On Nov 9, the de facto US envoy to Taiwan, Stephen Young, reiterated U.S. official opposition to Ah Bian's determination to push ahead with a referendum on UN membership for the island under the name "Taiwan." The chief US diplomatic representative in Taiwan said a referendum was "not necessary" or "helpful" and called on Taiwan to adopt a "careful and moderate approach" in relations with China. He said: "I think it is clear to say neither President Chen nor anybody else here in Taiwan should be confused by the effective opposition to the referendum and the reasons."

It was reported that US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte had said in August that the U.S. opposed any such referendum because it would be a step to declaring full independence.

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas J. Christensen was also reported to have recently urged Ah Bian to "anticipate potential Chinese red lines and reactions and avoid unnecessary and unproductive provocations."

However, after all these apparent efforts by the U.S. regime to discourage Taiwan's hopeless application for UN membership, all the confusion and contradiction came not from Taiwan but from Washington itself. Hence it came as a big surprise and shock to many people that 19 US lawmakers, nearly all of them from President George W. Bush's Republican party, have introduced a bill in the House of Representatives backing UN membership for Taiwan.

It seems that the U.S. is suffering from Parkinson's Disease or some sorts of mental problems with the result that "the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing". It is time for the U.S. to conduct a self-restrospection of itself, otherwise it will lose the trust and confidence of other countries, even among its allies.

Since the U.S. established relations with China, there are many examples of "shaking hand with right hand and slapping with the left hand". For example, not long after the publication of a photo showing the late U.S. President Nixon and Mr Chou En Lai sitting together admiring the night scene like lovers when the former went to Beijing to establish U.S.-Sino relations, the U.S. Congress passed the Taiwan Act auhorizing the sale of arms to Taiwan. Hence a big question hangs on U.S. foreign policy, particularly with regard to China: "Does the U.S. conduct its foreign policy on irritants?"

Is this an article from somewhere on the internet?

As for the comments in this article, they result from the absurd assumption that the entirety of the United States is a single person. The analogy is that of one person with a dual personality. However, common sense immediately tells us that the US is not composed of one person, but 300 million. As the initial assumption of the article is flawed and the rest of the article is built upon that assumption, the entire article is flawed.


WEB

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

Dear Du Bois

Yes, this article is "here" on the internet.

Are you telling everybody that the U.S. government is made up of 300 million people? Are you saying that 300 million people live in the White House? Are you suggesting that there are 300 million voices in the U.S. Congress?

Thanks, but you're merely using a variation of strawman tactics. I didn't ask you if the your post is "here." There's no reason to think I would ask such a stupid question. I asked you if it was an article, and I'll try to spell it out a little more clearly so there won't be any misunderstanding. Is your opening post an article that you copied and pasted into a post?

These are dishonest strawman questions. You're not carrying out a discussion or debate here since your comments are dishonest strawmen questions.

Perhaps in the future you would consider posting more intelligent replies and not resorting to telling me that an article that I'm replying to is "here" and replying to my comments by asking dumb questions.

__________________
"Of course the fact that a person believes in racial equality doesn't prove that he's a communist...but it certainly makes you look twice, doesn't it? You can't get away from the fact that racial equality is part of the communist line." - Joseph McCarthy

Political Forum Diplomacy Game Map (In Progress)
Current Diplomacy thread

It is clear that Taiwan is in no position to do the fighting. It is a stupendous error for Taiwan to put an ally in the predicament of possibly having to fight three wars.

Hey suku, instead of posing such stupid strawman questions that make you look like a fool, degenerating the quality of your post, how about you carry on a serious debate/discussion. In the United States of America, the people are the government. 300 million voices are represented by our congressmen, and our president represents the 300 million citizens. So yes, there are vicariously 300 million people in the US government. How about you answer Web's question instead of pulling strawman arguements.

__________________
~John Locke

Discuss the Issue, Not the Poster

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not everyone is entitled to their own facts"
-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Great thoughts speak only to the thoughtful mind, but great actions speak to all mankind."
-Teddy Roosevelt

Dear Du Bois,

If you think my answers are absurd, it is because your questions are absurd. My answers are just like a mirror as it reflects everything back to the strawman and allows him to see the stupidity of his questions.

Your first question: "Is this an article from somewhere on the internet?" Are you alleging that I have copied this article from another writer somewhere on the Internet? If indeed this is what you mean, I am quite flatterred by it and most probably I shall change my job to a newspaper editor. This simple piece of opinion, unfortunately, is not a great masterpiece. It is mine, and it speaks my opinion on the U.S. foreign policy. If you really think this is a masterpiece that has been written by a famous writer, I am really flattered by your allegation. By the way, where on the Internet have you seen this article before? Please show and prove it to me. I really like to have a look at it. If your allegation proves to be true, it is really a case of "Great minds think alike".

Next, in replying to your absurd comment on the analogy of "one person with a dual personality", I have to say that I liken the U.S. and China to two political entities or two governments. This is the common practice of newspapers and political magazines. For example, when a newspaper published a news saying that "Country A (with a population of 300 million) signed a trade agreement with Country B (with a population of 100 million), it meant that "the government of Country A signed a trade agreement with the government of Country B". It did not mean that 300 million people holding 300 million pens signed on a giant piece of paper together with 100 million people holding 100 million pens.

Similarly, when a history book says that "Japan invaded China in the 1930s", it means that the Japanese army invaded the country of China in the 1930s. It does not mean that a non-living piece of land could invade another non-living piece of land.

My whole article was a criticism of the "inconsistency of U.S. foreign policy". Hence I liken the U.S. regime to "the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing" like someone affected with Parkinson's Disease. Please don't twist my article into saying that I allege all the 300 million Americans are having Parkinson's Disease. Please also don't try to deviate from the real argument of my topic to your allegation that my article is not original.


Dear Locke777,

If there are 300 million people in the U.S. government, how can the U.S. reach an agreement with another country? What the U.S. agree with another country today, it will act differently tomorrow. With 300 million voices, the U.S. Congress will turn into a modern-day Tower of Babel. Even if it speaks with one single language, there are still disharmony and plenty of jarring noises around. Then how can the U.S. earn the trust and confidence of other countries if it is so inconsistent and fickle-minded in its foreign policy?

Well exactly. Different members of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Executive have different opinions, and this is why the President and Congress often have different foreign policy actions.
This is even more obvious when Congress and the President are from different parties, but even when they're the same party they won't have exactly the same opinions, and this is why they are inconsistent. That's what you expect from democracy.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

Dear Brother Oz,

Well said! At last we have somebody admitting the inconsistency of U.S. foreign policy! That's why sometimes even a friendly country or an ally could accuse the U.S. of meddling in its internal affairs.

With such inconsistency, it is difficult for the U.S. leadership to accomplish anything with other countries. For instance, in the APEC meeting, Bush can shake hands and reach agreement with Hu after a lengthy "frank and friendly" discussion, but by the next day all agreements with the Chinese leader can be overturned even by his own party.

You can (and do) have that in any democracy. The next administration can always go back on the previous regime's promises. You'll hope they don't, but sometimes they do. Actual treaties are very rarely broken, but changes in the direction of policy are very common.
You could have that in China too when there is a change of leader, but obviously that a)happens less often, and b)China has much less complex foreign relations, so it doesn't come up often.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s