation's parlimentary members in Taiwan,
>several U.S. senate intellengence members attented. The second day, your
>president, sounded like just came out of opium house, excited, mumbling,
>how CCP is going to replace X-Soviet to have another cold war with U.S.,
>how should Taiwan slow down on ever hot contact with mainland. Guess who
>"enlighted" your president.

Most likely, he tried to "enlighten" the American officials.  And yes, the
United States' relationship with Russia, led by Boris Yeltsin, is a lot closer
right now than with China, led by the butchers at Tiananmen Square.

>       c. The William Buckley show I mentioned on past posting told me that
>     The purpose of the show is to influence Taiwan public opinion discourage
>     the contact across the Strait.

Who told you that?  Xin Hua News Agency?

>       e. Chris Patten's "democratic" proposal, invilation of  Sino-
>Uk agreement signed, had an negitive impact on Taiwan's recent election.

What does this have anything to do with Taiwan?  And why is it in violation
of the Anglo-Chinese agreement?

>        Was it Brits's caculation? It is certainly within British capacity,
>         if you look at British's past performance in World politics.

I know.  The Queen lusts after President Lee's body.  So, she instructed
Her Majesty's Consul in Hong Kong to appease the Taiwanese.  (The United
Kingdom always had a *very* cool relationship with the KMT, BTW, even when
Chiang Kai-shek was in power in mainland.)

>  4. Most recent economic figure from Taiwan tells that those old "tigers"
>that have closer culture tie with mainland did better than those without it.
>Taiwan, Singapor, HongKong's growth better than korea, Japan and other ASEAN
>nations, becasue the closer trade with mainland eased the loses of slow down

I just think Emperor Akihito would just be thrilled to find out that suddenly,
his country is not doing as well as Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong.  Time
to commit seppuku, tenno!

>in trade with other nations. The likely growth of mainland in the future will
>be mentained. A growing economy, although might be smaller than a matured
>economy, has more demand for new goods.

True, but this doesn't have anything to do with what we were talking about.
But of course, you, in your true colors, keep bringing in irrelevant facts,
which don't support your point one-bit.

>  5. CCP had her problem, but when somebody tries to split China, it is going
>to be a whole new ball game. People can fight each other, millitrily,
>ideaalogically, but they have to know their common interests when dealing with
>others. I found KMT have problem in realizing this basics governing 
>the relationship between groups and subgroups. For example, in WWII, KMT was
>not able to realize the common interests with CCP to defend China, has to be

Even if KMT "realizes" it, it's no longer a monolithic KMT dictatorship,
thank heavens.

>forced to do it. Even in later civil war, KMT generals were not able to
>control their differences to fight CCP. KMT's phylosophy  is fundermentally
>flowed: an odd marriage of capitalism with Confucianism. abnd later on, 
>democracy with Confucianism. 

That is why we needed to get rid of the KMT dictatorship...  And I think we're
almost done in that process.

>    Confucianism is a rotten phylosophy, it makes people become whimp.:
>           a. The nation unified China, Qing was against Confucianism.
>               not those that adopted Confucianism.

If we can bring them back to life, I bet that emperors like Ai Sin Jue Lo
Fu Lin (Shun Zhi Emperor) will just be thrilled to find out that the fact that
they used the study Confucian classics in governmental examinations was
actually an indication of their being against Confucianism.  Splendid logic.

>           b. Ancient China had relatively closed geographical region:
>                    NOrth: snow, ice, few people can service ther
>                    West: desert, hight moutains, not a attractive place
>                          for a civilisation;
>                    SoutWest: high mountains
>                    South: tropicall jungles, anything you build is going to
>                           be eroded by heat and water;
>                   East: water.
>              China had a pretty safe environment, though there were small
>scale threat from West and North in a few times. The most important task
>became how to pacify the people, Confucianism became natural choice.
>       For the late dynasties, technology advanced those old barriors
>protected cHian from foreign invasion are no long so significant, China became
>a adventure place for outsiders, because Confucianism is not kind of
>phylosophy to encourage people to fight.

I bet that's why Wang Fu-Jih advocated the destruction of everything foreign,
basically.

Confucianism is not naturally a pacifist ideology, unfortunately.  If it were,
we wouldn't have seen so many civil wars in Chinese history.  (But of course,
I know you would just attribute it, conveniently, to "the suppression of the
proletariat by the bourgeois.")
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan